Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

It absolutely amazes me the amount of people who think they should have a say in how other peoples pay is cut!

scha·den·freu·de
noun, often capitalized \ˈshä-dən-ˌfrȯi-də\
Definition of SCHADENFREUDE
enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others

Dreamertime wrote: »

Lets see Labour backbenchers vote for our paycut. Why should we make it easy for them and accept a deal that dismantles our conditions of employment?

Why should you make it easy? It's called being reasonable - taking a view of the situation where you understand cuts are inevitable and not a single person in the country has the power to give you what you want. You say "Well I don't want any cuts but I don't see any alternative so let's do it in the most painless way possible".

You've as much as conceded in your posts here you realise the cuts are coming one way or the other it simply makes you feel better to resist.

That tells us a lot about the balance you make between your own satisfaction and the needs of the people relying on your services. Those people are not responsible for the cuts, can do nothing to stop them and are experiencing their own hardship brought on by economic collapse but you're giddy at the thought of putting the boot in because it makes you feel good to do so.

ardmacha wrote: »

If citizens have ceased paying for services then presumably they won't object to their diminution.

Every working citizen is paying more and will be paying more via property tax and water rates. What more do you want? Do you believe the Irish economy has the ability to close the deficit via tax increases alone?

Dreamertime wrote: »

Give me a paycut over a loss of conditions any day of the week. There's the oportunity to get the pay back in the future but once you lose conditions they're gone forever.

Why? How are conditions special relative to any other demand unions might make in a negotiation?

You can also argue the reverse - that it's easier to restore conditions in future because it can be done without affecting headline spending rates. At some point you're going to be looking for an improvement in your working conditions and it's going be far easier to just restore your working hours than it is to increase pay.

sharper wrote: »

Why? How are conditions special relative to any other demand unions might make in a negotiation?

You can also argue the reverse - that it's easier to restore conditions in future because it can be done without affecting headline spending rates. At some point you're going to be looking for an improvement in your working conditions and it's going be far easier to just restore your working hours than it is to increase pay.

Why surely conditions are being changed to save money, why else are they being changed? So reversing them will cost money in just the same way as restoring a pay cut. Can you imagine the thread title to an announcement that in CPA 111.5 the PS are being offerred a shorter working week! On the other hand pay increases will happen eventually - maybe in 20 years.

sarumite wrote: »

These people you are referring to....would they be taxpayers by any chance?

Would they? As a matter of interest if they are then why would they care how pay is cut? Does it matter to the taxpayer so long as he gets his savings and protects himself from tax increases. So not only do people want their pound of flesh .. they actually want to dictate how the flesh is cut

ardmacha wrote: »

Since both sides of the debate are taxpayers, this is hardly a distinction.

The difference only that private sector contribute to exchequer and public sector just reduce expenditure by their taxes

Dreamertime wrote: »

AHCPS rejects CP II by 85%...:)

Musicmental85 wrote: »

My god the rte headline is disgracefully biased for a national agency. Two unions reject croke park is the headline, except if you read it those two unions have 200 members (yes that's total!) between them. It's only when you go in to read it that you realise that the AHCPS with 2700 members (10 times more members than the other two combined) have rejected the deal.

Which is correct.

Dreamertime wrote: »

Nonsense.

Conditions are far more precious to a low paid worker than pay. the pay is sh*te to begin with. Start disdmantling the conditions and its not worth coming into work. Which is the real goal of Howlin and his henchmen. Drive us out of our jobs.

Its little you know about comparable rates for the job you do. CSO report state that its the lower paid PS jobs that have the highest wage discrepancy for comparable roles in the private sector.

So either the CSO are wrorng or you have an over inflated sense of what you're worth, I'll go with the latter

Dreamertime wrote: »

Conditions are far more precious to a low paid worker than pay. the pay is sh*te to begin with.

If you left your current job what do you expect your pay and conditions to look like elsewhere?

Godge wrote: »

Except that the government is not bust. It is still running hospitals, schools, prisons, garda and army barracks etc.

Those are running purely because the IMF et all stepped in and provided the money to run them.

Therefore, it is more like a loss-making Diageo than a business shutting down.

Sure you could look at it from a severe loss making perspective rather than a bankruptcy perspective but it's a bit of a distinction without a difference. The question was in relation to payments above statutory for public sector redundancies and whatever way you look at it anything above the legal minimum is exceedingly generous.

What that means is that there is more than one way to skin the cat e.g. take other measures such as increasing taxes or cutting social welfare. For example, increasing the property tax to normal European levels would generate more than the cuts proposed for public servants.

Taxes have been increased and are being increased. Social welfare has been cut though arguably not enough. It is nowhere close to correct to characterise public sector cuts as the only means of closing the deficit which has been pursued.

As for the property tax well...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-union-to-fight-property-tax-29174368.html

A TEACHERS union has agreed to oppose and campaign against the incoming property tax.

At the final day of the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI) annual conference, delegates overwhelmingly agreed to oppose the contentious property tax.

Not easy to win is it?

Dreamertime wrote: »

I've no intention of leaving. Neither shoud I be apologetic for protecting my Terms and Conditions of employment.

My pay is very low for the service I provide but the overall package is worth staying onboard for. So far.

I didn't suggest you should leave, I asked what you might expect to get for the same job elsewhere. You say your pay is low but then I've seen nurses on 50-70k claim their pay is low too.