Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Godge · 18-02-2013 05:59PM

Some of you may recall that earlier in this thread I suggested that the government would have difficulty in getting agreement on pay cuts given the recent spate of pay increases in the private sector. I provided information on Boots, Tesco, Dunnes Stores and M&S.

It was pointed out at the time that these increases were mainly in the retail area.

Just spotted that it has been reported that Proctor and Gamble Nenagh (multinational manufacturer) are also implementing pay increases.

1.75% from 1/1/13, the same again from 1/1/14 and 1/1/15 with a lump sum as well.

Just goes to show that it is not only the retail sector where wages and salaries are increasing in the private sector.

Rightwing · 18-02-2013 06:03PM

For this Government to retain any credibility they need to smash the PS pensions and pay offs at the top end. The regulators, former ministers etc.

Head The Wall · 18-02-2013 06:05PM

Godge wrote: »

Well seeing as he is the ex HR head, I assume his figure is now only 999?:D:D:D

So you're not going to address the issue of where these
superflous 1000 staff have been redeployed to. I definitely don't believe they have all been redeployed, do you?

If they haven't then that is another sign of the failure that is the CPA.

Godge · 18-02-2013 06:06PM

Rightwing wrote: »

For this Government to retain any credibility they need to smash the PS pensions and pay offs at the top end. The regulators, former ministers etc.

Is this before or after they cut €1bn easily from the councils (money the councils don't have) and abolish flexitime to make efficiencies (that will mean increased overtime and increased costs)?

How much are you aiming to save by this latest measure? €2bn?

Godge · 18-02-2013 06:10PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

So you're not going to address the issue of where these
superflous 1000 staff have been redeployed to. I definitely don't believe they have all been redeployed, do you?

If they haven't then that is another sign of the failure that is the CPA.

You came up with this figure of 1000 staff with zero evidence to back it up (was it the ex-HR manager from 1995?) and you now expect me to prove that these possibly non-existent surplus 1000 staff have been efficiently redeployed:D.

I have pretty good knowledge of the public sector that allows me to research credible information quickly but how can I prove that the 1000 staff ever existed let alone whether they were redeployed.

Rightwing · 18-02-2013 06:17PM

Godge wrote: »

Is this before or after they cut €1bn easily from the councils (money the councils don't have) and abolish flexitime to make efficiencies (that will mean increased overtime and increased costs)?

How much are you aiming to save by this latest measure? €2bn?

I would take all the €3.1 bln from spending, welfare/PS/quangos. That's where the waste is.

Godge · 18-02-2013 06:24PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I would take all the €3.1 bln from spending, welfare/PS/quangos. That's where the waste is.

Again, what waste? If there is €3.1 bn of it just lying around, you should be able to give us a few concrete examples, say about €1bn worth, from say one sector such as councils?

itzme · 18-02-2013 06:28PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I would take all the €3.1 bln from spending, welfare/PS/quangos. That's where the waste is.

I thought the waste was the PS pensions and pay offs

Rightwing wrote: »

For this Government to retain any credibility they need to smash the PS pensions and pay offs at the top end. The regulators, former ministers etc.

and wasn't it the councils being overstaffed before that

Rightwing wrote: »

My belief is the councils are completely over staffed.

And the milking of the system from your nearly unbelievable lack of understanding of what flexi time is....

Rightwing wrote: »

But 1 day a month, every month, every year? Seems like they don't know what they're doing to me,,,,well they do. They are milking the system.

You seem to have a lot of belief's, and when asked for details to back up one of them you then move onto your next belief. Posters have been giving you the benefit of the doubt but you are rapidly losing all credibility as a serious poster. Unless you start backing up some of what you are saying you'll soon just be another tragic jester on this forum

Scofflaw · 18-02-2013 06:40PM

Rightwing, please either back up your assertions, or stop making them. You're at the stage of derailing the thread by constantly posting vague generalisations, and that's not acceptable.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Silentcorner · 18-02-2013 06:43PM

Godge wrote: »

Some of you may recall that earlier in this thread I suggested that the government would have difficulty in getting agreement on pay cuts given the recent spate of pay increases in the private sector. I provided information on Boots, Tesco, Dunnes Stores and M&S.

It was pointed out at the time that these increases were mainly in the retail area.

Just spotted that it has been reported that Proctor and Gamble Nenagh (multinational manufacturer) are also implementing pay increases.

1.75% from 1/1/13, the same again from 1/1/14 and 1/1/15 with a lump sum as well.

Just goes to show that it is not only the retail sector where wages and salaries are increasing in the private sector.

And how many of those companies are in administration?

What increases can the staff at Pamela Scott or B&Q or HMV expect...

How about all the people who have been laid off?

When it comes to Private Sector wages, it is the responsibility of management to deliver results to the board/shareholders, it is not the business of anyone else (either Public sector or Private Sector)

No body in the private sector is protected by CPA1 or will be by CPA2, I am confused as to why you would derail the thread...

itzme · 18-02-2013 06:56PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

And how many of those companies are in administration?

What increases can the staff at Pamela Scott or B&Q or HMV expect...

How about all the people who have been laid off?

How many companies that go into administration see a rapid increase in the demand for their services?
The company analogy is completely useless in this case. HMV and the like have seen a decrease in demand which leads to decrease in revenue which in turn leads to the company going into administration.
The government has seen a decrease in revenue and a continuous increase in the demand for much of the services particularly education, health and social welfare during the same time. If it were a company it and these services were paid for on demand it we'd be laughing to all the way to the bank.

Silentcorner wrote: »

When it comes to Private Sector wages, it is the responsibility of management to deliver results to the board/shareholders, it is not the business of anyone else (either Public sector or Private Sector)

I would say that regulators and ombudsmen and people who have seen the wages of senior execs in industries like banks would disagree with you strongly there. Companies do not operate in isolation to a country, its laws, policies and culture.

Silentcorner wrote: »

No body in the private sector is protected by CPA1 or will be by CPA2, I am confused as to why you would derail the thread...

First part completely true although I fail to see how it leads to the second part. Godge has consistently pointed out that the desire of the unions to accept wage cuts and/or freezing of increments will be affected by the scene in the private sector, which is patently true. Therefore if large sections of the private sector announce that they will be offering pay rises this year and in the immediate future, it has a significant impact on the negotiating power of the government to cut base wages and/or freeze/remove increments. I truly can't see how that is an attempt to derail the thread, especially since it has been a point raised early on in this thread.

Godge · 18-02-2013 06:57PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

And how many of those companies are in administration?

What increases can the staff at Pamela Scott or B&Q or HMV expect...

How about all the people who have been laid off?

When it comes to Private Sector wages, it is the responsibility of management to deliver results to the board/shareholders, it is not the business of anyone else (either Public sector or Private Sector)

No body in the private sector is protected by CPA1 or will be by CPA2, I am confused as to why you would derail the thread...

This thread is about the Croke Park II talks.

One of the elements in those talks is that it requires the agreement of both sides to reach an agreement.

Factors that affect the ability of the union side to reach an agreement are relevant to the thread.

The fact of pay rises in the private sector will be known to union members. That will affect decisions they make in deciding how to vote on any deal. That will affect whether there is a deal. Pointing out influences on how the unions vote is relevant.

My post is therefore relevant to the thread. If you believe I am derailing the thread, report my post.

As for the three examples you mention, one issue is common to all (high rents) but there are other individual factors facing each of those retailers.

HMV - wiped out by the internet revolution, buying and streaming online, as a result it can't cope with high rents because of low sales.
B&Q - affected by the construction industry collapse (as was Atlantic Homecare before it) and can't cope with high rents because of a 30% collapse in sales
Pamela Scott - undone by changing tastes and an inability to move with changing fashion, it also can't cope with high rents because of low sales.

Many other retailers sail on, if it wasn't for high rents, even those three would have survivied. Cutting public service pay would do nothing for them although increasing public service pay might have meant their survival with the extra disposable income of those who are working possibly getting spent in their shops.

Vizzy · 18-02-2013 07:02PM

kceire wrote: »

When he leaves the education system and enters the workforce he will understand

It just shows the quality of our education system that a primary school student can converse on the internet,although I would have thought that his/her parents should be getting him/her ready for bed now .:D

Silentcorner · 18-02-2013 07:09PM

The company analogy is completely useless in this case

Thank you that was my point.

The government has seen a decrease in revenue

Completely agree, that is the bind we find ourselves in, how do we close that gap between what we spend and what we collect

I would say that regulators and ombudsmen and people who have seen the wages of senior execs in industries like banks would disagree with you strongly there. Companies do not operate in isolation to a country, its laws, policies and culture.

I have no idea why you would mention the above..

First part completely true although I fail to see how it leads to the second part. Godge has consistently pointed out that the desire of the unions to accept wage cuts and/or freezing of increments will be affected by the scene in the private sector, which is patently true. Therefore if large sections of the private sector announce that they will be offering pay rises this year and in the immediate future, it has a significant impact on the negotiating power of the government to cut base wages and/or freeze/remove increments. I truly can't see how that is an attempt to derail the thread, especially since it has been a point raised early on in this thread.[/QUOTE]

The scene in the private sector has been one of carnage, but some only wish to focus on the booming section of the private sector conveniently ignoring all else....if large sections of the private sector announce lay off's and pay cuts how does that impact the negotiating power?

If you wish to be compared with the private sector then excellent, that is what most people have being arguing for...

Silentcorner · 18-02-2013 07:15PM

Godge wrote: »

This thread is about the Croke Park II talks.

We agree then

One of the elements in those talks is that it requires the agreement of both sides to reach an agreement.

Absolutely

Factors that affect the ability of the union side to reach an agreement are relevant to the thread.

I'll give you that...

The fact of pay rises in the private sector will be known to union members. That will affect decisions they make in deciding how to vote on any deal. That will affect whether there is a deal. Pointing out influences on how the unions vote is relevant.

What about pay decreases and lay off's, and the diminished T&Cs that many in the private sector have had to suffer?

My post is therefore relevant to the thread. If you believe I am derailing the thread, report my post.

I have no intention of reporting your post, I simply disagree with your use of selective private sector examples in a thread about PS T&Cs

As for the three examples you mention, one issue is common to all (high rents) but there are other individual factors facing each of those retailers.

HMV - wiped out by the internet revolution, buying and streaming online, as a result it can't cope with high rents because of low sales.
B&Q - affected by the construction industry collapse (as was Atlantic Homecare before it) and can't cope with high rents because of a 30% collapse in sales
Pamela Scott - undone by changing tastes and an inability to move with changing fashion, it also can't cope with high rents because of low sales.

Again, changed circumstances have cost people their jobs, living standards etc...peole have to adjust to a new reality

Many other retailers sail on, if it wasn't for high rents, even those three would have survivied. Cutting public service pay would do nothing for them although increasing public service pay might have meant their survival with the extra disposable income of those who are working possibly getting spent in their shops.

Where did I say it would?

Idbatterim · 18-02-2013 07:19PM

The fact of pay rises in the private sector will be known to union members. That will affect decisions they make in deciding how to vote on any deal. That will affect whether there is a deal. Pointing out influences on how the unions vote is relevant.

so they have an interest in these? what about companies where pay is still being cut, frozen or people still be laid off, do they have an interest in these?

woodoo · 18-02-2013 08:01PM

Godge wrote: »

Some of you may recall that earlier in this thread I suggested that the government would have difficulty in getting agreement on pay cuts given the recent spate of pay increases in the private sector. I provided information on Boots, Tesco, Dunnes Stores and M&S.

It was pointed out at the time that these increases were mainly in the retail area.

Just spotted that it has been reported that Proctor and Gamble Nenagh (multinational manufacturer) are also implementing pay increases.

1.75% from 1/1/13, the same again from 1/1/14 and 1/1/15 with a lump sum as well.

Just goes to show that it is not only the retail sector where wages and salaries are increasing in the private sector.

Best of luck to them i don't begrudge them anything.

Rightwing · 18-02-2013 08:19PM

woodoo wrote: »

Best of luck to them i don't begrudge them anything.

I don't begrudge anyone in retail rises either. Also, I think it's important for the country that we get CP 2 sorted sooner rather than later, regardless of what side we are on.

not yet · 18-02-2013 08:56PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't begrudge anyone in retail rises either. Also, I think it's important for the country that we get CP 2 sorted sooner rather than later, regardless of what side we are on.

Oh so we are on sides now...........ok then I pick the tall strong fella for my team.

Rightwing · 18-02-2013 09:04PM

not yet wrote: »

Oh so we are on sides now...........ok then I pick the tall strong fella for my team.

Farmer Pudsey · 18-02-2013 09:47PM

Godge wrote: »

This thread is about the Croke Park II talks.

One of the elements in those talks is that it requires the agreement of both sides to reach an agreement.

Factors that affect the ability of the union side to reach an agreement are relevant to the thread.

The fact of pay rises in the private sector will be known to union members. That will affect decisions they make in deciding how to vote on any deal. That will affect whether there is a deal. Pointing out influences on how the unions vote is relevant.

My post is therefore relevant to the thread. If you believe I am derailing the thread, report my post.

As for the three examples you mention, one issue is common to all (high rents) but there are other individual factors facing each of those retailers.

HMV - wiped out by the internet revolution, buying and streaming online, as a result it can't cope with high rents because of low sales.
B&Q - affected by the construction industry collapse (as was Atlantic Homecare before it) and can't cope with high rents because of a 30% collapse in sales
Pamela Scott - undone by changing tastes and an inability to move with changing fashion, it also can't cope with high rents because of low sales.

Many other retailers sail on, if it wasn't for high rents, even those three would have survivied. Cutting public service pay would do nothing for them although increasing public service pay might have meant their survival with the extra disposable income of those who are working possibly getting spent in their shops.

This again is a misconception we always get this about PS pay and about Welfare. If we do not cut these then everything will be rosy. In reality we have choices to make we need to get below the 3% defecit and to reduce down to around 1%.

If PS pay/pensions are protected then the cuts have to comes elsewhere. Either in the form of higher taxation or cuts in non pay services. Over the last few years the government have cut the capital investment budget to the bone it has cut non pay HSE costs, Education etc,etc.

This idea that PS are the only people that spend money in the economy is stupid and that cutting there pay will have a bigger effect than cuts elsewhere. In reality PS pay is nearly 50% more on average than private sector. Lower paid workers spend a higher percentage of there in the Irish Economy as do welfare recipents. Now I am not arguing not to reduce welfare as there is another thread on welfare.

The reality is that as a country we have to reduce costs, Godge you made the point that PS numbers have reduced by 10% over the last few years however from 2000-2008 PS numbers increased by 20% so all we are doing is trying to get back to a realistic level. The same can be said about PS pay we need to get it back to a realistic level versus what is paid in the private sector and what are comparable rates accross Europe

Reducing PS costs (and this is not just pay) should idealy lead to a cuts in costs to private sector companies and that would be a benifit to them and to the economy.

Rightwing · 18-02-2013 09:56PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This again is a misconception we always get this about PS pay and about Welfare. If we do not cut these then everything will be rosy. In reality we have choices to make we need to get below the 3% defecit and to reduce down to around 1%.

If PS pay/pensions are protected then the cuts have to comes elsewhere. Either in the form of higher taxation or cuts in non pay services. Over the last few years the government have cut the capital investment budget to the bone it has cut non pay HSE costs, Education etc,etc.

This idea that PS are the only people that spend money in the economy is stupid and that cutting there pay will have a bigger effect than cuts elsewhere. In reality PS pay is nearly 50% more on average than private sector. Lower paid workers spend a higher percentage of there in the Irish Economy as do welfare recipents. Now I am not arguing not to reduce welfare as there is another thread on welfare.

The reality is that as a country we have to reduce costs, Godge you made the point that PS numbers have reduced by 10% over the last few years however from 2000-2008 PS numbers increased by 20% so all we are doing is trying to get back to a realistic level. The same can be said about PS pay we need to get it back to a realistic level versus what is paid in the private sector and what are comparable rates accross Europe

Reducing PS costs (and this is not just pay) should idealy lead to a cuts in costs to private sector companies and that would be a benifit to them and to the economy.

There's no doubt that cuts to PS wage bill etc does affect the overall economy, but as you say does other cuts or higher taxes. It's a catch 22 the government finds itself in. All we know is, cuts have to be made somewhere, that's the sad reality of it.

sean200 · 18-02-2013 10:05PM

Rightwing wrote: »

There's no doubt that cuts to PS wage bill etc does affect the overall economy, but as you say does other cuts or higher taxes. It's a catch 22 the government finds itself in. All we know is, cuts have to be made somewhere, that's the sad reality of it.

what affected the economy is the 64 billion bailout of the private sector banks ran by private sector idiots
labour are about to be wiped out but the sad thing is they will have wiped out the irish recovery first

wexfordman · 18-02-2013 10:09PM

Godge wrote: »

Rubbish, where do I say leaving it the whims of the employees. There is natural wastage and voluntary redundancy exits. There is redeployment by management of surplus staff determined as surplus by management to fill necessary gaps deemed as necessary by management. It appears to have worked to date according to all reports of the Croke Park Implementation Body.

How do you know it won't work well in the future?

None of that will result in the best most effective outcome from the persepctive of service delivery or cost savings/effecencies.

Its simply not possible to turn around and say "hands up anyone that would like to leave with a lump sum" and expect to get the result you need to properly reform your organisation.

Dont really care if you agree with me or not, we could debate on it for ages and not agree, but the problem is the way things are being done at the moment, via early retirement and voluntary redundancies, the inact is the service is beign run in the interests of the employees first, and that is the mistake. It must be done in the interest of service delivery first, employees unfortunately take second place, same as with any org.

wexfordman · 18-02-2013 10:14PM

Godge wrote: »

Some of you may recall that earlier in this thread I suggested that the government would have difficulty in getting agreement on pay cuts given the recent spate of pay increases in the private sector. I provided information on Boots, Tesco, Dunnes Stores and M&S.

It was pointed out at the time that these increases were mainly in the retail area.

Just spotted that it has been reported that Proctor and Gamble Nenagh (multinational manufacturer) are also implementing pay increases.

1.75% from 1/1/13, the same again from 1/1/14 and 1/1/15 with a lump sum as well.

Just goes to show that it is not only the retail sector where wages and salaries are increasing in the private sector.

A few threads up you say that cutting ublic sector pay has a detrimental effect on local economy

Godge wrote: »

. Cutting public service pay would do nothing for them although increasing public service pay might have meant their survival with the extra disposable income of those who are working possibly getting spent in their shops.

,

as ps will spend less, yet above you are complaining about increases in private sector profitable companies.

Spot the difference godge!

creedp · 18-02-2013 10:28PM

wexfordman wrote: »

A few threads up you say that cutting ublic sector pay has a detrimental effect on local economy

,

as ps will spend less, yet above you are complaining about increases in private sector profitable companies.

Spot the difference godge!

I didnt think he was complaining about pay increases in the private sector .. I don't believe anybody has complained about pay increases in the private sector. Why would they? The point I think Godge is making is that its more difficult to enforce further pay reductions in the public side when pay increases are again becoming more common in the private sector.

road_high · 18-02-2013 10:35PM

creedp wrote: »

I didnt think he was complaining about pay increases in the private sector .. I don't believe anybody has complained about pay increases in the private sector. Why would they? The point I think Godge is making is that its more difficult to enforce further pay reductions in the public side when pay increases are again becoming more common in the private sector.

That's all very well but the deficit is the absolute bottomline here and must be reduced. All the easy stuff is long gone. That's the difference here, PS pay is being paid partly on a huge overdraft (no getting away from it), whereas any modest private sector increases are the result of profitability and efficiency.

Rightwing · 18-02-2013 10:36PM

sean200 wrote: »

what affected the economy is the 64 billion bailout of the private sector banks ran by private sector idiots
labour are about to be wiped out but the sad thing is they will have wiped out the irish recovery first

No, firstly we had highly paid PS regulator, who clearly failed in his job. Politicians/regulators/bankers all need to take a lot of the blame.

Secondly, we aren't even dealing with bank debt yet, it's all about reducing the deficit. That's what happens when you put 25% of your eggs into the housing basket.

road_high · 18-02-2013 10:38PM

RTE covering it now on Primetime.

wexfordman · 18-02-2013 10:42PM

creedp wrote: »

I didnt think he was complaining about pay increases in the private sector .. I don't believe anybody has complained about pay increases in the private sector. Why would they? The point I think Godge is making is that its more difficult to enforce further pay reductions in the public side when pay increases are again becoming more common in the private sector.

No, it would not be difficult to justify! The PS seem to be very selective about which but they like to use in the private sector to back up their cause. If they want to use private sector pay increases as a justification for not cutting pay, then, let the apply some more common private sector practices among employers who are bankrupt.

Compulsary redundancies that are targeted at service delivery and cost savings, not employee choice. 400,000 unemployed, and the vast majority came from private sector empoyment, with s very significant number of them sent to the dole queue via compulsary redundancy.

Cant have your cake and eat it.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments