Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Vizzy · 20-02-2013 10:07PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Many PS earn money on the side teachers doing grinds, trained professionals such as engineers and accountants doing work on the side. PS tradesmen doing tommers. How many Guards are landlords or have small enterprises (doing a bit of painting or gardening). How many of these declare this income's in the full knowledge that they will have to give over half of that income to there fellow PS the Taxman. If a poor farmer is selling a site about 50% of purchassers will be PS who may offer part of the payment in cash.

All of these are private sector activities,that is once a Garda or a PS engineer engages in any of this they are not Public Sector employees any more.

My initial point is that a private sector employer can(and I'm not implying that it is widespread) employ 10 people and only have 9 on the books with the other being paid "cash in hand" .

creedp · 20-02-2013 10:23PM

Vizzy wrote: »

All of these are private sector activities,that is once a Garda or a PS engineer engages in any of this they are not Public Sector employees any more.

My initial point is that a private sector employer can(and I'm not implying that it is widespread) employ 10 people and only have 9 on the books with the other being paid "cash in hand" .

Again I want to make it clear that I am referring to a specific case and not generalising this to all employers but its just an example to illustrate to kind of off the books activity that can go on. Talking recently with a family connection who is a farmer and a businessman, pretty wealthy dude with a number of his family in the businesses. He was bemoaning the fact that he wanted to expand some aspect of the business and one of his 'managers' wouldn't take on the extra workload because he was happy with his life as it was with the disability pension and the existing cash in hand he was earning from the job. He also has 2 other lads on the dole working for him and he finds it a nuisance when they have to go off and sign on.

Finally, he said he was delighted to have recently qualified for the non-con pension. He said it had taken a bit on financial gymnastics to get it but it was worth it.

sarumite · 20-02-2013 10:27PM

Vizzy wrote: »

All of these are private sector activities,that is once a Garda or a PS engineer engages in any of this they are not Public Sector employees any more.
.

A person working cash in hand is not in the private sector. If they are not paying taxes, then they are taking jobs away from the private sector.

Farmer Pudsey · 20-02-2013 10:56PM

creedp wrote: »

Again I want to make it clear that I am referring to a specific case and not generalising this to all employers but its just an example to illustrate to kind of off the books activity that can go on. Talking recently with a family connection who is a farmer and a businessman, pretty wealthy dude with a number of his family in the businesses. He was bemoaning the fact that he wanted to expand some aspect of the business and one of his 'managers' wouldn't take on the extra workload because he was happy with his life as it was with the disability pension and the existing cash in hand he was earning from the job. He also has 2 other lads on the dole working for him and he finds it a nuisance when they have to go off and sign on.

Finally, he said he was delighted to have recently qualified for the non-con pension. He said it had taken a bit on financial gymnastics to get it but it was worth it.

If you consider what he is doing is etically wrong you have an etical duty to report him to the authorities and to give evidance against him.

The non-contributary pension is constantly means tested so while he may have qualified this year he has to requalify next year. If he misled or falsfied returns this is a criminal offence. This make him a criminal just the same as a drug dealer or fuel smuggler or are there private sector workers as well.

Finally you have to wonder about the ability of the PS or PS's who deemed that he had qualified. You also have to wonder how with all these highly educated PS's that they have never been able to prevent his illegal operations.

creedp · 20-02-2013 11:05PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If you consider what he is doing is etically wrong you have an etical duty to report him to the authorities and to give evidance against him.

I dont think I would be very popular with the in-laws! So I'll pass on the suggestion. Sorry but Im not made of the same high moral fibre as you.

The non-contributary pension is constantly means tested so while he may have qualified this year he has to requalify next year. If he misled or falsfied returns this is a criminal offence. This make him a criminal just the same as a drug dealer or fuel smuggler or are there private sector workers as well.

Dont worry his accountants are well aware of this and have made the necessary arrangements

Finally you have to wonder about the ability of the PS or PS's who deemed that he had qualified. You also have to wonder how with all these highly educated PS's that they have never been able to prevent his illegal operations.

Obviously its the public servants that are the problem. You mentioned something about being a criminal earlier - bottom line where theres a will theres a way. There are many legal ways to achieve this kind of outcome - ethics are something different. Unfortunately ethics dont bolster the bottom line.

Farmer Pudsey · 20-02-2013 11:19PM

creedp wrote: »

I dont think I would be very popular with the in-laws! So I'll pass on the suggestion. Sorry but Im not made of the same high moral fibre as you.

Dont worry his accountants are well aware of this and have made the necessary arrangements

Obviously its the public servants that are the problem. You mentioned something about being a criminal earlier - bottom line where theres a will theres a way. There are many legal ways to achieve this kind of outcome - ethics are something different. Unfortunately ethics dont bolster the bottom line.

Have you ever even have had the balls to tell him what he was doing was dispicable.

The only way he could have qualified for the non-con pensions is to have transfered his wealth to other family members or else falsified documents. If he has transfered his wealth to other family members he is very trusting. Most other methods would be illegal and few accountants get involved in illegal activity in fact I believe that they have a duty to report it like solicitors.

I find it hard that if he was involved in buisness that he has managed to evade the tax system for most of his life. Most self employed at least use up there tax free allowances and the 20%tax bands. This means that they also make PRSI returns. If he is pension age it is hard to believe that he has not made 20 years of PRSI contributions over his lifetime. The self employed are able to make voluntary contributions in years where there income is too low.

creedp · 21-02-2013 12:21AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Have you ever even have had the balls to tell him what he was doing was dispicable.

The only way he could have qualified for the non-con pensions is to have transfered his wealth to other family members or else falsified documents. If he has transfered his wealth to other family members he is very trusting. Most other methods would be illegal and few accountants get involved in illegal activity in fact I believe that they have a duty to report it like solicitors.

As I said there are many ways to achieve an outcome and as you suggest they don't always have to be illegal. There has been many allegations, obviously unfounded, about the actions of accountants/auditors in the greatest financial meltdown ever to hit this county, so maybe your assertion regarding duty to report certain activities may require further consideration at some stage.

I find it hard that if he was involved in buisness that he has managed to evade the tax system for most of his life. Most self employed at least use up there tax free allowances and the 20%tax bands. This means that they also make PRSI returns. If he is pension age it is hard to believe that he has not made 20 years of PRSI contributions over his lifetime. The self employed are able to make voluntary contributions in years where there income is too low.

I'd argue [and I'm sure you second that argument] its damn hard to make money in business in this country. And anyway sure all his kids qualified for 3rd level grants [I jest not], evidence if needed how low his self-employed income was. Anyway, listen one of these days I'll grow a pair and ask him how he did it and you'll be the 1st to know Pudsey boy!

Rabidlamb · 21-02-2013 10:29AM

Mo

Sources revealed that the Government wants unions to agree a threshold for a wage reduction of between €60,000 and €70,000 a year.

A final figure has not been agreed, but sources said a €65,000 threshold was now being discussed.

Those who are on the incremental scale may be asked to take a 'step back' by going back to the pay level they were on the year before.

Those who do not get increments because they are at the top of their pay scales or are on a single-point pay scale are likely to face a pay cut of between 5pc and 7.5pc. This includes the most senior officials in government departments.

It has also been proposed that lower-paid staff would face an increment freeze.

Figures supplied by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform show that 28,769 of the country's 292,000 public servants earn over €70,000 a year.

However, if those earning between €60,000 to €70,000 are included, it adds another 23,182 public servants to the equation.

ParkRunner · 21-02-2013 11:15AM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Mo

I expect the biggest losers from this whole process will be the trade unions themselves. Details of the potential deal to date have not offered anything positive to public sector workers and the trade union negotiators seem willing to bow to anything the government wants i.e. scrap the current Croke Park deal and impose cuts across the board.

The only optional deduction left on payslips for many is the union subscription and this will be an easy deduction to stop if ICTU signs up to these proposals. Those left within the union will also be contributing less to the union as a result of the paycuts.

It will be interesting to see how the withdrawal of goodwill from the Gardai is received from this evening and if other more militant unions will follow suit?

Larbre34 · 21-02-2013 11:18AM

So, 83% of the PS earn less than €60,000. We have already seen in recent weeks the huge percentage of those on between 30k and 60k who achieve that income through shift and premium pay, on which they have based their family and housing choices, and on which they pay back to the exchequer 30-40% in tax, social and public pension deductions

The split being mentioned between the frontline worker groups and the '9 to 5' unions just isn't there. The 'admin' unions are fully behind the frontline groups because the precedent must not be allowed to be set in savaging their incomes. They remain in the talks because it is preferable to be informed rather than be ignorant of events that affect them, however even as they sit there they know they have no hope of selling any of the matters under discussion to their membership. That membership was made a mug and a scapegoat of too many times already, and the line has been drawn in the sand.

I don't think a Croke Park II will be achieved. I also don't think the Government will legislate unilaterally, as the general strike which will follow such an attempt would split the Government parties, freak the backbenchers, and cause the current administration to fall, so they wont be doing anything further. Hence, the message will go out to the EU to get the boot off the throat and start some fresh thinking about reform and recovery.

Scofflaw · 21-02-2013 11:19AM

frankosw wrote: »

No..everybody pays PRSI whether you're on a contract or not.

Unlike the private sector of course where there's no way of checking who is paying thier contributions and alot of them dont bother.

I think we could probably do with a break from this kind of flame bait, frankly. Two weeks seems like a decent sort of initial break.

moderately,
Scofflaw

21-02-2013 11:41AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

So, 83% of the PS earn less than €60,000. We have already seen in recent weeks the huge percentage of those on between 30k and 60k who achieve that income through shift and premium pay, on which they have based their family and housing choices, and on which they pay back to the exchequer 30-40% in tax, social and public pension deductions

The split being mentioned between the frontline worker groups and the '9 to 5' unions just isn't there. The 'admin' unions are fully behind the frontline groups because the precedent must not be allowed to be set in savaging their incomes. They remain in the talks because it is preferable to be informed rather than be ignorant of events that affect them, however even as they sit there they know they have no hope of selling any of the matters under discussion to their membership. That membership was made a mug and a scapegoat of too many times already, and the line has been drawn in the sand.

I don't think a Croke Park II will be achieved. I also don't think the Government will legislate unilaterally, as the general strike which will follow such an attempt would split the Government parties, freak the backbenchers, and cause the current administration to fall, so they wont be doing anything further. Hence, the message will go out to the EU to get the boot off the throat and start some fresh thinking about reform and recovery.

But once we exit the IMF bailout we will be at the mercy of the markets, a high paid PS contributing to a budget deficit doesn't inspire confidence in our ability to pay our debts.

Larbre34 · 21-02-2013 12:19PM

jh79 wrote: »

But once we exit the IMF bailout we will be at the mercy of the markets, a high paid PS contributing to a budget deficit doesn't inspire confidence in our ability to pay our debts.

Conversely, the level of savings achieved to date, the quantum of which most other western countries could only dream of managing over such a short period without serious unrest, is already impressing the markets and investors with clout.

The rating agencies have made themselves irrelevant such is the lack of credibility they have concerning market events before and since the downturn.

21-02-2013 12:27PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Conversely, the level of savings achieved to date, the quantum of which most other western countries could only dream of managing over such a short period without serious unrest, is already impressing the markets and investors with clout.

The rating agencies have made themselves irrelevant such is the lack of credibility they have concerning market events before and since the downturn.

The credibility of the ratings agencies is immaterial, the bond markets dictate the interest rates to us not the other way round!

Also while we have made savings, we still do have a massive deficit. With uncertainty in the US and a stagnant Europe, cuts to the PS , welfare and increased taxes until the deficit is at a manageable level is inevitable.

creedp · 21-02-2013 12:29PM

jh79 wrote: »

But once we exit the IMF bailout we will be at the mercy of the markets, a high paid PS contributing to a budget deficit doesn't inspire confidence in our ability to pay our debts.

I know a lot of people don't/won't accept this view but in reallity even if another pay cut doesn't materialise (which I think is very unlikely - some form of pay cut will have to happen for the Govt to save face - its all about the media image here) it will be a long time before public servants get a pay rise so the relative value of their wages will fall over time by maintaining the pay freeze provide for in CP1. Maybe CP2 could ensure that the current pay freeze stays in place for 4 more years.

As has been pointed out here already pay increases are becoming more common/the norm in the private sector as the recession bottoms out. Maintaining a public sector pay freeze will continue to erode the [perceived] premium over the average [whatever that means] private sector wage and therefore result in real cuts in PS wages over time. This approach would have a much lessor shock factor for all sides meaning that industrial peace could be maintained while continuing to realise more savings from efficiency reforms which must continue to happen. At the end of the day if we come out of this with a substantially more efficient PS combined with a reduced PS pay bill I think it would be a positive outcome.

tayto lover · 21-02-2013 12:56PM

I heard a member of the Garda Body saying yesterday that when they were in the talks they were not allowed into the room where the talks were taking place but were put into a side room.

What the Hell is that about? It makes no sense to me at all. Either you're in the talks or you are not. No wonder they're angry.

Could someone please explain.

Paulzx · 21-02-2013 01:10PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard a member of the Garda Body saying yesterday that when they were in the talks they were not allowed into the room where the talks were taking place but were put into a side room.

What the Hell is that about? It makes no sense to me at all. Either you're in the talks or you are not. No wonder they're angry.

Could someone please explain.

The main negotiaiton does not involve everyone initially. A high level delegation meets with the senior members of the government side. If and when a basis for sectoral negotiations occurs the meetings break into "side rooms" to discuss specific details in each area. It would be too unwieldy and cumbersome to have dozens of people in the same room.

The overall direction of the negotiations is set by the higher level delegation

21-02-2013 01:14PM

Paulzx wrote: »

The main negotiaiton does not involve everyone initially. A high level delegation meets with the senior members of the government side. If and when a basis for sectoral negotiations occurs the meetings break into "side rooms" to discuss specific details in each area. It would be too unwieldy and cumbersome to have dozens of people in the same room.

The overall direction of the negotiations is set by the higher level delegation

I thought the Gardaí unions do not have the same industrial relation rights as the others as they have to serve the government no matter the circumstances and therefore can not be in a position to dictate / influence policy etc.

tayto lover · 21-02-2013 01:18PM

Paulzx wrote: »

The main negotiaiton does not involve everyone initially. A high level delegation meets with the senior members of the government side. If and when a basis for sectoral negotiations occurs the meetings break into "side rooms" to discuss specific details in each area. It would be too unwieldy and cumbersome to have dozens of people in the same room.

The overall direction of the negotiations is set by the higher level delegation

Just heard them on the news saying that they are not allowed to negotiate on behalf of their members. What's the point of being there then? And why is Enda Kenny asking them to go back in? A lot of false information being given out by someone.

Madness.

21-02-2013 01:21PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Just heard them on the news saying that they are not allowed to negotiate on behalf of their members. What's the point of being there then? And why is Enda Kenny asking them to go back in? A lot of false information being given out by someone.

Madness.

Officially they are not allowed in, the side room is a compromise to keep them involved. The Gardaí cannot be seen to be influencing government policy I assume, otherwise we would have a police state, I know it seems dramatic but I'm assuming that is the logic behind it.

Riskymove · 21-02-2013 01:33PM

jh79 wrote: »

Officially they are not allowed in, the side room is a compromise to keep them involved. The Gardaí cannot be seen to be influencing government policy I assume, otherwise we would have a police state, I know it seems dramatic but I'm assuming that is the logic behind it.

yes, basically police and army do not have a Union in the strictest sense but associations!

Godge · 21-02-2013 01:57PM

creedp wrote: »

I know a lot of people don't/won't accept this view but in reallity even if another pay cut doesn't materialise (which I think is very unlikely - some form of pay cut will have to happen for the Govt to save face - its all about the media image here) it will be a long time before public servants get a pay rise so the relative value of their wages will fall over time by maintaining the pay freeze provide for in CP1. Maybe CP2 could ensure that the current pay freeze stays in place for 4 more years.

As has been pointed out here already pay increases are becoming more common/the norm in the private sector as the recession bottoms out. Maintaining a public sector pay freeze will continue to erode the [perceived] premium over the average [whatever that means] private sector wage and therefore result in real cuts in PS wages over time. This approach would have a much lessor shock factor for all sides meaning that industrial peace could be maintained while continuing to realise more savings from efficiency reforms which must continue to happen. At the end of the day if we come out of this with a substantially more efficient PS combined with a reduced PS pay bill I think it would be a positive outcome.

Unfortunately, as sensible as that outcome might sound, it is unlikely to happen because Howlin made a mistake by saying he wanted €1bn.

Once he said that, the only way the unions can claim any concession for their members is by having that figure reduced.

Amazing how such an experienced politician can leave himself stuck between having an agreement and losing face on the one hand or getting his €1 billion through imposed measures and some level of industrial strife on the other. And he is a Labour Party politician!!!

21-02-2013 02:00PM

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, as sensible as that outcome might sound, it is unlikely to happen because Howlin made a mistake by saying he wanted €1bn.

Once he said that, the only way the unions can claim any concession for their members is by having that figure reduced.

Amazing how such an experienced politician can leave himself stuck between having an agreement and losing face on the one hand or getting his €1 billion through imposed measures and some level of industrial strife on the other. And he is a Labour Party politician!!!

Would this figure not have been approved by the troika and ultimately leaked by the German government when the reports to the IMF/ECB are submitted to the German parliament like previous proposed budget adjustments?

Larbre34 · 21-02-2013 02:08PM

jh79 wrote: »

Would this figure not have been approved by the troika and ultimately leaked by the German government when the reports to the IMF/ECB are submitted to the German parliament like previous proposed budget adjustments?

Probably, but the Government would have been better off to let that happen, and deflect the blame saying their hands were tied. The way it did happen makes it sound like the Government's own minimum target.

sarumite · 21-02-2013 02:18PM

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, as sensible as that outcome might sound, it is unlikely to happen because Howlin made a mistake by saying he wanted €1bn.

Once he said that, the only way the unions can claim any concession for their members is by having that figure reduced.

Amazing how such an experienced politician can leave himself stuck between having an agreement and losing face on the one hand or getting his €1 billion through imposed measures and some level of industrial strife on the other. And he is a Labour Party politician!!!

I don't really see his alternative. If he said he wanted to extend the CPA without giving any indication of the target, the talks would immediately have begun with "how much?" anyway. By setting out a figure from offset, it provides a focus. My own feeling is that he doesn't really expect 1bn in cuts, however by setting his figure above that he gives the unions leeway so that when it is eventually reduced the unions can claim they got something. I think he was quite shrewd myself.

creedp · 21-02-2013 02:35PM

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, as sensible as that outcome might sound, it is unlikely to happen because Howlin made a mistake by saying he wanted €1bn.

Once he said that, the only way the unions can claim any concession for their members is by having that figure reduced.

Amazing how such an experienced politician can leave himself stuck between having an agreement and losing face on the one hand or getting his €1 billion through imposed measures and some level of industrial strife on the other. And he is a Labour Party politician!!!

That's the second mistake he has recently made in relation to public pay .. remember his announcement on savings to be made from cutting allowances! Certainly shrewd couldn't be applied to that one or else I'm losing it!!

sean200 · 21-02-2013 02:42PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I heard a member of the Garda Body saying yesterday that when they were in the talks they were not allowed into the room where the talks were taking place but were put into a side room.

What the Hell is that about? It makes no sense to me at all. Either you're in the talks or you are not. No wonder they're angry.

Could someone please explain.

The GRA are not a member and are not allowed to be a member of the ICTU and they don't have a vote on a deal

sean200 · 21-02-2013 02:45PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Just heard them on the news saying that they are not allowed to negotiate on behalf of their members. What's the point of being there then? And why is Enda Kenny asking them to go back in? A lot of false information being given out by someone.

Madness.

Do you not know that Enda Kenny know nothing about anything

creedp · 21-02-2013 02:45PM

sean200 wrote: »

Do you not know that Enda Kenny know nothing about anything

He does know how to do emotion.

tayto lover · 21-02-2013 04:53PM

sean200 wrote: »

The GRA are not a member and are not allowed to be a member of the ICTU and they don't have a vote on a deal

If that's true then they were dead right to leave.
Imagine being asked to take part but then having no say or no vote. So the Garda have no rights now.
Bloody cheek of Enda Kenny.
The Garda are dead right to leave and should go on strike for better conditions.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments