Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Count Dooku · 17-04-2013 12:17PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

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.

Gold plated PS pensions depends from gross pay only, very few in private sector have such generous DB pensions

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 12:28PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Gold plated PS pensions depends from gross pay only, very few in private sector have such generous DB pensions

You get a nice pension in the private sector if you negotiate it. You are worth what you can negotiate. No more no less, whether you do it personally or through a union. Don't negotiate it and you won't get it.

whatawaster · 17-04-2013 12:45PM

There needs to be pay-cuts and now, but staggered depending on incomes:

ie:

earnings over €200,000 - 100% cut
earnings between €160K and €200,000 - 75% cut
earnings between €120K and €160K - 50% cut
earnings between €80K and €120K - 25% cut
earnings between €60K and €80K - 10% cut

I just cannot fathom why the cuts cannot be more severe at the top end. There would be little or no public backlash from such moves, quite the opposite in fact.

I certainly don't want PS Workers on very low pay (say less than €30K) to be bearing the brunt of these cuts. The above cuts, along with slashing of overtime and other benefits

Private sector workers:
- Are not usually afforded the opportunity to bargain with their employers for pay/conditions/security
- Are almost always subject to regular performance reviews
- Are paid what their employer feels they are worth, not what the guidelines say they must be paid.
- If they do not perform their job well, they will be dismissed
- Are not guaranteed pay increases simply because of time served.

Everything about the public service seems inefficient to me. Certainly does not have serving the public at its heart.

whatawaster · 17-04-2013 12:47PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

You get a nice pension in the private sector if you negotiate it. You are worth what you can negotiate. No more no less, whether you do it personally or through a union. Don't negotiate it and you won't get it.

What about:

absolute job security regardless of performance
guaranteed annual pay increments

I suppose these can be negotiated in the private sector too?

Sierra Oscar · 17-04-2013 12:58PM

whatawaster wrote: »

There needs to be pay-cuts and now, but staggered depending on incomes:

ie:

earnings over €200,000 - 100% cut
earnings between €160K and €200,000 - 75% cut
earnings between €120K and €160K - 50% cut
earnings between €80K and €120K - 25% cut
earnings between €60K and €80K - 10% cut

I understand the need to target those in the higher wage bracket, but are those figures which you propose really workable?

I mean, you want to cut someone on €160,000 to €40,000 a year. Yet then those on €80,000 a year will see their wage fall back to €60,000.

Why would someone take on a role with greater responsibility if they are to face a cutback?

whatawaster · 17-04-2013 01:09PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I understand the need to target those in the higher wage bracket, but are those figures which you propose really workable?

I mean, you want to cut someone on €160,000 to €40,000 a year. Yet then those on €80,000 a year will see their wage fall back to €60,000.

Why would someone take on a role with greater responsibility if they are to face a cutback?

No, someone on €160,000

earnings between 0 and 60K - no cut
earnings between 60 and 80K - 10% cut (€2,000 cut)
earnings between 80 and 120K - 25% cut (€10,000 cut)
earnings between 120 and 160K - 50% cut (€20,000 cut)

So someone on €160K would fall to €128K if my workings are correct.

These are %s and ranges I plucked out of thin air, mind you.

donegal11 · 17-04-2013 01:23PM

whatawaster wrote: »

No, someone on €160,000

earnings between 0 and 60K - no cut
earnings between 60 and 80K - 10% cut (€2,000 cut)
earnings between 80 and 120K - 25% cut (€10,000 cut)
earnings between 120 and 160K - 50% cut (€20,000 cut)

So someone on €160K would fall to €128K if my workings are correct.

These are %s and ranges I plucked out of thin air, mind you.

But how do you know if someone on the 160k doesn't deserve there current pay or everyone under 60k does no matter what there job spec or skills are.
And lets call a spade a spade 60k is not low paid so I don't know why cuts have to start at almost twice the average industrial wage.

whatawaster · 17-04-2013 01:29PM

donegal11 wrote: »

But how do you know if someone on the 160k doesn't deserve there current pay or everyone under 60k does no matter what there job spec or skills are.
And lets call a spade a spade 60k is not low paid so I don't know why cuts have to start at almost twice the average industrial wage.

Both fair points.

I would ultimately like to move to a reformed situation whereby public sector workers a hired on merit, have their performance reviewed regularly and have pay/progression to be in line with performance. As it is, large cuts to pay are needed now.

60K was a fairly arbitrary figure I used. Perhaps 30K would be better, I don't know.

K-9 · 17-04-2013 01:30PM

whatawaster wrote: »

No, someone on €160,000

earnings between 0 and 60K - no cut
earnings between 60 and 80K - 10% cut (€2,000 cut)
earnings between 80 and 120K - 25% cut (€10,000 cut)
earnings between 120 and 160K - 50% cut (€20,000 cut)

So someone on €160K would fall to €128K if my workings are correct.

These are %s and ranges I plucked out of thin air, mind you.

Edit: wrong figures.

Dreamertime · 17-04-2013 01:45PM

donegal11 wrote: »

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

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

It would be the lesser of two evils.

whatawaster · 17-04-2013 02:04PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

It would be the lesser of two evils.

What about reforms do you reject to?

Uriel. · 17-04-2013 02:11PM

whatawaster wrote: »

Both fair points.

I would ultimately like to move to a reformed situation whereby public sector workers a hired on merit, have their performance reviewed regularly and have pay/progression to be in line with performance. As it is, large cuts to pay are needed now.

60K was a fairly arbitrary figure I used. Perhaps 30K would be better, I don't know.

All Public servants are hired on merit save political appointees.

Tbh I don't think your sweeping cuts to higher pay are workable or sound. I think pay should be forgotten about in the longer term and work on significant reforms to reduce costs including longer working hours.

Pay increases are theoretically at least linked to performance based assessments. But it would appear that proper implementation is the problem and that should be addressed.

djpbarry · 17-04-2013 02:41PM

whatawaster wrote: »

earnings between 0 and 60K - no cut
earnings between 60 and 80K - 10% cut (€2,000 cut)
earnings between 80 and 120K - 25% cut (€10,000 cut)
earnings between 120 and 160K - 50% cut (€20,000 cut)

How about...

Earnings above €0 - x% cut

where x is based on individual performance.

whatawaster · 17-04-2013 02:46PM

djpbarry wrote: »

How about...

Earnings above €0 - x% cut

where x is based on individual performance.

I'm talking about something the government could implement tomorrow. It could be designed to bring the public pay-bill back to reality. Then we could work on the kind of reforms everyone wants, including performance-based pay reviews.

nice_guy80 · 17-04-2013 02:53PM

Told you it would be rejected

the changes to sick leave for teachers was a huge issue

antoobrien · 17-04-2013 02:56PM

whatawaster wrote: »

I'm talking about something the government could implement tomorrow. It could be designed to bring the public pay-bill back to reality. Then we could work on the kind of reforms everyone wants, including performance-based pay reviews.

If performance reviews are done regularly (as is often claimed) they can be implemented tomorrow. If there are no reviews then full cuts should apply as they have not being applying the agreed procedures.

whatawaster · 17-04-2013 03:08PM

antoobrien wrote: »

If performance reviews are done regularly (as is often claimed) they can be implemented tomorrow. If there are no reviews then full cuts should apply as they have not being applying the agreed procedures.

The second you have a performance review that results in anything other than the full increment that the employee was expecting you'll have the union stepping in and you'll have threats of industrial action, I reckon.

Dreamertime · 17-04-2013 04:43PM

whatawaster wrote: »

What about reforms do you reject to?

As long as the reforms don't drive a coach and four through my T & C's of employment, I'm happy to look into proposals of reform.

barneystinson · 17-04-2013 04:46PM

Dreamertime wrote: »

As long as the reforms don't drive a coach and four through my T & C's of employment, I'm happy to look into proposals of reform.

Would you consider clerical/admin staff being asked to work a normal 37-hour working week a coach and four being driven through their T&C's?

Dreamertime · 17-04-2013 05:02PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Would you consider clerical/admin staff being asked to work a normal 37-hour working week a coach and four being driven through their T&C's?

Yes, when those hours can be built up by management and worked in a lump sum on a Saturday for no extra pay. As CP II proposed...

MMAGirl · 17-04-2013 06:02PM

The PS have just wont the battle.
Howlin and co has egg on their faces and have to go back and come up with a better deal.

If I were the PS I wouldnt be thinking about what the deal could be now. Id be saying go away and come back when you have something sensible. Then consider it and reject it again if necessary.
The important thing is that you all stick together now. You have just gained the upper hand big time. Dont throw it away.

you should realize now that there is no need to answer to the internet

Galwayguy35 · 17-04-2013 06:19PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

The PS have just wont the battle.
Howlin and co has egg on their faces and have to go back and come up with a better deal.

If I were the PS I wouldnt be thinking about what the deal could be now. Id be saying go away and come back when you have something sensible. Then consider it and reject it again if necessary.
The important thing is that you all stick together now. You have just gained the upper hand big time. Dont throw it away.

you should realize now that there is no need to answer to the internet

Don't think the Government will come up with a better deal as to do so would be to take away from one union to make the other happy and that won't work.

I think they will go ahead and push CP2 through and see where the chips fall.

woodoo · 17-04-2013 06:21PM

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.

I would love to know the real reason for that. They are overpaying by possibly 40% according to RTE Primetime last night. Total spend of 1.85 billion so they could have their 300 million is one fell swoop if that dealt with that. Have they got themselves in some sort of bind.

tayto lover · 17-04-2013 06:24PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Don't think the Government will come up with a better deal as to do so would be to take away from one union to make the other happy and that won't work.

I think they will go ahead and push CP2 through and see where the chips fall.

The chips will fall on their toes

Galwayguy35 · 17-04-2013 06:27PM

tayto lover wrote: »

The chips will fall on their toes

That may well happen, time will tell.

It may yet bring down the Government if Labour revolt but it looks like they will hold the line at this stage.

tayto lover · 17-04-2013 06:42PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

That may well happen, time will tell.

It may yet bring down the Government if Labour revolt but it looks like they will hold the line at this stage.

I don't think there is an appetite for industrial action on either side.
I can see them coming back with a new deal which is not so directed at the lower earners.

Uriel. · 17-04-2013 09:09PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

The PS have just wont the battle.
Howlin and co has egg on their faces and have to go back and come up with a better deal.

If I were the PS I wouldnt be thinking about what the deal could be now. Id be saying go away and come back when you have something sensible. Then consider it and reject it again if necessary.
The important thing is that you all stick together now. You have just gained the upper hand big time. Dont throw it away.

you should realize now that there is no need to answer to the internet

I don't think anyone won to be honest. I wouldn't even consider that there would be any real winner if CP2 was passed.

It wouldn't deliver the breath of reforms needed for a long term better performing more sustainable public service.

In my view the threat of cuts to take home pay need to come off the table and unions and their members need to stop fluttering around with reforms and actually get the finger out and be proactive about reform.

Public sector working week should be 39 hours a week standard without including lunch break. I do however agree that banking time to use for for "free" working Saturdays shouldn't be part of that.

Put 39 hour week should be towards top of the list in any agreement and unions and members shouldn't drag their feet on it.

Idbatterim · 17-04-2013 09:16PM

surely over 32,800 is a high earner! it must be as the government deem this the amount at which they can shaft you for over half of your income...

woodoo · 17-04-2013 09:20PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Public sector working week should be 39 hours a week standard without including lunch break. I do however agree that banking time to use for for "free" working Saturdays shouldn't be part of that.

Put 39 hour week should be towards top of the list in any agreement and unions and members shouldn't drag their feet on it.

No it shouldn't, 35 hrs is plenty for office staff and 37 is plenty for all other work. We don't all need to be handing over our lives to work. The increased hours should be fought against. What is wrong with a typical 9 to 5 job.

A 3% pay cut would be all i'd be willing to give and i'd need to keep increments.

Uriel. · 17-04-2013 09:25PM

woodoo wrote: »

No it shouldn't, 35 hrs is plenty for office staff and 37 is plenty for all other work. We don't all need to be handing over our lives to work. The increased hours should be fought against. What is wrong with a typical 9 to 5 job.

A 3% pay cut would be all i'd be willing to give and i'd need to keep increments.

Less numbers means more work for those remaining in the job. More hours are required to bridge that gap. The alternative is a big cut to pay to ensure funding to hire new staff.

If you want to work less hours do a four day week if it fits with your job role and suffer to cut in pay that goes with that.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments