Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Head The Wall · 15-03-2013 07:56AM

teacherhead wrote: »

When I take home less pay because of a deduction based solely on the fact that I'm a public servant that is,a cut in my pay.

It sounds like you don't understand the difference in gross and net pay, if you are taking that simplistic a view of your finances it's not a surprise that you only look at the end result and probably haven't a clue what deductions are coming out of your wages.

teacherhead · 15-03-2013 08:35AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

It sounds like you don't understand the difference in gross and net pay, if you are taking that simplistic a view of your finances it's not a surprise that you only look at the end result and probably haven't a clue what deductions are coming out of your wages.

I can assure you that I do know what deductions are coming out, but continue to paint me in a light which suits your argument. So much for reasoned debate. - you're too stupid to know what youre talking about, well done I hope you feel better.

My point is that the government retain some of my salary and call it a pension levy, this has happened to all public servants and has reduced the outgoings of the government, the money from the pension levy is used for current spending . It has reduced the public sector pay bill. My so called rolls Royce pension is not optional, if it was id be out of it and could keep my pension levy the fact that it's compulsory means it is a pay cut in the view of public servants.

Cut it what way you like, public servants have less money in their nett pay as a result of the two actions mentioned here.

In any event I am voting no to CP2 and encourage all public servants to do the same regardless of their union recommendation.

It is an attack on pay and conditions and will devastate frontline services as well as support roles in admin etc, anybody who thinks that this deal is good should read it again.

Riskymove · 15-03-2013 08:37AM

noodler wrote: »

Fair enough - although that is after many years of progression on said scales.

different grades have a different number of points

some only have 6 or 7 points others can take 15 or more

Farmer Pudsey · 15-03-2013 11:47AM

ardmacha wrote: »

Really? Where does it say that?
In both the case of the pension levy and the pay cut you do not pay tax on the amount lost, because you never got it.

When you hit the 15% threshold for pwnsions (below 50)you cannot claim a tax deduction for the pension payment. If the second paycut ahd been implementd as a pension deductions you would have paid tax on it and the money would have been deducted as well so a double whammy.

This is why after the first pension deduction a lot of PS stoped payments to private pension schemes as they would get no taxation benifit and would pay all the contribution after tax.

barneystinson · 15-03-2013 01:13PM

teacherhead wrote: »

In any event I am voting no to CP2 and encourage all public servants to do the same regardless of their union recommendation.

It is an attack on pay and conditions and will devastate frontline services as well as support roles in admin etc, anybody who thinks that this deal is good should read it again.

With respect, and I'm a PS worker who will see my income per hour worked reduced by about 10% over the next ten years under this deal, I see it as a case of agreeing to the least worst deal. The alternative to this deal is at least as unpalatable IMHO.

creedp · 15-03-2013 01:35PM

barneystinson wrote: »

With respect, and I'm a PS worker who will see my income per hour worked reduced by about 10% over the next ten years under this deal, I see it as a case of agreeing to the least worst deal. The alternative to this deal is at least as unpalatable IMHO.

I think the argument might be that this deal only happened because the previous deal was welshed on - how long will this deal last and what will happen the next time a deal is required. The deficit will still be there in 2/3 years time and FG might need another populist pay cut to gain some political support prior to the election .. Sure it worked a dream the last time so lets give it another go lads.

The Govt legislated for the last 2 wage cuts and now a 3rd one is going to be agreed by unions because it pretty much keeps them in the granduer of the collective bargaining process, something they have become accustomed to over the last number of years.

tayto lover · 15-03-2013 02:01PM

barneystinson wrote: »

With respect, and I'm a PS worker who will see my income per hour worked reduced by about 10% over the next ten years under this deal, I see it as a case of agreeing to the least worst deal. The alternative to this deal is at least as unpalatable IMHO.

You honestly won't stand up for yourself and fight ??
You take what's thrown at you without question.
They will certainly be back for more if everyone has your attitude.

sean200 · 15-03-2013 02:20PM

More bullying by this government, vote no to Croke Park 2 as every worker will lose in the long-term
This is all about getting a low wage labour market
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0315/376863-croke-park/

creedp · 15-03-2013 02:31PM

sean200 wrote: »

More bullying by this government, vote no to Croke Park 2 as every worker will lose in the long-term
This is all about getting a low wage labour market
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0315/376863-croke-park/

"The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has warned that the protections against pay cuts and compulsory redundancies in the first Croke Park Agreement will cease if the proposals for a successor agreement are voted down by unions."

The irony of it! Croke Park I has a year yet to run but PS are their threatened they will lose the protection from pay cuts enshrined in that deal unless they vote for pay cuts!

Uriel. · 15-03-2013 02:44PM

From an (academic) point of view I'd be interested to see how the Croke Park talks (1 & 2) has/will impact generally on the perception of unions. I would imagine, (speculation) that union membership would have stagnated/declined during the boom years along with increased statutory protections for workers. Particularly amongst new entrants.

Does croke park two damage their importance in the eyes of PS members or would it have been a lot worse had there been no union(s) to intervene?

barneystinson · 15-03-2013 03:31PM

creedp wrote: »

"The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has warned that the protections against pay cuts and compulsory redundancies in the first Croke Park Agreement will cease if the proposals for a successor agreement are voted down by unions."

The irony of it! Croke Park I has a year yet to run but PS are their threatened they will lose the protection from pay cuts enshrined in that deal unless they vote for pay cuts!

I just finished reading the press statement as it's been circulated by the PSEU to its members. It specifically states that should the proposed agreement not be ratified the current agreement would cease and the €1bn will be legislated for. So to talk of protections under CPA1 is irrelevant, it's about to cease either way.

barneystinson · 15-03-2013 03:36PM

tayto lover wrote: »

You honestly won't stand up for yourself and fight ??
You take what's thrown at you without question.
They will certainly be back for more if everyone has your attitude.

If I felt there was anything gained by fighting I'd fight.

To me it's a relatively simple equation, either head count, or pay levels, or both need to be reduced - that's the reality, the decision has already been made (imposed on us by our financiers)..

In the absence of compulsory redundancies it would appear pay has to take some of the hit. If I was to stand up for myself I'd tell the unions to cop on and facilitate the dead wood from being trimmed...

If they come back again I'll consider my position again.

teacherhead · 15-03-2013 03:55PM

barneystinson wrote: »

If I felt there was anything gained by fighting I'd fight.

To me it's a relatively simple equation, either head count, or pay levels, or both need to be reduced - that's the reality, the decision has already been made (imposed on us by our financiers)..

In the absence of compulsory redundancies it would appear pay has to take some of the hit. If I was to stand up for myself I'd tell the unions to cop on and facilitate the dead wood from being trimmed...

If they come back again I'll consider my position again.

You are giving more than pay.

Management structures will be flattened, no promotions, demarcation will be removed basically everything will be your job for less money.

Your contract is your protection, if you accept this agreement you are agreeing to altering the terms of your contract. This 'agreement' is a disgrace, it gives all the power to management, it is full of holes and grey areas.

It is akin to writing a blank cheque to the government. There are no mentions of a restoration of pay after 2016, and even if there were how could we believe them?

They will decimate our pay and our pensions. We will work longer and harder for less. Conditions foregone will never be restored.

I think SIPTU the INTO and IMPACT should take a long look at themselves. This is not a deal. VOTE NO

tayto lover · 15-03-2013 03:58PM

barneystinson wrote: »

If I felt there was anything gained by fighting I'd fight.

To me it's a relatively simple equation, either head count, or pay levels, or both need to be reduced - that's the reality, the decision has already been made (imposed on us by our financiers)..

In the absence of compulsory redundancies it would appear pay has to take some of the hit. If I was to stand up for myself I'd tell the unions to cop on and facilitate the dead wood from being trimmed...

If they come back again I'll consider my position again.

OK. I really think Jack O'Connor and Co. have sold out their workers.
Workers should resign from the Unions as a protest and form a new union leaving these people abandoned. I wonder if that's possible.

creedp · 15-03-2013 04:04PM

barneystinson wrote: »

I just finished reading the press statement as it's been circulated by the PSEU to its members. It specifically states that should the proposed agreement not be ratified the current agreement would cease and the €1bn will be legislated for. So to talk of protections under CPA1 is irrelevant, it's about to cease either way.

It has ceased already as what people are voting for is pay cuts, albeit targeted at specific cohorts of PS. If as the Govt claims the 'deal' will achieve €1bn then if it is not supported and the Govt go ahead and legislate for cuts outside of deal, the only difference is that it will be spread more evenly. Its easy then to see why the PSEU would support it. However, the real issue lies with ICTU and the PSC which are now defunct in my view as its every individual union for themselves. In that context I resent the fact that the PSC represented itself as negotiating on behalf of all PS workers as it is quite clear from the deal that the PSC negotiators looked after their own individual union members and sold the rest down the swanny.

barneystinson · 15-03-2013 04:04PM

teacherhead wrote: »

You are giving more than pay.

Management structures will be flattened, no promotions, demarcation will be removed basically everything will be your job for less money.

Your contract is your protection, if you accept this agreement you are agreeing to altering the terms of your contract. This 'agreement' is a disgrace, it gives all the power to management, it is full of holes and grey areas.

It is akin to writing a blank cheque to the government. There are no mentions of a restoration of pay after 2016, and even if there were how could we believe them?

They will decimate our pay and our pensions. We will work longer and harder for less. Conditions foregone will never be restored.

I think SIPTU the INTO and IMPACT should take a long look at themselves. This is not a deal. VOTE NO

I haven't been in the service long. I can live with working 37 hours a week. I already take work home with me, so I just need to ensure its recorded from now on.

I'm not at all happy about the increment freeze, but the UK have had one in place a couple of years now.

As for the flattening of management structures, it's badly needed in some areas.

I see you spitting bile about what you don't want; it's easy to just shout NO, but what do think SHOULD happen instead, given the economic reality of 1bn to be saved in the PS?

creedp · 15-03-2013 04:10PM

barneystinson wrote: »

I haven't been in the service long. I can live with working 37 hours a week. I already take work home with me, so I just need to ensure its recorded from now on.

I'm not at all happy about the increment freeze, but the UK have had one in place a couple of years now.

As for the flattening of management structures, it's badly needed in some areas.

I see you spitting bile about what you don't want; it's easy to just shout NO, but what do think SHOULD happen instead, given the economic reality of 1bn to be saved in the PS?

Am I correct in thinking you are a PSEU member? If so then its no surprise why you would vote for the deal from a personal interest perspective - relatively speaking its a great deal for your grade. This is the issue though, the PSC went into negotiations with 3 negotiators from 3 unions and negotiated on behalf of all the PS. However, what happenned is quite clear they negotiated on behalf of 3 unions and the rest could swing. That's fine but as I said earlier in my view the PSC can no longer claim represent the PS.

whiteandlight · 15-03-2013 04:26PM

This agreement is awful. There are open ended commitments involved-it agrees to pensions and allowances to be put back on the table without mention of how much/which they are talking about. This is ridiculous-we would be giving the government carte blanch to do whatever they like to our contracts. In teaching in particular they have refused to confirm that the hours of a CID (the only route to permanency - only to be got on the 5th consecutive contract in a school) cannot be cut. It is reasonable to assume that they intend for these permanent contracts to be reduced in hours. So much for job security.

carpejugulum · 15-03-2013 04:41PM

Musicmental85 wrote: »

This agreement is awful. There are open ended commitments involved-it agrees to pensions and allowances to be put back on the table without mention of how much/which they are talking about. This is ridiculous-we would be giving the government carte blanch to do whatever they like to our contracts. In teaching in particular they have refused to confirm that the hours of a CID (the only route to permanency - only to be got on the 5th consecutive contract in a school) cannot be cut. It is reasonable to assume that they intend for these permanent contracts to be reduced in hours. So much for job security.

It's time to shift some power back to where it belongs - to the employer&customer - the tax payer.

tayto lover · 15-03-2013 05:15PM

carpejugulum wrote: »

It's time to shift some power back to where it belongs - to the employer&customer - the tax payer.

Very foolish if you think the taxpayer has power.

carpejugulum · 15-03-2013 05:53PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Very foolish if you think the taxpayer has power.

That's for a different debate.
The main point is that unions how more power than they should have.

tayto lover · 15-03-2013 06:27PM

carpejugulum wrote: »

That's for a different debate.
The main point is that unions how more power than they should have.

If you had worked in industry 30 years ago you would have a far different view.
I did and at that time you had no rights at all.
Be careful of what you wish for.

teacherhead · 15-03-2013 08:13PM

Dismantle the public sector unions, dismantle the private sector unions.

As for the 1bn adjustment I was asked about. Raise taxes for all in A fair manner. Funny how govt want to stick to their commitment in the programme for government but are willing to tear up the croke park agreement.

Head The Wall · 15-03-2013 09:46PM

teacherhead wrote: »

My point is that the government retain some of my salary and call it a pension levy, this has happened to all public servants and has reduced the outgoings of the government, the money from the pension levy is used for current spending . It has reduced the public sector pay bill. My so called rolls Royce pension is not optional, if it was id be out of it and could keep my pension levy the fact that it's compulsory means it is a pay cut in the view of public servants.

It may be a paycut in the view of PS people that only think of things in net terms but the english language and most other people say otherwise - look up the many online dictionaries that define a paycut as the act of reducing salary. As I have already stated your salary was not reduced.

teacherhead wrote: »

Cut it what way you like, public servants have less money in their nett pay as a result of the two actions mentioned here.

I never said they didn't, people usually don't have a choice about these kind of deductions from their pay packets be they public or private, but it's only the bloods PS moaners that are bleating on about it. MOre of the L'Oreal attitude

teacherhead wrote: »

It is an attack on pay and conditions and will devastate frontline services as well as support roles in admin etc, anybody who thinks that this deal is good should read it again.

The support roles in admin are the most overpaid and the very ones that are getting of the lightest if CP 2 is passed, if you think they are going to suffer you really don't know what's going on.

sean200 wrote: »

More bullying by this government, vote no to Croke Park 2 as every worker will lose in the long-term
This is all about getting a low wage labour market
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0315/376863-croke-park/

You don't think the fact that the country is billions in debt and needs to cut costs has anything to do with it? Don't let that get in the way of a good rant though

creedp wrote: »

"The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has warned that the protections against pay cuts and compulsory redundancies in the first Croke Park Agreement will cease if the proposals for a successor agreement are voted down by unions."

The irony of it! Croke Park I has a year yet to run but PS are their threatened they will lose the protection from pay cuts enshrined in that deal unless they vote for pay cuts!

All the govt has to do is say there have been unforseen budgetary circumstances and there goes CP 1, your statement is typical of the PS mentality. You are basically trying to state that there is only one side to the agreement little realising that maybe enough hasn't been saved by CP 1.

teacherhead wrote: »

You are giving more than pay.

Management structures will be flattened, no promotions, demarcation will be removed basically everything will be your job for less money.

Your contract is your protection, if you accept this agreement you are agreeing to altering the terms of your contract. This 'agreement' is a disgrace, it gives all the power to management, it is full of holes and grey areas.

It is akin to writing a blank cheque to the government. There are no mentions of a restoration of pay after 2016, and even if there were how could we believe them?

They will decimate our pay and our pensions. We will work longer and harder for less. Conditions foregone will never be restored.

I think SIPTU the INTO and IMPACT should take a long look at themselves. This is not a deal. VOTE NO

Your contract means nothing, the govt can just change it via legislation when they want. As has been posted you will find that if CP 2 doesn't pass your contracts will be amended anyway and ther will be SFA that you can do about it.

tayto lover wrote: »

If you had worked in industry 30 years ago you would have a far different view.
I did and at that time you had no rights at all.
Be careful of what you wish for.

It's not 1983 though is it, it's now and there is very strong employment legislation and there is a very broke govt.

Godge · 15-03-2013 11:44PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

It may be a paycut in the view of PS people that only think of things in net terms but the english language and most other people say otherwise - look up the many online dictionaries that define a paycut as the act of reducing salary. As I have already stated your salary was not reduced..

I have already pointed out a few pages ago your lack of knowledge of what actually happened and the sequence of it so it does not surprise me to see you repeating a lie. There is not one government minister, opposition T.D., reputable economist or reputable commentator who calls the pension levy anything except a pay cut. Even the CSO mention it in their reports.

There are a few small-minded unknowledgeable posters on boards who deny the reality of it being a pay cut. It is getting quite sad and discredits everything else they say.

Head The Wall wrote: »

I never said they didn't, people usually don't have a choice about these kind of deductions from their pay packets be they public or private, but it's only the bloods PS moaners that are bleating on about it. MOre of the L'Oreal attitude.

I hope you do not include me in your list of "bloody PS moaners" as I work in the private sector. Rather than engaging in ranting like this you might post some evidence where a politician (or reputable economist - and I don't mean Eddie Hobbs) says that the pension levy is not a pay cut. Otherwise your rant is just the rant of an unsubstantiated unsupported boards poster.

Head The Wall wrote: »

The support roles in admin are the most overpaid and the very ones that are getting of the lightest if CP 2 is passed, if you think they are going to suffer you really don't know what's going on..

I think you are referring to one study which compared them with the private sector and found that. There are other studies that showed that compared to the European norm they are underpaid.

In fact, given the plethora of confusing studies with different conclusions, you could probably make the argument that any grade is overpaid or underpaid depending on which evidence you used.

Finding a soundbite to cling to is no substitute for actually understanding the material.

Head The Wall wrote: »

You don't think the fact that the country is billions in debt and needs to cut costs has anything to do with it? Don't let that get in the way of a good rant though.

Yes, use the excuse the country is billions in debt to have a go at public servants without debating the merits of other options such as cutting social welfare, raising taxes or a levy on emigrants.

Head The Wall wrote: »

All the govt has to do is say there have been unforseen budgetary circumstances and there goes CP 1, your statement is typical of the PS mentality. You are basically trying to state that there is only one side to the agreement little realising that maybe enough hasn't been saved by CP 1..

Now please show me where the Government formally invoked the unforseen budgetary circumstances clause of CP1 before the negotiations of CP2. If they really wrote to the unions saying that, it is sure to be on a website somewhere. With your extensive knowledge of public service pay, you should be well to locate it and educate us all. Then again, you can read this thread and you will see where I pointed out that this did not happen, mostly because the Government was open to challenge on that issue and could (only could not would) lose the challenge which would be embarrassing to say the least.

Head The Wall wrote: »

Your contract means nothing, the govt can just change it via legislation when they want. As has been posted you will find that if CP 2 doesn't pass your contracts will be amended anyway and ther will be SFA that you can do about it.

It's not 1983 though is it, it's now and there is very strong employment legislation and there is a very broke govt.

Now show me the piece of legislation that says the contract can be changed at will. At the time of the paycut, there was a lot of reference to legal advice that stated the government would survive any challenege to the pay cuts legislation because it met two parameters:

(1) They were generally applicable to everyone
(2) The country's finances were such that there was no other option.

Read that again carefully, it means that the government, in extremis, can alter the employment contract of public servants, so long as it does it to everyone. Now, what is different about CP2. Well, firstly there are other options (increase property tax/income tax/corporation tax or cut sporting grants/social welfare/farmers' grants). Secondly, the proposed pay cut does not apply to everyone.

Now I don't expect people on boards to understand the nuances of all that (even though it is a simplified explanation) but basically it is not true to state that the government can effectively wave a magic wand and change the terms and conditions of a public servant. Such a view would be beyond naive.

Godge · 15-03-2013 11:47PM

carpejugulum wrote: »

It's time to shift some power back to where it belongs - to the employer&customer - the tax payer.

Away from business owners who now take the greatest share of income and wealth in Ireland, I presume?

Hotblack Desiato · 16-03-2013 12:45AM

tayto lover wrote: »

OK. I really think Jack O'Connor and Co. have sold out their workers.
Workers should resign from the Unions as a protest and form a new union leaving these people abandoned. I wonder if that's possible.

There is only one union legally allowed to represent my grade. If it wasn't for that, we'd all have left years ago :rolleyes: and once you get into your forties, giving up the income continuance plan (which we pay for) is a serious disincentive to leaving the union.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-03-2013 12:59AM

barneystinson wrote: »

I just finished reading the press statement as it's been circulated by the PSEU to its members. It specifically states that should the proposed agreement not be ratified the current agreement would cease and the €1bn will be legislated for. So to talk of protections under CPA1 is irrelevant, it's about to cease either way.

So what's the point of entering 'agreements' with the government when they rip them up at will?

The government are playing hardball, the pathetic union leaders do not have the stomach for it but they are seriously out of step with their membership who don't benefit from the 100k+ salaries of the bearded wonders, and are not willing to take any more.

This autumn, the government will be looking to international investors and pretending that all is well here and we're doing great, please lend us money so we can exit the bailout.
The useless union leaders don't seem to have considered this, we only need the threat of strikes to derail their plans, but they're acting like we have no option but to accept whatever bowl of shit is served up to us. Well we don't have to accept it and if the government wants us to play ball they should for starters honour the existing agreements in place.

The 1Bn 'needed' from pay cuts is a falsehood, an ideologically driven invented figure. If the political will was there, a proper crackdown on social welfare fraud could save several times that per annum. FFS the spending overrun in Health last year was more than 500 million euro, yet the taxpayer (and public servants are taxpayers) are expected to cough this up unquestioningly. This excessive spending is purely down to political and administrative incompetence at the highest level.

tippspur · 16-03-2013 01:16AM

tayto lover wrote: »

If you had worked in industry 30 years ago you would have a far different view.
I did and at that time you had no rights at all.
Be careful of what you wish for.

I agree with you there tayto.

Head The Wall · 16-03-2013 01:29AM

Godge wrote: »

I have already pointed out a few pages ago your lack of knowledge of what actually happened and the sequence of it so it does not surprise me to see you repeating a lie. There is not one government minister, opposition T.D., reputable economist or reputable commentator who calls the pension levy anything except a pay cut. Even the CSO mention it in their reports.

There are a few small-minded unknowledgeable posters on boards who deny the reality of it being a pay cut. It is getting quite sad and discredits everything else they say.

You pointed out I had something in the wrong order which i have acknowledged and I didn't repeat it either so I don't know what you are on about when you say repeating a lie, how about you actually deal with the facts in my post and tell me why they are wrong if thats what you believe.

Also how about you address why the pension levy is classed as a pension contribution for tax purposes and the paycut is not? Surely if they are the same thing they would be treated the same

Godge wrote: »

I hope you do not include me in your list of "bloody PS moaners" as I work in the private sector. Rather than engaging in ranting like this you might post some evidence where a politician (or reputable economist - and I don't mean Eddie Hobbs) says that the pension levy is not a pay cut. Otherwise your rant is just the rant of an unsubstantiated unsupported boards poster.

And likewise I will say you are just another unsubstantiated poster having a rant, Legally one is classed as a paycut and one is classed as a pension contribution - what facts do you have to prove that the legislation is wrong

Godge wrote: »

I think you are referring to one study which compared them with the private sector and found that. There are other studies that showed that compared to the European norm they are underpaid.

Well I'm sorry for using a CSO report, what do you recommend we use for reference because anything that quotes what people don't want to hear is going to be argued. You have just done it in your own post by referencing some report comparing them to European levels.

Can you please link to this report that shows clerical offiecer getting paid more across Europe than the ones in Ireland.

Godge wrote: »

Yes, use the excuse the country is billions in debt to have a go at public servants without debating the merits of other options such as cutting social welfare, raising taxes or a levy on emigrants.

Now please show me where the Government formally invoked the unforseen budgetary circumstances clause of CP1 before the negotiations of CP2. If they really wrote to the unions saying that, it is sure to be on a website somewhere. With your extensive knowledge of public service pay, you should be well to locate it and educate us all. Then again, you can read this thread and you will see where I pointed out that this did not happen, mostly because the Government was open to challenge on that issue and could (only could not would) lose the challenge which would be embarrassing to say the least.

They should be tackled as well, I didn't say they shouldn't but this thread is about CP 2 so stop trying to deflect.

Where did I say that they have invoked it, I said they can invoke it, a poster above said he had read the PSEU press statement and it said if they didn't agree to the deal then the cuts would be brought in anyway. We'll have to wait and see does CP2 get voted in or not, what do you think will happen if it doesn't

Godge wrote: »

Now show me the piece of legislation that says the contract can be changed at will. At the time of the paycut, there was a lot of reference to legal advice that stated the government would survive any challenege to the pay cuts legislation because it met two parameters:

(1) They were generally applicable to everyone
(2) The country's finances were such that there was no other option.

Read that again carefully, it means that the government, in extremis, can alter the employment contract of public servants, so long as it does it to everyone. Now, what is different about CP2. Well, firstly there are other options (increase property tax/income tax/corporation tax or cut sporting grants/social welfare/farmers' grants). Secondly, the proposed pay cut does not apply to everyone.

Now I don't expect people on boards to understand the nuances of all that (even though it is a simplified explanation) but basically it is not true to state that the government can effectively wave a magic wand and change the terms and conditions of a public servant. Such a view would be beyond naive.

It's called the budget, it has been done twice already.

If they reject CP2 then they will just implement it the same way that was done previously i.e they will hit everyone thereby meeting parameter no 1 and the govt needs to get 1bn from PS pay so it's obvious the financial situation is such that there is no other option.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments