Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Paulzx · 04-04-2013 12:45PM

sarumite wrote: »

. 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. .

In fairness there is a provision for this to happen in the agreement

2.5 The actual implementation of these proposals will require detailed consultation at
workplace level in order to maximise the capacity to accommodate issues for affected
individuals.
2.6 Extra hours worked will be deployed and may be aggregated on a daily, weekly or annual
basis as best meets service demands, following local consultation, based on the principles
agreed in each sector.
2.7 The gross working week, inclusive of breaks, will increase as appropriate to reflect the
increased net hours worked and divisors for the calculation of overtime will be adjusted
accordingly.
2.8 Staff will co‐operate with the revisions to rosters necessary for the full deployment of the
additional hours and with any consequential revisions.

The above quote is a general rule across all sectors

Civil Service
In the civil service the minimum weekly attendance will increase to 37 hours (net) per week.
The normal attendance period will be from 9.00am to 5.45pm Monday to Thursday, and 9.00am
to 5.30pm on Friday.
In order to cope with work requirements, some flexibility in the use of the extra hours provided
for in this agreement will be required in the form of attendance outside these hours in some
areas. An option, in some instances where required for business needs, may be to accumulate
additional hours so that staff in a particular area may work a reduced per week pattern over a
period but owe the additional hours to be utilised to cope with peak work requirements in
another period, including outside of normal attendance periods/days.
In this regard, Saturday will not be a normal working day, but it could, in certain circumstances,
be utilised to cope with cases of peak work requirements, subject to the provisions of the
following paragraph.

The above is specific to Clerical officers and quite clearly contains provision for working Saturdays and for hours to be banked by the employer. "Banking" systems are specifically mentioned in other sectors such as Health.

I know very little about how CO's operate so i've no comment to make on how this will actually effect them but it is quite clear that Saturdays and banking of hours are part of the agreement.

sarumite · 04-04-2013 12:53PM

Paulzx wrote: »

it is quite clear that Saturdays and banking of hours are part of the agreement.

I agree, reading that it would appear to be the case. I would say, However, my reading of it also is that is clear that it would be the extreme exception rather than the general rule for a CO and would only be instigated during an extremely busy period.

donalg1 · 04-04-2013 01:26PM

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.

Well thats understandable and if someone doesnt have work to do and refuses to go to an office or workplace where there is work well they are basically saying they dont want the job. But the poster intimated imo that compulsory redundancies would be applied willy nilly and not with other factors as outlined in Section 4.

antoobrien · 04-04-2013 01:51PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Well thats understandable and if someone doesnt have work to do and refuses to go to an office or workplace where there is work well they are basically saying they dont want the job. But the poster intimated imo that compulsory redundancies would be applied willy nilly and not with other factors as outlined in Section 4.

Indeed, I was not attempting to back up either viewpoint on compulsory redundancies, merely point out the relevant text within the agreement.

It rather begs the question did the poster read the agreement or are they blindly listening to what they are being sold by the union? One suspects it may well be the the latter.

iba · 04-04-2013 02:32PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Indeed, I was not attempting to back up either viewpoint on compulsory redundancies, merely point out the relevant text within the agreement.

It rather begs the question did the poster read the agreement or are they blindly listening to what they are being sold by the union? One suspects it may well be the the latter.

I suspect so too.

Tim Robbins · 04-04-2013 03:34PM

skafish wrote: »

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

Children's needs?

We are in deficit of 14 billion every year. Borrowing that money and paying interest on it. This means we shove a massive pile of debt onto the next generation. It is not fair.

We can blame others for the banking debt we can't blame anyone but ourselves for the deficit.

The public sector is way to expensive and needs to adjust to reality. Going around holding up red cards is ridiculous and shows how out of touch they are with reality.

Dreamertime · 04-04-2013 09:26PM

sarumite wrote: »

I agree, reading that it would appear to be the case. I would say, However, my reading of it also is that is clear that it would be the extreme exception rather than the general rule for a CO and would only be instigated during an extremely busy period.

But why would any CO, EO, HEO, AP or PO willingly vote for an agreement that introduces such a system of working on a Saturday for no money?

Dreamertime · 04-04-2013 09:36PM

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.

On redployment. It clearly states that the 45km radius will apply to the person's home or place of owrk. So if a person lives 45km due East of their current place of work, thay can be redeployed 44km due West of their place of work. resulting in an 89km one way commute.

The banking of hours/wworking on Saturdays has been revealed already.

The 'agreement' states that flexi can be removed on the whim of local management if thay feel it does not contribute to the business needs of a section.

Direct quote from Section 3.15 of CP II..:

"Management reserves the right to limit the operation of FWA (Flexible Working Arrangements), in certain organisations or sections within organisations following local discussions, in line with the business needs."

Dreamertime · 04-04-2013 09:41PM

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?

Here you go. Direct quote from Section 4.2:

"The commitment on compulsory redundancy continues to be subject to the agreed flexibility on redeployment being delivered."

So if management decide redeployment isn't being delivered to their satisfactin, compulsory redundancy becomes a reality. why oh why would and Civil servant endorse such a destruction of their current protections and vote Yes to this?

Dreamertime · 04-04-2013 09:45PM

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

I was quite open to this proposal until I actually read the document and saw the complete sell out of our Terms and Conditions of employment enshrined within.

I'd be insane to volunteer such a decimination of my employment contract.

Farmer Pudsey · 04-04-2013 10:08PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

On redployment. It clearly states that the 45km radius will aply to the person's home or place of owrk. So if a person lives 45km due East of their current place of work, thay can be redeployed 44km due West of their place of work. resulting in an 879km one way commute.

The banking of hours/wworking on Saturdays has been revealed already.

The 'agreement' states that flexi can be removed on the whim of local management if thay feel it does not contribute to the business needs of a section.

Direct quote from Section 3.15 of CP II..:

"Management reserves the right to limit the operation of FWA (Flexible Working Arrangements), in certain organisations or sections within organisations following local discussions, in line with the business needs."

This is the point we made about flexi time in some parts of the PS it was use by staff to work up extra holidays. It is right and proper that flexi should only be available if it makes business sense. If it fails it should not be available.

On commuting to work this happens often in the private sector. The private sector then makes a choice if they are will to do it the continue if not they look for another job.

Dreamertime · 04-04-2013 10:13PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This is the point we made about flexi time in some parts of the PS it was use by staff to work up extra holidays. It is right and proper that flexi should only be available if it makes business sense. If it fails it should not be available.

On commuting to work this happens often in the private sector. The private sector then makes a choice if they are will to do it the continue if not they look for another job.

Ah yes, the old race to the bottom defence.

So because some workers in the private sector are not on as good T & C's, we in the PS should volunteer our own modest protections.

Thats not how it works I'm afraid.

Farmer Pudsey · 04-04-2013 10:25PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Ah yes, the old race to the bottom defence.

So because some workers in the private sector are not on as good T & C's, we in the PS should volunteer our own modest protections.

Thats not how it works I'm afraid.

modest protections. :rolleyes:

woodoo · 04-04-2013 10:27PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are in deficit of 14 billion every year. Borrowing that money and paying interest on it.

I thought the deficit was down to 12 billion now.

Dreamertime · 04-04-2013 10:53PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

modest protections. :rolleyes:

Why would we give them up and vote Yes to this sinister deal?

barneystinson · 04-04-2013 11:06PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Why would we give them up and vote Yes to this sinister deal?

What's the alternative?

Head The Wall · 05-04-2013 06:41AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Why would we give them up and vote Yes to this sinister deal?

Because it'll happen whether ye vote yes or not, it's foolish to think ye can vote no and there will be no consequences

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 06:45AM

barneystinson wrote: »

What's the alternative?

Let them legislate for attacks on Public servants, if they have the bottle. But we'll not make it easy for them.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 06:46AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Because it'll happen whether ye vote yes or not, it's foolish to think ye can vote no and there will be no consequences

Lets see the Labour backbenchers deliberately vote for these attacks on our conditnos of employment.

Tim Robbins · 05-04-2013 08:44AM

woodoo wrote: »

I thought the deficit was down to 12 billion now.

Doesn't matter. Point stills stands. Keep over paying public sector means we push more debt onto our children. The public sector can whine til the cows come home but we are not making enough money to pay them at current rates and they are throwing debt onto kids. Not really very fair.

Debt is what turns people into slaves.

sarumite · 05-04-2013 08:45AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

But why would any CO, EO, HEO, AP or PO willingly vote for an agreement that introduces such a system of working on a Saturday for no money?

They aren't working on a saturday for no money. They have already been paid for the work as they had a shorter week. On the rare occasion that some CO's may have to come in on a saturday to catch up on work, that time will actually be part of their normal hours.

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 08:46AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

But why would any CO, EO, HEO, AP or PO willingly vote for an agreement that introduces such a system of working on a Saturday for no money?

It'd be quite entertaining reading some of the rubbish that has come out if the subject wasn't so serious. This is a good example of that.

There is no way you can describe the changes as not paying somebody for working a Saturday, that's just absurd.

What's going to happen is that the rosters are going to change to include Saturdays, but they'll still work their thirty whatever hours so there'll be no changes to pay.

Many people that work in call centers and factories don't get extra money for working Saturdays or Sundays if they are rostered to do (as part of their normal working hours), so why are these people so special.

Dreamertime wrote: »

I was quite open to this proposal until I actually read the document and saw the complete sell out of our Terms and Conditions of employment enshrined within.

Unless you're in an area that as an excess of people or are totally and utterly incompetent, then you have no need to be worried about the possibilities of either compulsory redundancy or relocation.

If anyone is either of the above then it's offensive to a large portion of the population that anyone thinks they are entitled to a job where there is no work to do or the "employees" are not up to the task.

Dreamertime wrote: »

I'd be insane to volunteer such a decimination of my employment contract.

Having read it, your new terms & conditions are still far better than most private sector contracts. A good example is automatic overtime for a Sunday when rostered does not exist in the private sector.

What would be insane is voting to let any semblance of control of the situation out of your hands.

Also think of the long term impact of rejecting this deal, you're telling the government that you can not and will not be negotiated with in future, essentially giving them carte blanche to do what they like.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 08:52AM

sarumite wrote: »

They aren't working on a saturday for no money. They have already been paid for the work as they had a shorter week. On the rare occasion that some CO's may have to come in on a saturday to catch up on work, that time will actually be part of their normal hours.

They will be coming into work for and extra day at the weekend for no extra money, yet will have the extra costs that result from it. Outragous.

sarumite · 05-04-2013 08:53AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

On redployment. It clearly states that the 45km radius will apply to the person's home or place of owrk. So if a person lives 45km due East of their current place of work, thay can be redeployed 44km due West of their place of work. resulting in an 89km one way commute.

you seem to be contradicting yourself here. if its 45km radius of a persons home, then its a 90km roundtrip?

The banking of hours/wworking on Saturdays has been revealed already.

you are massively ovestating the consequence of it. Reading the specific details, its seems pretty clear that it is the exception, rather than the rule and that any time worked on Saturday will be given as time in lieu. Personally I think if you biggest complaint is that you might have to come in on saturday to catch up on some work during a busy period, but you will be able to leave work early other days....then its not really much of a complaint.

The 'agreement' states that flexi can be removed on the whim of local management if thay feel it does not contribute to the business needs of a section.

Direct quote from Section 3.15 of CP II..:

"Management reserves the right to limit the operation of FWA (Flexible Working Arrangements), in certain organisations or sections within organisations following local discussions, in line with the business needs."

Limit /=remove.
" following local discussions" /= "on the whim"

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 08:55AM

antoobrien wrote: »

It'd be quite entertaining reading some of the rubbish that has come out if the subject wasn't so serious. This is a good example of that.

There is no way you can describe the changes as not paying somebody for working a Saturday, that's just absurd.

What's going to happen is that the rosters are going to change to include Saturdays, but they'll still work their thirty whatever hours so there'll be no changes to pay.

Many people that work in call centers and factories don't get extra money for working Saturdays or Sundays if they are rostered to do (as part of their normal working hours), so why are these people so special.

Unless you're in an area that as an excess of people or are totally and utterly incompetent, then you have no need to be worried about the possibilities of either compulsory redundancy or relocation.

If anyone is either of the above then it's offensive to a large portion of the population that anyone thinks they are entitled to a job where there is no work to do or the "employees" are not up to the task.

Having read it, your new terms & conditions are still far better than most private sector contracts. A good example is automatic overtime for a Sunday when rostered does not exist in the private sector.

What would be insane is voting to let any semblance of control of the situation out of your hands.

Also think of the long term impact of rejecting this deal, you're telling the government that you can not and will not be negotiated with in future, essentially giving them carte blanche to do what they like.

Is that you Jack?

There's no answer to my question. Why would any Civil Servant willingly accept a deal that drastically effects their T & C's?

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 08:56AM

sarumite wrote: »

you seem to be contradicting yourself here. if its 45km radius of a persons home, then its a 90km roundtrip?

you are massively ovestating the consequence of it. Reading the specific details, its seems pretty clear that it is the exception, rather than the rule and that any time worked on Saturday will be given as time in lieu. Personally I think if you biggest complaint is that you might have to come in on saturday to catch up on some work during a busy period, but you will be able to leave work early other days....then its not really much of a complaint.

Limit /=remove.
" following local discussions" /= "on the whim"

The deal itself states from place of work or home. Which leaves the possibility open of the redius being far more than 45km, one way.

Time off in lieu? Where does it say that in the agreement?

Farmer Pudsey · 05-04-2013 09:03AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

They will be coming into work for and extra day at the weekend for no extra money, yet will have the extra costs that result from it. Outragous.

I think that again you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I cannot see a situtation where staff will have to work a 5 day week and Saturday as well. Existing employment law protects staff any way. What will happen is that a staff member will work Saturday and take Monday off. You will find that this usually suits some staff and they will continually swop and take the Saturday and maybe get a day earlier in the week or the following Monday. This is what dealing is about.

Technically there wil be no extra cost however some staff may carpool and in this case yes there will be cost involved. However some staff may save in childcare costs.

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 09:10AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Is that you Jack?

While I detest that prat O'Connor, this is one of the very few things we might be in agreement with. I feel dirty even thinking about the possibility.

Dreamertime wrote: »

There's no answer to my question. Why would any Civil Servant worker willingly accept a deal that drastically effects their T & C's?

Consider this fact: workers across the country, and indeed the world, have done just that in order to save their jobs and keep a somewhat reasonable level of T&Cs.

What makes the PS "workers" so special that they are exempt from the reality that their bosses can't support the wage bill?

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 09:15AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I think that again you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I cannot see a situtation where staff will have to work a 5 day week and Saturday as well. Existing employment law protects staff any way. What will happen is that a staff member will work Saturday and take Monday off. You will find that this usually suits some staff and they will continually swop and take the Saturday and maybe get a day earlier in the week or the following Monday. This is what dealing is about.

Technically there wil be no extra cost however some staff may carpool and in this case yes there will be cost involved. However some staff may save in childcare costs.

You are quite simply wrong.
The principal of 'Banking Hours' offers to day off in lieu in this agreement.

In reality the two extra hours will be banked over a period of time and then, where required, will be paid off by working a Saturday. Its in the agreement.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 09:16AM

antoobrien wrote: »

While I detest that prat O'Connor, this is one of the very few things we might be in agreement with. I feel dirty even thinking about the possibility.

Consider this fact: workers across the country, and indeed the world, have done just that in order to save their jobs and keep a somewhat reasonable level of T&Cs.

What makes the PS "workers" so special that they are exempt from the reality that their bosses can't support the wage bill?

What is it about Irish PS workers that you think we are so stupid as to volunteer up our T & C's?

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments