Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Dreamertime · 08-04-2013 08:40PM

woodoo wrote: »

You will be told that that is loads of money, never mind that it would barely be enough to entice some people of the dole. Welfare is where the really big changes need to happen imo.

I voted for the CPA2 as i think its not a bad deal. I have no further pay cut and i will be getting my next increment soon. I just have to work a couple of hours extra per week but thats not so bad really.

Thats what I thought until I read the devil in the detail.

Management can take flexi off us completely. Those extra 2 hours? Fancy having them banked and coming in on a Saturday for no extra pay?

skafish · 08-04-2013 08:49PM

woodoo wrote: »

You will be told that that is loads of money, never mind that it would barely be enough to entice some people of the dole. Welfare is where the really big changes need to happen imo.

I voted for the CPA2 as i think its not a bad deal. I have no further pay cut and i will be getting my next increment soon. I just have to work a couple of hours extra per week but thats not so bad really.

CP1 included a clause wherby things wuld not change until 2014 unless things disimproved. CP2 has a simular clause.

I wish I could share your confidence in the government being able to resist the soft target again.

For what its worth, I share Dreamertimes sceptisism:cool:

woodoo · 08-04-2013 09:02PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Thats what I thought until I read the devil in the detail.

Management can take flexi off us completely. Those extra 2 hours? Fancy having them banked and coming in on a Saturday for no extra pay?

I don't use flexi much anyway, if i work up one day a year that would be it. I don't believe the saturday thing will be used much if at all. I consider that if CPA 2 goes through then my new working week will be 37hours. Even if i was asked to come in on a saturday once in a blue moon my total hours would still average 37 per week.

ardmacha · 08-04-2013 09:15PM

CP1 included a clause wherby things wuld not change until 2014 unless things disimproved.

A clause that was not invoked.

woodoo · 08-04-2013 09:18PM

skafish wrote: »

CP1 included a clause wherby things wuld not change until 2014 unless things disimproved. CP2 has a simular clause.

I wish I could share your confidence in the government being able to resist the soft target again.

For what its worth, I share Dreamertimes sceptisism:cool:

If it fails and people want to strike and carry out work to rule i will be 100% behind them. If we have to fight then we should fight hard, fight smart and fight dirty if necessary.

skafish · 08-04-2013 09:19PM

ardmacha wrote: »

A clause that was not invoked.

Hence scepticism

sarumite · 09-04-2013 08:12AM

ardmacha wrote: »

A clause that was not invoked.

It hasn't been invoked as the government is hoping to extend the current deal through agreement the unions via the LRC. If this is rejected, the government have more or less said they would invoke it.

kippy · 09-04-2013 08:49AM

tayto lover wrote: »

It is stupid.
You also haven't shown me where these better paying jobs are either.

People are close to the breadline because their wages have been cut. Just read the Credit Union reports or like all the other shills maybe you think the Credit Union reports are works of fiction.
I ran my own business for many years and gave increases regularly especially for good workers who went out of their way to make my business a success. If I cut wages I would not have had such dedicated workers and my business would have suffered.
I am not expecting the state to go broke in order to pay people what they think they are worth either. Nor am I expecting workers to work for a pittance either like many on here seem to want. If you cut wages you also cut spending power and many businesses are already going west because of that.

Have a look on jobs.ie.
As I said, there are literally thousands of jobs at present in this country for those that are not happier with their lot and have the ability and willingness to retrain.
Are you calling me a shill?
Really?

Godge · 09-04-2013 09:01AM

sarumite wrote: »

It hasn't been invoked as the government is hoping to extend the current deal through agreement the unions via the LRC. If this is rejected, the government have more or less said they would invoke it.

In that situation the government stance would be open to third party judgment in accordance with CPA1 rules.

At a time when the economy is showing modest growth, private sector employments are offering pay rises and unemployment is decreasing slowly, it would be interesting to see how a pay cut could be justified to a third party (FWIW, in my opinion an extended pay freeze to 2016 is justifiable but not sure that a pay cut is, but we shall see)

itzme · 09-04-2013 09:02AM

sarumite wrote: »

It hasn't been invoked as the government is hoping to extend the current deal through agreement the unions via the LRC. If this is rejected, the government have more or less said they would invoke it.

Without getting in the right or wrong of the governments position I think what some of the posters are saying is that they aren't just extending the deal. They are renegotiating the current deal and extending it. The deal on the table is to start during the term of CP1 not after so it's not just an extension.

Personally, I wonder if there is rejection of the deal whether the government will invoke anything until 2014. In other words, if they have to legislate will they legislate now which will be seen by the PS as breaking CP1 or wait until CP1 is over and do it in 2014? There is a good reason why they went to the negotiation table rather then legislate in the first place.

My two cents, I think the deal on the table is harsh on some groups inside the PS and have sympathy for those that are hit harder but coming from the perspective that any deal is going to involve compromise I think it is an ok deal. Not great, but ok.

sean200 · 09-04-2013 09:11AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

So you would be happier with a no vote and then a compulsory pay cut for everyone?

yes i would be
All the other changes will be for the rest of you working life
you have a chance to get you pay-cut back but you will never get you conditions of employment back
The government need croke park 2 more than the 7 % pay-cut as croke park 2 is about savings both short term and long term and reform
So let them cut by 7 % if they want and what they are going to get in return is
that everything that was in croke park 1 will be reversed

ardmacha · 09-04-2013 09:28AM

In that situation the government stance would be open to third party judgment in accordance with CPA1 rules.

It would have preferable if the government had said something like "we expected 3% growth, we got 1% growth, so we are going to cut pay by 5% just until this growth appears" as there would be clear basis for the action and for the restoration of the cuts. But they prefer to avoid any actual numbers but keep things vague, as usual.

On an aside, the bumbling of Gilmore and Howlin have probably done more damage to the concept of the union movement than Thatcher. They've tried to do a deal with the lumpen proletariat of clerks, hoping that a majority can be achieved there and that technical grades, Gardai, etc can be shafted by an ICTU majority. This will separate the most skilled, and ultimately more influential, from the rest of the PS unions.

tayto lover · 09-04-2013 10:33AM

kippy wrote: »

Have a look on jobs.ie.
As I said, there are literally thousands of jobs at present in this country for those that are not happier with their lot and have the ability and willingness to retrain.
Are you calling me a shill?
Really?

Are these jobs better paid than what they already have? If so, any links?

kippy · 09-04-2013 11:14AM

tayto lover wrote: »

Are these jobs better paid than what they already have? If so, any links?

I thought PS jobs were so poorly paid that people were on the breadline?

sarumite · 09-04-2013 11:23AM

Godge wrote: »

In that situation the government stance would be open to third party judgment in accordance with CPA1 rules.

At a time when the economy is showing modest growth, private sector employments are offering pay rises and unemployment is decreasing slowly, it would be interesting to see how a pay cut could be justified to a third party (FWIW, in my opinion an extended pay freeze to 2016 is justifiable but not sure that a pay cut is, but we shall see)

We have argued this point before and we have disagreed on the interpretation of CPA1. I am basing my assessment on my reading of CPA1.

The economy is growing slower than was anticipated and well below the levels of growth the CPA was predicated on. Recently the central bank, IBEC and ESRI have all downgraded our growth projections from earlier estimates, mostly citing weaker than expected exports. While some private sector companies are offering some employees payrises (arguably similar in the manner some employees receive incremental payrises in the public sector), we are still seeing jobs cuts. It was only today that avon announced 400 job losses as they exit the Irish market.

creedp · 09-04-2013 12:16PM

kippy wrote: »

I thought PS jobs were so poorly paid that people were on the breadline?

What is the actual point of this discussion? That PS should not complain that their pay is being further cut? What worker should enthuastically accept continual cuts to their terms and conditions and instead meekly walk out of the job? I don't understand that argument? I agree eventually some people will do so either by choice because they can get much better paid jobs in the private sector or they will be forced because their pay is no longer sustainable.

Its funny on the one hand to listen continously to the PS unions being so strong that the Govt can't introduce reform or reduce inflated pay and perks in the PS and on the other hand the reality that PS union are voting in favour of a 3rd pay cut for some of its members, especially when the 1st 2 were forced through by legislation. I'm still waiting for same unions when representing semi-state and private workers to follow the same strategy. I'm sure the IBOA will readily vote in favour of pay cuts for its members given that their employers are flat broke also.

In your particular case I commend you for your understanding of your employers poor regard for your wellbeing. I can only surmise that your outgoings are still well within your income and in that context a further pay cut won't measurably reduce your or your family's standard. But maybe I'm wrong and you truly are someone who is prepared to continuously take one for the team.

kippy · 09-04-2013 12:56PM

creedp wrote: »

What is the actual point of this discussion? That PS should not complain that their pay is being further cut? What worker should enthuastically accept continual cuts to their terms and conditions and instead meekly walk out of the job? I don't understand that argument? I agree eventually some people will do so either by choice because they can get much better paid jobs in the private sector or they will be forced because their pay is no longer sustainable.

Its funny on the one hand to listen continously to the PS unions being so strong that the Govt can't introduce reform or reduce inflated pay and perks in the PS and on the other hand the reality that PS union are voting in favour of a 3rd pay cut for some of its members, especially when the 1st 2 were forced through by legislation. I'm still waiting for same unions when representing semi-state and private workers to follow the same strategy. I'm sure the IBOA will readily vote in favour of pay cuts for its members given that their employers are flat broke also.

In your particular case I commend you for your understanding of your employers poor regard for your wellbeing. I can only surmise that your outgoings are still well within your income and in that context a further pay cut won't measurably reduce your or your family's standard. But maybe I'm wrong and you truly are someone who is prepared to continuously take one for the team.

The point of the conversation is this.
Some people seem to think that the state owes them an income and not just an income in some cases but an income that would be above and beyond what is required to generally live a comfortable life. Not just public sector workers, but others on state funded payments as well.
I have said already that I believe CP2 to be a joke of a deal where the actual "savings" will not be in cold hard cash and the terms and conditions lost will never be regained, unlike straight pay cuts where arguments can be made for a reversal in future.

People can "complain" about paycuts all they like, but ultimatly there is very little they as a singular entity or they as a group can do about it - particularly when you look at the figures involved.
If you work for the state you need to be prepared to take the good with the bad. There was "good" for ten years when no one was prepared to look past the handouts at the bigger picture and now there's the bad. Thats life unfortunately and if you aren't prepared to take control of your own career/earning potential by recognizing you could have better employment elsewhere then setting about actioning how to get that emmployment then I, frankly have no interest in listening to the moaning.
In the same way as I see multiples of college graduates on an annual basis who feel they are "owed" a living somehow. Not recognising or accepting the fact that they may need to move location, add to their qualications or perhaps work their way through a number of jobs to get to the perfect one.

I see here and on other fora those that complain about the breadline, saying things are much better in the "private" sector - yet when challenged on why they aren't in the private sector have very very poor excuses (seen examples work both ways being honest)

My employer still pays me a fair wage for what I do (even if there is a cut), my terms and conditions are generally pretty good and at this point in time there is nothing out there I would rather do and if by some freak occurance I end up losing this job my employers (unlike other employers) will support me also.

The pay cuts are coming, whether members "want" them or not.

I think perhaps what has turned me off unions so much is the fact that the laziest most work shy idiots I know are the main mouthpieces for unions in my own personal experience. The amount of effort some spend avoiding work would make any working man tired. They make the whole work environment a nightmare for the 90% of staff who do their job and do it well.

As I said earlier, I review my own situation on an annual basis and start the wheels turning to improve it as soon as I can.

I've changed my stance somewhat in the past few months.

sean200 · 09-04-2013 12:58PM

Croke Park Agreement discriminate against women and families

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/croke-park-proposals-discriminate-against-women-and-families-590658.html

But then again that is not new news as this government are anti Family as can be see in last budget

creedp · 09-04-2013 01:26PM

kippy wrote: »

I think perhaps what has turned me off unions so much is the fact that the laziest most work shy idiots I know are the main mouthpieces for unions in my own personal experience. The amount of effort some spend avoiding work would make any working man tired. They make the whole work environment a nightmare for the 90% of staff who do their job and do it well.

This is a valid point and this is why I will not vote for this union brokered deal which seeks to single out certain categories of workers for inequitable hits. If pay cuts are to be introduced then go ahead and legislate for graduated cuts as was deemed appropriate for the last two occassions pay has been cut. Why is it different this time? In the meantime enter meaningful negotiations with the unions re reform. If the Govt can get the union to support pay cuts then why can't they get them to support reforms advocated by the 90% you refer to above?

kippy · 09-04-2013 01:49PM

creedp wrote: »

This is a valid point and this is why I will not vote for this union brokered deal which seeks to single out certain categories of workers for inequitable hits. If pay cuts are to be introduced then go ahead and legislate for graduated cuts as was deemed appropriate for the last two occassions pay has been cut. Why is it different this time? In the meantime enter meaningful negotiations with the unions re reform. If the Govt can get the union to support pay cuts then why can't they get them to support reforms advocated by the 90% you refer to above?

Because, to be bluntly honest, of those 90% a few are like some where who believe the state owes them a wage (obviously they do their work) but the point is reforms would require and lead to a few things:
1. A willingness of certain staff to accept redundancies.
2. A willingness to review every business process and ascertain "could this be done more efficiently"?
3. Ultimately a drop in headcount as a result of said efficiencies.

At that point the whole "last in first out" would come into play which is an absolutely daft way of looking at redundancies.

tayto lover · 09-04-2013 02:56PM

kippy wrote: »

I thought PS jobs were so poorly paid that people were on the breadline?

Your point was that if people were not earning enough with all the cuts that they could apply for better paying jobs.
#Now for a second time where are these 280 thousand better paying jobs?
Please don't try moving the goalposts again.

kippy · 09-04-2013 03:01PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Your point was that if people were not earning enough with all the cuts that they could apply for better paying jobs.
#Now for a second time where are these 280 thousand better paying jobs?
Please don't try moving the goalposts again.

No one is moving the goal posts here.........
The whole public service are hardly on the same wage are they and the whole public service are hardly unhappy with their lot either, are they?

My point is, if you aren't happy with the terms and conditions of your employment, do something about it, take control of the situation, reeducate, move, relearn, up skill, do an interview.

tayto lover · 09-04-2013 03:06PM

kippy wrote: »

No one is moving the goal posts here.........
The whole public service are hardly on the same wage are they and the whole public service are hardly unhappy with their lot either, are they?

My point is, if you aren't happy with the terms and conditions of your employment, do something about it, take control of the situation, reeducate, move, relearn, up skill, do an interview.

Really ??
The ballot on this CP 2 issue will decide exactly how many are happy with their lot.
If we go by what the media are reporting then there are very few happy and those are in admin or manager capacity.
What about the whole Garda force up to the rank of Superintendent?
The rest below that rank, i read about 11 thousand, should they just pack it in and apply for these better paying phantom jobs of yours?
I didn't even get to the teachers yet.

Godge · 09-04-2013 03:10PM

kippy wrote: »

My point is, if you aren't happy with the terms and conditions of your employment, do something about it, take control of the situation, reeducate, move, relearn, up skill, do an interview.

Option 2: Stick together, withdraw from the Croke Park Agreement, ballot for industrial action and take targeted industrial action to force the government's hand.

I am not saying I agree with Option 2 but it is there for public servants to consider.

kippy · 09-04-2013 03:10PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Really ??
The ballot on this CP 2 issue will decide exactly how many are happy with their lot.
If we go by what the media are reporting then there are very few happy and those are in admin or manager capacity.
What about the whole Garda force up to the rank of Superintendent?
The rest below that rank, i read about 11 thousand, should they just pack it in and apply for these better paying phantom jobs of yours?
I didn't even get to the teachers yet.

The point I am making is that not all of the 280K staff members of the public service are going to want to move jobs and for the last time there are THOUSANDS of jobs out there for anyone that thinks they are better than what they are in.

tayto lover · 09-04-2013 03:13PM

kippy wrote: »

The point I am making is that not all of the 280K staff members of the public service are going to want to move jobs and for the last time there are THOUSANDS of jobs out there for anyone that thinks they are better than what they are in.

No there are not.
Many very poorly paying jobs on Jobs.ie.

kippy · 09-04-2013 03:15PM

Godge wrote: »

Option 2: Stick together, withdraw from the Croke Park Agreement, ballot for industrial action and take targeted industrial action to force the government's hand.

I am not saying I agree with Option 2 but it is there for public servants to consider.

Why stick together? Sticking together like sheep for the past decade has gotten us to where we are today and has also allowed the laziest and most incompetent of people to remain in the pay of the state.
Sticking together is ONLY good for the weakest of workers. Those who know what they are at and are willing to accept change and COMPETE for positions based on skillsets and knowledge, and not time served are completely dragged down by the unions and collective bargaining and that ultimately leads to a poorer service.

If the unions had any balls whatsoever they would go out on industrial action looking for action against those that have acted against the best interest of the state for personal gain, (Fingleton, Bertie, Lowry and multiples upon multiples of others)

The way this country is heading the mistakes of the past will be made again in the future as we seem to have learned NOTHING.

tayto lover · 09-04-2013 03:21PM

kippy wrote: »

Why stick together? Sticking together like sheep for the past decade has gotten us to where we are today and has also allowed the laziest and most incompetent of people to remain in the pay of the state.
Sticking together is ONLY good for the weakest of workers. Those who know what they are at and are willing to accept change and COMPETE for positions based on skillsets and knowledge, and not time served are completely dragged down by the unions and collective bargaining and that ultimately leads to a poorer service.

If the unions had any balls whatsoever they would go out on industrial action looking for action against those that have acted against the best interest of the state for personal gain, (Fingleton, Bertie, Lowry and multiples upon multiples of others)

The way this country is heading the mistakes of the past will be made again in the future as we seem to have learned NOTHING.

That sounds like the old "divide and conquer" rhetoric of FG./ Labour.
Howlin and Shatter couldn't say it any clearer.
You people in the PS do indeed need to stick together and don't give an inch.

kippy · 09-04-2013 03:31PM

tayto lover wrote: »

That sounds like the old "divide and conquer" rhetoric of FG./ Labour.
Howlin and Shatter couldn't say it any clearer.
You people in the PS do indeed need to stick together and don't give an inch.

Divide and Conquer?
How about live in a country to be proud of?

tayto lover · 09-04-2013 03:35PM

kippy wrote: »

Divide and Conquer?
How about live in a country to be proud of?

I am proud to live in this country.
I am not proud of the people we elect to run it, the last shower or this one either. They look after their own cronies and buddies at the expense of their people.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments