Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This is the nub of the matter in so called work to rules. In private buisness's this cannot and is not allowed to happen As employees know that if the buisness fails they lose as well as the owner. In a small building outfit id the lad tha pushes the barrow is not there someone has to do it even if they are a tradesman..

"so called work to rules" and industrial action do happen in private sector organisations. Just look at 2012 for example......

Vodafone: http://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2012/0424/318342-vodafone-workers-vote-for-strike-action/

Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1115/345841-accountants-institute-facing-industrial-action/

Musgraves: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/musgrave-workers-vote-for-industrial-action-190126.html

Veoila: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/luas-drivers-set-for-industrial-action-1.737882

now what is the definition of industrial action? From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_action

It includes Strike, occupation of factories, work-to-rule etc.

Work-to-rule is defined as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule

"Work-to-rule is an industrial action in which employees do no more than the minimum required by the rules of their contract, and follow safety or other regulations precisely in order to cause a slowdown"

Deary me, let us look at Irish legislation:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0019/sec0008.html#sec8

Industrial Relations Act 1990.

"“industrial action” means any action which affects, or is likely to affect, the terms or conditions, whether express or implied, of a contract and which is taken by any number or body of workers acting in combination or under a common understanding as a means of compelling their employer, or to aid other workers in compelling their employer, to accept or not to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment;"


From that definition, it is clear that work-to-rule falls clearly within its scope. Famously some of the more effective work-to-rules over the years have been in banks but hey, why let facts once again get in the way of a rant from the countryside?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Teachers claiming that supervision is not part of there duties is like them claiming that correcting homework is not part of there duties. Supervision was a deal done in good times that is unsustainable. The government have always the option if teachers do not supervise to close schools and lay off staff as a privtae company would do if it was the case that work could not be done..

They are not claiming that supervision is not part of their duties.

The facts are clear, as I posted already in this thread

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/conditions-of-work/supervision-and-substitution-scheme/

but repeated for those who failed to read it the first time. THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT IT IS VOLUNTARY.

"A teacher may opt out of this agreement, but will forfeit pensionability. They will not be entitled to a refund of pension contributions paid in respect of supervision and substitution payments. "

Which bit of that do you not understand? The government, acting on your behalf entered an agreement that provides that supervision and substitution is voluntary. The only one claiming that it is not voluntary is yourself.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The days of nitpicking for teachers and other public staff is over. The simple matter is that the state has to reduce costs. This has to come from cuts in pay, cuts in services. cuts in capital expenditure, new taxes and by right cuts in welfare accross the board.

Have you repealed the 1990 Industrial Relations Act all by yourself? Have you swept away centuries of court decisions in relation to contract law? Have you rewritten the 1937 Constitution? Until you do, teachers and other public staff have the right, subject to certain procedures and processes, to take industrial action in the form of work-to-rules.

It doesn't matter whether you and I think that is a good or a bad thing, the right exists and furthermore, it doesn't matter what Kenny or Gilmore think, that right is further protected under European and international law.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Of whom there are less of, leading to less money in the public purse from which to pay teachers, etc. Not only that, but public sector workers have been unfairly (as far as any other industries are concerned) protected throughout this crisis in comparison to their private sector counter-parts. This is a broad comparison, I know, but is generally true.

As I have said, there is very little public sympathy from where I am standing. So, if we imagine a scenario where CP2 doesn't pass, what do you imagine happening as a public sector employee? Money to appear out of nowhere?

Can you show me figures that

(a) prove that the decrease in private sector employment since 2008 is significantly greater than the decrease in public sector employment?
(b) demonstrate that this greater decrease (if it exists) outweighs the fact that public sector wages on average have fallen further than private sector wages on average

If you do manage to do this, maybe you could reflect further on the implication that the communal solidarity shown by public sector workers in accepting pay cuts has meant more of them kept their jobs while in the private sector the me fein attitude meant people looked after themselves at the expense of their colleagues. Can you tell me any other company in Ireland where the workers went to management and said we will accept pay cuts if you protect everyones job? That is what happened in Croke Park 1 and that has to be admired rather than criticised.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And what does this do for the chances of the industrial action actually being successful?

The teachers withdraw en mass from voluntary supervision and substitution which they are entitled to do which they are fully entitled to do. The schools can neither discipline them, suspend them or deduct pay (except for the supervision and substitution payment which is going to be abolished as part of CP2 so they lose nothing) because it is something they are fully entitled to do under the existing agreement.

The schools have to close for health and safety reasons.

The teachers will explain that they have done nothing other than what they are entitled to do under existing agreements.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Can you not understand that when you see camaraderie amongst the PS worker, what everyone else sees is the protection of employees who simply aren't needed any more, the protection of useless employees, and the protection of absolutely ludicrous allowances and working-related obligations - all to the detriment of the country?.

But the demand for state services has gone up over the last five years. Despite all the cuts, more kids are being taught at school than before, more patients are being treated in hospital than before and more students are at college than before. How can you say that the employees are not needed any more?

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The fact is that PS unions are making this stand based on an idea all state employees are significantly more important than the interests of both the country and it's inhabitants. Which they aren't.

Not at all. Public servants have taken the same number of tax hits as everyone else in the country. They have taken bigger pay cuts than most private sector workers and they have given significant extra productivity - you should read some of the HSE reports on numbers of admissions, procedures etc.

The interests of both the country and it's inhabitants could be equally well served by the extension of the property tax to cover land as well as buildings, by increasing the tax, or by introducing other wealth taxes. Or by cutting social welfare payments and increasing the incentive to work. Those are all policy choices (including cutting PS pay) and it is perfectly reasonable to argue for one or the other as being better.