Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 08:56AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

What was that person paying towards their pension 30 years ago?

but that applies to anyone public or private

what was someone in the private sector paying towards a pension in the 1980s? is their pensions paid at 1980s levels or today's?

anyone investing in a private sector will have an estimate of what it will be in 30 or 40 years time based on different gowth levels - it may bear no actual relation to what they get.

but their contributions are based on what they pay today, not in 30 years time

Boulevardier · 28-02-2013 09:27AM

Sorry, I am a bit thick. Can someone please recap for me: If Croke Park 1 was meant to run until 2014, why has this new deal been negotiated now and why is it coming into effect this year?

Godge · 28-02-2013 09:58AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Yes but take somebody retiring today on 65k, their pension will be 32.5 as well as the tax free lump sum. What was that person paying towards their pension 30 years ago? People are trying to use the max pay rate today for their grade as their finishing pension which is a ridiculous comparison. It would be interesting to see what the max pay for a clerical officer or equivalent was 30 years ago and compare it to todays max of 35k.

The same argument applies to the contributory PRSI pension given to private sector workers by the government. If we applied the same principle that you only get back what you paid in, we would have lots of people on here complaining.

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 10:08AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Sorry, I am a bit thick. Can someone please recap for me: If Croke Park 1 was meant to run until 2014, why has this new deal been negotiated now and why is it coming into effect this year?

I think that's one of the reasons people are going against this deal.

The Govt have effectively not upheld their end of CP1

who is to say they wont come again in 2015?

creedp · 28-02-2013 10:16AM

Riskymove wrote: »

I think that's one of the reasons people are going against this deal.

The Govt have effectively not upheld their end of CP1

who is to say they wont come again in 2015?

That is the reason why the deal should be opposed. The last two paycuts were forced through by legislation. Then there was a deal which promised a pay freeze for 4 years. The deal has been reneged on. Why would people agree another deal now to cut their wages yet again. If the Govt want a pay cut, then go ahead and legislate for it as they have done twice already. The idea that workers would now agree a pay cut after being forced to take 2 previous cuts is disingenious in the extreme.

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 11:00AM

Riskymove wrote: »

I think that's one of the reasons people are going against this deal.

The Govt have effectively not upheld their end of CP1

who is to say they wont come again in 2015?

creedp wrote: »

That is the reason why the deal should be opposed. The last two paycuts were forced through by legislation. Then there was a deal which promised a pay freeze for 4 years. The deal has been reneged on. Why would people agree another deal now to cut their wages yet again. If the Govt want a pay cut, then go ahead and legislate for it as they have done twice already. The idea that workers would now agree a pay cut after being forced to take 2 previous cuts is disingenious in the extreme.

So you're saying that it should be opposed because the government have done what they said they might have to do and revisited the deal if the situation was not as originally projected/hoped.

Small bit of realism needed please.

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 11:08AM

antoobrien wrote: »

So you're saying that it should be opposed because the government have done what they said they might have to do

No i am saying what is the point of a deal that whenever the Giovernemnt wants it can simply chaneg the deal

They legislated for 2 reductions and only then entered talks and agreed to a deal that said no more cuts. Then they decide they want cuts and say agree to a new deal accepting cuts or else!

what is the point of the deal at all if the Govt side can simply change whenever they want and threathen Unions. Lets just forget about a deal and if the Govt want to bring in cuts let them and Unions can accept or oppose as they see fit.

What is the point of having any deal in these circumstances.

kippy · 28-02-2013 11:17AM

I've said this in another thread, and it probably sums up my "in hindsight" thoughts on the whole process since 2008.
"CP1 and indeed CP2 are and will work out worse than straight paycuts.
They have and will be expensive to implement, confusing for many, and have ended up creating multiple tiers of working terms and conditions in the same group of employees.
They have come about in an environment of increasing costs for everyone and I have to say overall, looking at this and the effect it will have on morale in the service, two rounds of sliding paycuts would have probably caused less division within the ranks and ended up, probably being "fairer" and indeed saved more money in the longer term for the state.
At least in future those paycuts may have been clawed back, but clawing back some of the terms and conditions that have been lost is much more difficult. "

That's my last comment on the whole thing ever as it is something that I have very little control over, whether I like it or not.
If I think my current terms and conditions aren't the best I could be getting then I will look elsewhere.

creedp · 28-02-2013 11:25AM

antoobrien wrote: »

So you're saying that it should be opposed because the government have done what they said they might have to do and revisited the deal if the situation was not as originally projected/hoped.

Small bit of realism needed please.

I am being realistic here and saying if the Govt want a further pay cut then go ahead and legislate for it .. don't expect the PS to want to agree to turn the cheek for a third time in 4 years especially when the Govt probably won't uphold up their end of the deal anyway.

I'd be interested in hearing similar stories from other employees where their employer cut their wages twice, imposed a pay freeze for 4 years but unilaterally decided to cut pay further after 3 years. We could for a social group or something positive like that!

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 11:26AM

Riskymove wrote: »

No i am saying what is the point of a deal that whenever the Giovernemnt wants it can simply chaneg the deal

They legislated for 2 reductions and only then entered talks and agreed to a deal that said no more cuts. Then they decide they want cuts and say agree to a new deal accepting cuts or else!

what is the point of the deal at all if the Govt side can simply change whenever they want and threathen Unions. Lets just forget about a deal and if the Govt want to bring in cuts let them and Unions can accept or oppose as they see fit.

What is the point of having any deal in these circumstances.

IIRC The legislation was brought in before CPA, I don't recall any since then.

The reason that there's a deal in place is that they're trying to get the best mutual outcome for everybody, given the circumstances we're in.

The taxpayer can't afford to pay the paybill as is, I think we're all in agreement on that. We also can't afford all the services we have, again I don't think anybody will argue too much on that.

So how do we go cutting the costs when everybody things that everybody else should get cut? We have to negotiate to try to get a deal that is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Nobody is going to be completely satisfied.

And toward the end of the deal if the circumstances have not come out as projected/hoped.

Or we could just take my approach and take an average of private sector working week hours, shift allowances and overtime rates and apply them directly to the PS. In my my experience of working factories that's 39h, 1/7 basic & x1.25 overtime first 4 hours, x1.5h after that and x1.5h Sunday premium.

Would the unions go for that? I doubt it, hence the need for negotiation. And if, in 2015 we need to look at it again, then we need to do so.

The reason we are looking at it again, is that we were projected to be 1-2bn better off in terms of GDP per year when CPA was negotiated. We have't hit that so we need to tweak the deal - which was part of the original CPA.

Godge · 28-02-2013 11:29AM

antoobrien wrote: »

So you're saying that it should be opposed because the government have done what they said they might have to do and revisited the deal if the situation was not as originally projected/hoped.

Small bit of realism needed please.

No, read Croke Park I, there were specific reasons and specific circumstances needed to trigger a review of that Agreement. If the Government had triggered that review, they could have had the review challenged under the binding provisions of Croke Park I i.e they would have had to prove the review was needed.

They did not trigger the relevant provision of Croke Park I which suggests they were not confident of winning any challenge. It makes you wonder.

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 11:30AM

creedp wrote: »

I am being realistic here and saying if the Govt want a further pay cut then go ahead and legislate for it .. don't expect the PS to want to agree to turn the cheek for a third time in 4 years especially when the Govt probably won't uphold up their end of the deal anyway.

But that's just the point, the government said when negotiating CPA that tougher measures could be brought in if the economic situation didn't go to plan.

Well it didn't, and now because the PS didn't believe the government suddenly their not upholding their end of the deal?

Godge · 28-02-2013 11:37AM

antoobrien wrote: »

The taxpayer can't afford to pay the paybill as is, I think we're all in agreement on that. We also can't afford all the services we have, again I don't think anybody will argue too much on that.

So how do we go cutting the costs when everybody things that everybody else should get cut? We have to negotiate to try to get a deal that is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Nobody is going to be completely satisfied.

And toward the end of the deal if the circumstances have not come out as projected/hoped..

No we are not all in agreement on that. We are all in agreement that the budget deficit needs to be cut. That can be done in a number of ways. You can increase various taxes, you can introduce new taxes, you can cut social welfare, you can cut grants to farmers and businesses, you can cut grants to gaelic football players, whatever.

antoobrien wrote: »

Or we could just take my approach and take an average of private sector working week hours, shift allowances and overtime rates and apply them directly to the PS. In my my experience of working factories that's 39h, 1/7 basic & x1.25 overtime first 4 hours, x1.5h after that and x1.5h Sunday premium.

Would the unions go for that? I doubt it, hence the need for negotiation. And if, in 2015 we need to look at it again, then we need to do so..

Can you provide a link to that. I provided a link earlier in this thread to prove that the Saturday afternoon and Sunday premium in a private sector industry was twice the hourly rate. I would prefer my link over your anecdote.

antoobrien wrote: »

The reason we are looking at it again, is that we were projected to be 1-2bn better off in terms of GDP per year when CPA was negotiated. We have't hit that so we need to tweak the deal - which was part of the original CPA.

I have pointed out already that the Government did not invoke the clause under Croke Park I.

creedp · 28-02-2013 11:37AM

antoobrien wrote: »

The reason that there's a deal in place is that they're trying to get the best mutual outcome for everybody, given the circumstances we're in.

Well its great that this is the best mutual outcome for everyone!

The taxpayer can't afford to pay the paybill as is, I think we're all in agreement on that. We also can't afford all the services we have, again I don't think anybody will argue too much on that.

So how do we go cutting the costs when everybody things that everybody else should get cut? We have to negotiate to try to get a deal that is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Nobody is going to be completely satisfied.

A lot of we's in there isn't there!

And toward the end of the deal if the circumstances have not come out as projected/hoped.

What happens?

Or we could just take my approach and take an average of private sector working week hours, shift allowances and overtime rates and apply them directly to the PS. In my my experience of working factories that's 39h, 1/7 basic & x1.25 overtime first 4 hours, x1.5h after that and x1.5h Sunday premium.

Would the unions go for that? I doubt it, hence the need for negotiation. And if, in 2015 we need to look at it again, then we need to do so.

Presumably you are taling about front line people here .. many people being hit by latest deal don't earn OT/premiums. What are you proposing for them? I'm interested in what we would think is appropriate.

The reason we are looking at it again, is that we were projected to be 1-2bn better off in terms of GDP per year when CPA was negotiated. We have't hit that so we need to tweak the deal - which was part of the original CPA.

There's the We again. Again the point being what is the point of a deal when We can unilaterally welsh on it whenever we feel the need. That's why we should just legislate.

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 11:39AM

antoobrien wrote: »

The reason we are looking at it again....

you are missing the point

I am not saying that there should not be cuts or that others should take the hit instead of me

I am saying we should just forget about a deal and the Govt should bring in the cuts they think are required...like they have done twice already without agreement.

And let each Union decide if they wish to accept or fight them

I see little advantage in an agreement

The govt has not triggered the provisions in CP1 for a review...they have simply dictated that unions renogitate new terms or else. what is the point of doing this again...the only benefit from a deal is for Govt not to have industrial unrest

Godge · 28-02-2013 11:42AM

antoobrien wrote: »

But that's just the point, the government said when negotiating CPA that tougher measures could be brought in if the economic situation didn't go to plan.

Well it didn't, and now because the PS didn't believe the government suddenly their not upholding their end of the deal?

You keep making this point but it is not true. The original agreement stated:

"1.28 The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration."

However, if the Government chose to invoke this point it would have been subject to this:

"1.24 Where the Parties involved cannot reach agreement in discussions on any matter under the terms of this Agreement within 6 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter, the matter will be referred by either side to the LRC and if necessary to the Labour Court; where a Conciliation or Arbitration Scheme applies, the issue will be referred within 6 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter, by either side to the Conciliation machinery under the Scheme and, if unresolved, to the Arbitration Board, acting in an ad hoc capacity. The outcome from the industrial relations or arbitration process will be final. Such determination(s) will be made within 4 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter."

The Government never formally invoked paragraph 1.28. My belief is that this was in order to avoid a challenge which they might lose.

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 11:47AM

Riskymove wrote: »

the only benefit from a deal is for Govt not to have industrial unrest

That is the reason for the deal. As you have suggested the government could legislate and could have applied the across the board paycuts that impact claimed they wanted.

That would almost definitely result in a series of strikes.

This way both the government and the unions win. The government by keeping strikes off the agenda while getting their paycuts. The unions get to protect their people from getting totally shafted and by not having to go on strike they don't run the risk of potentially alienating various sectors of the PS from the parts of the public that don't like them (as is evidenced on this forum).

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 11:49AM

Godge wrote: »

1.28 The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration."

We didn't hit the GDP targets (which affects budget defecits), that wasn't foreseen, ergo CPA 2 is not breaking promises.

noodler · 28-02-2013 11:50AM

Public Sector over time rates are proposed to be:

1.5 X nomral rate for those <35K

1.25 X normal rate for those > 35K

Does anyone know what the overtime rates were before?

Paulzx · 28-02-2013 12:07PM

noodler wrote: »

Public Sector over time rates are proposed to be:

1.5 X nomral rate for those <35K

1.25 X normal rate for those > 35K

Does anyone know what the overtime rates were before?

1.5 was the normal overtime rate before

Paulzx · 28-02-2013 12:11PM

At this stage i'll be voting no. If they want to cut my wages again i'm not going to be party to it and hand the money over to them. They can do it the hard way and take it from me.

What happens after that remains to be seen but i know how far i'm willing to go

Godge · 28-02-2013 12:12PM

antoobrien wrote: »

We didn't hit the GDP targets (which affects budget defecits), that wasn't foreseen, ergo CPA 2 is not breaking promises.

That statement ignores the procedural point that the invocation of that clause in Croke Park I would have been subject to challenge under the terms of Croke Park I.

It is your belief that the projection that we won't hit the GDP targets wasn't foreseen, however that does not mean that it meets the test of a reasonable interpretation of the clause by a reasonable person that the current situation is (a) unforeseen and (b) a deterioration.

A third party consideration of the position might well conclude that this was eminently foreseeable (e.g. they could quote David McWilliams and his constant predictions of doom and gloom and the country going bust) and/or does not represent a deterioration (e.g. it is a lack of improvement rather than a worsening).

It is not like that a challenge under Croke Park I would have delayed matters - the timelines are quite tight. My point is rather that the Government appears to have been afraid to formally invoke the clause and it is a fact that the clause was never formally invoked.

noodler · 28-02-2013 12:16PM

Paulzx wrote: »

1.5 was the normal overtime rate before

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=572

I appreciate the above link seems to be for Civil Servant staff but it seems that you got 1.25 for first 3 hours, 1.5 for next 5 hours and then double for time after that.

Is the correct answer that the overtime rate varied based on position before now but it is proposed that it will be based solely on salary in the future?

Does anyone have any other links to current PS overtime rates?

Paulzx · 28-02-2013 12:17PM

Godge wrote: »

That statement ignores the procedural point that the invocation of that clause in Croke Park I would have been subject to challenge under the terms of Croke Park I.

It is your belief that the projection that we won't hit the GDP targets wasn't foreseen, however that does not mean that it meets the test of a reasonable interpretation of the clause by a reasonable person that the current situation is (a) unforeseen and (b) a deterioration.

A third party consideration of the position might well conclude that this was eminently foreseeable (e.g. they could quote David McWilliams and his constant predictions of doom and gloom and the country going bust) and/or does not represent a deterioration (e.g. it is a lack of improvement rather than a worsening).

It is not like that a challenge under Croke Park I would have delayed matters - the timelines are quite tight. My point is rather that the Government appears to have been afraid to formally invoke the clause and it is a fact that the clause was never formally invoked.

The simple fact is the original Croke Park deal was broken and reneged on by Government.

You are absolutely correct that the procedures for leaving the deal were never invoked. The fact other posters can't see this is baffling.

The government have consistantly called the new deal an "extension" to CP1 to avoid the issue that they have reneged on it.

It's impossible to go into a new deal with another party who have just casually broken an existing one

Paulzx · 28-02-2013 12:18PM

noodler wrote: »

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=572

I appreciate the above link seems to be for Civil Servant staff but it seems that you got 1.25 for first 3 hours, 1.5 for next 5 hours and then double for time after that.

Is the correct answer that the overtime rate varied based on position before now but it is proposed that it will be based solely on salary in the future?

Does anyone have any other links to current PS overtime rates?

It was 1.5 were i work except on Sundays

noodler · 28-02-2013 12:40PM

Paulzx wrote: »

It was 1.5 were i work except on Sundays

Okay I appreciate your own experience.

The LRC draft doesn't mention what overtime rates were - simply what they will be.

I was looking for something official to enlighten me on the situation.

sarumite · 28-02-2013 12:45PM

Godge wrote: »

You keep making this point but it is not true. The original agreement stated:

"1.28 The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration."

However, if the Government chose to invoke this point it would have been subject to this:

"1.24 Where the Parties involved cannot reach agreement in discussions on any matter under the terms of this Agreement within 6 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter, the matter will be referred by either side to the LRC and if necessary to the Labour Court; where a Conciliation or Arbitration Scheme applies, the issue will be referred within 6 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter, by either side to the Conciliation machinery under the Scheme and, if unresolved, to the Arbitration Board, acting in an ad hoc capacity. The outcome from the industrial relations or arbitration process will be final. Such determination(s) will be made within 4 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter."

The Government never formally invoked paragraph 1.28. My belief is that this was in order to avoid a challenge which they might lose.

If the " The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration" and unforseen budgetary detoriation occurs, then wouldln't the agreement technically no longer need to be implemented as the terms by which it should be implenented no longer apply. So if the terms of the agreement state that the parties must agree to changes (paraphrasing 1.24), but those terms are now invalid since there has been an inforeseen budgetary deterioation, I don't see why the government would still be bound to the agreement. In summary, I don't see how clause 1.28 can be bound to clause 1.24, since 1.28 is effectively an "all bets are off" clause.

iba · 28-02-2013 01:12PM

noodler wrote: »

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=572

I appreciate the above link seems to be for Civil Servant staff but it seems that you got 1.25 for first 3 hours, 1.5 for next 5 hours and then double for time after that.

The above is correct and also:

Saturdays:
Between 9.15am to 1.15pm = 1.5
Before 9.15am and after 1.15pm it is double time.

Sunday:
Double time all day

Godge · 28-02-2013 02:29PM

sarumite wrote: »

If the " The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration" and unforseen budgetary detoriation occurs, then wouldln't the agreement technically no longer need to be implemented as the terms by which it should be implenented no longer apply. So if the terms of the agreement state that the parties must agree to changes (paraphrasing 1.24), but those terms are now invalid since there has been an inforeseen budgetary deterioation, I don't see why the government would still be bound to the agreement. In summary, I don't see how clause 1.28 can be bound to clause 1.24, since 1.28 is effectively an "all bets are off" clause.

All clauses of the agreement are subject to clause 1.24. That includes clause 1.28.

The Government had a mechanism to renege on Croke Park I. That mechanism was subject to independent review if the unions sought it. The Government has decided to sidestep the mechanism and that is because it couldn't make it stick.

Boulevardier · 28-02-2013 02:44PM

It looks very like the government have defaulted on Croke Park 1. The main unions have meekly accepted this.

Why did the govt not try this with the bondholders? They might have been the same!

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments