Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

kippy · 25-02-2013 11:45AM

Rightwing wrote: »

Yes, there's no doubt about that. It's essentially the opposite of the 'multiplier effect', and austerity has worsened the recessions in Europe. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. Things have to get worse, before they get better.

I don't see anything too harsh in this:

Union sources revealed the arrangements include a freeze in salary increments for those earning over 65,000 euro, a cut in overtime for Sunday shifts from double time to time and three quarters, and graduated pay cuts between 5-10% for people earning over 65,000 euro.

That is one part of the document. I doubt its the only one.

antoobrien · 25-02-2013 11:49AM

Indo reporting a deal done despite the walkout. Measures supposedly include:

a freeze in salary increments for those earning over 65,000 euro
a cut in overtime for Sunday shifts from double time to time and three quarters
graduated pay cuts between 5-10% for people earning over 65,000 euro.

The deal has been written by the LRC which means that all unions signed up will be bound its rules on industrial relations.

Unions which it is understood will not be bound by the deal include the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, the Irish Medical Organisation, the Civil and Public Services Union and Unite.

The Garda Representative Association (GRA) and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors walked out when briefing sessions to start the negotiations were held several weeks ago. The GRA later picketed negotiations at Lansdowne House, describing its action as a placard protest. The Psychiatric Nurses Association was not involved in the process.

It is understood the document has been written by the Labour Relations Commission and all unions will be bound by its rules on industrial relations.

Mr Howlin said the deal on the table was complex but when read people would see it was constructed in a way to impact on everybody in a fair way. He added: "No individual sector of the public service is in any way targeted. Everybody is asked to make a fair contribution and I've made it clear this will be the last contribution people will be asked to make."

25-02-2013 11:49AM

Rightwing wrote: »

Yes, there's no doubt about that. It's essentially the opposite of the 'multiplier effect', and austerity has worsened the recessions in Europe. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. Things have to get worse, before they get better.

I don't see anything too harsh in this:

Union sources revealed the arrangements include a freeze in salary increments for those earning over 65,000 euro, a cut in overtime for Sunday shifts from double time to time and three quarters, and graduated pay cuts between 5-10% for people earning over 65,000 euro.

The Unions must be smiling after this, you have to wonder if this 1 billion was so easy to cut from the public sector by just targeting wages above a massive €65k, why wasn't it done 5 years ago.
We would now have 5 billion to spend on infrastructure and jobs.

Nody · 25-02-2013 11:52AM

Riskymove wrote: »

I think Kippy's point is one made before on the forum.

A cut in pay for such a large number of people will have a serious impact on the wider economy and will likely result in further private sector job losses.

If people are paid less, they spend less and the economy suffers.

And borrowing year after year (and culmative interest at that since year one you borrow 1 billion, year two you need 1.05 billion, year three 1.15 billion etc.) which has to be paid would not? All you appear to say is "kick the can down the road and let someone else pay for it" which is exactly the failure of the previous governments (not that the current one is a shining beacon of hope) in the first place.

The budget needs to be balanced and should ideally generate more income to be saved for worse times and/or larger investments (i.e. lets say putting down fibre to 99% of all households or building a new highway or what ever you want to put in the bucket).

Godge · 25-02-2013 11:53AM

Rightwing wrote: »

Yes, that's a bit much.

Anyway, good news all round if they get the deal through.

Look we can argue about the merits of every policy. It is one thing to argue that a public service pay cut is a good result for the economy but it is not good news all round - you should withdraw that remark.

But it is not good news all round. It is bad news for public servants and their families who will see their living standards cut again.

It is good news for private sector employees and the self-employed who will not have to pay higher taxes.

Riskymove · 25-02-2013 11:57AM

Nody wrote: »

All you appear to say is "kick the can down the road and let someone else pay for it"

? er..what?

Farmer Pudsey · 25-02-2013 12:03PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I think Kippy's point is one made before on the forum.

A cut in pay for such a large number of people will have a serious impact on the wider economy and will likely result in further private sector job losses.

If people are paid less, they spend less and the economy suffers.

No matter where government makes cuts to balance the budget it will effect the wider economy and the private sector. This happen if they cut CA or welfare, rise the price of fuel or impose a new tax such as water rates.

The reality is that we as a country are spending more than we earn. We have little choice but to cut back. Over the last 5 years the Government has cut the capital Budget to the bone, reduced services and has cut number's in the PS and raised taxes. However we still need in the region of 10 billion over the next three years either through growth, taxes or cuts.

Taxes are at there maximun sustainable level. When the property is fully implemented next year and add a water tax this will take another 300+ out of the average family income. Pre 2008 car tax is unsustainable and needs to be adjusted.

Government needs to adjust the Welfare rates in this country. It also needs to reduce costs by LA and government agencies to buisnesses to see if we can get a bit of growth back into the economy.

In an Ideal world nobody want to see PS pay cuts however the wages are unsustainable, In 2010 the government taught that the amount of cuts were enough if we got growth back into the economy however this has not happened and it has left us with having to reduce pay again. The reality until w get sustained growth back we are in trouble. Even now the government need to get growth to allow wages between PS and private sector employees to equalise to EU norms.

Riskymove · 25-02-2013 12:06PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

No matter where government makes cuts to balance the budget it will effect the wider economy and the private sector. This happen if they cut CA or welfare, rise the price of fuel or impose a new tax such as water rates.

yep

sarumite · 25-02-2013 12:09PM

Godge wrote: »

Look we can argue about the merits of every policy. It is one thing to argue that a public service pay cut is a good result for the economy but it is not good news all round - you should withdraw that remark.

But it is not good news all round. It is bad news for public servants and their families who will see their living standards cut again.

It is good news for private sector employees and the self-employed who will not have to pay higher taxes.

Will it ever be possible to have a discussion on Boards about the PS without someone trying to wedge in the Private sector v's public sector nonsense?

antoobrien · 25-02-2013 12:17PM

Riskymove wrote: »

A cut in pay for such a large number of people will have a serious impact on the wider economy and will likely result in further private sector job losses.

If people are paid less, they spend less and the economy suffers.

IMO the effects people are ascribing to this are seriously overblown. The national earned income (by the workforce, including the employed) is approx 77bn according to revenue (for tax year 2010). Even allowing for a 10% drop in total income since then, we're reducing that by about 1.5% over three years or 0.5% per year.

To put in into some context it would take (SW effects aside) 27,000 job losses at the average wage on the private sector side to have the same effect on the national income.

Farmer Pudsey · 25-02-2013 12:18PM

Godge wrote: »

Look we can argue about the merits of every policy. It is one thing to argue that a public service pay cut is a good result for the economy but it is not good news all round - you should withdraw that remark.

But it is not good news all round. It is bad news for public servants and their families who will see their living standards cut again.

It is good news for private sector employees and the self-employed who will not have to pay higher taxes.

Right wing was making the point that a deal wsa good news for the country.

You also make the point that this is good news for the private sector as it will mean no higher taxes. Room for the government to impose extra taxes is limited. We at present hit higher rates of tax with less services than any other country in Europe, We get very little bang for out buck.

In theory the only place the government can impose extra tax is on low paid workers however as welfare is so high it would not pay these workers to continue to work if there wages were hit it harly pays them at present.

This idea that there is Golden Goose out there to be plucked at will in the form of extra tax take is disengenous. Even as the government imposes extra taxes it finds that othere are hit VAT Excise etc.

Godge · 25-02-2013 12:19PM

sarumite wrote: »

Will it ever be possible to have a discussion on Boards about the PS without someone trying to wedge in the Private sector v's public sector nonsense?

Well if we are discussing social welfare policy, health policy, taxation policy etc. there is no need to bring in private sector issues.

However, in this case, a poster suggested that a pay cut was good news all round which is patently nonsense as it suggests it is good news for those whose pay is being cut. It is bad news for them, good news for everyone else because something else that affects the others doesn't have to be cut.

Uriel. · 25-02-2013 12:19PM

IMPACT
Public Service Unions protected workers in Croke Park negotiations

Negotiations on an extension to the Croke Park Agreement have resulted in better protections for public servants than across-the-board pay cuts or other measures that could have been imposed by the Government, according to leaders of Unions representing the majority of public servants.

The officers of the ICTU public services committee said talks, which concluded this morning (Monday), had reduced the severity of management proposals under virtually every element of the package designed to cut the public service pay and pensions bill.
ICTU public services committee (PSC) chair Shay Cody said: “faced with managements determination to make large additional cuts to the paybill – by agreement or by legislation – our task was to minimise the adverse effects on our members and the services they provide. We have achieved far more through negotiation than we could have hoped to gain through protests, including measures to address the two-tier workforce and some movement on the so-called pension levy.”

The unions said the labour relations commission proposals that emerged from the talks reaffirmed that there would be no compulsory redundancies in the public service. They said negotiations had successfully delivered measures that would eliminate the “two-tier” workforce, introduced when the previous Government imposed an additional 10% cut in payscales for new entrants. The proposals will also see a small restoration of pension levy reductions for all public servants.

On premium payments, the unions said negotiations had successfully moved management from its opening position, which was that payment for working Sundays should be reduced from double time to time and a half, and that premiums for Saturday working should be abolished outright. Sunday payments will instead be reduced to time-and-three-quarters, while Saturday payments remain. Overtime payments, which management effectively wanted to abolish have also been preserved, albeit at a lower rate.

On working time, the unions said negotiations had successfully moved management from its opening position for an extra five hours a week for all public servants regardless of their current working hours.

The unions said they had not accepted Government plans to cut so-called “higher pay”, but added that negotiations meant that they were able to shape the implementation of the measure in ways that ensured pay rates could be restored for all but the highest paid.

On increments, the unions said negotiations had successfully moved management from its opening position, which was that all increments should be frozen until the end of 2016. Similarly, management proposals to remove flexitime for all public servants at above executive officer grade had been avoided, while other proposed changes to the operation of flexitime had been substantially softened.

The negotiations had also successfully moved management from its opening position which, among other things, was that the limit for redeployment should be increased from 45kms to 100kms. There will be no change to the 45kms limit.

http://www.impact.ie/13/02/25/Public-Service-Unions-protected-workers-in-Croke-Park-negotiations-.htm

Lot's of gap filling to be done.

The higher paid seem to have taken all of the hits this time, or at least the vast majority of them, paycuts and a freeze on increments for three years. Does that not go against the findings that the biggest gaps in pay between public and private was at the lower end of the payscales? I am amazed that the cuts weren't broader than that. Senior managers across the public sector may start to ask:

Is there any point in trying to progress through the ranks
If cuts were that easy to be found, why was it not done before now and would a even a relatively token cut from lower grades produced an even bigger saving
Why are politicians and senior government officials/advisors not equitably sharing in this pain
Why are those retired politicians and Public Servants on high pensions so untouchable?

Tombo2001 · 25-02-2013 12:22PM

Technical question....

Is the cut in pay for that amount of salary over and above €65k. Or is it for the total amount?

Could you have a situation where you are €67k today and your colleague is earning €65k and after July you are earning €63.5k and your colleague is earning €65k.

Godge · 25-02-2013 12:23PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Right wing was making the point that a deal wsa good news for the country.

You also make the point that this is good news for the private sector as it will mean no higher taxes. Room for the government to impose extra taxes is limited. We at present hit higher rates of tax with less services than any other country in Europe, We get very little bang for out buck.

In theory the only place the government can impose extra tax is on low paid workers however as welfare is so high it would not pay these workers to continue to work if there wages were hit it harly pays them at present.

This idea that there is Golden Goose out there to be plucked at will in the form of extra tax take is disengenous. Even as the government imposes extra taxes it finds that othere are hit VAT Excise etc.

You are missing the point I was making. There is no point jumping up and down with "good news all round" on the suffering of some people who will have to suffer pay cuts and a good deal else.

As for me, my preserved pension will probably be affected, have to wait and see the details.

Uriel. · 25-02-2013 12:24PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Technical question....

Is the cut in pay for that amount of salary over and above €65k. Or is it for the total amount?

Could you have a situation where you are €67k today and your colleague is earning €65k and after July you are earning €63.5k and your colleague is earning €65k.

We'll have to wait and see the text of agreement before we can reliably comment on that. Presumably though it is on total pay.

Godge · 25-02-2013 12:25PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Technical question....

Is the cut in pay for that amount of salary over and above €65k. Or is it for the total amount?

Could you have a situation where you are €67k today and your colleague is earning €65k and after July you are earning €63.5k and your colleague is earning €65k.

If it is only for the amount of salary over and above €65k, it would hardly be worth cutting.

jank · 25-02-2013 12:27PM

Looks like a good deal for the unions. Government caved in again to them.

sarumite · 25-02-2013 12:28PM

Godge wrote: »

Well if we are discussing social welfare policy, health policy, taxation policy etc. there is no need to bring in private sector issues.

However, in this case, a poster suggested that a pay cut was good news all round which is patently nonsense as it suggests it is good news for those whose pay is being cut. It is bad news for them, good news for everyone else because something else that affects the others doesn't have to be cut.

If you accept that without an agreement, the government would have simply legislated for pay cuts, then there is at least some element of logic in the suggestion that an agreement whereby the PS unions could at least direct where cuts were made was better than any of the alternatives. Admittedly the wording could have been better nuanced. Most of your response, on the other hand, was nothing other than a private sector v's public sector rant.

Tombo2001 · 25-02-2013 12:29PM

Godge wrote: »

If it is only for the amount of salary over and above €65k, it would hardly be worth cutting.

Point taken, but its extremely inequitable to cut 5.5% of the guy at €66k and nothing off the guy at €65k.....

Godge · 25-02-2013 12:31PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Point taken, but its extremely inequitable to cut 5.5% of the guy at €66k and nothing off the guy at €65k.....

Agreed but the fundamental nature of Croke Park II has been the inequity of it all.

25-02-2013 12:32PM

jank wrote: »

Looks like a good deal for the unions. Government caved in again to them.

Looking like a union labour love in. Can't see FG been too happy. It should however result in the least drop of spending due to the protection of low paid workers.

donegal11 · 25-02-2013 12:35PM

jank wrote: »

Looks like a good deal for the unions. Government caved in again to them.

If they get the billion savings how did the government cave?

Riskymove · 25-02-2013 12:36PM

antoobrien wrote: »

IMO the effects people are ascribing to this are seriously overblown. The national earned income (by the workforce, including the employed) is approx 77bn according to revenue (for tax year 2010). Even allowing for a 10% drop in total income since then, we're reducing that by about 1.5% over three years or 0.5% per year.

To put in into some context it would take (SW effects aside) 27,000 job losses at the average wage on the private sector side to have the same effect on the national income.

while the gross figures on the economy may not seem significant it's real money not going into local economies. The cuts will see some people losing €4,000 per annum upwards in base salary, this is money which would be generally spent here in ireland on goods and services.

I saw a presentation previously which estimated the 2010 pay cut would lead to some 14,000 private sector job losses

while savings need to be made and some action is necessary, I don't think people are always aware of the impact of such measures.

Riskymove · 25-02-2013 12:37PM

jank wrote: »

Looks like a good deal for the unions. Government caved in again to them.

for the Unions representing those on less than €65k certainly a good deal.

25-02-2013 12:42PM

I see most other frontline staff face cuts, but have teachers earning over 50K - 65K made any sacrifices here ? I heard a lot of moaning from their unions, but i can't see what they were moaning about ?

Riskymove · 25-02-2013 12:45PM

donegal11 wrote: »

If they get the billion savings how did they government cave?

hard to see €1bn from the details so far...guess we will have to see other measures

only 15-20% of PS will get a paycut

BaronVon · 25-02-2013 12:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I see most other frontline staff face cuts, but have teachers earning over 50K - 65K made any sacrifices here ? I heard a lot of moaning from their unions, but i can't see what they were moaning about ?

Exactly, Govt using a blunt instrument to make savings across a huge, diverse workforce of 300k.

There is no equity in what's being proposed.

BOHSBOHS · 25-02-2013 01:01PM

how will the teachers increase working hours like all the other groups?
prob some crap like we will do an extra few hours "class preparation" from home lol

they should extend the school day by a half hour and use the time to put on extra PE and maths classes...might help solve childhood obesity and our crap maths scores

Brussels Sprout · 25-02-2013 01:04PM

Riskymove wrote: »

hard to see €1bn from the details so far...guess we will have to see other measures

only 15-20% of PS will get a paycut

Yeah I'm scratching my head on this one. Perhaps they intend to make the unions who walked out pay the balance

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments