Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Head The Wall · 29-01-2013 01:27PM

woodoo wrote: »

I understand them perfectly well head the wall. Provided we satisfy the criteria set out in our contracts we are entitled to our interments

If someone is crap they shouldn't get them.

You don't to seem to comprehend that your contract can be changed whenever the govt wants to so harping on about adhering to what you signed up to years ago is completely irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding on you're part.

A system where in one year 18 people didn't receive an increment is hardly working correctly.

Head The Wall · 29-01-2013 01:29PM

Godge wrote: »

I think this is the last round you guys will have to face.

We are 85% of the way on cutting the deficit.

Don't expect a pay increase before 2020 though.

I know you are not in the PS Godge but you sail very close to the line - increments are pay increases.

I also think it is delusional for the growth targets to be met

kippy · 29-01-2013 01:33PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

You don't to seem to comprehend that your contract can be changed whenever the govt wants to so harping on about adhering to what you signed up to years ago is completely irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding on you're part.

A system where in one year 18 people didn't receive an increment is hardly working correctly.

Legally theres a lot more to changing a contract of employment than "whenever the employer wants"

I agree on the increments point however. The payment of increments should be based on a number of factors and PMDS has been brought in to bring this about however it is light years from being effective based on the current implementation.

itzme · 29-01-2013 01:33PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

You don't to seem to comprehend that your contract can be changed whenever the govt wants to so harping on about adhering to what you signed up to years ago is completely irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding on you're part.

A system where in one year 18 people didn't receive an increment is hardly working correctly.

I'm not prescribing to woodoo's perspective on increments but what you are stating about contract changes is overly simplistic and mostly legally wrong. The government is an employer and can't just change contracts whenever they want, they have the scope as all employers to make changes that are legal within those contracts. After that they can negotiate with the employees to accept new terms and conditions. We have concrete employment rights in this country and no private or public entity can break them without the possibility of being challenged in court.

Paulzx · 29-01-2013 01:42PM

itzme wrote: »

I'm not prescribing to woodoo's perspective on increments but what you are stating about contract changes is overly simplistic and mostly legally wrong. The government is an employer and can't just change contracts whenever they want, they have the scope as all employers to make changes that are legal within those contracts. After that they can negotiate with the employees to accept new terms and conditions. We have concrete employment rights in this country and no private or public entity can break them without the possibility of being challenged in court.

There is a huge difference between a normal employer and the government as an employer. The government has the advantage of being capable of writing and enacting legislation in order to force through pay cuts.

From memory, this is what happened with the previous two pay cuts.

Godge · 29-01-2013 02:46PM

itzme wrote: »

I'm not prescribing to woodoo's perspective on increments but what you are stating about contract changes is overly simplistic and mostly legally wrong. The government is an employer and can't just change contracts whenever they want, they have the scope as all employers to make changes that are legal within those contracts. After that they can negotiate with the employees to accept new terms and conditions. We have concrete employment rights in this country and no private or public entity can break them without the possibility of being challenged in court.

Correct, and it took legislation to bring in the pension levy, the pay cuts and the new pension scheme, and they applied to all. I think it likely that an employment rights challenge would be likely in the event of suspension of increments as it would not affect all.

noodler · 29-01-2013 03:36PM

Godge wrote: »

Correct, and it took legislation to bring in the pension levy, the pay cuts and the new pension scheme, and they applied to all. I think it likely that an employment rights challenge would be likely in the event of suspension of increments as it would not affect all.

The Government has more than enough ammunition imo.

The "worsening conditions" clause of the original CPA could have been invoked from any year since 2010.

Unemployment got worse, GDP forecasts were continously downgraded, we required an extra year for the deficit reduction (2015 versus 2014), we went into an EU/IMF bailout, at least three additional calls on the State for bank recapitalisations since March 2010 etc.

I hope we don't get into that sort of situation obviously.

kippy · 29-01-2013 03:43PM

noodler wrote: »

The Government has more than enough ammunition imo.

The "worsening conditions" clause of the original CPA could have been invoked from any year since 2010.

Unemployment got worse, GDP forecasts were continously downgraded, we required an extra year for the deficit reduction (2015 versus 2014), we went into an EU/IMF bailout, at least three additional calls on the State for bank recapitalisations since March 2010 etc.

I hope we don't get into that sort of situation obviously.

Indeed, it would bring the country to a standstill however.
What is the cost of that?

noodler · 29-01-2013 03:45PM

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, it would bring the country to a standstill however.
What is the cost of that?

That isn't an argument.

A group's ability to kick and scream shouldn't be the be all and end all for the discussion.

Godge · 29-01-2013 03:50PM

noodler wrote: »

The Government has more than enough ammunition imo.

The "worsening conditions" clause of the original CPA could have been invoked from any year since 2010.

Unemployment got worse, GDP forecasts were continously downgraded, we required an extra year for the deficit reduction (2015 versus 2014), we went into an EU/IMF bailout, at least three additional calls on the State for bank recapitalisations since March 2010 etc.

I hope we don't get into that sort of situation obviously.

We can discuss whether the Government has the ammunition separately but the question I was addressing was whether the government has the means.

The previous Financial Emergency Measures Acts (someone must have an acronym for these by now?) succeeded for one of two reasons - they applied to all employees and everyone took a hit (pension levy, pay cut) or they applied to those who were not yet employees - new entrants (new pension scheme, extra pay cuts for new entrants). As a result a legal challenge under employment, constitutional or EU law had limited chance of success.

The difference this time is that included in what appears to be on the cards are a mumber of measures which can have differential effects on different employees. These include:
- freezing increments
- pay cuts for higher paid grades
- reducing premium payments

While I appreciate that both the pension levy and pay cuts were distributional in effect, they did generally apply. These new proposals would not generally apply. Without agreement from the unions, I think the government would have to revert to an across-the-board pay cut (albeit graduated) as the above would be susceptible to legal challenge. Of course, if the unions agree, anything is possible.

itzme · 29-01-2013 03:50PM

noodler wrote: »

The Government has more than enough ammunition imo.

The "worsening conditions" clause of the original CPA could have been invoked from any year since 2010.

Unemployment got worse, GDP forecasts were continously downgraded, we required an extra year for the deficit reduction (2015 versus 2014), we went into an EU/IMF bailout, at least three additional calls on the State for bank recapitalisations since March 2010 etc.

I hope we don't get into that sort of situation obviously.

This is something that always stumps me, the oversimplication of the text to something like worsening conditions". The agreement was

The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration.

There hasn't been much unforeseen budgetary deterioration since 2010. Check the Troika reviews for an objective view. We have met the targets, if we have met the targets how is there enough unforeseen budgetary deterioration to enforce that clause.

Unemployment was expected to continue getting worse after 2010 but at a slower rate of change. That happened, its about rates of change and that is what unforeseen budgetary deterioration refers to, nothing to do with worsening conditions.

kippy · 29-01-2013 03:55PM

noodler wrote: »

That isn't an argument.

A group's ability to kick and scream shouldn't be the be all and end all for the discussion.

Of course it's an argument. We wouldn't have needed CP1 or indeed be even talking about a CP2 otherwise.
As I said before in the black and white world of numbers, it's not an issue.
Cut everyone by 15%

It's not just about the numbers though. There are knock on effects and repercussions of any decisions made.

Don't you think it relevant to allow for the repurcussions of such incidences in any calculations?

itzme · 29-01-2013 03:55PM

Paulzx wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a normal employer and the government as an employer. The government has the advantage of being capable of writing and enacting legislation in order to force through pay cuts.

From memory, this is what happened with the previous two pay cuts.

Yep spot on, I was just trying to make the point Godge has elaborated on. Any legislation has to be in accordance with our current and EU employment legislation. Changing terms and conditions in targeted ways is murky, hence why they are trying to get agreement through talks.

Godge · 29-01-2013 04:01PM

kippy wrote: »

In the past 5-6 years what portion of government spending (outside of interest repayments) has increased at the highest percentage?

Now, I am not blaming social welfare recipients for this, it is just a knock on effect from the bursting of a significant property bubble which has had two major consequences for this economy:
1. A drastic rise in the amount of people out of work. Which in turn has meant that the social welfare spend has increased drastically and the direct tax take (wages based) that these new social welfare recipients would have once paid to the state is now gone.
2. The indirect taxes(not pay related) associated with this bubble have vanished.
Of the two thirds of the debt we have in relation to sovereign would you like to take a guess at how much points 1 and 2 are in relation to it?

It's fine for you and others to point out that the public sector pay and pensions have to come down, which in fact they have been on an annual basis for the past number of years as proven in numerous reports and indeed which will continue to do so for at least 3 more years, but it's also important to understand that to run a country costs money. Services do not come for free. There will always be a public sector pay and pensions bill and public sector workers have in no way escaped unscathed, nor are all of them greedy idiots.

While many say the elephant in the room is public sector wages (and I admit more can and will be done here) the biggest issue is the social welfare bill - not necessarily reducing it, but getting people off that bill and paying taxes again.

Also,
It's not just public sector workers that blame the bankers, many more do to. And while the current debt situation is not ALL to do with shady dealings in the banks, lax regulation and politicians who cannot remember their own banking arrangements, these people have gotten away scott free where, from the outside at least, some laws appear to have been broken, in at least one of the major institutions involved.

This is tough to take, for someone like me to be honest.

We do not seem to be able to have this kind of debate on here about choices. We have the lowest tax burden on average workers in the EU yet many will say the ordinary worker can take no more, yet they believe a public sector worker who has had pay cuts and pension levies as well as increased taxes is fair game for further cuts.

We also have the highest social welfare rates in the EU and pay for the longest amount of time UA and single-parent.

noodler · 29-01-2013 04:23PM

itzme wrote: »

This is something that always stumps me, the oversimplication of the text to something like worsening conditions". The agreement was..

itzme wrote: »

There hasn't been much unforeseen budgetary deterioration since 2010. Check the Troika reviews for an objective view. We have met the targets, if we have met the targets how is there enough unforeseen budgetary deterioration to enforce that clause.

I am sorry but that is an absolute and utter lie/falsehood and needs to be addressed.

At the time of the announcement for CPA in March 2010 the assumed adjustment for Budget 2011 was 3bn. This DOUBLED as we reached winter to 6bn due to weaker than forecast growth.
The original adjustment figure for Budget 2012 was also less than the 3.8bn it turned out to be.
There were 435,000 people on the Live Register in March 2010 and the figure increased to a peak of 470,000 in July 2011.
An extra year was required to fulfil our 3% deficit target.
The bank bailout doubled from 20% GDP to 40% GDP since the March 2010 recapitalisation announcements.
We could not longer finance our borrowings on the international markets in Autumn 2010 and had to enter an EU/IMF bailout.
GDP forcasts in the Budget 2011 documentation read like this:
2012: 3.2% (this is likely to be 0.7%)
2013: 3.0% (this is now forecast to be 1.5%)
2014: 2.8% (this is now forecast to be 1.7%)
The same downgrades exist for forecasts of Exchequer revenue.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

I mean Jesus Christ, meeting the revised troika targets hardly means that budgetary situation hasn't significantly worsened since March 2010.

itzme wrote: »

Unemployment was expected to continue getting worse after 2010 but at a slower rate of change. That happened, its about rates of change and that is what unforeseen budgetary deterioration refers to, nothing to do with worsening conditions.

?

Live Register figures have everything to do with Government finances - see above.

Godge · 29-01-2013 05:05PM

noodler wrote: »

I am sorry but that is an absolute and utter lie/falsehood and needs to be addressed.
At the time of the announcement for CPA in March 2010 the assumed adjustment for Budget 2011 was 3bn. This DOUBLED as we reached winter to 6bn due to weaker than forecast growth.

The original adjustment figure for Budget 2012 was also less than the 3.8bn it turned out to be.

There were 435,000 people on the Live Register in March 2010 and the figure increased to a peak of 470,000 in July 2011.

An extra year was required to fulfil our 3% deficit target.

The bank bailout doubled from 20% GDP to 40% GDP since the March 2010 recapitalisation announcements.

We could not longer finance our borrowings on the international markets in Autumn 2010 and had to enter an EU/IMF bailout.

GDP forcasts in the Budget 2011 documentation read like this:
2012: 3.2% (this is likely to be 0.7%)
2013: 3.0% (this is now forecast to be 1.5%)
2014: 2.8% (this is now forecast to be 1.7%)

The same downgrades exist for forecasts of Exchequer revenue.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

I mean Jesus Christ, meeting the revised troika targets hardly means that budgetary situation hasn't significantly worsened since March 2010.

.

All of which could have been used as justification for intervention at the time they occurred. Why now? What is the immediate pressure? At a time when the Minister and others say we are 85% there, what worsening justifies intervention at this stage?

Yes, you can argue that where we are now wasn't foreseen in 2010 but the unions would argue back that the public sector has made its contribution (say relative to the social welfare bill) and what is the reason that justifies asking for more? What would a third party say in those circumstances?

It is not as simple as it might seem to invoke that clause. A neutral might say that it is unfair to go after those who have made a significant contribution already.

noodler · 29-01-2013 05:17PM

Godge wrote: »

All of which could have been used as justification for intervention at the time they occurred. Why now? What is the immediate pressure? At a time when the Minister and others say we are 85% there, what worsening justifies intervention at this stage?

Hold on.

What Kippy somehow argued things haven't gotten worse and I addressed that.

Lets not lose focus of the fact that the post I addressed was completely false by trying to say "yeah but..."

If you want to push the timing aspect to extremes then you'll notice there have been downgrades in Government forecasts and a moving of the goalposts in each budget.

In the last one growth for 2013 was downgraded, VAT in 2012 didn't bring in what the State expected at the beginning of the year.

There are issues in the the HSE budget due to pressures on numbers etc etc.

You really do not have to go back that far to find another example of worsening budgetary conditions.

Godge wrote: »

Yes, you can argue that where we are now wasn't foreseen in 2010 but the unions would argue back that the public sector has made its contribution (say relative to the social welfare bill) and what is the reason that justifies asking for more? What would a third party say in those circumstances?

Of the 85% adjustment so far (or approximately 25/26bn) the majority, vast majority has been from outside the Public Sector pay bill.

Godge wrote: »

It is not as simple as it might seem to invoke that clause. A neutral might say that it is unfair to go after those who have made a significant contribution already.

The majority of the adjustments so far have been from outside the paybill.

woodoo · 29-01-2013 09:33PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

You don't to seem to comprehend that your contract can be changed whenever the govt wants to so harping on about adhering to what you signed up to years ago is completely irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding on you're part.

I'm not sure that is accurate. Have you anything to back that statement up?

fall · 29-01-2013 11:23PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that's not anybody's problem except those individuals.

And by that logic as an individual don't expect someone to take a pay cut because some other sectors have. That is their problem

Farmer Pudsey · 30-01-2013 12:25AM

Godge wrote: »

All of which could have been used as justification for intervention at the time they occurred. Why now? What is the immediate pressure? At a time when the Minister and others say we are 85% there, what worsening justifies intervention at this stage?

Yes, you can argue that where we are now wasn't foreseen in 2010 but the unions would argue back that the public sector has made its contribution (say relative to the social welfare bill) and what is the reason that justifies asking for more? What would a third party say in those circumstances?

It is not as simple as it might seem to invoke that clause. A neutral might say that it is unfair to go after those who have made a significant contribution already.

Because maybe the Minster knows that we are not 85% there. We cannot continuly run a 3% budget deficit because 10 years down the road we may again hit a downturn or recession which may be from factors completly outside our control. Growth of 2-3% is not there either at present. All the calculations in 2010 was that at this stage growth would be doing the heavy lifting( do you remember the phrase). this has not happened. The private sector bar the supermarket sector is not recovering and multinationals will not provide a magic employment bullet.

The reality is that we cannot cut services anymore, the high effective rate of tax has been reached(over 50%). How sustainable longterm is 38%dirt and 33% capital gains rate. Tax on fuel and car tax rate are excessivly high and while the household charge will raise 1 billion a year will this lead to a reduction in taxes elsewhere( cartax, VRT, carbon taxes etc ) as people reduce spend to pay these taxes.

Reality tells us that we cannot have one of the biggest and highest paid PS in the EU, one of the highest welfare rates, and one of the highest nationals debts. We have reached the taxation limit even though Sinn Fein, the Labour party and the socialist grouping think that there is a Golden Goose out there.

Head The Wall · 30-01-2013 01:19AM

woodoo wrote: »

I'm not sure that is accurate. Have you anything to back that statement up?

It is 100% accurate and it's called legislation. It is the means by which the previous pay cut and pension levy were enacted.

The govt doesn't need the unions permission, they can legislate for whatever they want to do.

Paulzx · 30-01-2013 01:39AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

The govt doesn't need the unions permission, they can legislate for whatever they want to do.

Not entirely correct. It must be within the bounds of the Constitution.

They can't just legislate for whatever they wish for

30-01-2013 02:24AM

itzme wrote: »

I understand what you mean here by the point of the talks but I disagree. I think that is one point and that going in with only the idea of getting direct savings money on the pay bill is a mistake.
I'm hoping that you are including in savings here, increased efficiency and productivity. As the way you've phrased it implies it's all about reducing the total pay bill and not getting more out of what we pay and also reducing the bill.
Every saving needs to come with a list of assumptions and objectives. If the during the course of the implementation it becomes clear the assumptions were wrong or that the aims of the savings can't be achieved through the plan then the saving has to be revisited. Without this essential detail, it'll boil down to absolute numbers and as we see on this forum every day absolute numbers mean nothing without context.

I don't disagree with you about efficiency, though the bottom line is about how much less the government can spend than it otherwise would. What I was really getting at is that for good or ill it's been decided that pay bill savings have a contribution to make to the overall fiscal correction; in that context, it's only fantasy politics (or fantasy industrial relations) for people to start asking if it could be done by increasing the tax take instead.

Pappa Charlie · 30-01-2013 03:23AM

noah123 wrote: »

Pappa why do you and others try and deflect the blame on bankers and speculators the figures stand for themselves. We would of been in this position even without the banks 2 thirds are due to an overspend problem. 1 third banks and there is negotiations on to try and get the banking debt sorted. So taking the 1 third which is being negotiated out of the equation who do you want to blame for the other 2 thirds of our problem? I ask this question just to try and broaden the mind of Public Sector workers who think the boogey man in the banks is to blame for all of our ills

Thanks for asking the question after I was banned! Do you really think that without the irresponsible behaviour of the banks that we would be where we are? Please!

Head The Wall · 30-01-2013 08:15AM

Of course, people rush to blame the banks all the time and seem to forget that it was people that bought the properties and they did so because they wanted to. If nobody wanted to purchase this wouldn't have happened in the way it did.

People went mad buying cars, luxury goods, holidays, watches etc and not just houses. As has been explained many times on here, the actual bank debt is a small part of the overall debt and the main part of it is govt overspending and their refusal to deal properly with the deficit.

Head The Wall · 30-01-2013 08:25AM

Paulzx wrote: »

Not entirely correct. It must be within the bounds of the Constitution.

They can't just legislate for whatever they wish for

Well yes, within reason they can do what they want. My point still stands that they can change the contracts when ever they wish and we all know they are not going to rock the boat too much so I don't know why you are bringing up the constitution.

We are talking of getting rid of increments, ending tax free lump sums and jobs for life etc not bloody well burning PS workers at the stake.

Paulzx · 30-01-2013 10:50AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well yes, within reason they can do what they want. My point still stands that they can change the contracts when ever they wish and we all know they are not going to rock the boat too much so I don't know why you are bringing up the constitution.

We are talking of getting rid of increments, ending tax free lump sums and jobs for life etc not bloody well burning PS workers at the stake.

There's no need to get emotional. I made a reasonable and valid point.

You spoke about Legislation so a comment about its constitutionality is entirely valid. If you can't see a link well that's your problem.

deise blue · 30-01-2013 11:35AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well yes, within reason they can do what they want. My point still stands that they can change the contracts when ever they wish and we all know they are not going to rock the boat too much so I don't know why you are bringing up the constitution.

We are talking of getting rid of increments, ending tax free lump sums and jobs for life etc not bloody well burning PS workers at the stake.

Getting rid of increments , ending tax free lump sums & compulsory redundancies - I think you are confusing your wish list with the Governments !

The current Government are aware that if they arbitrarily introduced the above measures then they would plunge the country into an industrial relations nightmare - thankfully it appears apparent that the Government is not that stupid.

woodoo · 30-01-2013 08:58PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

We are talking of getting rid of increments

I will give my car to charity if increments are done away with. Absolutely no chance they will be done away with. They may be deferred. But that will be a false saving in terms of the deficit as they will have to resume paying them eventually.

Anyway it would not be acceptable to 60% of the staff so there would be ongoing work to rule and industrial strife among the largely younger staff. Personally i would want to see industrial action even if there is a deferral as i wouldn't trust the government.

enricoh · 30-01-2013 09:26PM

what a fantastic country - pay increases in the form of increments and the country bankrupt!
my local authority havent reduced business rates 1% since the tiger, business' are pulling the plug over rates every week and they dole out increments to each other.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments