Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

carpejugulum · 16-03-2013 01:34AM

Godge wrote: »

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

It's actually the government.

But if you exclude that, wages are still 50+% of GDP, which is remarkable for such a small export-oriented economy.

ikarie · 17-03-2013 08:48PM

Looking at this agreement I think any union or member that votes yes to Croke Park 2 would need their collective head examined.
You will be working longer hours for the same money, and that is in any language a paycut! but the main fact it's still LONGER working hours!
The difference is that if you lose money in a straight pay cut you might, in the future claw that back either, when times are good through pay negotiations as before or, maybe through inflation. but you'll never get those hours back if you lose them!
If you vote No the government will probably implement the pay cuts through legislation..so what, as I stated earlier you can counter this in time, but they'll probably look for redundancies as well and to be honest don't you think they are needed in certain areas as represented by a certain union? Also these Grey Area agreements that require post legislation would probably end aswell with a No vote which would good in itself.

The ICTU should be dismantled and SIPTU and the PSC should cop themselves on..

teacherhead · 17-03-2013 09:17PM

ikarie wrote: »

Looking at this agreement I think any union or member that votes yes to Croke Park 2 would need their collective head examined.
You will be working longer hours for the same money, and that is in any language a paycut! but the main fact it's still LONGER working hours!

Or indeed more hours for less money. Add removal of traditional demarcation and its lights out.

iba · 17-03-2013 10:16PM

ikarie wrote: »

Looking at this agreement I think any union or member that votes yes to Croke Park 2 would need their collective head examined.
You will be working longer hours for the same money, and that is in any language a paycut! but the main fact it's still LONGER working hours!
The difference is that if you lose money in a straight pay cut you might, in the future claw that back either, when times are good through pay negotiations as before or, maybe through inflation. but you'll never get those hours back if you lose them!
If you vote No the government will probably implement the pay cuts through legislation..so what, as I stated earlier you can counter this in time, but they'll probably look for redundancies as well and to be honest don't you think they are needed in certain areas as represented by a certain union? Also these Grey Area agreements that require post legislation would probably end aswell with a No vote which would good in itself.

The ICTU should be dismantled and SIPTU and the PSC should cop themselves on..

If they legislate for pay-cut, the cut will be betwen 5 and 7 percent probably 5 and a half percent. But the million dollar question is, along with the pay-cut, will they also increase the hours - and that is the gamble if the vote is No

Cuddlesworth · 18-03-2013 11:39AM

ninja900 wrote: »

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.

Shouldn't savings on social welfare fraud come from the civil service? Shouldn't savings on Healthcare come from the employees in the HSE?

The 166 TD's don't micro manage cost, projects and staff. The employees in the civil and public service do.

teacherhead · 18-03-2013 12:25PM

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Shouldn't savings on social welfare fraud come from the civil service? Shouldn't savings on Healthcare come from the employees in the HSE?

The 166 TD's don't micro manage cost, projects and staff. The employees in the civil and public service do.

They dont manage costs no. But take in health for example or anywhere, a minister wants a new school or primary care centre in his plot, arranges it and the civil servants try to shove the money around.

I know that these things are important but it's the decisions that are made purely for political gain that would sicken you

Equally, if youre going to be in the business of defending td's how can you be paid 90k a year and need to be paid extra to drive to work, have subsidised food and drink and be able to employ an assistant? It's a joke, if youre earning big money work hard for it.

Im not one of those who thinks the rich should pay for everything, but they more well off could contribute equally. Entrepreneurs put their lives into their businesses so I dont think their profits should be raped just to keep paying me, if you work hard you deserve to be well paid.

If the Government is so fixated on 65k why don't they bring in a third tax band at 65k? To hit everyone equally. Its the unfairness of it that gets me. And not happy to cut pay but increase workload on people who are already struggling to survive.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-03-2013 12:31PM

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Shouldn't savings on social welfare fraud come from the civil service? Shouldn't savings on Healthcare come from the employees in the HSE?

The 166 TD's don't micro manage cost, projects and staff. The employees in the civil and public service do.

They can't do what there is no political will to do.
There is no political will to sort out the social welfare system because doing so will cost government parties far more votes than it wins. Instead civil servants are instructed to pay dubious claims against their better judgement, hand out money for communions, etc.

For similar reasons there was no rationalisation of administration or proper reform of management structures when the HSE was created.

Itchianus · 21-03-2013 11:09PM

What's going on here, 3 days without any posts, has everyone run out of bile?!

I'll kickstart things again with a story I heard today from a former colleague of mine:

He took a promotion last year from an open recruitment competition.
The position he was offered was in Dublin, his wife has a good permanent job in the provincial town they live in, and they have kids in school and their whole life going on there, so he decided he'd undertake a 4-hour a day round trip commute, hoping that after a couple of years retirements etc would open up a move closer to home.
Taking the promotion was going to actually cost him money for the first year or two, due to the cost of the commute, but the incremental pay scale would see him better off in the medium term.
So now, with CPA2 looming, he's in a position where it makes absolutely no financial sense for him to remain in his position as an Assistant Principal Officer - he would be several thousand euro, and several hundred hours, better off annually if he reverts to being a HEO.
He literally can't afford NOT to take a demotion or else look for a job in the private sector, notwithstanding that he's far better at the job than many of his peers who got their through "seniority" rather than based on ability.
Taking a demotion would effectively mean he'd never compete successfully for promotion again - so CPA2 is going to force him to commit either financial or professional suicide if he stays in the civil service.

It just struck me as an example of how "reform" like CPA2 can affect high performers, and push them back out to the private sector, or in this case into demotion and complete demoralisation.

Head The Wall · 22-03-2013 12:43AM

He took a gamble on increments, that was his choice to make. A foolish choice if you ask me

creedp · 22-03-2013 12:47AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

He took a gamble on increments, that was his choice to make. A foolish choice if you ask me

You must have been patiently waiting for that opportunity:)

barneystinson · 22-03-2013 12:56AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

He took a gamble on increments, that was his choice to make. A foolish choice if you ask me

So it's a foolish gamble to take a promotion in the expectation of earning more than the staff who report to you?

Even without the cost of a long commute, when CPA2 kicks in that guy will be cut to 65k; if at the top of the scale he would be at or above that as a HEO, so he'll be on 65k either way. What's the point in taking on managerial responsibility in that situation, unless you're going to be paid for it?

Remind me what your alternative to incremental pay scales is while we're on the topic - or should pay only be increased on promotion?

creedp · 22-03-2013 01:15AM

barneystinson wrote: »

So it's a foolish gamble to take a promotion in the expectation of earning more than the staff who report to you?

Even without the cost of a long commute, when CPA2 kicks in that guy will be cut to 65k; if at the top of the scale he would be at or above that as a HEO, so he'll be on 65k either way. What's the point in taking on managerial responsibility in that situation, unless you're going to be paid for it?

Ah but sure don't you understand the brains at DPER and SIPTU consider a person on €65k as being highly paid while one on €64,999 as being low paid. We've a bright future ahead.

M three · 22-03-2013 01:34AM

Itchianus wrote: »

his position as an Assistant Principal Officer

What is it with theses ridiculous titles the civil service have for themselves.
Assistant principal, officer? Daft.
Every bit as bad as "bank officials".
there's another load of crap, nothing official about those ****ers either

barneystinson · 22-03-2013 02:51AM

You must be after mistaking this for after hours with your potty mouth...

Definition of officer:
a person who holds a position of rank or authority in the army, navy, air force, or any similar organization, especially one who holds a commission; a person appointed or elected to some position of responsibility or authority in the government, a corporation, a society, etc.

Definition of principal:
a chief or head; a person who takes a leading part in any activity,

I hardly need to explain what assistant means?

It's little you have to be worrying about if job titles get you that exercised :rolleyes:

Head The Wall · 22-03-2013 09:51AM

barneystinson wrote: »

So it's a foolish gamble to take a promotion in the expectation of earning more than the staff who report to you?

Even without the cost of a long commute, when CPA2 kicks in that guy will be cut to 65k; if at the top of the scale he would be at or above that as a HEO, so he'll be on 65k either way. What's the point in taking on managerial responsibility in that situation, unless you're going to be paid for it?

Remind me what your alternative to incremental pay scales is while we're on the topic - or should pay only be increased on promotion?

He took a gamble on there being no paycut and for automatic pay increases to keep happening. Considering the economy is still in the crapper it was a foolish move.

I'm all for pay increases when they are justified and earned. The employer also needs to be able too afford them and as we can see in the case of the Irish govt they can't.

AlexisM · 22-03-2013 11:11AM

Itchianus wrote: »

So now, with CPA2 looming, he's in a position where it makes absolutely no financial sense for him to remain in his position as an Assistant Principal Officer - he would be several thousand euro, and several hundred hours, better off annually if he reverts to being a HEO.

I don't understand. Can you explain the numbers in a bit more detail? The latestpay scales I can find on finance.gov.ie have the top of the (highest) HEO scale at 60,224; the APO scales start at 65,185 and go to 80,678. I know there is pension levy to come off both and potentially some adjustment above 65K under CPA2 but I don't understand how the HEO scale can be considered better than the APO scale.

Riskymove · 22-03-2013 12:15PM

AlexisM wrote: »

but I don't understand how the HEO scale can be considered better than the APO scale.

Its in the context if this individuals' situation

he is saying that it is costing him a lot to travel to his job as AP but if he went back to being HEO in the other office he would save that cost

skafish · 22-03-2013 10:27PM

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 don't want to appear to knock your point, but do you really think the government will legeslate for anything worse than CP2? Fine Gael will probably try, more to appease their wealthy farming and D4 backers than anything else. I honestly don't think labour have the stomach to agree. They are smart enough to realise if they do, they will loose what little support they have left within the PS, and all the new TDs that got in the last election will fade into obscurity.

If the government want to sort things out, there are many options available to them other than penalising the PS yet again.....they could start by sorting out the black economy, and welfare fraud for a start

Hotblack Desiato · 23-03-2013 12:01AM

If votes lost from tackling welfare fraud (Labour) + votes lost by tackling tax evasion (FG) > votes lost from kicking the PS in the balls again, they will kick the PS in the balls again.

Farmer Pudsey · 23-03-2013 06:48AM

barneystinson wrote: »

You must be after mistaking this for after hours with your potty mouth...

Definition of officer:
a person who holds a position of rank or authority in the army, navy, air force, or any similar organization, especially one who holds a commission; a person appointed or elected to some position of responsibility or authority in the government, a corporation, a society, etc.

Definition of principal:
a chief or head; a person who takes a leading part in any activity,

I hardly need to explain what assistant means?

It's little you have to be worrying about if job titles get you that exercised :rolleyes:

Here we have the defination of a bureaucrat. Below a HEO we have a EO and a Staff Officer. above we have a APO and a PO as well as a grades higher and lower.

This is what is wrong in the PS. It needs to be flattened in the sence that do we need the different levels to manage a fairly small country. Have we really only got a PS where one level of managment makes work for the next. The HSE would be the best case in point. Above we have five levels of middle management. How many staff member that take the promotion do so as they get nearer to retirment so as to boost there pension and how many are promoted for the reason that it is there turn.

The inability of middle managment to actually manage is the biggest issue in the PS and this is due to the archaic structures and titles

Dougal McGuire · 26-03-2013 03:16PM

could someone give me a quick overview of the difference of opinion that the government and the trade unions have had in the recent talks?

doc_17 · 26-03-2013 06:25PM

TUI reject LRC proposals.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0326/378522-tui-rejects-croke-park-extension-deal/

80% of returned ballots vote NO

Godge · 27-03-2013 12:49AM

doc_17 wrote: »

TUI reject LRC proposals.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0326/378522-tui-rejects-croke-park-extension-deal/

80% of returned ballots vote NO

And so it starts, but still IMPACT, SIPTU, INTO and PSEU can carry the deal on their own.

barneystinson · 27-03-2013 02:54AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Here we have the defination of a bureaucrat. Below a HEO we have a EO and a Staff Officer. above we have a APO and a PO as well as a grades higher and lower.

This is what is wrong in the PS. It needs to be flattened in the sence that do we need the different levels to manage a fairly small country. Have we really only got a PS where one level of managment makes work for the next. The HSE would be the best case in point. Above we have five levels of middle management. How many staff member that take the promotion do so as they get nearer to retirment so as to boost there pension and how many are promoted for the reason that it is there turn.

Where I work there is no such thing as promotion based on seniority - that accounts for about 20% of the civil service.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I just checked the numbers there and as of Jan 2012, 74.5% of the staff in my organisation were at CO or EO/SO grade (there is no difference in practical terms between EOs and SOs), and if you add in the HEOs/AOs that brings you up to 91.5% of headcount.

Where I work HEO's/AO's are not solely managers - i.e. their role involves certain management functions but also a substantial element of their own casework (more complex issues than those dealt with by the lower grades).

AP is the first truly managerial level, and they make up 6.5% of the headcount.

Is that a flat enough structure for you?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The inability of middle managment to actually manage is the biggest issue in the PS and this is due to the archaic structures and titles

The first part of that sentence is correct but I don't see how you can blame the job titles for it!

ParkRunner · 27-03-2013 07:11AM

It's heartening to see some private sector support against further cuts to the public sector, especially when those in similar positions are themselves being awarded pay increases.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/teeu-withdraws-support-for-croke-park-deal-1.1339242

A spokesman for the TEEU said the union’s executive had decided it would be inappropriate to send a signal to employers in the private sector that it would be willing to accept cuts in working conditions in the public service.

It is understood the union in recent times has secured pay increases for members in some profitable parts of the private sector such as the pharmaceutical industry.

MMAGirl · 27-03-2013 09:31AM

EF wrote: »

It's heartening to see some private sector support against further cuts to the public sector, especially when those in similar positions are themselves being awarded pay increases.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/teeu-withdraws-support-for-croke-park-deal-1.1339242

And heartening to see Ryanair, even Ryanair, yes Ryanair, staff get a 10% increase in salary. The only people i know at the moment, or in the last few years, whose salary is going down as the PS tbh.

noodler · 27-03-2013 09:38AM

Populist nonsense by the TUI President on the radio this morning.

Question was asked of him, would the unemployed not perceive the rejection as members of the PS asking the Government to spend money they don't have.

The response was some pathetic attempt to curry favour with Joe Soap by highlighting the hypocrisy of PS workers being asked to take pay cuts whilst others continue to earn 100,000 plus. When asked to elaborate he said he was talking about bankers ("who got us into this mess") and elected officials.

Effective tax rate on higher earners is around 52%.

Long campaign we are in for if this is the sh1te used to justify a no vote.

Godge · 27-03-2013 10:52AM

noodler wrote: »

Populist nonsense by the TUI President on the radio this morning.

Question was asked of him, would the unemployed not perceive the rejection as members of the PS asking the Government to spend money they don't have.

The response was some pathetic attempt to curry favour with Joe Soap by highlighting the hypocrisy of PS workers being asked to take pay cuts whilst others continue to earn 100,000 plus. When asked to elaborate he said he was talking about bankers ("who got us into this mess") and elected officials.

Effective tax rate on higher earners is around 52%.

Long campaign we are in for if this is the sh1te used to justify a no vote.

You can call it "sh1te" if you like but there is a reasonable policy discussion to be had about whether options such as cutting social welfare, increasing wealth taxes, bringing more low-paid into the tax net, are fairer options than cutting public service pay when private sector pay is rising.

noodler · 27-03-2013 11:00AM

Godge wrote: »

You can call it "sh1te" if you like but there is a reasonable policy discussion to be had about whether options such as cutting social welfare, increasing wealth taxes, bringing more low-paid into the tax net, are fairer options than cutting public service pay when private sector pay is rising.

Jesus, what on earth are you talking about?

He said absolutely nothing of the sort.

He didn't mention social welfare, wealth taxes or more tax for the lower paid.

Cop yourself on. I told you quite clearly what I thought was "sh1te" and then you start putting three points in his mouth that he never even touched upon.

doncarlos · 27-03-2013 11:44AM

Godge wrote: »

And so it starts, but still IMPACT, SIPTU, INTO and PSEU can carry the deal on their own.

I wouldn't be so sure. I was at a SIPTU meeting yesterday and from the vibes I was getting, my co-workers will be rejecting the new proposals. There was a lot of anger towards SIPTU for even negotiating.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments