Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

donalg1 · 05-04-2013 09:16AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

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?

Because the alternative would be years of uncertainty, paycuts and possibly redundancies across the board, whereas saying yes will at least allow people some peace of mind in that they know the T's & C's.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 09:17AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Because the alternative would be years of uncertainty, paycuts and possibly redundancies across the board, whereas saying yes will at least allow people some peace of mind in that they know the T's & C's.

If the cuts come, so be it. Lets see TD's voting for them. But don't insult our intelligence with weasel words from Howlin.

donalg1 · 05-04-2013 09:22AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

If the cuts come, so be it. Lets see TD's voting for them. But don't insult our intelligence with weasel words from Howlin.

Well of course the cuts will come, and you say so be it, so clearly you would be willing to take a pay cut, now I assume you are in line for a pay cut under the CPA2, so are you hedging your bets that a no vote would mean less pay cuts?

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 09:26AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

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

Did you ever think that it might not be in your best interests to let the government unilaterally decide what to do?

Do you know what the original government proposals were - what the alternative is?

The alternative is cuts on wages from 60,000, suspension of increments at all levels, more severe cuts to overtime, longer working hours than are being proposed and more cuts to allowances.

Do you really want all that to be even possible?

greenoverred · 05-04-2013 10:07AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Did you ever think that it might not be in your best interests to let the government unilaterally decide what to do?

Do you know what the original government proposals were - what the alternative is?

The alternative is cuts on wages from 60,000, suspension of increments at all levels, more severe cuts to overtime, longer working hours than are being proposed and more cuts to allowances.

Do you really want all that to be even possible?

Sorry Jack for interupting your campaign but I have a question

The government say they wanted 1 billion in savings, they say this deal provides them with 1 billion in savings so why in the name of god would there be more cuts, suspension of increments at all levels, longer hours, more severe cuts to overtime and more cuts to allowances if the deal is not accepted. Would they not just attempt to legislate whats in the LRC document anyway.

Farmer Pudsey · 05-04-2013 10:22AM

greenoverred wrote: »

Sorry Jack for interupting your campaign but I have a question

The government say they wanted 1 billion in savings, they say this deal provides them with 1 billion in savings so why in the name of god would there be more cuts, suspension of increments at all levels, longer hours, more severe cuts to overtime and more cuts to allowances if the deal is not accepted. Would they not just attempt to legislate whats in the LRC document anyway.

No it may be impossible to legislate for the LRC doc and even if they legislate it may be impossible to get it implemented so the surest way for the government to get the savings is to cut pay to that amount and work on.

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 10:31AM

greenoverred wrote: »

Sorry Jack for interupting your campaign but I have a question

Shouldn't you be calling me Enda, Mick or Brendan?

greenoverred wrote: »

The government say they wanted 1 billion in savings, they say this deal provides them with 1 billion in savings so why in the name of god would there be more cuts, suspension of increments at all levels, longer hours, more severe cuts to overtime and more cuts to allowances if the deal is not accepted. Would they not just attempt to legislate whats in the LRC document anyway.

I've relayed what's in the initial government negotiating position.

The "savings" won't result in a reduction of 1bn as some of them are soft savings (see the discussions from around page 140 of the thread).

But why stop with what's in the LRC proposal, why not go further, after all they have an electoral mandate to do it reform the public service.

iba · 05-04-2013 10:31AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Did you ever think that it might not be in your best interests to let the government unilaterally decide what to do?

Do you know what the original government proposals were - what the alternative is?

The alternative is cuts on wages from 60,000, suspension of increments at all levels, more severe cuts to overtime, longer working hours than are being proposed and more cuts to allowances.

Do you really want all that to be even possible?

Another line the Official side/Government side took at the outset was that they wanted to get rid of overtime (sorry this should read flexitime) completely for all staff at HEO level.

ASFAIK - if this deal does not go through, all Civil Servants will be hit with a 6-7% pay cut full stop.

As it stands now, IMO, staff with salaries lower than €65K, which includes all COs SOs and EOs and 99% of AOs and HEOs, have gotten off very lightly.

gazzer · 05-04-2013 10:43AM

Its probably been answered here already but in case not can somebody tell me how CP2 can be voted for this year when CP1 is not due to run out until next year?

I thought the economy was 'turning the corner' or so the government keep telling us so what has changed in the agreement of CP1 that the government are coming back for more cuts a year earlier?

Surely ALL unions should stand together and say "Show us why you are renaging on your promises under CP1 before we even consider voting on CP2"

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 10:53AM

gazzer wrote: »

Its probably been answered here already but in case not can somebody tell me how CP2 can be voted for this year when CP1 is not due to run out until next year?

It's being (incorrectly) referred to as CP2 but it's really an extension of CP1, with the proposed cuts coming into force now instead of waiting for CP1 to end.

gazzer wrote: »

I thought the economy was 'turning the corner' or so the government keep telling us so what has changed in the agreement of CP1 that the government are coming back for more cuts a year earlier?

Turning doesn't mean turned, there's still a lot of work to do all over the economy. We're behind where we'd expected (perhaps hoped would be a better description) to be when CPA was negotiated, in part because CPA itself was so lenient.

gazzer wrote: »

Surely ALL unions should stand together and say "Show us why you are renaging on your promises under CP1 before we even consider voting on CP2"

The same unions that are extracting the urine when it comes to the CPA reforms, come on it's not comedy hour.

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 10:57AM

iba wrote: »

Another line the Official side/Government side took at the outset was that they wanted to get rid of overtime completely for all staff at HEO level.

ASFAIK - if this deal does not go through, all Civil Servants will be hit with a 6-7% pay cut full stop.

As it stands now, IMO, staff with salaries lower than €65K, which includes all COs SOs and EOs and 99% of AOs and HEOs, have gotten off very lightly.

According to impact, the government wanted to cut pay for everybody above 60,000 if not lower.

Management’s opening position was that it wanted a straight cut to pay scales for those earning €60,000 “if not lower.” Unions worked to increase this threshold, minimise the reductions, and create a clear path to restore pay for everyone who earns less than €100,000 a year.

Those conplaing about the losses should look at everything in the agreement, including the paths to restore pay for those on less than 100k.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 11:15AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Well of course the cuts will come, and you say so be it, so clearly you would be willing to take a pay cut, now I assume you are in line for a pay cut under the CPA2, so are you hedging your bets that a no vote would mean less pay cuts?

Let the politicians go through the process of cutting us. We're not going to offer it up.

iba · 05-04-2013 11:18AM

gazzer wrote: »

Its probably been answered here already but in case not can somebody tell me how CP2 can be voted for this year when CP1 is not due to run out until next year?

I thought the economy was 'turning the corner' or so the government keep telling us so what has changed in the agreement of CP1 that the government are coming back for more cuts a year earlier?

Surely ALL unions should stand together and say "Show us why you are renaging on your promises under CP1 before we even consider voting on CP2"

The Government indicated that they were considering pay cuts. The Unions therefore had to engage with the Government in order to prevent this. They believed it was their duty to protect their members pay above all else. That is why they engaged straight away. If they did not, the Government would just have legislated for the cuts and for anything else they cared to do.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 11:18AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Did you ever think that it might not be in your best interests to let the government unilaterally decide what to do?

Do you know what the original government proposals were - what the alternative is?

The alternative is cuts on wages from 60,000, suspension of increments at all levels, more severe cuts to overtime, longer working hours than are being proposed and more cuts to allowances.

Do you really want all that to be even possible?

Bring it on. If they want to impose such penal conditions let them do it.

creedp · 05-04-2013 11:25AM

antoobrien wrote: »

According to impact, the government wanted to cut pay for everybody above 60,000 if not lower.

Those conplaing about the losses should look at everything in the agreement, including the paths to restore pay for those on less than 100k.

My understanding was that everyone over €50k were to be hit initially. However, the PSC which apparently represented the union side (but predominantly represented people earning under €65k) negotiated that instead everyone up to AP in the civil service was protected from any actual cut in pay. To make up the numbers those over €65k took both a pay cut and a 3 year increment freeze while those under €65 took only a 3/6 month increment freeze. Big difference. While I understand why CO/HEO's are concerned about loss of flexi-leave (majority of AP upwards have no access), longer working hours (also apply to AP upwards), the reality is this deal is a no brainer for those PS cohorts. The only reason to vote no is if PS Unions take a collective view on the deal or simply look after their own patch - remember that principle - solidarity?? If so bye, bye PSC and ICTU.

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 11:26AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Bring it on. If they want to impose such penal conditions let them do it.

Oh goody a strike, haven't seen one of those in a long time and Bus Eireann in Galway are about 10 years overdue a blowup.:rolleyes:

It costs €1bn a month to pay the PS wages, I wonder how long the union's war chests will last if they have to pay out all that?

iba · 05-04-2013 11:26AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Let the politicians go through the process of cutting us. We're not going to offer it up.

And what are you going to do?

Are you going to go on strike? How long will you go out on strike for?

I strongly believe that Civil Servants do not have the stomach for striking - just look at the last strike, hardly a massive show of arms.

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 11:39AM

creedp wrote: »

My understanding was that everyone over €50k were to be hit initially. However, the PSC which apparently represented the union side (but predominantly represented people earning under €65k) negotiated that instead everyone up to AP in the civil service was protected from any actual cut in pay. To make up the numbers those over €65k took both a pay cut and a 3 year increment freeze while those under €65 took only a 3/6 month increment freeze. Big difference.

Not being in the room, I don't know what it was so I can only go on reports and that's what impact are saying on their website. If you can confirm the above it'd be useful, otherwise it (unfortunately) falls into the realm of the rumour and innuendo that both sides are using to undermine each other.

creedp wrote: »

While I understand why CO/HEO's are concerned about loss of flexi-leave (majority of AP upwards have no access), longer working hours (also apply to AP upwards), the reality is this deal is a no brainer for those PS cohorts.

Sorry, not quite sure which groups you think it's best for CO/HEOs or AP & up.

creedp wrote: »

The only reason to vote no is if PS Unions take a collective view on the deal or simply look after their own patch

There will be a lot of patch watching with this because it seems (from the way things were reported) that the deal was negotiated with the sector unions rather than the union group. That will always lead to gripes about what sector got which concessions, as evidenced by Doran's rant about the deal being anti woman because nurses make up a large part of the overtime bill.

creedp wrote: »

- remember that principle - solidarity?? If so bye, bye PSC and ICTU.

Union solidarity went out with Brendan Ogle's strikes against Irish Rail - the main union told him where to go and he and his band of merry men decided to disrupt the train service for the summer of 2001. The vast majority of CIE workers walked straight past them, I witnessed several telling them none too politely where to go.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 11:55AM

iba wrote: »

And what are you going to do?

Are you going to go on strike? How long will you go out on strike for?

I strongly believe that Civil Servants do not have the stomach for striking - just look at the last strike, hardly a massive show of arms.

My point is very few Labour backbenchers will look forward to imposing such draconian measures on PS employees. But if they do then so be it. Singing their own political death warrent.

As to our options? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But to expect us to accept such conditions in this vote in Looney tunes stuff.

ardmacha · 05-04-2013 12:04PM

This is a profoundly corrupt agreement. The representatives of citizens whose wages are generally stable or increasing have welshed on an existing agreement and are trying to secure services on the cheap by cutting the wages of those who provide them. Somebody will be on here saying that the PS is "overpaid", if this is true then no evidence of any sort has been advanced in this process to show this nor have the adjustments been tailored to reflect any overpay, quite the reverse. There is little effort at reform or improving productivity, just the same crap.

creedp · 05-04-2013 12:27PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Not being in the room, I don't know what it was so I can only go on reports and that's what impact are saying on their website. If you can confirm the above it'd be useful, otherwise it (unfortunately) falls into the realm of the rumour and innuendo that both sides are using to undermine each other.

I can't give you a quote/link and I'm not so assured of my self importance to expect you to believe everything I say. So you can take it of leave it as you wish. However, I'm happy to continue to peddle that bit of innuendo while you can continue to rely on the the IMPACT website.

Sorry, not quite sure which groups you think it's best for CO/HEOs or AP & up.

I think its clear from my post what groups do best out of this deal, but in case its not from CO to HEO/AO.

Halloween Jack · 05-04-2013 12:46PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh goody a strike, haven't seen one of those in a long time and Bus Eireann in Galway are about 10 years overdue a blowup.:rolleyes:

It costs €1bn a month to pay the PS wages, I wonder how long the union's war chests will last if they have to pay out all that?

Not everybody has to go out at once, just select areas, at different times, probably the areas that generate revenue.

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 12:55PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Not everybody has to go out at once, just select areas, at different times, probably the areas that generate revenue.

The unions don't have €1bn between them to support a 4 week action. But it's unlikey we would see a strike more like a work to rule and a refusal to do anything that isn't specifically outlined in contracts e.g. I'm not opening that drawer, that's manual labour.:D

amen · 05-04-2013 01:20PM

My point is very few Labour backbenchers will look forward to imposing such draconian measures on PS employee

its a pity they support all of their non ps union member who help pay for ps union members.

Farmer Pudsey · 05-04-2013 01:37PM

In reality this was a great deal for admin staff on pay up to 65K. They conceded some moinor reforms but will suffer little in gereral pay. There hours will increase from 35 to 37 hours a week for the majority.

In reality nurses are hard done by compared to general staff. They will see a pay cut exceeding the average andwill also dee there hours increased by 1.5/week. Teachers for all there giving out again suffered little. Guards like nurses got a bigger than average pay cut. Fireman were protected.

In away I hope the General Admin staff in the PS shoot themselves in the foot and reject the deal. Then they might relise what reality is in 6 months time.

As for the Labour party it has to understand the thanks you get from a spoiled child

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 01:46PM

antoobrien wrote: »

The unions don't have €1bn between them to support a 4 week action. But it's unlikey we would see a strike more like a work to rule and a refusal to do anything that isn't specifically outlined in contracts

Now we're sucking diesel.

Dreamertime · 05-04-2013 01:57PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In reality this was a great deal for admin staff on pay up to 65K.

So you call:

The removal of Flexi as an option for local management.

The introduction for the first time in history the acceptance of compulsory redundancy.

The prospect of working Saturdays (6 day week) for no extra pay.

The 'normalising' of of outsourcing Clerical work.

The blurring of responsibilities between grades.

Shall I go on?

A great deal? You are living on another planet.

creedp · 05-04-2013 01:58PM

antoobrien wrote: »

The unions don't have €1bn between them to support a 4 week action. But it's unlikey we would see a strike more like a work to rule and a refusal to do anything that isn't specifically outlined in contracts e.g. I'm not opening that drawer, that's manual labour.:D

In the real world a WTR will involve people going home at 5.30pm irrespective of what important meeting has been scheduled by their boss or a Minister/advisor for 6/7/8pm, not answering emails/phonecall after 5.30pm/weekends, taking allocated lunchtime, etc. Obviously the world won't end but these same people have gotten used to having everything their own way.

If strikes happen staff will simply take the hit as they have in the past. I don't think too many PS are that delusional that they think their so called union has built up a war chest for such an event. That's not possible when they want to keep it replace their city centre HQ with something more fitting for their delusions of granduer

sean200 · 05-04-2013 02:40PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Oh goody a strike, haven't seen one of those in a long time and Bus Eireann in Galway are about 10 years overdue a blowup.:rolleyes:

It costs €1bn a month to pay the PS wages, I wonder how long the union's war chests will last if they have to pay out all that?

I think we would have more problems to worry about than the unions war chest if we had a public sector strike for a month

antoobrien · 05-04-2013 02:51PM

sean200 wrote: »

I think we would have more problems to worry about than the unions war chest if we had a public sector strike for a month

The unions won't let it happen though, because they realise themselves that they'd be bankrupt very quickly.

Anybody I've talked to thinks the unions and PS workers are already living on a different planet, so I think they could be in for a bit of a shock if they take on any action that curtails services.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments