Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Tim Robbins · 23-01-2013 11:11AM

woodoo wrote: »

Show me a job anywhere that doesn't have paid breaks. Any jobs i had in the private sector had paid breaks. Lunch is unpaid but the tea breaks are paid in both public and private. So anyone that works a standard 9 to 5 job is deemed to work a 35hr week.

No tea breaks here. You can get a tea and bring it back to your desk and chat to someone when they are at the kettle with you.

Does that count?

kippy · 23-01-2013 11:12AM

Lumbo wrote: »

I work in a Public Sector organisation with 1200 employees. We don't get 2 15 minute breaks and it was prevalent I would have thought the Union would have requested it by now. In my 7 years of dealing with them, its never been mentioned once.

Well, the thing is the "Public sector" isn't one big organisation with standards across the board - and this, in my opinion, is a major issue.

Things that vary:
1. Breaks.
2. Leave Year.
3. Annual Leave entitlements (although they are broadly similiar)
4. Payroll frequency and method.
5. PRSI payments.
6. Grades and grading structures, as well as job specs.

Obviously there are some valid reasons for all of this now been standard across the board as well but points 1,2,3 and 4 should all be standardised as part of any CPA2.

Lumbo · 23-01-2013 11:15AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No tea breaks here. You can get a tea and bring it back to your desk and chat to someone when they are at the kettle with you.

Does that count?

I worked in retail for a number of years in a number of different organisations. There was always a paid 15/30 minute break in the morning.

I've spoken with a friend who's always worked in financial institutions and never received this break, they were also required to work a lot of unpaid overtime. So it looks like it depends on the industry you work in and how much your employer is prepared to bleed you.

woodoo · 23-01-2013 11:24AM

Lumbo wrote: »

I worked in retail for a number of years in a number of different organisations. There was always a paid 15/30 minute break in the morning.

I've spoken with a friend who's always worked in financial institutions and never received this break, they were also required to work a lot of unpaid overtime. So it looks like it depends on the industry you work in and how much your employer is prepared to bleed you.

That should not be allowed. Nobody should be required to work unpaid overtime. Every hour i work i expect to get paid for.

Tim Robbins you are in a minority if you don't get breaks.

Tim Robbins · 23-01-2013 11:52AM

woodoo wrote: »

That should not be allowed. Nobody should be required to work unpaid overtime. Every hour i work i expect to get paid for.

Tim Robbins you are in a minority if you don't get breaks.

Every company I have worked in private sector you work unpaid overtime - it is in your contract. It's one thing painting the public sector with one brush but painting the private sector with another brush is never going to work. At the same time every company people get a cup a tea and browse the web for little breaks throughout the day. That is what every worker in the private sector who posts on boards is doing.

It's difficult to make generalisations about either sector - suffice to say I am really worried about plans to increase working hours in public sector.

noodler · 23-01-2013 11:57AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Every company I have worked in private sector you work unpaid overtime - it is in your contract. It's one thing painting the public sector with one brush but painting the private sector with another brush is never going to work. At the same time every company people get a cup a tea and browse the web for little breaks throughout the day. That is what every worker in the private sector who posts on boards is doing.

It's difficult to make generalisations about either sector - suffice to say I am really worried about plans to increase working hours in public sector.

Last job I had, the management used the fact an employee seemed to leave "at 5pm on the dot" as a negative against her.

Tim Robbins · 23-01-2013 11:58AM

Also the other thing I'd about the public sector that would really get on my nerves if I worked there is the slagging and bitching you get. If people really hate the public sector that much create an Irish version of the Republican party or a political party that believes in reforming it seriously.

All this moaning achieves nothing.

Tim Robbins · 23-01-2013 12:35PM

noodler wrote: »

Last job I had, the management used the fact an employee seemed to leave "at 5pm on the dot" as a negative against her.

It's incredible. Imagine the pressure she is under if she has to pick up kids from the creche on the dot.

One side of society complains if she has to do something on the dot because another side of the society are making her to do things on the dot.

It is a conflict of interests. And the losers are children. Yeah great society.

noodler · 23-01-2013 01:10PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's incredible. Imagine the pressure she is under if she has to pick up kids from the creche on the dot.

One side of society complains if she has to do something on the dot because another side of the society are making her to do things on the dot.

It is a conflict of interests. And the losers are children. Yeah great society.

She'd no kids and I am sure they knew that but yeah.

The company in question I would not be holding as any type of shining examplefor how things should be.

I don't know what her contract said but there was a definite implication that leaving on the dot was bad for your image etc.

Tim Robbins · 23-01-2013 01:35PM

If she has no kids she should be staying back and helping out in fairness.

antoobrien · 23-01-2013 01:40PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If she has no kids she should be staying back and helping out in fairness.

In fairness who knows what the home circumstances are, she could have to help care for an elderly relative or her own brothers and sisters.

Regardless of personal circumstance I think it's unfair to punish people for leaving on time, hell we're not charity workers who are there out of the goodness of our hearts.

noodler · 23-01-2013 01:44PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If she has no kids she should be staying back and helping out in fairness.

I am not getting into the rights and wrongs just that there is definite pressure, and in cases an expectancy, that you work later for nothing.

Itchianus · 23-01-2013 01:47PM

noodler wrote: »

I am not getting into the rights and wrongs just that there is definite pressure, and in cases an expectancy, that you work later for nothing.

OK so to try to bring things back on topic, do you think PS workers should be subjected to the same pressure then? Bearing in mind I think Tim Robbins raised that whole issue out of a concern that lengthening th PS working week would have a knock on effect on the private sector working week.

noodler · 23-01-2013 01:50PM

Itchianus wrote: »

OK so to try to bring things back on topic, do you think PS workers should be subjected to the same pressure then? Bearing in mind I think Tim Robbins raised that whole issue out of a concern that lengthening th PS working week would have a knock on effect on the private sector working week.

I don't agree that the Public Service is used as some sort of role model for the PS - not at all.

An increase in the working week in order to reduce overtime seems inevitable though.

Chris_5339762 · 23-01-2013 01:50PM

ucd.1985 wrote: »

You have omitted the 2 15 minute breaks per day with seem very prevalent in the public service.

Those 2x 15minute breaks are paid, and they are required under EU law for all workers as far as I know on a shift of that length. (Done ask me to quote legislation though!)

I take 1x 30minutes in the morning but if a call comes in I'll obviously go and see to it, as does everyone else I work with.

frankosw · 23-01-2013 02:07PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is 5 months. No research required. Some of them use time to prepare for lectures and mark exams I guess.

.

You think it's 5 months do you?

I can tell you that universities colose only at christmas,easter and bank holidays..no third level institution closes for 5 months,they are open and available...you "thinking" something does not make it fact.

itzme · 23-01-2013 02:55PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is 5 months. No research required. Some of them use time to prepare for lectures and mark exams I guess.

Still you can get 18 days time in lieu in most of the public bringing your annual leave to 38 days with I think another day or two thrown in bringing it to 40.

It's cool. I'm envious. I'm saying don't change it. I'm saying keep it and cut the pay instead.

Universities staff do not get time off when it is out of term. Please do not confuse out of term with closed.
IoT staff get 14 weeks off (someone from an IoT can correct if this is everyone or not). I disagree with this but that is the current position.
There is no thinking involved in it. So 5 months and no research required is wrong in both third level sectors and in universities is about a 500% exaggeration.

fliball123 · 23-01-2013 03:21PM

Godge wrote: »

let me divide your points into two.

First, in relation to bringing costs down. You are wrong to say that the spend side hasn't moved since 2008. The net pay and pensions bill (and by net is meant net of pension levy etc and not net of income tax) has come down from 18.753 bn in 2008 to 16.904 in 2012, a reduction of 9.8%. The credibility of your points (and others who make similar points on here) is reduced by the fact that this is continually ignored and unacknowledged. While I am no longer a public servant, I can see why those on here who are, react so strongly when so many posters are ignoring the fact that the pay bill has sharply dropped and the total pay bill has also come down a lot though not quite as far.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Secondly, if what we are looking to do is reduce the budget deficit, then it does matter what the actual real saving to the government from a particular measure is. So the real net (net of pension levy and then net of taxes, prsi and usc) is the figure that will affect the budget deficit.

What is plainly obvious is that the vast bulk of public servants are on scales below 70,000. Any cut that saves money will have to hit them hard and that includes those below 40,000 and 50,000. To have any effect on the budget deficit, that hit will have to be in the order of 25-30% on those. That means that there is a big issue with regard to rates of social welfare and other social provision. Many of these would be better off on social welfare than continuing working for the public service. (There is also the fairness question of why one group should have to take 25-30% of a hit greater than any other group but let us just deal with the mathematical reality). As a result from pure maths and allowing for changes in tax receipts, the money isn't there if you want to keep employing teachers and nurses etc. In fact, even the targeted 1 bn that Noonan has set out looks extremely ambitious to me. To explain in a different way, bringing all public servants down to a maximum of 70,000 would probably save only around 200-250m. That means you need 750m from those who didn't get a 50% pay-cut. Other measures, especially in relation to social welfare which is 22bn and climbing are needed.

Once again I never argued that the ps pay bill has dropped. I said they are taking what savings are made on ps pay and using them to pay further into ps pensions and for social welfare. The overall spend side of what our government spends not only on ps pay but on all expenditure has not come down. Maybe I wasnt clear on that?

As for cuts to ps pay you neglect to include the further savings that would be made on that public servants pension for the duration of their lives? Dont be trying to deflect. I never said PS pay has not come down I said what the gov spends in all areas of spend has remained. Also a point that you neglect to say is the linked doc are projected figures are the real figures there ? (look at bullet point 1 on page 3). Also as I have been saying its shifting the costs of ps pay to pensions and other areas. Look at page 5 the 2nd bullet point (the one under the diagram) pensions bill increased by over 1 billion and this is just their projection. Also on page 8 the pension bill is due to increase again by nearly half a billion (around the top of page 8). So your document is actually backing up what I am saying and one thing I have learned when it comes to dealing with figures and our government they are always very optimistic.

Lets see what the actual figures saved are.

Your doc supports my theory that costs are being shipped from Column A (ps pay) to column B (ps pensions) and column C (social welfare).

Also when you think about it the pensions bill is supposed to rise by 1.5 billion from 2008 to 2013 and all the while these people are no longer providing a service and cannot be replaced. This means that the service will surely once again suffer as a consequence.

The 1 billion figure by Noonan should be doubled as it is needed as I say what ever cuts are taken here they should and can be reversed once the country is back on the uppers.

And finally something we can agree on we do need some C change with regard to our social welfare. I was listening to P.Kenny on the way in and about people who had to use Vinny De Paul and they got vouchers which could only be redeemed in stores for good and clothes. I think a simular scheme should be put in place for anyone who is 2 years + on the dole. We can no longer use the carrot to make this donkey work the stick approach needs to be brought in.

Tim Robbins · 23-01-2013 04:20PM

itzme wrote: »

Universities staff do not get time off when it is out of term. Please do not confuse out of term with closed.
IoT staff get 14 weeks off (someone from an IoT can correct if this is everyone or not). I disagree with this but that is the current position.
There is no thinking involved in it. So 5 months and no research required is wrong in both third level sectors and in universities is about a 500% exaggeration.

I was talking about DITs not universities.

23-01-2013 04:24PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again I never argued that the ps pay bill has dropped. I said they are taking what savings are made on ps pay and using them to pay further into ps pensions and for social welfare. The overall spend side of what our government spends not only on ps pay but on all expenditure has not come down. Maybe I wasnt clear on that?

As for cuts to ps pay you neglect to include the further savings that would be made on that public servants pension for the duration of their lives? Dont be trying to deflect. I never said PS pay has not come down I said what the gov spends in all areas of spend has remained. Also a point that you neglect to say is the linked doc are projected figures are the real figures there ? (look at bullet point 1 on page 3). Also as I have been saying its shifting the costs of ps pay to pensions and other areas. Look at page 5 the 2nd bullet point (the one under the diagram) pensions bill increased by over 1 billion and this is just their projection. Also on page 8 the pension bill is due to increase again by nearly half a billion (around the top of page 8). So your document is actually backing up what I am saying and one thing I have learned when it comes to dealing with figures and our government they are always very optimistic.

Lets see what the actual figures saved are.

Your doc supports my theory that costs are being shipped from Column A (ps pay) to column B (ps pensions) and column C (social welfare).

Also when you think about it the pensions bill is supposed to rise by 1.5 billion from 2008 to 2013 and all the while these people are no longer providing a service and cannot be replaced. This means that the service will surely once again suffer as a consequence.

The 1 billion figure by Noonan should be doubled as it is needed as I say what ever cuts are taken here they should and can be reversed once the country is back on the uppers.

And finally something we can agree on we do need some C change with regard to our social welfare. I was listening to P.Kenny on the way in and about people who had to use Vinny De Paul and they got vouchers which could only be redeemed in stores for good and clothes. I think a simular scheme should be put in place for anyone who is 2 years + on the dole. We can no longer use the carrot to make this donkey work the stick approach needs to be brought in.

Fliball do you agree with Mandatory Redundancies in the PS to deal with perceived over staffing as a measure to reduce Government Spending?

fliball123 · 23-01-2013 04:44PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Fliball do you agree with Mandatory Redundancies in the PS to deal with perceived over staffing as a measure to reduce Government Spending?

No there should be forced redundancies on areas where a PS worker is no longer required. Wages should be cut and more staff should be recruited in areas that staff are needed. the last part of this cannot happen until we get to grips with our overspend problem.

itzme · 23-01-2013 04:51PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was talking about DITs not universities.

Even if you were, you were quoting a post that broke down the two types of colleges in Ireland and gave factual information which you contradicted with incorrect information. You still haven't even acknowledged that what you thought (for DITs) is also wrong.

23-01-2013 04:56PM

fliball123 wrote: »

No there should be forced redundancies on areas where a PS worker is no longer required. Wages should be cut and more staff should be recruited in areas that staff are needed. the last part of this cannot happen until we get to grips with our overspend problem.

Isn't mandatory the same as forced redundancy?
Let me try and rephrase my question
Do you agree that government should be able to make staff redundant to cut costs in the Public service?

Itchianus · 23-01-2013 05:07PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Isn't mandatory the same as forced redundancy?
Let me try and rephrase my question
Do you agree that government should be able to make staff redundant to cut costs in the Public service?

He clearly does Robbie, he just said it, not sure what the point in semantics is

(as if ye don't have enough to be arguing about already!

)

23-01-2013 05:10PM

Itchianus wrote: »

He clearly does Robbie, he just said it, not sure what the point in semantics is (as if ye don't have enough to be arguing about already! )

To be honest its very hard here to be sure what he does mean. In response to my original question do you believe in mandatory redundancy, the first word of his reply is "no".

So I am unsure of the rest of his post and would really like to clarify with him.
If I respond in haste with what I believe he has said rather than what he has said, I could be accused of putting words into the posters mouth.

Tim Robbins · 23-01-2013 05:25PM

itzme wrote: »

Even if you were, you were quoting a post that broke down the two types of colleges in Ireland and gave factual information which you contradicted with incorrect information. You still haven't even acknowledged that what you thought (for DITs) is also wrong.

It's only slightly wrong. They get 18 weeks or whatever. 20 weeks is five months. Point is their holidays are massive and I'm jealous.

frankosw · 24-01-2013 12:20AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's only slightly wrong. They get 18 weeks or whatever. 20 weeks is five months. Point is their holidays are massive and I'm jealous.

NO THEY DONT!!!

Annual leave is the same throughout the PS and its based on service and seniority.

Somebody starting in a non-executive role gets 21 days annual leave whereas a senior executive gets up to 35 days PER YEAR...not 18 weeks,not 5 months,not 20 weeks.

24-01-2013 12:26AM

kceire wrote: »

As i said, all creditibility , out the window. You start off stating you dont want blind prejudices, then go on and post your opinions as fact, talk about pot...kettle...black....

I haven't posted my opinions as fact. I've posted information. If the civil service no longer works a 34 hour and 45 minute standard working week, please say so and point to a source. If teachers and special needs assistants no longer get June (secondary only), July, August, two weeks at Easter, two weeks at Christmas and two mid-term breaks off, please say so and point to a source. At least the person who contested the holiday terms in third level offered an alternative figure (although not a source).

The hypothesis from deise blue was that bank staff worked LESS than public servants. I'm open to accepting that if someone can show that it is true. However, it is clearly not true for civil servants, teachers and SNAs - and notwithstanding the counter claim by another poster I've no reason to believe it's any different in third level.

If you want to support the hypothesis or counter my information, offer some information of your own. Or you could try showing that other groups in the public service work longer hours than those 110,000 civil servants and education staff, thereby driving up the overall public service average to MORE than bank staff.

If you can't support your position with facts, you haven't got a position worth supporting.

24-01-2013 12:35AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The banks still give out cheap mortgages to their employees. Incredible when you think about it.

It's not that incredible, for two reasons. Firstly, a mate of mine in AIB has had his staff mortgage cancelled and replaced by a normal one, and apparently this is being done across the entire organisation. Secondly, a "cheap" staff rate isn't worth it nowadays anyway.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I doubt it. They are probably busier than they need to be because they are disorganised and unwilling to restructure.

How do you know? I haven't even mentioned what organisations these people work for. How on Earth can you make sweeping assumptions when you do not know anything at all about the people or the organisations? About their workloads, sectors, type of clients, methods of operation, personal work ethics, corporate values and histories? Not a thing, but you are still capable of just making up a "probable" cause for their being busy. You don't even know if they ARE busy.

Head The Wall · 24-01-2013 07:23AM

frankosw wrote: »

NO THEY DONT!!!

Annual leave is the same throughout the PS and its based on service and seniority.

Somebody starting in a non-executive role gets 21 days annual leave whereas a senior executive gets up to 35 days PER YEAR...not 18 weeks,not 5 months,not 20 weeks.

Are you saying that teachers don't get these holidays. Your idiotic post seems to be claiming that the most days off anyone gets is 35 days which is not true.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments