Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Cookie_Monster · 25-01-2013 12:25AM

11 days and 57 pages later, is there any actual news come out of these talk as yet?

Farmer Pudsey · 25-01-2013 12:55AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

11 days and 57 pages later, is there any actual news come out of these talk as yet?

No everything is been kept close to the chest. Government seem's (however this could be showboating) to be serious and have threatened to use a blunt instrument ( which might be the fairest if implemented Top down) of a general pay cut right accross the public service if agreement is not reached.

Some unions want to give away Guards and Nurses allowances so that Administration staff and others on straight weeks can hold onto there total pay.Cannot see the union's involved with Guards and Nurses being happy. Puts Siptu in awakard position as it represents both.

The government ( or is it the Trioka) is insisting on one billion in savings if they remain steadfast it would seem that the Trioka have put there foot dowm. The penny seemed to have droped with the government that there is little or no extra tax to be raised as it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. When you go over 50% in taxes and charges it becomes too tempting for people to use any avoidance measures possible and after that there is evasion through the Black Economy. It is an economic fact that as taxes rise so will the Black Economy not nice but a fact.

ardmacha · 25-01-2013 01:08AM

11 days and 57 pages later, is there any actual news come out of these talk as yet?

Having started in good time, these talks need not rush. There is a detail to be attended to and it must be done properly.

And while I don't wish to get involved in mud slinging about Aldi, examination of demarcation would one of the useful details that these talks might attend to.

sarumite · 25-01-2013 09:07AM

ardmacha wrote: »

Having started in good time, these talks need not rush. There is a detail to be attended to and it must be done properly.

If the government are serious about needing 1/3 of the cuts to come in 2013, then the talks do need to come to a conclusion sooner rather than later. The longer the government and unions spend talking about reform, the less time they give themselves to actually implement that reform.

deise blue · 25-01-2013 09:24AM

Unusually there seems to be very few leaks from the negotiations.

I did hear Blair Horan on Frontline state that he had gleaned from his Union contacts at the table that there was no question of compulsory redundancies , Minister Howlin also stated that he didn't expect that the Government would achieve everything from their wish list ( a rather strange comment which played into the Union's hands I would have thought )

Apart from that we have been treated to the usual posturing & sabre rattling by both sides.

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 09:33AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is so weird, and absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making in the first place. My point was that people can feel that they are busy or rushed off their feet regardless of where they work or how many hours they work. Sometimes that's because they are busy, sometimes it's because of their personal perception.

But in the space of two replies to me you've gone completely off topic and into orbit rambling on with vague generalisations about the quality of service and management capability of organisations you can't even identify. And why? "Because I live in Ireland". To say that your line of argument lacks intellectual rigour is doing it a charitable service, to be honest.

You asked me for substantive information which shows that people were intrinsically busy rather than been busy due to poor management structure. There is a saying ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

All companies, organisations, teams become inefficient and need to be reorganised every few years. It is how management consultants make a living and it how every single private sector company that survives recessions and slumps.

The problem with the public sector is there is more inertia there that is in any other part of the universe. They are like the Orange Order on advanced Orange.

They don't do reform. When the HSE was created it was only created on the conditions there would be no redundancies. This completely negated the idea of economies of scale and created more red tape. When Irish Rail (granted not fully public) "reformed" by.... adding extra carriages to trains to fit more passengers, the unions demanded more money for increased responsibility.

Unions used to be brilliant - standing up for the poor man. Here and everywhere else. However, because they operate under the capitalist system of profit as the number one goal, where more members = more profit and wealth is concentrated at the top they are just as bad as the worst capitalist system. The only difference is because of their history they pretend they are the nice guys.

Godge · 25-01-2013 09:51AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

11 days and 57 pages later, is there any actual news come out of these talk as yet?

Very little leakage, very little rumour.

I think that it will be very difficult to achieve a result. The Government has made a mistake by publically declaring it wants savings of €1 billion. That might look to some as tough negotiation but tough negotiators don't talk to the media, don't set out bottom lines, they keep their cards close to their chest, whatever the result (even if it is a clear win for them) they look disappointed etc. Of course that is what makes it hard for the Government in these types of talks - the public and the media want to know what it is going on. But by setting a target of €1 bn, they have made a target for the unions - some figure less than €1 bn or some meaningless concession that the government thinks will save part of the €1 bn. The government have also made it harder to achieve genuine reform in the public sector - by saying they want financial savings of X, the unions can say if that is what you want, we will only discuss measures that will achieve financial savings. As a result, changes which will improve services to the public but not save money can be pushed off the agenda by the unions as they can say that is not what you said you wanted. The government have handed away a few cards early on.

At the same time, as I alluded earlier in this thread (in a post that was widely misrepresented) the fact of pay increases in the private sector makes it much harder for the unions to deliver their members. I suspect that if an agreement is to be achieved, the negotiations will first have to break down and the government then set out their pay cuts. Even then, it may take industrial disruption, possibly only of a limited kind to get the talks back on track with the government having to make a promise, possibly on compulsory redundancy to get the unions back in.

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 10:06AM

Godge wrote: »

At the same time, as I alluded earlier in this thread (in a post that was widely misrepresented) the fact of pay increases in the private sector makes it much harder for the unions to deliver their members.

What about all the redundancies in the private sector? Do they think everyone in HMV, Waterstones etc got pay increases?

And what about all the people who can't get work and emigrate. Did they all get pay increases as well?

I suspect as per usual the government will treat the public sector with kid gloves. The country will still have an awful health system and be a second rate place to live in the Western world for years to come.

I think that it will be very difficult to achieve a result. The Government has made a mistake by publically declaring it wants savings of €1 billion.

1 billion. That means we have another 13 billion to go. Yippee.

itzme · 25-01-2013 10:09AM

What do I want out of CPII, I want a more detailed attempt to explain the amount of savings required, their necessity and how they will be achieved along with the effects of these savings. Better communication so that we don't have another 3-5 years of people sniping at each other.

For example, staff numbers in education are being reduced in each sector. Student numbers are going up in each sector, birth rates and education progression rates tell us that this is going to continue at a rapid rate over the next 15 years barring some big change. There is a trend there. What policy will be implemented to affect this trend? How are the intended savings going to affect this policy/take account of it? If cuts in staff are going to happen in education as part of the savings, what will the impact be considering this trend?

Also, resources are at a premium in second and third level science labs or anything due to the reduced budgets. This is leading to a reduction of hands on experience of conducting experiments and the quality of what we are teaching at both levels. In turn this is leading us to drop in university rankings and our students receiving a worse education. If cuts are to come out of these budgets, what are the expected outcomes and how will it impact on the quality?

What efficiences can be gained through reform that have no negatives from a service point of view?

At this point it needs to be clearly stated by the government that most of the cuts will have a negative impact on the services. It is their responsibility to the people to detail this. The expected effect of the different cuts needs to be articulated clearly and concisely. Otherwise if we don't have something to judge the savings on (not just €Xmn saved) it just opens up the whole process in 1/2/3 years down the road to be attacked by extremes of both sides for not "achieving" what it set out to.

So the assumptions of each cut/saving need to be laid out. Hypothetical example to follow....By this I mean, lets say they choose to save (random rigure) €200mn from the staff budget of the HSE, €50mn of this is from frontline staff. The aim is to reduce the staff numbers in areas where they aren't needed/ it is overstaffed and the waiting list time will therefore not be increased. This is all predicated on the numbers of people using the service not increasing drastically from the estimated amounts. If they do this "saving" is useless as it doesn't achieve its aim.
Same goes for the savings based on GDP targets, if the aim of all the savings is to reduce the deficit to a reasonable percentage and due to changes in our economy the deficit is increasing then the savings have to be revisited and increased.

25-01-2013 10:15AM

Godge wrote: »

Very little leakage, very little rumour.

I think that it will be very difficult to achieve a result. The Government has made a mistake by publically declaring it wants savings of €1 billion. That might look to some as tough negotiation but tough negotiators don't talk to the media, don't set out bottom lines, they keep their cards close to their chest, whatever the result (even if it is a clear win for them) they look disappointed etc. Of course that is what makes it hard for the Government in these types of talks - the public and the media want to know what it is going on. But by setting a target of €1 bn, they have made a target for the unions - some figure less than €1 bn or some meaningless concession that the government thinks will save part of the €1 bn. The government have also made it harder to achieve genuine reform in the public sector - by saying they want financial savings of X, the unions can say if that is what you want, we will only discuss measures that will achieve financial savings. As a result, changes which will improve services to the public but not save money can be pushed off the agenda by the unions as they can say that is not what you said you wanted. The government have handed away a few cards early on.

At the same time, as I alluded earlier in this thread (in a post that was widely misrepresented) the fact of pay increases in the private sector makes it much harder for the unions to deliver their members. I suspect that if an agreement is to be achieved, the negotiations will first have to break down and the government then set out their pay cuts. Even then, it may take industrial disruption, possibly only of a limited kind to get the talks back on track with the government having to make a promise, possibly on compulsory redundancy to get the unions back in.

It's not a fair comparison, we now have a smaller pool of bigger fish in the private sector. Don't think that argument will hold much sway.

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 10:18AM

jh79 wrote: »

It's not a fair comparison, we now have a smaller pool of bigger fish in the private sector. Don't think that argument will hold much sway.

If the public sector expect to get treated the same as the private sector than they better get ready for 20 - 30% forced redundancies, ditching defined benefit pensions and working much longer hours.

You see this is the thing that irks everyone. They compare to the private sector when it benefits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Or if the private sector points something out to them we hear "you shouldn't be falling for the governments trick to drive a wedge between public and private sector"

frankosw · 25-01-2013 10:26AM

tenton wrote: »

The voters were not professionally paid to manage and regulate the economy.
Top public servants - the regulator, central bank, government - were very well paid and pensioned to do that, but failed miserably. Like the rest of the p.s., they still collect their golden pensions
The voters - in general - do not get the pay pensions or perks.

You're a re-reg of a previously banned user.

Godge · 25-01-2013 10:28AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about all the redundancies in the private sector? Do they think everyone in HMV, Waterstones etc got pay increases?

And what about all the people who can't get work and emigrate. Did they all get pay increases as well?

I suspect as per usual the government will treat the public sector with kid gloves. The country will still have an awful health system and be a second rate place to live in the Western world for years to come..

Negotiations 1.01: Both sides have to agree for it to be an agreement, otherwise it is not an agreement.

The government is seeking an agreement, it is not enough to focus on what the government wants, you have to look at it from the unions' perspective as well.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1 billion. That means we have another 13 billion to go. Yippee.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/meb2013/January2013.pdf

More misinformation on the Irish Economy forum.

The General Government Balance at the end of 2012 is estimated to be €13.4 bn, 8.2% of GDP.

The target is to get the GGB to 3%, which assuming there is no inflation and no growth means a target of €4.9 bn, which means savings of €8.5 bn are required. With inflation, economic growth and some saving on debt interest as a result of a deal on the promissory notes, the real savings to be achieved are around €8 bn. That is before the effects of the 2013 budget announced before Christmas which announced cuts of €3.5 bn. This would leave a target of further cuts of €4.5 bn, a long way from the €14 bn (€1bn from public sector plus €13 bn more) you suggest with the one billion from the public service making up 22% of what is required.

But hey, you say €14 bn more needed, I say €4.5 bn more needed, let us look at the official figures and see what they say.

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2013/Documents/Financial%20Statement.pdf

Wow, the Minister says €3.1 bn in 2014 and €2.0 bn in 2015, a total of €5.1 bn so I am wrong. Gosh, I am out by €0.6 bn while your estimate is a whopping €8.9 bn out, glad you don't do my accounts. However, in my mitigation, the minister does not make any allowance for any deal on the promissory notes or on the interest rate we are paying on our debts so I could yet be right.

Might I ask you politely to stop posting complete rubbish or at least to back up the complete rubbish with some links?

Godge · 25-01-2013 10:30AM

jh79 wrote: »

It's not a fair comparison, we now have a smaller pool of bigger fish in the private sector. Don't think that argument will hold much sway.

Who does the argument need to hold much sway with? If the government wants an agreement, which they have repeatedly said they do, the argument needs to hold sway with the public service union members who will get a vote on the issue. Do you now see what I mean when I say an agreement will be difficult?

itzme · 25-01-2013 10:34AM

Godge wrote: »

(€1bn from public sector plus €13 bn more) ......

But hey, you say €14 bn more needed,

Godge if I were you I wouldn't waste your time responding to this particular part of the thread (personally the poster at all). I would not be surprised with the posters level of contribution so far if the €1bn down, 13 to go comment was a flippant comment suggesting we could reduce the full PS pay expenditure to 0. As if there would be some value in doing that.

noodler · 25-01-2013 10:43AM

repsol wrote: »

Maybe the PS workers are well educated s

They would be on average - so in that respect we agree there are problems comparing with supermarket workers.

The ECB have done an international comparison of salaries in the PS here and found that the private-public gap wasn't fully explained by education.

CSO have also done one.

road_high · 25-01-2013 10:43AM

itzme wrote: »

Godge if I were you I wouldn't waste your time responding to this particular part of the thread (personally the poster at all). I would not be surprised with the posters level of contribution so far if the €1bn down, 13 to go comment was a flippant comment suggesting we could reduce the full PS pay expenditure to 0. As if there would be some value in doing that.

Yes lets continue to bury our heads in the sand as per Croke Park 1.

itzme · 25-01-2013 10:46AM

mfitzy wrote: »

Yes lets continue to bury our heads in the sand as per Croke Park 1.

Are you claiming that is what I am doing / proposing?
What is your point?
Are you claiming that we do need to reduce the PS pay bill to 0?

25-01-2013 10:51AM

Godge wrote: »

Who does the argument need to hold much sway with? If the government wants an agreement, which they have repeatedly said they do, the argument needs to hold sway with the public service union members who will get a vote on the issue. Do you now see what I mean when I say an agreement will be difficult?

Either way 1 billion is going to be cut / saved. If the PS think it is unfair because of a misleading union promoted belief that private sector wages are rising (technically maybe true, but not comparable), then industrial action might be inevitable. I think the general public would put up with it. The unions don't have much support outside of their own. If they try to scupper reform, they are just going to end up forcing upon their members even more cuts in the future. I think you are putting too much importance on the necessity of union members support, the money isn't there anymore. A more cooperative union / PS would be more beneficial to its members in the long run, at least they can decide where the saving / cuts will be made.

Godge · 25-01-2013 10:58AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If the public sector expect to get treated the same as the private sector than they better get ready for 20 - 30% forced redundancies, ditching defined benefit pensions and working much longer hours.

You see this is the thing that irks everyone. They compare to the private sector when it benefits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Or if the private sector points something out to them we hear "you shouldn't be falling for the governments trick to drive a wedge between public and private sector"

More pure unadulterated rubbish with nothing to back it up.

There has not been 20-30% forced redundancies in the private sector. Some companies have shrunk, some have grown, some people have left voluntarily and not been replaced, some have retired and not been replaced.

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

The Labour Force peaked at 2.239bn in 2008, it is now 2.096 in 2012 (latest figures in attached), a reduction of 6.3%. How, in any adult thinker's mind can that translate into 20-30% of forced redundancies. I mean the unemployment rate is 14% and this includes those who never worked, those who left voluntarily, those who left the public sector, where do you get your figures from?

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2012/qnhs_q32012.pdf

"The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q3 2009 to Q3 2012 was 30,900 (-7.6%)."

Given the other data shows that the labour force decreased by 6.3%, does that mean that the reduction in the public sector was greater than that in the private sector? On the face of those two statistics, it does. Again, produce some evidence to back it up.

As for the longer hours one, there was hard evidence produced earlier in the thread that there is little difference in the CSO statistics between hours worked in the public sector and hours worked in the private sector so produce some evidence to back up your statement.

Godge · 25-01-2013 11:03AM

noodler wrote: »

They would be on average - so in that respect we agree there are problems comparing with supermarket workers.

The ECB have done an international comparison of salaries in the PS here and found that the private-public gap wasn't fully explained by education.

CSO have also done one.

If I recall we were engaged in a comparison of supermarket workers with supermarket workers.

I produced evidence that Tesco and Dunnes operated incremental scales and applied general round pay increases. I also submitted that I had personal knowledge that Roches Stores/Debenhams did the same.

You said that you worked in an unnamed supermarket for four years and didn't get an increase in your hourly rate. Without you having to give away the details of when and which location you worked other than whether it was in the period 1987- 2008, I asked you to name the supermarket so that we could verify its employment practices. You have yet to do so and I was wondering had you managed to remember it yet?

Tim Robbins · 25-01-2013 11:04AM

Godge wrote: »

Negotiations 1.01: Both sides have to agree for it to be an agreement, otherwise it is not an agreement.

The government is seeking an agreement, it is not enough to focus on what the government wants, you have to look at it from the unions' perspective as well.

How about looking at if from the perspective of the common good? the tax payer? The unemployed and thousands of others who do not have a professional negotiators and who can grind the country to a halt if they don't like what's on the table?

More misinformation on the Irish Economy forum.

The General Government Balance at the end of 2012 is estimated to be €13.4 bn, 8.2% of GDP.

I said 14 billion. So rounded up. Next time I'll go to one decimal place.

The target is to get the GGB to 3%, which assuming there is no inflation and no growth means a target of €4.9 bn, which means savings of €8.5 bn are required. With inflation, economic growth and some saving on debt interest as a result of a deal on the promissory notes, the real savings to be achieved are around €8 bn. That is before the effects of the 2013 budget announced before Christmas which announced cuts of €3.5 bn. This would leave a target of further cuts of €4.5 bn, a long way from the €14 bn (€1bn from public sector plus €13 bn more) you suggest with the one billion from the public service making up 22% of what is required.

I don't believe 3% deficit is sustainable because it requires a growth rate of more than 3% which is boom / bust thinking. It also means it's impossible to reduce your debt / GDP ratio unless you have massive growth and the yearning for another bubble - boom bust.

Have you learned anything about what happens when you run an economy that way?

Might I ask you politely to stop posting complete rubbish or at least to back up the complete rubbish with some links?

I don't believe or trust the government. But you regard them as reliable on economic forecasts and predictions. I think their track record of both this government and the last shows that they can't be trusted.

If the collapse didn't happen because of intrinsic faults with our government, public sector and banks I might have some more trust but when they are the culprits why should anyone trust them?

noodler · 25-01-2013 11:10AM

Godge wrote: »

More pure unadulterated rubbish with nothing to back it up.

There has not been 20-30% forced redundancies in the private sector. Some companies have shrunk, some have grown, some people have left voluntarily and not been replaced, some have retired and not been replaced.

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

The Labour Force peaked at 2.239bn in 2008, it is now 2.096 in 2012 (latest figures in attached), a reduction of 6.3%. How, in any adult thinker's mind can that translate into 20-30% of forced redundancies. I mean the unemployment rate is 14% and this includes those who never worked, those who left voluntarily, those who left the public sector, where do you get your figures from?

[/FONT][/FONT]

I am not too sure where your issue lies with what he said. Nor, why you are focusing on labour force.

His 20-30% seems excessive I admit but for the sake of argument:

However from the same link:

Numbers Employed in Ireland was 2113.9 in Q2 2007

This fell to 1787.9 in Q2 2012.

So there are 326,000 less people working.

We know the PS workforce has reduced by about 30,000 or so (albeit on very generous voluntary schemes or early retirment packages).

So, for ball park purposes (although I can be more specific if I actually go into the latest QNHS quarterly release). there are nearly 300,000 les people working in the private sector.

Now undoubtedly, some of these people retired but given there were 1.8m Private sector workers in 2007 and only 1.5m now it tells us that broadly speaking Private sector employment is down nearly 20%.

I don't know how many of those were compulsory redundancies but I think it is a safe bet to say the majority were.

Godge · 25-01-2013 11:10AM

jh79 wrote: »

Either way 1 billion is going to be cut / saved. If the PS think it is unfair because of a misleading union promoted belief that private sector wages are rising (technically maybe true, but not comparable), then industrial action might be inevitable. I think the general public would put up with it. The unions don't have much support outside of their own. If they try to scupper reform, they are just going to end up forcing upon their members even more cuts in the future. I think you are putting too much importance on the necessity of union members support, the money isn't there anymore. A more cooperative union / PS would be more beneficial to its members in the long run, at least they can decide where the saving / cuts will be made.

There is no agreement to cut or save €1 bn. The government have said they would like to save €1 bn but if they don't get agreement from the unions they will have to impose pay cuts by legislation and we have yet to see whether the Labour Party TDs will walk through the Dail lobbies and vote for that when alternatives such as increasing USC and income tax on higher earners.

As for the rest of your points, the unions don't care about public opinion (in the same way IBEC or the IFA don't care) and public support while welcome isn't necessary. What is necessary is the support of their own members.

What some people around here don't seem able to recognise is that public servants and their unions are real people who have organised themselves into groups and therefore have some form of negotiating power and ability. You cannot ignore that or stamp all over it as it will come back to bite you.

noodler · 25-01-2013 11:12AM

Godge wrote: »

If I recall we were engaged in a comparison of supermarket workers with supermarket workers.

I produced evidence that Tesco and Dunnes operated incremental scales and applied general round pay increases. I also submitted that I had personal knowledge that Roches Stores/Debenhams did the same.

You said that you worked in an unnamed supermarket for four years and didn't get an increase in your hourly rate. Without you having to give away the details of when and which location you worked other than whether it was in the period 1987- 2008, I asked you to name the supermarket so that we could verify its employment practices. You have yet to do so and I was wondering had you managed to remember it yet?

I don't feel comfortable telling you my employment history. It was not a food retailer though. It dealt in entertainment.

Don't misquote me please - I didn't say supermarket as a quick glance over the post history will show. I said retail.

fliball123 · 25-01-2013 11:12AM

frankosw wrote: »

Rebuilding a healthy state?

In the way it was healthy before the private sector via banks,developers and builders destryoyed it?

Who is administering the mess now? Who's taken on the extra workload via increased social welfare,more people wanting to go back to education and the serious social issues that have arisen as a result of the "healthy state"?

What galls me particularly is the level of non-tax compliance that is and was endemic throughout the private sector and now the PS are being told to take another paycut to bail them out?

The private sector should get its own house in order via FULL tax compliance,full VAT contributions and an end to upward only rent reviews beforte it can preach to the handfull of people keeping this country running.

Frank its been proven time and again the mess the banks made. Is in reality one third of our debt and deficit problem the other two thirds is an overspend problem. So who are you going to blame if the gov get a deal on the Prom Notes and other deals to water down the size and impact of the banks. Dont get me wrong I dont like what they did but stop deflecting from who actually got us into this mess.

And your questions answered in bold

Who is administering the mess now? The Gov and senior civil servants with the IMF looking over their shoulder Who's taken on the extra workload via increased social welfare ,more people wanting to go back to education and the serious social issues that have arisen as a result of the "healthy state"? The tax payer has taken on the baulk of the expenses and they have to pay more tax in order to meet the demands of increased social welfare

I agree with you on the tax compliance issue but when your push tax up to the levels they are at here it will promote the black economy. You look at it from their point of view why would you pay more to the state to see it been pumped into Bertie aherns pension or to support a health service that is not fit for purpose or any other amount of waste thats going on in both the public sector and the drain that is social welfare. I am not saying its right but I understand why they do it.

You think the PS is keeping the country running..Give me a break the reason why the PS are suffering is because the life blood of tax and income which provide money for the state ala the private sector is being crusified all the while you boyos want your increments to remain in tact.. You look at how much more we are paying in tax and then have a look at the spend side you will see income side via taxes has risen sharply even do there are less people working than there was 5 years ago, and costs have remained the same.

fliball123 · 25-01-2013 11:15AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What? You mean like a criminal offence? :rolleyes:

It is? Some of the posts are, but most of the thread is just a series of rants about the public service.

This is the thing you call them rants from the outside looking in I would call it finding some equality. Depends on where your positioned

fliball123 · 25-01-2013 11:18AM

repsol wrote: »

Maybe the PS workers are well educated so they got a secure job and don't need to work on a checkout.If you are going to compare everyone's job to the checkout staff in supermarkets,most people would have better t&c's. There is "demarcation" in virtually all jobs. If there are cleaners in your job and you do not do any cleaning that is demarcation. Aldi checkout staff don't protect the store,they have security staff for that. The security don't clean the floors or work the tills etc.
Your arguments don't hold water.You come across as another begrudging PS hater

So are you implying no educated people work in the private sector? And what FP was implying is that some PS workers are pointing the finger at dunnes saying they are getting pay rises and we are looking at cuts.. Yet as I have stated on here . Show me one private sector company not in debt or borrowing or being bailed out by the tax payer paying pay rises in the current climate.

25-01-2013 11:19AM

Godge wrote: »

There is no agreement to cut or save €1 bn. The government have said they would like to save €1 bn but if they don't get agreement from the unions they will have to impose pay cuts by legislation and we have yet to see whether the Labour Party TDs will walk through the Dail lobbies and vote for that when alternatives such as increasing USC and income tax on higher earners.

As for the rest of your points, the unions don't care about public opinion (in the same way IBEC or the IFA don't care) and public support while welcome isn't necessary. What is necessary is the support of their own members.

What some people around here don't seem able to recognise is that public servants and their unions are real people who have organised themselves into groups and therefore have some form of negotiating power and ability. You cannot ignore that or stamp all over it as it will come back to bite you.

I am questioning how successful they are likely to be, we all know how much power they had given the generous conditions of CP1, its whether they can do it again? They might not care about public opinion but it does have influence. Labour are the junior coalition partner also.

fliball123 · 25-01-2013 11:21AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Don't forget it was private sector bankers and developers who got us into this mess!

Ok once again 1/3 was the banks 2/3 ours overspend on ps pay, pensions, services and welfare..This has been done to death. If you have proof of this show it or stop repeating lies spun to you by your union rep

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments