Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

noodler · 28-02-2013 02:46PM

Godge wrote: »

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.

Nah.

In your opinion they couldn't make it stick.

It has been shown time and time again that the budgetary situation worsened substantially from Mid-2010 onwards.

An extra 40bn or so of banking capital required.

GDP forecasts continuously failing to materialise.

Unemployment and the drain on the LR continuing to worsen from March 2010 onwards.

The interest rates on out Borrowing requirements increasing all summer, leading to the ECB having to take the unprecedented step of buying countries bonds.

Next came a suspension of bond auctions by the Government and eventually necessitating an EU/IMF bailout of emergency loans.

Christ, following your logic Godge, the unions should be happy the Government aren't seeking to backdate the cuts in CP2 by two or three years to take account of the massive deterioration in circumstances from the middle of 2010 onwards.

sarumite · 28-02-2013 03:13PM

Godge wrote: »

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.

Are you expressing an opinion or do you have a link to someone with authority stating that?

My reading would be different. The terms of the agreement etc must be discussed (1.24) however those terms become null and void if there is an unforeseen deterioration of the economy (1.28).

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 03:21PM

sarumite wrote: »

My reading would be different. The terms of the agreement etc must be discussed (1.24) however those terms become null and void if there is an unforeseen deterioration of the economy (1.28).

even if that is correct, the Goverment has not invoked 1.28

They do not claim there has been an unforseen deterioration

They wish to extend CP1, there is no CP2

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 03:27PM

Riskymove wrote: »

even if that is correct, the Goverment has not invoked 1.28

They do not claim there has been an unforseen deterioration

They wish to extend CP1, there is no CP2

Was CPA brokered by the LRC?

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 03:31PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Was CPA brokered by the LRC?

yes

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 03:45PM

Riskymove wrote: »

yes

Well looking at 1.24 this looks like a negotiation within the framework of CPA which has been sent to LRC for bokerage...again.

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 03:50PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Well looking at 1.24 this looks like a negotiation within the framework of CPA which has been sent to LRC for bokerage...again.

and?

as I said they are trying to renegotiate and extend CP1

they have not invoked 1.28 so they are not saying that there has been an unforseen deterioration and that therefore CPA cannot be implemented further

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 03:52PM

Riskymove wrote: »

and?

as I said they are trying to renegotiate and extend CP1

they have not invoked 1.28 so they are not saying that there has been an unforseen deterioration and that therefore CPA cannot be implemented further

I haven't read anything in CPA that says it can't be extended or or sections re-negotiated.

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 03:57PM

antoobrien wrote: »

I haven't read anything in CPA that says it can't be extended or or sections re-negotiated.

re-negotiated? fine

agree to soemthing or else we will do it anyway? what is the point of the deal

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 04:19PM

Riskymove wrote: »

re-negotiated? fine

agree to soemthing or else we will do it anyway? what is the point of the deal

To get something close to a reasonable compromise and avoid strike action - which would happen if they just did what they liked. Of course, if things change and the defect target still sin't in reach then it will have to be looked at again (idiotic ministerial pronouncements aside).

But now that you mention it maybe they should waited until the summer, unilaterally cut wages and let the PS off on strike for a month or two. Then they could come back and renegotiate the billion off and btw saved a couple of billion for this year.

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 04:22PM

antoobrien wrote: »

To get something close to a reasonable compromise and avoid strike action -.

exactly ....but I am talking about from the union/worker perspective

what point is there to such a deal with a party that will simply say "agree to these changes or else" whenever it wants?

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 04:35PM

Riskymove wrote: »

what point is there to such a deal with a party that will simply say "agree to these changes or else" whenever it wants?

And I welcome the PS workers to the real world of industrial relations.

Riskymove wrote: »

exactly ....but I am talking about from the union/worker perspective

So am I, but then I've been through the industrial relations mill and been a temporary worker that gets laid off because there's no work - so I can see it from both sides.

If it's a unilateral move it benefits nobody. Impact claimed that they got concessions around the scale of cuts:

Management’s opening position was that it wanted a straight cut to pay scales for those earning €60,000 “if not lower.”

IMPACT successfully moved management from its opening position, which was that all increments should be frozen until the end of 2016

I could go on, but had we allowed the government to take your view on this, the workers be in a worse situation.

Now which situation would you rather be in, taking the hit without consultation or being told: here's your lumps take them or leave.

Riskymove · 28-02-2013 04:41PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Now which situation would you rather be in, taking the hit without consultation or being told: here's your lumps take them or leave.

comparing what happened in 2010 to what is proposed here....I'd rather they just legislated

And I welcome the PS workers to the real world of industrial relations.

there is also another side of industrial relations reality that has been succesful and that is protest and action

but had we allowed the government to take your view on this, the workers be in a worse situation.

some workers would...IF you believe the Govt would have actually taken the more extreme measures threathened!

Paulzx · 28-02-2013 04:59PM

antoobrien wrote: »

So am I, but then I've been through the industrial relations mill and been a temporary worker that gets laid off because there's no work - .

There is work...........loads of it

woodoo · 28-02-2013 08:34PM

Paulzx wrote: »

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

Do you remember all the talk when the first CPA deal was done of giving back money to staff who earn under 35,000. Most knew it to be bull back then and that proved to be the case.

Now we hear Howlin say that this is the last public servants will be asked to give. That he hopes the next time they will even improve the pay and conditions. That also is hard to believe. It is very disappointing that politics is so rotten in this country that you couldn't believe a word that they promise.

Personally i don't think this deal is that bad. The problem i have is do we shout stop now because we all know they will be back in 2 or 3 years to attack us again. I really don't know what way to vote. I know they are going to cut us anyway but is it time we stopped cooperating with blatant liars.

RGS · 28-02-2013 09:27PM

It appears the government are already reneging on CP2.
On monday govt stated deal will be imposed on all PS if majority of unions accept deal, which is fair enough and totally acceptable, as the deal has to apply across the PS.
Today they are stating they will refuse to abide by the deal for those unions who oppose the deal as reported on RTE.ie---

"Meanwhile, Government sources remain adamant that unions which reject the proposals will lose the benefits that apply under the agreement, including the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies"

Either the deal applies in its entirety or not at all.

The Government Bullyboy in action.

Kpmacdublin · 28-02-2013 09:35PM

I'm a new entrant IT lecturer and I welcome the fact that the agreement means I am now on the same salary as my peers. Ie a 10% rise! The two tier system has made me very resentful of the current system. I'm also more qualified ie Phd and more years industry experience than my other fellow lecturers some who are earning 15-20 thousand more than me. Not from merit, just the fact they've been in there longer. Unions are to blame for this unfair situation!

Uriel. · 28-02-2013 09:41PM

RGS wrote: »

It appears the government are already reneging on CP2.
On monday govt stated deal will be imposed on all PS if majority of unions accept deal, which is fair enough and totally acceptable, as the deal has to apply across the PS.
Today they are stating they will refuse to abide by the deal for those unions who oppose the deal as reported on RTE.ie---

"Meanwhile, Government sources remain adamant that unions which reject the proposals will lose the benefits that apply under the agreement, including the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies"

Either the deal applies in its entirety or not at all.

The Government Bullyboy in action.

I think the gov had said in a number of remarks that if the deal wasn't signed up to even by some unions and presumably if those unions partake in industrial action that they would legislate for money saving measures separately. Perhaps just a threat. But tbh the more I hear and read the less I believe there will be a widespread acceptance of the deal

RGS · 28-02-2013 09:44PM

Uriel. wrote: »

I think the gov had said in a number of remarks that if the deal wasn't signed up to even by some unions and presumably if those unions partake in industrial action that they would legislate for money saving measures separately. Perhaps just a threat. But tbh the more I hear and read the less I believe there will be a widespread acceptance of the deal

You cant state the deal applies to all even if some unions oppose the deal and then decide, if the staff are working the deal, not to comply with the terms of the deal.

It looks like the government are trying to ensure a no vote.

Godge · 01-03-2013 12:22AM

noodler wrote: »

Nah.

In your opinion they couldn't make it stick..

So we have a difference of opinion which is where 1.24 comes in. But the Government sidestepped it.

noodler wrote: »

It has been shown time and time again that the budgetary situation worsened substantially from Mid-2010 onwards.

An extra 40bn or so of banking capital required.

GDP forecasts continuously failing to materialise.

Unemployment and the drain on the LR continuing to worsen from March 2010 onwards.

The interest rates on out Borrowing requirements increasing all summer, leading to the ECB having to take the unprecedented step of buying countries bonds.

Next came a suspension of bond auctions by the Government and eventually necessitating an EU/IMF bailout of emergency loans.

Christ, following your logic Godge, the unions should be happy the Government aren't seeking to backdate the cuts in CP2 by two or three years to take account of the massive deterioration in circumstances from the middle of 2010 onwards.

Was all of that unforseen? If you asked McWilliams or Constantin in 2010 what was happening with the economy, they would have told you we would be bankrupt by the end of the week. So using their forecasts we ended up better rather than worse. And they were not alone. The likes of Marc Coleman (remember the best is yet to come) was also singing the doomsday song.

You can have your view, I can have mine, but the Government never formally invoked clause 1.28.

Godge · 01-03-2013 12:28AM

sarumite wrote: »

Are you expressing an opinion or do you have a link to someone with authority stating that?

My reading would be different. The terms of the agreement etc must be discussed (1.24) however those terms become null and void if there is an unforeseen deterioration of the economy (1.28).

What are you talking about? Read 1.24 again, repeated below for your information.
"Where the parties cannot reach agreement in discussions on any matter under the terms of this Agreement..."

1.28 is a term of the agreement. Many people on these threads have pointed to it as justification for CPA2 but nobody can show where or when it was formally invoked and where and when the unions accepted that it was correctly invoked.

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.

K-9 · 01-03-2013 07:00AM

RGS wrote: »

It appears the government are already reneging on CP2.
On monday govt stated deal will be imposed on all PS if majority of unions accept deal, which is fair enough and totally acceptable, as the deal has to apply across the PS.
Today they are stating they will refuse to abide by the deal for those unions who oppose the deal as reported on RTE.ie---

"Meanwhile, Government sources remain adamant that unions which reject the proposals will lose the benefits that apply under the agreement, including the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies"

Either the deal applies in its entirety or not at all.

The Government Bullyboy in action.

I really don't see the problem here, those particular Unions opposed the deal and say it isn't a good deal, those Unions are calling for a No vote.

The Government are just pointing out what could happen if there was no agreement.

Figerty · 01-03-2013 08:43AM

Kpmacdublin wrote: »

I'm a new entrant IT lecturer and I welcome the fact that the agreement means I am now on the same salary as my peers. Ie a 10% rise! The two tier system has made me very resentful of the current system. I'm also more qualified ie Phd and more years industry experience than my other fellow lecturers some who are earning 15-20 thousand more than me. Not from merit, just the fact they've been in there longer. Unions are to blame for this unfair situation!

The union are not responsible for pay scale issue; this was imposed. The day you started work you signed up for this. You should also know that you aren’t guaranteed to get the same pay as other lecturers. This is still up for negotiation and no means guaranteed..shouting about getting 10% pay rise only diminishes your chances ofgetting it.
You may have a PhD, but this doesn’t make more worthy of thepay scale vs. those that are more experienced. Being around a college over timebrings additional responsibility new junior lecturers don’t have. Trust me, in three or four years you will understand.
If you work in the IOT sector then you should know thatthose with a PhD can advance on the pay scale faster… talk to your union, thecollege won’t be telling you unless you as.
For someone so experienced and knowledgeable... why did yousign up for such a pay scale if it was so disagreeable to you? I would have thought you would be better informed before shouting the odds..

antoobrien · 01-03-2013 08:48AM

RGS wrote: »

"Meanwhile, Government sources remain adamant that unions which reject the proposals will lose the benefits that apply under the agreement, including the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies"

Either the deal applies in its entirety or not at all.

The Government Bullyboy in action.

That argument goes both ways - the unions are also saying don't cut our wages or we'll strike. The difference being that the government are negotiating on behalf of the rest of the population while these unions are effectively trying to hold us to ransom.

SB2013 · 01-03-2013 09:56AM

antoobrien wrote: »

That argument goes both ways - the unions are also saying don't cut our wages or we'll strike. The difference being that the government are negotiating on behalf of the rest of the population while these unions are effectively trying to hold us to ransom.

Who is us? I'd say the public sector workers, retirees and their families make up a sizeable portion of the voting public.

ardmacha · 01-03-2013 09:59AM

"Meanwhile, Government sources remain adamant that unions which reject the proposals will lose the benefits that apply under the agreement, including the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies"

Compulsory redundancies are not much of threat in sectors where there are not enough staff as it is.

antoobrien · 01-03-2013 10:01AM

SB2013 wrote: »

Who is us? I'd say the public sector workers, retirees and their families make up a sizeable portion of the voting public.

They make up less than 1/5th of the population. The rest of us (about 3.5m) are the ones you're threatening with no <insert service of choice> unless you get your wage demands.

And that's not bullyboy tactics?

Riskymove · 01-03-2013 10:03AM

antoobrien wrote: »

They make up less than 1/5th of the population. The rest of us (about 3.5m) are the ones you're threatening with no <insert service of choice> unless you get your wage demands.

What about PS workers families?

do Public servants not use public services too?

kippy · 01-03-2013 10:04AM

antoobrien wrote: »

They make up less than 1/5th of the population. The rest of us (about 3.5m) are the ones you're threatening with no <insert service of choice> unless you get your wage demands.

And that's not bullyboy tactics?

What would you do, given the circumstances and options available?

antoobrien · 01-03-2013 10:08AM

Riskymove wrote: »

What about PS workers families?

do Public servants not use public services too?

There's a two theories I have on that:

Their families falls into the realm of "acceptable sacrifice"
They think their families are behind them and won't care - as long as there's no disruption to their pet service(s)

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments