Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

sean200 · 16-04-2013 03:32PM

noodler wrote: »

I wonder will the Government also not be bound by the majority agreement and apply the extension to the unions who votes yes and the 7% to the unions that voted no.

Would seem a fairer way of doing things than a 7% cut across the board.

EDIT:

Seems to be 40.9% voting NO in the overall ICTU vote now (with just 26.4% voting yes). With the ASTI,IMO and IMNO almost certain to vote no, there is surely no real chance of an overall yes vote now.

You cant impose a pay-cut on somebody just because they are in a union

Larbre34 · 16-04-2013 03:36PM

noodler wrote: »

I wonder will the Government also not be bound by the majority agreement and apply the extension to the unions who votes yes and the 7% to the unions that voted no.

Would seem a fairer way of doing things than a 7% cut across the board.

By doing that they would admit defeat on 30 odd years of the partnership model, and would guarantee an immediate strike by the remainder.

This 7% is a red herring anyway, what the Govt have actually said at various times is between 3-7% to be enforced. 7% across the board would deliver them €980 million, when by their own admission they only need €300 million off each years paybill.

noodler · 16-04-2013 03:38PM

sean200 wrote: »

You cant impose a pay-cut on somebody just because they are in a union

Larbre34 wrote: »

By doing that they would admit defeat on 30 odd years of the partnership model, and would guarantee an immediate strike by the remainder.

They'd simply be applying the same logic to the unions who said they would not be bound by ICTU.

You can hardly have it both ways.

Anyway, it will be interesting now. The Budget process is very early this year and the Government will have to make alot of progress in a very short space of time.

EDIT: Troika arrive back in April - I wonder if there will be any threat of holding back the next round of funding as they did with Greece so often when they didn't have required budgetary measures in place.

Although in fairness, the State has a backstop already - we aren't a quarter away from not being able to pay the bills like Greece is.

ardmacha · 16-04-2013 03:46PM

Although in fairness, the State has a backstop already - we aren't a quarter away from not being able to pay the bills like Greece is.

About €33bn in hand. No need for panic (all the more reason not to have had the present debacle of a pay deal negotiated in haste)

Uriel. · 16-04-2013 03:47PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

By doing that they would admit defeat on 30 odd years of the partnership model, and would guarantee an immediate strike by the remainder.

This 7% is a red herring anyway, what the Govt have actually said at various times is between 3-7% to be enforced. 7% across the board would deliver them €980 million, when by their own admission they only need €300 million off each years paybill.

I thought it was €300m for this year, from 01st July - which is a half year. So it's in excess of €600m cost reduction per annum. Sure they were seeking an overall cut of €1b per year

Godge · 16-04-2013 03:54PM

The vote at ICTU tomorrow could be 3:1 against if the INTO also vote no.

A big problem for everyone involved.

The four main union negotiators couldn't persuade any major union other than theirs to vote yes (with the exception of the POA who did their own side deal) and even then they have lost one of the four (SIPTU) and probably another (INTO). This creates a major problem on the union side for the structure of any future negotiations.

On the government side, they still have Croke Park I, if they legislate without agreement, they are the ones who have abandoned that agreement (unless they formally invoke the can't pay clause). Their strategy had backfired badly, wonder who thought it up.

Godge · 16-04-2013 03:55PM

ardmacha wrote: »

About €33bn in hand. No need for panic (all the more reason not to have had the present debacle of a pay deal negotiated in haste)

much better to have sat down next February.

noodler · 16-04-2013 03:55PM

ardmacha wrote: »

About €33bn in hand. No need for panic (all the more reason not to have had the present debacle of a pay deal negotiated in haste)

I don't think that link/figure is correct in what you are trying to say. i think that the 33bn is down in large part to the 28bn of bonds issued to replace the promissory note in March.

The document you linked to is a bit like "extra liabilities we have undertaken between Jan and March".

I'll find the actual figure of cash balances but it is substantial, Noonan said recently we were covered for the entire of 2014 and some of 2015.

EDIT: Scratch that. There are two 33bn figures on the page and so you were right - I was looking at the other one.

noodler · 16-04-2013 04:01PM

Godge wrote: »

(unless they formally invoke the can't pay clause). Their strategy had backfired badly, wonder who thought it up.

Its a deterioration in budgetary circumstances clause.

Would be extremely easy for any Government number cruncher to show quite clearly things have gotten worse since March 2010.

I think it is a little bit facetious on your part to require the Government to come out and formally say something which is patently true.

Larbre34 · 16-04-2013 04:02PM

Uriel. wrote: »

I thought it was €300m for this year, from 01st July - which is a half year. So it's in excess of €600m cost reduction per annum. Sure they were seeking an overall cut of €1b per year

Nope, its €300m per year over the life of the 'agreement', i.e. savings provided for in each of the national budgets 2014, 2015, 2016. Only the conditions requirements would kick in on July 1 2013, like longer working week etc.

Anyway, you can put all that in the past tense.

Uriel. · 16-04-2013 04:06PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Nope, its €300m per year over the life of the 'agreement', i.e. savings provided for in each of the national budgets 2014, 2015, 2016. Only the conditions requirements would kick in on July 1 2013, like longer working week etc.

Anyway, you can put all that in the past tense.

€300m hmmm ok. God that doesn't seem like a huge amount in one way, particularly if there are a multitude of approaches.

New Government for the Autumn?

ardmacha · 16-04-2013 04:06PM

On the government side, they still have Croke Park I, if they legislate without agreement, they are the ones who have abandoned that agreement (unless they formally invoke the can't pay clause).

The proper thing to have done was to review CP1 before now, identify where there wasn't progress and tweak it where there were small obstacles and work the bejasus out of it. Instead any talk of progress under CP1 has largely faded away and this half baked project emerged. This reflects the fact that a proper review of CP1 would have exposed particular groups of workers who weren't doing anything, I expect some on the unions didn't want this. But it would also clearly identify areas where management and government hadn't done anything to initiate change, so not talking about it suited the suits on both sides.

Their strategy had backfired badly, wonder who thought it up.

No doubt they'll not suffer any consequences, whoever they are.

I think it is a little bit facetious on your part to require the Government to come out and formally say something which is patently true.

Absolutely not. It is never wrong to require proper measurement of something as important as this. This is at the root of what is wrong with this country.

sean200 · 16-04-2013 04:06PM

noodler wrote: »

Its a deterioration in budgetary circumstances clause.

Would be extremely easy for any Government number cruncher to show quite clearly things have gotten worse since March 2010.

I think it is a little bit facetious on your part to require the Government to come out and formally say something which is patently true.

correct and then all that was given so far in croke park 1 will be reversed causing chaos before any strike action is required.
i see an election very soon

Larbre34 · 16-04-2013 04:07PM

noodler wrote: »

Its a deterioration in budgetary circumstances clause.

Would be extremely easy for any Government number cruncher to show quite clearly things have gotten worse since March 2010.

I think it is a little bit facetious on your part to require the Government to come out and formally say something which is patently true.

No, it would be required of them to formally invoke that clause if they wanted to honour the terms of the current agreement. But as we already know by their attempt to foreshorten that same current agreement, they aren't too hung up on honouring anything but that which suits them.

The duplicity of the government is in effect what did for this deal. If they had allowed CP1 to run its course then proposed CPII on the basis of circumstances it might even have passed.

People werent going to be fooled twice though......

Paulzx · 16-04-2013 04:10PM

Godge wrote: »

much better to have sat down next February.

That's exactly what they should have done. By negotiating a new agreement when the old one has finished they had some chance.

Renaging on a deal and then looking to do a deal on a new one is not a good place to start from. The talks were done from a position of bad faith.

Assurances from Howlin that this was the last paycut were pretty hollow considering he has just torn up an existing deal without using any of the official opt out clauses contained in it.

This whole process has been a strategic own goal from Labour who have led the assault from the front and allowed Fine Gael sit back, even though they were obviously following a Fine Gael agenda. If i was a Labour backbencher i'd be seriously pissed off with my party leadership.

Godge · 16-04-2013 04:20PM

noodler wrote: »

Its a deterioration in budgetary circumstances clause.

Would be extremely easy for any Government number cruncher to show quite clearly things have gotten worse since March 2010.

I think it is a little bit facetious on your part to require the Government to come out and formally say something which is patently true.

Not at all. This is the clause.

"1.28 The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration."

It also says:

"1.24 Where the Parties involved cannot reach agreement in discussions on any matter under the terms of this Agreement within 6 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter, the matter will be referred by either side to the LRC and if necessary to the Labour Court; where a Conciliation or Arbitration Scheme applies, the issue will be referred within 6 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter, by either side to the Conciliation machinery under the Scheme and, if unresolved, to the Arbitration Board, acting in an ad hoc capacity. The outcome from the industrial relations or arbitration process will be final. Such determination(s) will be made within 4 weeks, or another timeframe set by the Implementation Body to reflect the circumstances or nature of the particular matter."

Unless the unions have agreed to the activation of clause 1.28 and that such activation is valid, clause 1.24 comes into play. If you were arguing that by virtue of entering discussions on CP2, that the unions were so agreeing, you might have a point but if you wanted to argue that, I would caution you to go back and consider carefully the statements made by the unions at the times they entered the talks.

2moreMinutes · 16-04-2013 04:21PM

When my boss goes through a tough time, we all got a pay cut and a few people went on short working weeks with 2 being let go. What makes these union members think they are something special?:mad:

Godge · 16-04-2013 04:25PM

2moreMinutes wrote: »

When my boss goes through a tough time, we all got a pay cut and a few people went on short working weeks with 2 being let go. What makes these union members think they are something special?:mad:

Ah yes, one pay cut, well the public service just voted against their third pay cut. I think they deserve some credit for accepting two pay cuts when you only accepted one. Is your boss making a fortune now and still exploiting you or did you get your pay cut back?

2moreMinutes · 16-04-2013 04:36PM

Godge wrote: »

Ah yes, one pay cut, well the public service just voted against their third pay cut. I think they deserve some credit for accepting two pay cuts when you only accepted one. Is your boss making a fortune now and still exploiting you or did you get your pay cut back?

One 15% paycut for those of us who are still employed with no signs of it being reversed due to work still being slow. A few people on short working weeks and two people no longer working here. Since I pay into my own pension, I guess by your standards, I should also count that as a paycut. How many public servants have been let go or are on a 3 day week?

I also dont believe I was/am being exploited. I dont have a sense of entitlement in relation to my job that a lot of others in certain sectors appear to have. I know that if my employer is not making money, he cant pay me what he used to.

Again, what makes these union members feel they are something special?

Dreamertime · 16-04-2013 04:38PM

A proud day for the Trade Union Movement...:)

ardmacha · 16-04-2013 04:49PM

One 15% paycut for those of us who are still employed with no signs of it being reversed due to work still being slow

That results from a lack of demand for your services, there isn't as much work to be done. How about the doctor or professor who has had a 20% cut and who has also had greater demand for their services?

whitebriar · 16-04-2013 05:14PM

ardmacha wrote: »

That results from a lack of demand for your services, there isn't as much work to be done. How about the doctor or professor who has had a 20% cut and who has also had greater demand for their services?

Well in my world when the customer can't pay the price I quote,I must reduce the price or go on the dole because the money runs out.

Trouble is government employees have been spoiled to think because its the government pay the wages,that the money to pay is like an entitlement and will always come.
#delusion
#troika+governmentlenderssayno

ardmacha · 16-04-2013 05:25PM

Well in my world when the customer can't pay the price I quote,I must reduce the price or go on the dole because the money runs out.

The customers haven't been asked to pay the price. Water is given away free, universities charges 30% of the price of those on the neighbouring island. Meanwhile the suppliers (e.g. drug companies) are paid prices far beyond international norms and the wages of the employees need to be cut to allow this continue given that the customers do have problems.

Godge · 16-04-2013 05:25PM

2moreMinutes wrote: »

One 15% paycut for those of us who are still employed with no signs of it being reversed due to work still being slow. A few people on short working weeks and two people no longer working here. Since I pay into my own pension, I guess by your standards, I should also count that as a paycut. How many public servants have been let go or are on a 3 day week?

I also dont believe I was/am being exploited. I dont have a sense of entitlement in relation to my job that a lot of others in certain sectors appear to have. I know that if my employer is not making money, he cant pay me what he used to.

Again, what makes these union members feel they are something special?

You are being exploited, you just don't know it. Count Dooku helpfully posted an article earlier which showed that based on CSO statistics, self-employed business owners saw their total income grow by €1.9bn last year while the much bigger group of private sector workers only saw their income grow by €711m (the poor public servants saw no increase in their total income). I would say that those figures show that in general, as per usual, the business-owning self-employed in Ireland are still creaming it at the expense of the ordinary worker. A pity that so few ordinary workers in the private sector see this and allow themselves to be happy with the few crumbs they are thrown by their owners and masters.

I certainly make sure I get my worth when I negotiate for my salary.

noodler · 16-04-2013 05:25PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Absolutely not. It is never wrong to require proper measurement of something as important as this. This is at the root of what is wrong with this country.

Pick a measurement. Go ahead.

sean200 wrote: »

correct and then all that was given so far in croke park 1 will be reversed causing chaos before any strike action is required.
i see an election very soon

Sure, would that mean retrospective pay cuts and giving back any increments awarded over the past three years?

Godge wrote: »

Not at all. This is the clause.
"1.28 The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration."

Exactly - this supercedes all.

Again, pick a measure.

mkdon05 · 16-04-2013 05:32PM

noodler wrote: »

Exactly - this supercedes all.

Again, pick a measure.
[/LEFT]

If the arsehol3s stopped basing their budget around stupid growth predictions, that might be legitimate.

ardmacha · 16-04-2013 05:36PM

Pick a measurement. Go ahead.

I'm not saying that there are not measures. I am lamenting the absolute failure of this process to include any and the continuation by this government of the fact free approach to public administration that has got us in this mess.

Godge · 16-04-2013 05:51PM

noodler wrote: »

Exactly - this supercedes all.

Again, pick a measure.
[/LEFT]

You miss the point. CP1 is an AGREEMENT. Therefore that clause must be invoked by AGREEMENT. Show me where the unions agree that this clause has been suitably invoked.

If there is no agreement, then the dispute resolution procedures come into play.

If you and the government are so sure that the clause is valid and that the budgetary position has detrioriated so badly as to necessitate the invoking of this clause, why are you so afraid of a third party judging that?

2moreMinutes · 16-04-2013 05:53PM

ardmacha wrote: »

That results from a lack of demand for your services, there isn't as much work to be done. How about the doctor or professor who has had a 20% cut and who has also had greater demand for their services?

There is no lack of demand for our services. We deal with businesses that can no longer afford to pay the fees that they previously did as well as now taking forever to pay those reduced fees. Unfortunately, we do not have the Troika coming in to pay our wages for us.

Godge wrote: »

You are being exploited, you just don't know it. Count Dooku helpfully posted an article earlier which showed that based on CSO statistics, self-employed business owners saw their total income grow by €1.9bn last year while the much bigger group of private sector workers only saw their income grow by €711m (the poor public servants saw no increase in their total income). I would say that those figures show that in general, as per usual, the business-owning self-employed in Ireland are still creaming it at the expense of the ordinary worker. A pity that so few ordinary workers in the private sector see this and allow themselves to be happy with the few crumbs they are thrown by their owners and masters.

I certainly make sure I get my worth when I negotiate for my salary.

I have absolutely no interest in CSO figures when I am discussing my own employment as those CSO stats could not be further from the truth for my own employer

Unlike those in the public sector, I do not care how much "the other side" earn so long as we, as a country, can afford to pay it. I have no resentment towards a public servant earning a good wage unlike what appears to be the majority of public servants having resentment towards the private sector. When we cannot afford to pay your (I'm assuming "your" is accurate) wages, we have an issue that I do have a problem with.

Godge · 16-04-2013 05:57PM

2moreMinutes wrote: »

There is no lack of demand for our services. We deal with businesses that can no longer afford to pay the fees that they previously did as well as now taking forever to pay those reduced fees. Unfortunately, we do not have the Troika coming in to pay our wages for us.

I have absolutely no interest in CSO figures when I am discussing my own employment as those CSO stats could not be further from the truth for my own employer

Unlike those in the public sector, I do not care how much "the other side" earn so long as we, as a country, can afford to pay it. I have no resentment towards a public servant earning a good wage unlike what appears to be the majority of public servants having resentment towards the private sector. When we cannot afford to pay your (I'm assuming "your" is accurate) wages, we have an issue that I do have a problem with.

I am not a public servant though I used to be.

The point I am making is that you are accepting your employer's position on trust - you may well be getting shafted while he is living it up, you just don't know. I bet he still has great holidays/big car/nice house.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments