Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Godge · 27-03-2013 02:04PM

doncarlos wrote: »

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.

now that is interesting. SIPTU have always struck me as the one most likely to vote no of the big four because of the composition of their membership.

Boulevardier · 27-03-2013 02:23PM

I have only met one fellow Impact member who has indicated giving a yes vote. I think that Impact members are going to vote No.

However, when we vote is another matter. There is still no sign of our ballot papers.

sarumite · 27-03-2013 03:36PM

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.

You forgot the word "some" before the words "private sector". You also forgot to mention that some is getting cut, some is stagnant and some doesn't exists due to job losses.

Godge · 27-03-2013 04:00PM

sarumite wrote: »

You forgot the word "some" before the word "private sector". You also forgot to mention that some is getting cut, some is stagnant and some doesn't exists due to job losses.

Employment in the private sector is now rising. While the overall numbers of people in employment dropped in the last year, the drop in public sector employment numbers was partially offset by an increase in private sector employment.

I haven't seen any evidence anywhere of pay cuts in the private sector in the last year. Yes, some salesmen in the car business are not getting their bonuses but pay cuts - can someone show me where there is significant pay cuts this year in the private sector?

If I was to correct my statement I would say "All available evidence points to a resumption of widespread pay increases in most medium and large businesses in Ireland with pay remaining flat in the others and in many smaller businesses. Evidence of pay cuts generally occurring in the private sector in 2012/2013 is non-existent even though there may be a small number of exceptions in marginal businesses. The totality of this evidence suggests that most private sector employees will see a pay increase this year, with the vast majority of the remainder seeing their pay unchanged."

Godge · 27-03-2013 04:01PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I have only met one fellow Impact member who has indicated giving a yes vote. I think that Impact members are going to vote No.

However, when we vote is another matter. There is still no sign of our ballot papers.

I would expect the 6,000 SNAs in IMPACT to vote yes, as well as the vast majority of clerical and administrative workers. They are largely unaffected in pay terms.

noodler · 27-03-2013 04:06PM

Godge wrote: »

Employment in the private sector is now rising.

The number of employees in the private sector in Q4 2012 was 1,143,300. This was relatively unchanged from the level recorded a year earlier

http://cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2012/qnhs_q42012.pdf

Also, private sector employees in Q3 2012 were 1,150.8...........in Q4 this figure fell to 1,143.3.

So can I ask you what your basis is for continually arguing that numbers in the private sector are increasing?

creedp · 27-03-2013 04:44PM

noodler wrote: »

http://cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2012/qnhs_q42012.pdf

Also, private sector employees in Q3 2012 were 1,150.8...........in Q4 this figure fell to 1,143.3.

So can I ask you what your basis is for continually arguing that numbers in the private sector are increasing?

It all depends how you crunch the numbers -,e.g.
The number of persons employed increased by 0.1% (+1,200) over the year to Q4 2012. This compares with an annual decrease in employment of 0.2% in the previous quarter and a decrease of 0.5% in the year to Q4 2011. This is the first annual increase in employment recorded since the second quarter of 2008.

Also:

The number of employees in the public sector declined by 9,100 (-2.3%) in the year to Q4 2012, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 381,800. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 27,300 (-6.7%).

See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector in Q4 2012 was 1,143,300. This was relatively unchanged from the level recorded a year earlier. This compares with an increase of 18,300 in the year to Q4 2011. The total reduction in the number of employees in the private sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 15,400 (-1.3%).

See table A3.

I think it could be argued that given that PS number reduced in the year to Q4 2012 then any increase in overall numbers in employment must have come from the private sector. Interesting also that the number of private sector workers in employment also increased in the 12 months to Q4 2011 by 18,300 and in the 3 years from Q4 2009 the reduction has only been 1.3%.

I don't think there is any need for the oversized font either as people generally know where you are coming from.

Godge · 27-03-2013 04:59PM

noodler wrote: »

http://cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2012/qnhs_q42012.pdf

Also, private sector employees in Q3 2012 were 1,150.8...........in Q4 this figure fell to 1,143.3.

So can I ask you what your basis is for continually arguing that numbers in the private sector are increasing?

A common mistake in interpreting statistics is to look too closely at short-term (or long-term) ranges. For example, the mortality rate of people born 150 years ago is 100% which tells us nothing. In the case of the CSO employment statistics, seasonal variations can affect the changes from quarter to quarter, people laid off for the summer, hired for Christmas etc. etc. The better way of doing things to establish a trend is to look at the same quarter vis-a-vis a previous year.

creedp wrote: »

It all depends how you crunch the numbers -,e.g.
The number of persons employed increased by 0.1% (+1,200) over the year to Q4 2012. This compares with an annual decrease in employment of 0.2% in the previous quarter and a decrease of 0.5% in the year to Q4 2011. This is the first annual increase in employment recorded since the second quarter of 2008.

Also:

The number of employees in the public sector declined by 9,100 (-2.3%) in the year to Q4 2012, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 381,800. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 27,300 (-6.7%).

See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector in Q4 2012 was 1,143,300. This was relatively unchanged from the level recorded a year earlier. This compares with an increase of 18,300 in the year to Q4 2011. The total reduction in the number of employees in the private sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 15,400 (-1.3%).

See table A3.

I think it could be argued that given that PS number reduced in the year to Q4 2012 then any increase in overall numbers in employment must have come from the private sector. Interesting also that the number of private sector workers in employment also increased in the 12 months to Q4 2011 by 18,300 and in the 3 years from Q4 2009 the reduction has only been 1.3%.

I don't think there is any need for the oversized font either as people generally know where you are coming from.

Creedp has done this for us already, making the point I have made by digging out the relevant statistics.

It is quite interesting to read the information regarding changes over the three years. It seems that while there has undoubtedly been a shift in the composition of the private sector workforce, the numbers haven't gone down proportionately as much as the public sector workforce. Had the major cut in employment already happened by Q4 2009 in the private sector?

Either way, the figures clearly show that as of Q4 2012 employment on an annual basis was increasing in the private sector. Maybe you and others would get off my back on this one.

P.S. It is also backed up by the unemployment figures which are showing a little decrease. Obviously some of the new jobs are being taken by new entrants to the workforce but the message is the best chance of getting a job is by upskilling for the new positions.

noodler · 27-03-2013 05:00PM

creedp wrote: »

It all depends how you crunch the numbers -,e.g.
The number of persons employed increased by 0.1% (+1,200) over the year to Q4 2012. This compares with an annual decrease in employment of 0.2% in the previous quarter and a decrease of 0.5% in the year to Q4 2011. This is the first annual increase in employment recorded since the second quarter of 2008.

Also:

The number of employees in the public sector declined by 9,100 (-2.3%) in the year to Q4 2012, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 381,800. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 27,300 (-6.7%).

See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector in Q4 2012 was 1,143,300. This was relatively unchanged from the level recorded a year earlier. This compares with an increase of 18,300 in the year to Q4 2011. The total reduction in the number of employees in the private sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 15,400 (-1.3%).

See table A3.

I think it could be argued that given that PS number reduced in the year to Q4 2012 then any increase in overall numbers in employment must have come from the private sector. Interesting also that the number of private sector workers in employment also increased in the 12 months to Q4 2011 by 18,300 and in the 3 years from Q4 2009 the reduction has only been 1.3%.

I don't think there is any need for the oversized font either as people generally know where you are coming from.

You are posting alot of information not relevant to the very specific point I am calling Godge out on.

The numbers seem quite clear, private sector employment has fallen slightly annually and fell by 7,000 in the last quarter of 2012.

The figures are quite clear and I'd like to know what Godge's basis for continually stating that private sector employment is increasing.

Godge · 27-03-2013 05:05PM

noodler wrote: »

You are posting alot of information not relevant to the very specific point I am calling Godge out on.

The numbers seem quite clear, private sector employment has fallen slightly annually and fell by 7,000 in the last quarter of 2012.

The figures are quite clear and I'd like to know what Godge's basis for continually stating that private sector employment is increasing.

Let us look at the figures again.

creedp wrote: »

It all depends how you crunch the numbers -,e.g.
The number of persons employed increased by 0.1% (+1,200) over the year to Q4 2012. This compares with an annual decrease in employment of 0.2% in the previous quarter and a decrease of 0.5% in the year to Q4 2011. This is the first annual increase in employment recorded since the second quarter of 2008.

Also:

The number of employees in the public sector declined by 9,100 (-2.3%) in the year to Q4 2012, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 381,800. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 27,300 (-6.7%).

See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector in Q4 2012 was 1,143,300. This was relatively unchanged from the level recorded a year earlier. This compares with an increase of 18,300 in the year to Q4 2011. The total reduction in the number of employees in the private sector over the three years from Q4 2009 to Q4 2012 was 15,400 (-1.3%).

See table A3.

I think it could be argued that given that PS number reduced in the year to Q4 2012 then any increase in overall numbers in employment must have come from the private sector. Interesting also that the number of private sector workers in employment also increased in the 12 months to Q4 2011 by 18,300 and in the 3 years from Q4 2009 the reduction has only been 1.3%.

I don't think there is any need for the oversized font either as people generally know where you are coming from.

Total employment increased by 1,200 in the year to Q4 2012.
Public sector employment decreased by 9,100 in the year to Q4 2012.

By a simple mathematical calculation, that means private sector employment increased by 9,100 plus 1,200 which is 10,300 in the year to Q4 2012. Unless the CSO have got their figures wrong?

10,300 out of 1,143,300 is relatively unchanged on the previous year so the other statement in the quotation is valid too. What I am missing?

noodler · 27-03-2013 05:05PM

Godge wrote: »

A common mistake in interpreting statistics is to look too closely at short-term (or long-term) ranges. For example, the mortality rate of people born 150 years ago is 100% which tells us nothing. In the case of the CSO employment statistics, seasonal variations can affect the changes from quarter to quarter, people laid off for the summer, hired for Christmas etc. etc. The better way of doing things to establish a trend is to look at the same quarter vis-a-vis a previous year.

LOL

Private sector employment is down 0.4% on the year (DOWN - not UP).

Things clearly got worse in the final quarter as the figure went down by 7,000.

I love the way that you didn't query seasonal adjustment, whether the figures were annual/quarterly etc when you thought it was helping your point.

Godge wrote: »

Either way, the figures clearly show that as of Q4 2012 employment on an annual basis was increasing in the private sector. Maybe you and others would get off my back on this one.

Private sector employment is down 0.4% in the year.

Down 7,000 in the quarter.

Address the point please. No more waffle.

Godge · 27-03-2013 05:13PM

noodler wrote: »

LOL

Private sector employment is down 0.4% on the year (DOWN - not UP).

Things clearly got worse in the final quarter as the figure went down by 7,000.

I love the way that you didn't query seasonal adjustment, whether the figures were annual/quarterly etc when you thought it was helping your point.

Private sector employment is down 0.4% in the year.

Down 7,000 in the quarter.

Address the point please. No more waffle.

Where are you getting 0.4% from???? Can't find it in the Q4 document???

Can you give the 0.4% in absolute numbers so it can be found in the tables??

Godge · 27-03-2013 05:20PM

Godge wrote: »

Where are you getting 0.4% from???? Can't find it in the Q4 document???

Can you give the 0.4% in absolute numbers so it can be found in the tables??

Think I see it now, bottom of Table A3. I can see why you are saying my responses don't make sense. It is the CSO who don't make sense.

Table A3 shows a reduction overall in employment for the year, the greater percentage reduction being in the public sector but the other data used for the report shows an increase.

The CSO are comparing apples with oranges and confusing things. The data will need closer examination.

Godge · 27-03-2013 05:38PM

noodler wrote: »

LOL

Private sector employment is down 0.4% on the year (DOWN - not UP).

Things clearly got worse in the final quarter as the figure went down by 7,000.

I love the way that you didn't query seasonal adjustment, whether the figures were annual/quarterly etc when you thought it was helping your point.

Private sector employment is down 0.4% in the year.

Down 7,000 in the quarter.

Address the point please. No more waffle.

OK, you are referencing Table A3 which appears to be based on different data.

Table A3 contains a figure for public sector employment of 381.8 and a figure of 1143.3 for private sector employment giving a total employment figure of 1525.1. This is different to the headline figure of 1848.9 so Table 3 must be based on a different set of data.

I think the point the CSO is making is that the Table A3 figure in respect of public sector employment is more correct as it is based on more accurate figures. I would like to know the basis of this in order to confirm my hypothesis below.

The figures are certainly strange in that you cannot have both the private sector and public sector employment numbers going down while total employment is going up.

There are three possible explanations for the anomaly in the data:

(1) Public sector employment is not going down: I am certain about the decline in public sector employment numbers - it has been reported by the Troika, it is evident in the public sector finances, it has been confirmed on several occasions by the Minister - so if there is an anomaly between the two sets of data, it must be one of the others.

(2) Total employment is going down instead of up: I must check the Exchequer figures again but I thought that income tax was on the up so far this year which suggests employment numbers are going up (unless it is wages that is going up, or both) so it is less likely to be this

(3) Private sector employment is not going down: This implies that the figure for private sector employment in Table A3 is inaccurate. I prefer this as an explanation but then again, I would. It also fits in with the rest of the report

Farmer Pudsey · 27-03-2013 08:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Think I see it now, bottom of Table A3. I can see why you are saying my responses don't make sense. It is the CSO who don't make sense.

Table A3 shows a reduction overall in employment for the year, the greater percentage reduction being in the public sector but the other data used for the report shows an increase.

The CSO are comparing apples with oranges and confusing things. The data will need closer examination.

Godge are you telling us that the CSO are kinda massuaging the figures or are giving incomplete data. This is not the first time that people have had to question there data.

It is also an issue with the ERSI they buried that was it a duch economist's report on works costs for young family's. What do both have in common they have the one pay master

creedp · 27-03-2013 11:36PM

noodler wrote: »

You are posting alot of information not relevant to the very specific point I am calling Godge out on.

The numbers seem quite clear, private sector employment has fallen slightly annually and fell by 7,000 in the last quarter of 2012.

The figures are quite clear and I'd like to know what Godge's basis for continually stating that private sector employment is increasing.

Looked quickly at that table and yes it does show a reduction of 7,000 between Q3 2012 and Q4 2012 which would seem like a very large reduction given that between Q 4 2010 and 3 2012 private sector employment grew by 25.4k (2.3%). This 7k figure seems very much at odds with the trend and the fact that unemployment has stabilised and is actually reducing slightly.

One possible issue - look at the footnote for the Q4 2012 figure - it says provisional. I'd be interested in seeing the revised final figure for Q4 2012.

Also look at the text at the top of this table - These estimates cannot be directly compared to the total number of employees as estimated from the QNHS as contained in table 5a of this release due to the different source and minor methodological differences.

Its clear there are some methodological difference between how the data is compiled for this table and the normal QHNS data which would explain the differences between the figures quoted at the beginning of the report which I referred to earlier and the ones presented in this table.

By the way as a matter of interest why do you feel the need to use derogatory terms like waffle to describe other posters reasonable interpretation of published data? The figures quoted earlier were taken directly from the same report, i.e. perfectly valid .. it just seems that some people will only accept an interpretation that suits their own perspective and just attack as rubbish anything that isn't. Maybe the best form of defense is attack.

noodler · 27-03-2013 11:48PM

creedp wrote: »

One possible issue - look at the footnote for the Q4 2012 figure - it says provisional. I'd be interested in seeing the revised final figure for Q4 2012.

Nope, thats not it.

creedp wrote: »

By the way why do you feel the need to use derogatory terms like waffle to describe other posters reasonable interpretation of published data? The figures quoted were takn directly from the same report .. it just seems that some people will only accept an interpretation that suits their own perspective and just attack as rubbish anything that isn't. Maybe the best form of defense is attack.

Look, you got involved and just muddied the waters with paragraphs of irrelevant text.

Godge consistently implies there has been some sort of sustained rebound in private sector employment with phrases like "private sector jobs are actually increasing" etc to try and somehow negate the current unemployment situation in Ireland as a possible pressure on PS cuts. It is not strange to push on this post.

Godge wrote: »

OK, you are referencing Table A3 which appears to be based on different data.

Table A3 contains a figure for public sector employment of 381.8 and a figure of 1143.3 for private sector employment giving a total employment figure of 1525.1. This is different to the headline figure of 1848.9 so Table 3 must be based on a different set of data.

I think the point the CSO is making is that the Table A3 figure in respect of public sector employment is more correct as it is based on more accurate figures. I would like to know the basis of this in order to confirm my hypothesis below.

The figures are certainly strange in that you cannot have both the private sector and public sector employment numbers going down while total employment is going up.

There are three possible explanations for the anomaly in the data:

(1) Public sector employment is not going down: I am certain about the decline in public sector employment numbers - it has been reported by the Troika, it is evident in the public sector finances, it has been confirmed on several occasions by the Minister - so if there is an anomaly between the two sets of data, it must be one of the others.

(2) Total employment is going down instead of up: I must check the Exchequer figures again but I thought that income tax was on the up so far this year which suggests employment numbers are going up (unless it is wages that is going up, or both) so it is less likely to be this

(3) Private sector employment is not going down: This implies that the figure for private sector employment in Table A3 is inaccurate. I prefer this as an explanation but then again, I would. It also fits in with the rest of the report

I think its as simple as this. Private sector doesn't include self-employed. I'll delve into it further but the 300,000 or so jobs missing from the table I quoted would seem about right.

creedp · 27-03-2013 11:52PM

noodler wrote: »

Look, you got involved and just muddied the waters with paragraphs of irrelevant text.

My apologies!! Its a pity people have to put up with interfering busy bodies when they are having such intellectually superior online conversations.

Godge · 28-03-2013 12:25AM

noodler wrote: »

I think its as simple as this. Private sector doesn't include self-employed. I'll delve into it further but the 300,000 or so jobs missing from the table I quoted would seem about right.

So the public sector includes self-employed? Waffle?

Or they are a third category? So self-employed are increasing while public sector and private sector are decreasing? Most likely simple explanation that fitted those facts would be that private sector economic activity is increasing but rather than increase employees due to uncertainty, businesses are taking on sub-contractors for the moment.

At some time, despite the anomalies, the statistics have to be reconciled with the real world.

MMAGirl · 28-03-2013 08:45AM

Godge wrote: »

So the public sector includes self-employed? Waffle?

Or they are a third category? So self-employed are increasing while public sector and private sector are decreasing? Most likely simple explanation that fitted those facts would be that private sector economic activity is increasing but rather than increase employees due to uncertainty, businesses are taking on sub-contractors for the moment.

At some time, despite the anomalies, the statistics have to be reconciled with the real world.

i know a lot of companies that are doing very well but have seized the opportunity to cut wages before, but are now finding they have to increase or staff will move to companies willing to pay them more.
but most of theses companies are taking on staff on one year fixed term contracts. so they can let them go whenever they feel like it and all sorts of other reasons.
but more people are employed now, and i know of know company now that hasnt started increasing wages.
even ryanair have to increase wages.
i can imagine if i was PS watching ryanair staffs wages go up by 10% while they were trying to reduce mine i might get annoyed.

Dreamertime · 03-04-2013 01:30PM

martingriff wrote: »

Bravado I think. It will be a way to distance themselves over a few things. I am a clerical Officer in the Revenue and a member of the CPSU. I think they will talk tough but an extra 2 hours a week is not so much

.

Do you fancy having those extra hours 'banked' and coming into work all day Saturday for no extra money?

How about losing flexi? Having your job outsourced? Or being redeployed 90km from home (one way)?

To put the icing on the cake, compulsory redendancy is now enshrined as part of our conditions of employment.

Its a complete stitch up of Clerical Officers.

skafish · 03-04-2013 11:22PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Do you fancy having those extra hours 'banked' and coming into work all day Saturday for no extra money?

How about losing flexi? Having your job outsourced? Or being redeployed 90km from home (one way)?

To put the icing on the cake, compulsory redendancy is now enshrined as part of our conditions of employment.

Its a complete stitch up of Clerical Officers.

NOT just clerical officers. This deal, if it is forced through, will be be the worst thing to happen to state employees in this country for 35 years.

What about people working part time, or term time, and who are currently just about coping with their childrens needs? the extra hours and/or extra travel that may be forced on them will force mant out of work (I know of 3 people who I work with who will be forced out of work if these proposals go ahead)?

More people forced onto the scrap heap; more of a drain on the social welfare system; more taexws in one guise or another to pay for it; and so the downward spiral continues.

Fair play to the ASTI, TUI and INTO for following the example og the Guards and standing up to Eunach Kenny and his cronies.

I just hope the remaining unions will have the balls to do the same

sarumite · 04-04-2013 10:12AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Do you fancy having those extra hours 'banked' and coming into work all day Saturday for no extra money?

How about losing flexi? Having your job outsourced? Or being redeployed 90km from home (one way)?

To put the icing on the cake, compulsory redendancy is now enshrined as part of our conditions of employment.

Its a complete stitch up of Clerical Officers.

I must have missed something. Nothing I have read supports the above post in relation to CPA2. For example, the 90km is a round trip, not one way. The extra hours (still only up to a max of 39 hours, closer to 37 for CO's) doesn't force a person to work on Saturday. I haven't heard anything about flexi etc. If you could provide a link to support the above it would very helpful.

iba · 04-04-2013 10:24AM

sarumite wrote: »

I must have missed something. Nothing I have read supports the above post in relation to CPA2. For example, the 90km is a round trip, not one way. The extra hours (still only up to a max of 39 hours, closer to 37 for CO's) doesn't force a person to work on Saturday. I haven't heard anything about flexi etc. If you could provide a link to support the above it would very helpful.

Flexi-time is reduced from one and a half days to 1 day.

Dreamertime - AFAIK compulsory redundancy is not enshrined in public service employment under CP2 - perhaps you could provide some supporting document to back this claim up?

donalg1 · 04-04-2013 11:02AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Do you fancy having those extra hours 'banked' and coming into work all day Saturday for no extra money?

How about losing flexi? Having your job outsourced? Or being redeployed 90km from home (one way)?

To put the icing on the cake, compulsory redendancy is now enshrined as part of our conditions of employment.

Its a complete stitch up of Clerical Officers.

Where in CPA2 does it mention compulsory redundancies, I was under the impression compulsory reduncies would be enforced if CPA2 was rejected.

antoobrien · 04-04-2013 11:20AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Where in CPA2 does it mention compulsory redundancies, I was under the impression compulsory reduncies would be enforced if CPA2 was rejected.

It mentions it in section 4

The Government reaffirms the commitment given under Paragraph 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement that compulsory redundancy will not apply within the Public Service. However, this commitment is subject to the following exceptions:
Where existing exit mechanisms have applied, such arrangements will continue.

The commitment on compulsory redundancy continues to be subject to the agreed flexibility on redeployment being delivered. Where redeployment is not an option and taking account of the business needs of the organisation there may be circumstances where voluntary departure would be appropriate. In such situations there will be discussions with the relevant unions on the terms of any arrangement (which will be in line with any centrally agreed arrangements).

Where agreed procedures for managing instances of consistent performance issues have been exhausted (see Paragraph 3.16), dismissal from the public service will be actively pursued.

Basically if there is no work where they are and they refuse to work where needed, "there's the door" is an option.

sarumite · 04-04-2013 11:27AM

iba wrote: »

Flexi-time is reduced from one and a half days to 1 day.

Dreamertime - AFAIK compulsory redundancy is not enshrined in public service employment under CP2 - perhaps you could provide some supporting document to back this claim up?

So Flexi is reduced, not lost. Where I work we have flexi time, however you cannot use it to accrue days. I personally don't think reducing flexi-leave entitlement from 1.5 days to 1 day can be considered an extreme measure.

iba · 04-04-2013 11:44AM

antoobrien wrote: »

It mentions it in section 4

Basically if there is no work where they are and they refuse to work where needed, "there's the door" is an option.

Thats a far cry from the posters original assertion that:

'To put the icing on the cake, compulsory redendancy is now enshrined as part of our conditions of employment'

Sleepy · 04-04-2013 11:54AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Basically if there is no work where they are and they refuse to work where needed, "there's the door" is an option.

Is there any other bloody option?

If your job doesn't exist any more, or has moved to a location you're not prepared to re-locate to it's P45 time. It's tough, I know, I've been in that position. But that anyone, in any profession or sector (never mind someone being recognised as having a legitimate voice in a national framework) thinks this shouldn't be the case, is utterly depressing. It's delusional.

antoobrien · 04-04-2013 12:12PM

iba wrote: »

Thats a far cry from the posters original assertion that:

'To put the icing on the cake, compulsory redendancy is now enshrined as part of our conditions of employment'

I know, I wonder just how many of the people that have voted are being lead by the nose into voting either way, rather than actually reading the document.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments