Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's amazing that peoples understanding of this is so far off the mark. All the govt has to do is change the terms of the employees contract, it really is that simple and it has happened twice already.

Oh sure it's simple to do it, but they then have to deal with the industrial relations consequences of it. The previous changes were negotiated in order to avoid industrial action, just like they're trying to do now. If you look back through my posting history you'll see I favour (or more accurately I acknowledge the need for) further paycuts, even if they affect me, as the sums don't really add up any other way.

So I'm not sure what I'm failing to understand - I'm simply pointing out what I'd have thought was a quite simple concept viz the definition of a pay freeze/rise/cut.

infacteh wrote: »

I'm surprised increments weren't frozen 4 years ago for CP1.

All the lower grades have now banked 4 years worth of increments, so I'd be surprised if the unions could justifiably object to a freezing of increment scales.

And that would, in turn, present reasonable payrool savings.

Minister Howlin stated in October 2012 that legal advise had been sought at the start which confirmed that increments constituted part of core pay & could only be changed by agreement or by legislation - such legislation would be challengable - presumably this continues to be the case ?

SB2013 wrote: »

Yet for some reason it's impossible to change the pensions that are being paid at ridiculous rates.

It's mot impossible, the govt just say they can't do it. It's strange how the pensions could be changed on the way up but not on the way down.

They are just thinking of their own retirement

A number of posters seem unaware that pensions were indeed cut in December 2010's budget.

A little research goes a long way !

woodoo wrote: »

They shouldn't have to go over and above.. that is not what is in the contract. You still can't seem to realise that the staff signed up to the job based on the total value of the incremental scale. Increments aren't some generous add on. They are part and parcel of the whole package. Provided staff perform as requested in their job they are entitled to their increments.

The entry level pay would not have attracted the staff sufficiently to take up the job. They took the job based on the value of the whole incremental scale. Get away from this notion that they should be grateful to reach the top of the scale. Based on their contract they are entitled to reach the top of the scale provided they do their job properly.

You some to have some problem understanding how pay rises and performance work. Theoretically a below average employee could effectively stay at the same wage level all their life. Just because there's an incremental pay scale that does not mean you just get it automatically (because it's in your contract). Well sorry to break it to you but the govt has copped on a bit to the fact that they can make people work for their increments. So you shoul definitely have to go over and above and excel in your job to receive one.

This is a concept which seems alien to so many PS on here and they are very defensive about it, it makes you wonder what they have to be afraid of. If you're a good worker you will get the rewards, people afraid of not getting them have every right to be afraid as the day of automatic pay rises should be gone.

I understand how an incremental pay scale works, If you perform you get incremnents, unfortunately this has not happened in the PS and there's loads of people that are confused and just expect to keep getting pay rises for doing their job.

Rightwing wrote: »

Pensions were indeed cut. However, what people mean is, the pensions of the former ministers, regulators. There the pensions I want to see cut.

The pension cuts introduced in December 2010's budget applied to former ministers & regulators .

As I said a little research goes a long way !

Medu wrote: »

What do you want me to do? Go through all 10k Gardai one by one? By and large it's not a very high skilled job but pays as well as many highly skilled jobs, that's just a fact.
The idea that they should be protected is just nonsense. It's a job. If there employer can't afford to pay then changes have to be made. There are many other jobs that are just as dangerous and some far more dangerous(fishing, logging, farming, construction) and none of them have anywhere near the security of income that a Gardai has and some earn far less.

Just as a matter of interest what jobs do you consider "highly skilled" and what do you consider appropriate pay for gardai,

Rightwing wrote: »

Ask genuine questions. Not silly ones.

With all due respect "silly" is much more applicable to your original post.

You constantly refuse to explain or expand on ridiculous statements yet expect people to take you seriously.

It's actually laughable.

Rightwing wrote: »

Yes, but people want to see and rightly so in my opinion, the pensions of former ministers and regulators slashed.

I have no problem with the pensions teachers/nurses etc receive.

That's fine but the posters to whom I referred stated unequivocally that pensions had not been cut when of course as we both know that is incorrect , it should be noted that in your post above you suggested that ministerial pensions had not been cut when in fact they have been cut substantially.

I also am strongly of the opinion that the posters to whom I refer we're suggesting cuts to all Public Sector pensions.

Rightwing wrote: »

Pensions were indeed cut. However, what people mean is, the pensions of the former ministers, regulators. There the pensions I want to see cut.

Surely this post suggests that the pensions of former ministers & the regulator have not been cut or am I missing something ?

Anyway we can agree that mainstream PS pensions should remain untouched !