Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

nice_guy80 · 26-02-2013 08:32AM

this deal won't get through

the teachers are not happy
nurses fuming
Gardai, Firemen and Ambulance driviers not happy

Carlow2011 · 26-02-2013 08:34AM

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

Thats not how it works.

If a person earns 64,999 - they get no pay cut but a pay freeze for 3 years.

If a person earns 65,100 - they get a pay cut of 5.5 (ie 5.5 % of 100 = 5 euro and fifty cents) = 65,094.5 and a pay freeze for 3 years.

You sure?? This is not how it's being reported

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 08:47AM

Carlow2011 wrote: »

You sure?? This is not how it's being reported

different Unions seem to say different things - we need to see final report to clarify this I think

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 08:54AM

Carlow2011 wrote: »

You sure?? This is not how it's being reported

It's technically correct but those on under 65k could be losing their twilight premium and having their overtime reduced from 2*T to 1.75*T. Then it depends on (Like Liam Doran appears to) if one believes that the above constitutes a pay cut.

tayto lover · 26-02-2013 09:34AM

Geuze wrote: »

It's good to see PS pensions being cut.

PS workers took too much of the pain compared to PS pensioners.

A typical retired teacher on 700 pw / 3000 pm / 36k pa pension can afford to take a bigger cut.

I would actually have cut PS pensions by more, myself.

But you would have cut the entire PS and pensioners by far more anyway. We know.

wicorthered · 26-02-2013 09:38AM

This is from the Irish Times

"Mr Kenny’s current annual pay is €200,000, a rate set after his incoming administration cut ministerial pay when it took office in March 2011. Under the new deal the Taoiseach’s pay will drop €14,650 to €185,350."

Aren't employees on more than 185K due a 10% cut?!

Gumbo · 26-02-2013 09:41AM

wicorthered wrote: »

This is from the Irish Times

"Mr Kenny’s current annual pay is €200,000, a rate set after his incoming administration cut ministerial pay when it took office in March 2011. Under the new deal the Taoiseach’s pay will drop €14,650 to €185,350."

Aren't employees on more than 185K due a 10% cut?!

you need to work the figures.
the 10% cut is on the portion above 185k

letsbet · 26-02-2013 09:46AM

Good loser wrote: »

Wonder will the sums add up i.e. will the 'savings' come to the €1 bn.

Even if it did come to €1bn, I assume they are not talking about net savings. This is especially important as most of the cuts are to the higher paid the governement will maybe only save half of what they are reporting due to the taxation (I assume they haven't taken this into account). Optics is the order of the day again. It's like the early retirement scheme, which will probably cost more money than it saves.

SB2013 · 26-02-2013 09:53AM

Riskymove wrote: »

no, not for the <65k

they simply have to wait 15 months instead of 12 for their increment. The increment is not reduced and there is no paycut

so its a once off 3 month saving (or actually 2 3 month savings for those 35k-65k and once off for those <35k)

there is no lower increment in future years

If you had budgeted for the next three years, the increment freeze will reduce your bill for each of these years. So yes it is a perpetual annual saving up until the employee reaches the top of their salary scale at which point they will catch up, so to speak.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 09:57AM

SB2013 wrote: »

If you had budgeted for the next three years, the increment freeze will reduce your bill for each of these years. So yes it is a perpetual annual saving up until the employee reaches the top of their salary scale at which point they will catch up, so to speak.

no it isn't an annual saving

If I earn 20k and am due an increment of 1k in June then

1. I earn 20k until June and then 21k until end of year

under the proposals I wait until september to get the increment so

2. I earn 20k until september then 21k until end of year

so three month saving

next year I earn 21k...where is the saving next year?

sean200 · 26-02-2013 10:01AM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

this deal won't get through

the teachers are not happy
nurses fuming
Gardai, Firemen and Ambulance driviers not happy

a nurse would be taking a pay cut of up to €3000 so there will be trouble
Agreement will go through because most of the INTO , SIPTU and IMPACT member will loose very little
The deal will be in effect from 1st of July great timing as all schools and collage are closed so the teachers will have 2 months to kick up but with no affect on the state

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 10:11AM

Impact seem to be filling some of the gaps:

Management’s opening position was that it wanted a straight cut to pay scales for those earning €60,000 “if not lower.” Unions worked to structure the change to create a clear path to restore pay for everyone who earns less than €100,000 a year. The outcome is:

For those with salaries of €65k and greater(including allowances in the nature of pay), their total remuneration is reduced by 5.5% subject to not falling below €65k.
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) between €80,000 and €150,000 will be reduced by 8%
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) between €€150,000 and €185,000 will be reduced by 9%
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) over €185,000 will be reduced by 10%

That seems to finally put the bed the scope of the pay cut.

Flexitime will remain available to higher executive officer grades and equivalent.
Only one day of flexitime can be carried over each month.

You'd have to wonder the real savings (if any) in reducing the amount of flexi time available.

dixiefly · 26-02-2013 10:11AM

OUTOFSYNC wrote: »

http://www.impact.ie/Croke-Park-Agreement/Labour-Relations-Commission-proposals-on-an-extension-to-the-Croke-Park-agreement-.htm

This link seems to have changed overnight
From
From the LRC
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) between €65,000 and €80,000 will be reduced by 5.5%
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) between €80,000 and €150,000 will be reduced by 8%
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) between €€150,000 and €185,000 will be reduced by 9%
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) over €185,000 will be reduced by 10%

to

For those with salaries of €65k and greater(including allowances in the nature of pay), their total remuneration is reduced by 5.5% subject to not falling below €65k.
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) between €80,000 and €150,000 will be reduced by 8%
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) between €€150,000 and €185,000 will be reduced by 9%
Earnings (including allowances in the nature of pay) over €185,000 will be reduced by 10%

So there seems to be confusion but it looks like the totality of the salary above €65k is hit but not dropping below €65k (which could have resulted in some anomalies of relative pay scales).

Also I would assume that if someone is due an increment and is below €65 then they will get it once but not anymore once above €65k. Also they may go a bit above €65k with the increment and then possibly above someone that was previously ahead of them. I wonder how that will be dealt with. Or are increments from below €65k capped at €65k?

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 10:19AM

The first "breakdown" of savings that I could find:

Savings

Management’s target of achieving additional savings of €1 billion in the pay and pension bill will be achieved by:

Measure Savings
Additional working hours €100 million
Headcount reductions €150 million
Overtime €92 million
Premium payments €65 million
Increments €110 million
“Higher pay” €210 million
Sector specific pay measures €156 million
Other measures €55 million

TOTAL €938 million

Higher Pay

The major elements that affects AHCPS grades are pay cuts for medium and higher paid staff. The union position was that we were opposed to pay cuts. However, the Official Side was clear that this was a political decision and the Government will legislate for it regardless.

The details were not outlined until the final plenary session this morning at 10.15am.

The cuts will be progressive and the Official Side believe will yield significant savings. The cuts will vary from 5.5% up to 10%.

For those earning (including allowances in the nature of pay) between:

€65k - €80k 5.5%
€80k - €150k 8.0%
€150k - €185k 9.0%
€185k + 10.0%

The threshold will be €65k (including allowances in the nature of pay).

For those on salaries of between €65k and €100k there will be a pull back and freeze for the duration of the Agreement. For those over €100k there will be a pay cut.

For illustrative purposes a PO on €95k their salary will be pulled back by

5.5% on the first €80k and
8% on the remaining €15k.
They will remain on this salary for the duration of the Agreement.

.....

Flexible Working Arrangements (Flexitime)

The Official Side proposals initially proposed that FWA would not apply to staff at AP or above. After discussion and with the assistance of the LRC the following was proposed “FWA will not apply to Staff at the Assistant Principal Officer grade and its equivalents in the Civil Service and other sectors, except for those staff that already have this arrangement. In these cases the staff concerned will not be eligible to avail of flexi leave."

What's interesting in the wording in bold. It could suggest two things:

Those over €100k don't have their increments frozen
or those over €100k don't have a pay freeze and so Gov may have left the door open for another future cut

Also, those figures given for savings seem very soft. €100m saving due to additional hours? How is that? Less overtime costs I suppose?
Not very specific on the sectoral savings. How much of the €110m saving on increments is just a short term saving. Even forget about "net" savings, I would be surprised if the savings really add up to that which is quoted.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 10:20AM

Uriel. wrote: »

You'd have to wonder the real savings (if any) in reducing the amount of flexi time available.

Reducing overtime required to cover them flexi workers not being around. The same thing was the real aim behind cutting the absenteeism rates.

It'll be interesting to see how these measures affect the amount of overtime worked (& paid for).

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 10:24AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Reducing overtime required to cover them flexi workers not being around. The same thing was the real aim behind cutting the absenteeism rates.

It'll be interesting to see how these measures affect the amount of overtime worked (& paid for).

It doesn't really though. Flexi time is essentially time off in lieu of hours already worked, which are essentially overtime hours already.

creedp · 26-02-2013 10:39AM

Uriel. wrote: »

It doesn't really though. Flexi time is essentially time off in lieu of hours already worked, which are essentially overtime hours already.

Another way you could look at it is one person's flexi-time could be another person's OT depending on when the flexi-time is taken and whether OT is available. The problem with flexi time is it can be abused as it can be built up when things are quiet and taken when times are busy - unless managed properly. Flexi-time should only be available at the discretion of the manager but in reallity it can often be taken an ordinary leave, i.e. booked in advance and then taken irrespective of what is going on at the time. I'm not criticising flexi-leave per se, as I consider it very useful for both employeed and organisation so long as it is implemented reasonalby on bot hsides.

The issue with this deal is that it totally protects 9-5 workers earning up to €64,999. There are essentially no paycuts for this cohort. It creates a divide between staff doing the same job for no objective reason. Neither can I see how front-line staff earning less money but being hit with substantial cuts will be able to stomach that to be honest!

Why they couldn't have introduced a reduce pay cut for those earning €50k to €65k (even just 1%) is whay I can't fathom. This would have made the deal much more palatable for those over €65k and front line under €65k. Not that a pay cut is palatable at any time - I'm sure all workers can agree on that!

Gumbo · 26-02-2013 10:41AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Reducing overtime required to cover them flexi workers not being around. The same thing was the real aim behind cutting the absenteeism rates.

It'll be interesting to see how these measures affect the amount of overtime worked (& paid for).

Its a step backwards.
If i worked up 10 hours one month, i could take one day off the following month and the extra 2 hours would mean i could have some flieibility to come in 30 mins later one day or go home 30 mins earlier another day. all subject to work load, you cannot just get up at 4pm and go if theres work on your desk or a map/drawing thats needed for a document.

The new system will ensure that staff do the required hours and no more as theres no benefit to staying 30 mins late to finish a job any more as you essentially lose the 30 mins. We never had OT anyway, so the financial end of it never comes into it for us.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 10:48AM

kceire wrote: »

Its a step backwards.
If i worked up 10 hours one month, i could take one day off the following month and the extra 2 hours would mean i could have some flieibility to come in 30 mins later one day or go home 30 mins earlier another day. all subject to work load, you cannot just get up at 4pm and go if theres work on your desk or a map/drawing thats needed for a document.

I had that mindset for a while (I don't get overtime either). Just walk away, it'll still be there in the morning. If there's a chance that check-in can break the build at 4.30 leave it (unless the release depends on it), the same applies to that map/drawing.

If it's really that important, it'll be done earlier, so that it doesn't butt up against deadlines. If nothing else it will help to teach some people how to manage their workload because the productivity measures should require them to do the same amounts.

Morrisseeee · 26-02-2013 10:52AM

creedp wrote: »

The issue with this deal is that it totally protects 9-5 workers earning up to €64,999. There are essentially no paycuts for this cohort.

Interesting, and what percentage of the group (anyone earning under €65k) does this group (mentioned above) represent ? or if there are 100 people earning under €65k, then how many are 9-5 people ?

hatrickpatrick · 26-02-2013 10:52AM

^ Agreed, I totally fail to understand how getting people to work longer hours actually saves money. Surely efficiency is what we should strive for? Rather than giving people a set number of hours to work (unless it's front line shift work) why not give people tasks to achieve and the faster they achieve them, the better and the more time off they subsequently get?
This would not only make more sense but I can see it saving money by giving people an incentive to be efficient, to get as much done in as short a time as possible.

How does longer hours = more money saved by the taxpayer? Surely it would make more sense to say "more work done using the same resources = more money saved by the taxpayer"?

Godge · 26-02-2013 10:59AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Reducing overtime required to cover them flexi workers not being around. The same thing was the real aim behind cutting the absenteeism rates.

It'll be interesting to see how these measures affect the amount of overtime worked (& paid for).

It is quite the opposite. The restrictions on flexitime are the strangest part of the deal.

When worked properly, it gave managers the ability to deploy staff at times of the week and year when they were most needed and to give time off when things were quieter.

Now the staff will be working when things are quiet and will have less to do at those times and will not be able to deal with surges in work. The types of scenario I am talking about include January with car registrations, September with university admissions. The abolition of flexitime will increase the demand for overtime in those cases.

The problem with flexitime is poor management, not the system itself.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 11:07AM

Godge wrote: »

It is quite the opposite. The restrictions on flexitime are the strangest part of the deal.

When worked properly, it gave managers the ability to deploy staff at times of the week and year when they were most needed and to give time off when things were quieter.

Now the staff will be working when things are quiet and will have less to do at those times and will not be able to deal with surges in work. The types of scenario I am talking about include January with car registrations, September with university admissions. The abolition of flexitime will increase the demand for overtime in those cases.

The problem with flexitime is poor management, not the system itself.

I don't see how they're strange at all. The system (regardless of poor management) is wide open to abuse. As I was told by a trainer once "it's about working smarter not harder."

The admissions problem can be sorted by starting admissions in August (they already start in the first full week of September in Galway) or putting (as much as possible) online.

Godge · 26-02-2013 11:08AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Agreed, I totally fail to understand how getting people to work longer hours actually saves money. Surely efficiency is what we should strive for? Rather than giving people a set number of hours to work (unless it's front line shift work) why not give people tasks to achieve and the faster they achieve them, the better and the more time off they subsequently get?
This would not only make more sense but I can see it saving money by giving people an incentive to be efficient, to get as much done in as short a time as possible.

How does longer hours = more money saved by the taxpayer? Surely it would make more sense to say "more work done using the same resources = more money saved by the taxpayer"?

Understanding is easier for those who have a bit of experience of the typical workplace. Speed in completing a task is not the only criterion, the quality of the task is also important.

Take the Revenue office, if you speeded up tax returns but had more errors costing the state money, you would be worse off. A system like you suggest would cost a fortune.

The saving gained from extra hours is actually one of the simplest things to comprehend. If you have 30 clerical officers working 35 hours you have a total of 1050 working hours. If you have 28 clerical officers working 37 hours you have a total of 1036 working hours, nearly the same but now with two surplus clerical officers who can be redeployed to vacancies elsewhere or the last two retirees need not be replaced. Net result, saving of the salary of two clerical officers and the numbers reduction is facilitated.

To put it even more simply, increasing hours means less people required means savings for taxpayer. Simple.

Man007 · 26-02-2013 11:09AM

kceire wrote: »

Its a step backwards.
If i worked up 10 hours one month, i could take one day off the following month and the extra 2 hours would mean i could have some flieibility to come in 30 mins later one day or go home 30 mins earlier another day. all subject to work load, you cannot just get up at 4pm and go if theres work on your desk or a map/drawing thats needed for a document.

The new system will ensure that staff do the required hours and no more as theres no benefit to staying 30 mins late to finish a job any more as you essentially lose the 30 mins. We never had OT anyway, so the financial end of it never comes into it for us.

Or you could just grow up and realise that you're there to do a job and not just up and leave the minute the clock hits a certain time.

If I have a busy period in work I do extra hours at "no benefit" as I don't get paid however this should be what my bonus or potential pay increase or career progression should be based on. If you're seeing to be going the extra mile or flexible this will work in your favour this is the case in the majority of private companies were we have to be seen to be making an extra effort in order to get pay increases/increments

Godge · 26-02-2013 11:11AM

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't see how they're strange at all. The system (regardless of poor management) is wide open to abuse. As I was told by a trainer once "it's about working smarter not harder.".

The system cannot be abused where it is managed properly. If adjustments were needed it should have been to allow for tighter management of when and how time worked and time off happened.

antoobrien wrote: »

The admissions problem can be sorted by starting admissions in August (they already start in the first full week of September in Galway) or putting (as much as possible) online.

If I went round the public sector, I could give hundreds of examples of peaks and troughs in work that are facilitated at no cost by the use of goodwill and flexitime. The goodwill will be gone after Croke Park 2 so you actually needed to tighten the management of flexitime to get the flexible working needed.

Godge · 26-02-2013 11:13AM

Man007 wrote: »

Or you could just grow up and realise that you're there to do a job and not just up and leave the minute the clock hits a certain time.

If I have a busy period in work I do extra hours at "no benefit" as I don't get paid however this should be what my bonus or potential pay increase or career progression should be based on. If you're seeing to be going the extra mile or flexible this will work in your favour this is the case in the majority of private companies were we have to be seen to be making an extra effort in order to get pay increases/increments

Two points,

(1) Glad to see the majority of private companies are still getting pay increases as I have pointed out.
(2) You would hardly be going the extra mile if there was an unavoidable pay cut no matter how well you performed.

s_carnage · 26-02-2013 11:13AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Agreed, I totally fail to understand how getting people to work longer hours actually saves money. Surely efficiency is what we should strive for? Rather than giving people a set number of hours to work (unless it's front line shift work) why not give people tasks to achieve and the faster they achieve them, the better and the more time off they subsequently get?
This would not only make more sense but I can see it saving money by giving people an incentive to be efficient, to get as much done in as short a time as possible.

How does longer hours = more money saved by the taxpayer? Surely it would make more sense to say "more work done using the same resources = more money saved by the taxpayer"?

I assume the employees working longer hours will have a heavier workload. The number of employees in the public service will fall this year be it from natural wastage or the voluntary redundancy scheme and these jobs will have to be taken on by current workers.

Godge · 26-02-2013 11:14AM

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Interesting, and what percentage of the group (anyone earning under €65k) does this group (mentioned above) represent ? or if there are 100 people earning under €65k, then how many are 9-5 people ?

95% of PSEU workers would be under 65k working 9-5
At least 60% of IMPACT workers would fall into this category.

Both unions were well represented at the talks.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 11:16AM

Godge wrote: »

(2) You would hardly be going the extra mile if there was an unavoidable pay cut no matter how well you performed.

and similarly, how long does this positive attitute to go the extra mile last when others who do not put any effort get the same (or perhaps even a less) paycut than you?

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments