Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Good loser · 17-04-2013 12:02AM

slickmcvic wrote: »

They were bullied into negotiating a deal that wasn't due to expire for another year/18 months.

They were bullied into "talks" where basically no dialogue took place and a list of unacceptable demands were issued for the negotiators to put to their respective unions.

They were bullied by threats of imminent 7% pay cuts taking place while the voting process was underway.

The process was a joke

All pretty ridiculous hyperbole!

They were invited to talks and accepted, negotiated and brought/recommended a deal to their members.

An alternative to the deal was outlined by Howlin.

Talk of bullying is fatuous.

The unions are now threatening (bullying?) the Govt with strikes etc if they implement the €300m savings.

skafish · 17-04-2013 12:14AM

noodler wrote: »

I honestly don't think this Government can do anything substantial to foster growth.

Do you realise what is happening in this country with regard to the black economy and social welfare fraud?

If those people working for cash etc wer back in the tax net, you would see masive increases in tax returns and substantial shortening of dole queues.

Hows that for encouraging growth?

Unfortunatley, Eunach Kenny doesn't have the balls of a gnat, and Gilmore is as much a of sock puppet as Bosco

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 06:25AM

I'm private sector and quite happy to pay pay more tax to raise the money needed. If its spread across both public and private sectors it means fhat it will hit us all a lot less than it would hit if you just take from the ps.

A new tax band for over 65k would do the trick easily.

Galwayguy35 · 17-04-2013 06:30AM

MMAGirl wrote: »

I'm private sector and quite happy to pay pay more tax to raise the money needed. If its spread across both public and private sectors it means fhat it will hit us all a lot less than it would hit if you just take from the ps.

A new tax band for over 65k would do the trick easily.

So you're on 65 k a year then and include yourself in I take it?

If you are fair enough but if you aren't and are suggesting that private sector workers pay extra taxes to bail out the public sector then that would be a little unfair.

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 07:05AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So you're on 65 k a year then and include yourself in I take it?

If you are fair enough but if you aren't and are suggesting that private sector workers pay extra taxes to bail out the public sector then that would be a little unfair.

Unlike most of my fellow private sector workers, yes I include myself. Fair is fair. And it will be a much easier process if we all contribute. For instance I would have to contribute only a fraction of what a ps worker has to contribute, because the population the money is being extracted from is much bigger than when you just hit the ps.

barneystinson · 17-04-2013 07:08AM

MMAGirl wrote: »

I'm private sector and quite happy to pay pay more tax to raise the money needed. If its spread across both public and private sectors it means fhat it will hit us all a lot less than it would hit if you just take from the ps.

A new tax band for over 65k would do the trick easily.

But why should that be the answer, when the problem is the cost of the PS is too high, and since this is a requirement of the providers of our finance.

We already have an extremely progressive tax system, where 22% of the people paid 76% of the tax in 2011.

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 07:20AM

barneystinson wrote: »

But why should that be the answer, when the problem is the cost of the PS is too high, and since this is a requirement of the providers of our finance.

We already have an extremely progressive tax system, where 22% of the people paid 76% of the tax in 2011.

Fair enough but be big enough to say what you really mean. Which is "I don't want to pay anymore tax, so please take more money off a smaller poo of workers, just so I'm not inconvenienced"

You would think the ps don't pay tax either the way some people go on.

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 07:22AM

Double post

Dreamertime · 17-04-2013 07:28AM

2moreMinutes wrote: »

Just because they're not going gung ho tonight doesn't mean they're bottling it. The savings will be found one way or the other for this year. Seems like a lot of union members are in for a shock if they think voting no meant there's not gonna be cuts.

Howlin and Hayes withdrew the 7% direct cut last night. We called their bluff and they were found wanting.

About time this Governemnt had manners put on them.

Count Dooku · 17-04-2013 07:43AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Howlin and Hayes withdrew the 7% direct cut last night. We called their bluff and they were found wanting.

About time this Governemnt had manners put on them.

As usual PS unions won, taxpayers lost

the groutch · 17-04-2013 07:46AM

noodler wrote: »

Stop providing food, water and other very basic human infrastructure because times are tough here?

yes, it's called looking after our own first.
people in rural areas are living in fear due to cuts in Garda services.
people WILL die because of cuts in the HSE, especially A&E closures.

yet you think we should be borrowing money just to give money to a country whose political corruption exceeds ours tenfold, and for which throwing money or food aid at is nothing more than plugging a leak.
It's 28 years on from the Live Aid era, and nothing has changed.

Dreamertime · 17-04-2013 07:54AM

Count Dooku wrote: »

As usual PS unions won, taxpayers lost

Yes, the evil PS workers are out to screw the 'Taxpayers'...:rolleyes:

barneystinson · 17-04-2013 07:56AM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Fair enough but be big enough to say what you really mean. Which is "I don't want to pay anymore tax, so please take more money off a smaller poo of workers, just so I'm not inconvenienced"

You would think the ps don't pay tax either the way some people go on.

MMAgirl, you don't really pay much attention to who you're talking to do you..? This is my 3rd time telling you specifically, I'm a PS worker - so tell me now, what do I really mean?

Your proposed tax increase for incomes over 65k won't affect me (yet), but CP2 would have, and a direct pay cut would.

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 08:21AM

barneystinson wrote: »

MMAgirl, you don't really pay much attention to who you're talking to do you..? This is my 3rd time telling you specifically, I'm a PS worker - so tell me now, what do I really mean?

Your proposed tax increase for incomes over 65k won't affect me (yet), but CP2 would have, and a direct pay cut would.

I'm not proposing anything. I am just giving an example of an alternative strategy that is fair and easy to implement.

sharper · 17-04-2013 08:31AM

MMAGirl wrote: »

I'm not proposing anything. I am just giving an example of an alternative strategy that is fair and easy to implement.

It's not an either/or situation. Where there's any latitude to increase taxes they will be and new taxes will be created - the property tax came into being this year and water rates are coming.

It's foolish to imagine the deficit can be closed through taxation alone. Yes for any individual saving you could say "But a tax of X could yield the same" but in total you can't do it all through tax.

The domestic economy simply cannot support government spending at current levels.

2moreMinutes · 17-04-2013 08:34AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Howlin and Hayes withdrew the 7% direct cut last night. We called their bluff and they were found wanting.

About time this Governemnt had manners put on them.

I watched both interviews and I don't recall any mention of a 7% cut being withdrawn. Both bluffed their way through their interviews by basically saying nothing in the way that all politicians do in the immediate aftermath of any event. Interviewing anybody last night was basically a waste of time as nothing new was said by either party to the talks.

Godge · 17-04-2013 09:06AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So you're on 65 k a year then and include yourself in I take it?

If you are fair enough but if you aren't and are suggesting that private sector workers pay extra taxes to bail out the public sector then that would be a little unfair.

I am private sector, a property owner and over 65k and yes taxes should be increased instead of cutting public service pay. Property and wealth taxes should be increased which would affect me.

I also support the abolition of child benefit and the replacement with direct provision of childcare, school books and school uniforms, again a measure which would cost me money.

However, I support a reduction in social welfare which would not affect me.

There you go, you can support a mix of measures, some of which affect you and some of which don't. It is about looking at public policy and deciding what is achievable and what is fairest within the achievable options. An agreed pay cut this year was never achievable in the public service.

ardmacha · 17-04-2013 09:22AM

The dogs on the street know that there is still remaining gross inefficiency in the public sector and people aren't going to cooperate with pay cuts when this waste remains. Health workers are not going to accept legislated pay cuts when the HSE continues to pay over the odds for drugs and somehow it is not possible to have legislation to deal with this. This recent process was a lazy one, there was no effort to establish the success or lack of reform under the previous agreement, nor to establish in which areas were more efficient than others. We are 5 years into this crisis and if publicly funded services are unaffordable then there is zero reflection on what the problem is or why we have a deficit when other countries do not, all we get is repositioning of the deck chairs.

barneystinson · 17-04-2013 09:27AM

ardmacha wrote: »

The dogs on the street know that there is still remaining gross inefficiency in the public sector and people aren't going to cooperate with pay cuts when this waste remains. Health workers are not going to accept legislated pay cuts when the HSE continues to pay over the odds for drugs and somehow it is not possible to have legislation to deal with this. This recent process was a lazy one, there was no effort to establish the success or lack of reform under the previous agreement, nor to establish in which areas were more efficient than others. We are 5 years into this crisis and if publicly funded services are unaffordable then there is zero reflection on what the problem is or why we have a deficit when other countries do not, all we get is repositioning of the deck chairs.

True, but if our Unions steadfastly stand in the way of meaningful reform taking place, and one accepts the cost of delivering the services has to come down, it doesn't leave much room for anything other than pay cuts...

Uriel. · 17-04-2013 09:27AM

The ideal situation would be:
1. to keep taxes more or less where they are now (including the upcoming water charges)
2. Keep PS Pay where it is (and allow any increments), but in return for this a 3 to 5 year massive reform programme. Massive, as in unprecedented in the history of the State. Headline items being recentralisation of Government Departments (save where local offices (e.g. revenue, social welfare etc..) are required), slimming down of PS at all levels, streamlining of all services, e.g. central HR, Training, Pensions, Accounts, commonality between sectors such common grades and interchangeability between civil service and local government grades etc.. And a whole host of other matters (including, perhaps on a gradual basis the increase in weekly working hours (without additional pay) for all PS members - with the end goal to be a serious reduction of PS operating costs (with limited impact on services).

The problem is however, that we don't have 3 - 5 years in order to realise these savings. They are required now. So Government really need to get back in a room with PS unions and get something thrashed out - or do their pay slash. Realistically though, a unilateral pay slash is not a long-term positive for anyone.

ardmacha · 17-04-2013 09:34AM

True, but if our Unions steadfastly stand in the way of meaningful reform taking place,

This is simplistic. Some of them are and some of them are not. If they are, identify what the issue is and attack that.

the groutch · 17-04-2013 09:36AM

ardmacha wrote: »

The dogs on the street know that there is still remaining gross inefficiency in the public sector and people aren't going to cooperate with pay cuts when this waste remains.

the HHC/Property tax highlighted this perfectly.
Zero co-operation or integration between government bodies turned that into a complete farce.

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 09:43AM

sharper wrote: »

It's not an either/or situation. Where there's any latitude to increase taxes they will be and new taxes will be created - the property tax came into being this year and water rates are coming.

It's foolish to imagine the deficit can be closed through taxation alone. Yes for any individual saving you could say "But a tax of X could yield the same" but in total you can't do it all through tax.

The domestic economy simply cannot support government spending at current levels.

If you increase taxes AND cut the ps then wouldn't you agree that they are paying twice while the rest of us only pay once.

As I said before. The public sector pay tax at the same rate as the rest of us. They have extra levies too on top already.

sharper · 17-04-2013 10:00AM

MMAGirl wrote: »

If you increase taxes AND cut the ps then wouldn't you agree that they are paying twice while the rest of us only pay once.

If you increase income tax at the same time as you increase property tax then homeowners pay twice. If you increase VAT and decrease social welfare then social welfare recipients pay twice.

When has "one person should only pay once" ever been a principle of government policy?

donegal11 · 17-04-2013 10:01AM

Uriel. wrote: »

The ideal situation would be:
1. to keep taxes more or less where they are now (including the upcoming water charges)
2. Keep PS Pay where it is (and allow any increments), but in return for this a 3 to 5 year massive reform programme. Massive, as in unprecedented in the history of the State. Headline items being recentralisation of Government Departments (save where local offices (e.g. revenue, social welfare etc..) are required), slimming down of PS at all levels, streamlining of all services, e.g. central HR, Training, Pensions, Accounts, commonality between sectors such common grades and interchangeability between civil service and local government grades etc.. And a whole host of other matters (including, perhaps on a gradual basis the increase in weekly working hours (without additional pay) for all PS members - with the end goal to be a serious reduction of PS operating costs (with limited impact on services).

Is this not what they had done in CP2 but it was rejected. They only big losers in the deal where those over 65k in term's of basic pay. The rest of the savings were through additional hours and reorganisation. But if you have a handy number why would you vote for its terms to be changed. The only way to bring in true reform would be through redundancies and outsourcing of jobs. , which would stop the job for life mentality in the PS and in effect pass the whole managing performance/efficiency on to the service provider.

donegal11 · 17-04-2013 10:25AM

MMAGirl wrote: »

If you increase taxes AND cut the ps then wouldn't you agree that they are paying twice while the rest of us only pay once.

As I said before. The public sector pay tax at the same rate as the rest of us. They have extra levies too on top already.

If a PS job isn't worth the existing rate why should the private sector continue to pay it through taxes. If anyone felt there skills were undervalued they should have no problem getting a private sector job at the market rate.

But if the public sector is overpaid with your solution two people doing the exact same job one public and one private would involve the private sector(low paid) worker paying more tax to keep the Public sector (high paid) in this permanent pensionable job.

If your starting from uneven bases, across the board tax increase make inefficiencies worse.

Uriel. · 17-04-2013 10:32AM

donegal11 wrote: »

Is this not what they had done in CP2 but it was rejected. They only big losers in the deal where those over 65k in term's of basic pay. The rest of the savings were through additional hours and reorganisation. But if you have a handy number why would you vote for its terms to be changed. The only way to bring in true reform would be through redundancies and outsourcing of jobs. , which would stop the job for life mentality in the PS and in effect pass the whole managing performance/efficiency on to the service provider.

Not real.
Shift workers, mostly but not exclusively, gardai, medical staff and emergency service workers got a raw deal with cuts in shift allowances etc... I can see why the over €65k are a bit peed off to be honest. It is my view that and statistics have shown that it is the lower end of the scale that are overpaid for what they do and the responsibility they, generally have.

The major problem with CP2 is that they wanted reform and paycuts (which came on top of previous cuts and while the current (CP1) reform wasn't complete.

Don't get me wrong, both sides are to blame here.

donegal11 · 17-04-2013 10:53AM

Uriel. wrote: »

Not real.
Shift workers, mostly but not exclusively, gardai, medical staff and emergency service workers got a raw deal with cuts in shift allowances etc... I can see why the over €65k are a bit peed off to be honest. It is my view that and statistics have shown that it is the lower end of the scale that are overpaid for what they do and the responsibility they, generally have.

The major problem with CP2 is that they wanted reform and paycuts (which came on top of previous cuts and while the current (CP1) reform wasn't complete.

Don't get me wrong, both sides are to blame here.

Gardai, medical staff and emergency service workers are among the best paid PS workers, if you don't cut pay you don't get savings.

small cuts in shift allowances is a change in conditions which was rejected? What changes in conditions do you think PS workers would accept?

You said reform was needed but if no one wants a change in their terms or conditions how does it happen?

And it has to be said about reform that some areas have more fat then others so when one area can magic up a 5% saving doesn't mean that it can happen across the board. Workers who are currently working efficiently for years shouldn't be punished because other groups/less efficient groups can produce saving now.

Dreamertime · 17-04-2013 12:00PM

donegal11 wrote: »

Is this not what they had done in CP2 but it was rejected. They only big losers in the deal where those over 65k in term's of basic pay. The rest of the savings were through additional hours and reorganisation.

I'm on low pay as it is so a change to my conditions is far more detrimental than a percentage cut off the top of my pay.

donegal11 · 17-04-2013 12:12PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

I'm on low pay as it is so a change to my conditions is far more detrimental than a percentage cut off the top of my pay.

Yeah that's the problem no one wants this so called reform.

Will you accept a straight 7% cut as the alternative though?

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments