Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

ardmacha · 21-04-2013 01:35PM

Reading their posts highlights what is wrong with this country.

There is indeed much information on what is wrong with this country in the posts here.

Trade unions are as much to blame as politicians and banks for the problems this country has.

No, there are not. The banks ruined the country, the politicians allowed them ruin the country The unions had nothing really to do with ruining the country, although they did adopt attitudes that didn't help politicians provide better public services. These are 3 different orders of magnitude, and no factual argument would place them on the same level. But then the lack of factual argument is at the root of most that is wrong with the country and is often a feature of posts here.

sharper · 21-04-2013 02:06PM

ardmacha wrote: »

No, there are not. The banks ruined the country, the politicians allowed them ruin the country The unions had nothing really to do with ruining the country

http://www.ictu.ie/about/staff.html

David Begg became General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in 2001. For five years prior to that he was Chief Executive of Concern Worldwide, an international humanitarian organisation working in 27 countries and with offices in Dublin, London, Belfast, New York and Chicago. He is also a Director of the Central Bank (since 1995)

Bumski · 21-04-2013 02:37PM

garhjw wrote: »

How can you sat the PS is not overstuffed when huge numbers work 32 hour weeks? That is 1 day less than a normal working week. 20%!! Get real

Comparisons are frequently made between Ireland and other countries in respect of these issues. I refuted one of the points made based on verifiable "real" data in an oecd context.

I look forward to you supporting with real data your unsubstantiated assertion that huge numbers of ps are working a 32 hour week. "Getting real" so to speak.

Bumski · 21-04-2013 02:46PM

This word "entitlement " is frequently bandied about in this thread. Usually this is in terms of the Ps and often is in a negative sense. In Irish society the unemployed are entitled to welfare; my plumber is entitled to be paid as agreed for work done; private sector workers are entitled to the package they negotiate and public sector workers are entitled to be entitled too. They too signed contracts.

In each case the entitlements agreed change over time positively and negatively depending on circumstances. When any entitlements change for the worse, of course the people concerned will be upset. The ps is not different in this way and Ps bashing using this word is,at best, lazy.

sharper · 21-04-2013 02:56PM

Bumski wrote: »

private sector workers are entitled to the package they negotiate

However such entitlements do not exist in a vacuum. If your employer can no longer afford your entitlements then they come to an end either because you form a new agreement or because your employer ceases to do business.

Everyone not working in a protected industry understands this reality, any agreement you make is subject to uncertainty and risk in the future.

In the context of the public/private sector debate the word entitlement is used extensively because the public sector is severely lacking in awareness of this reality. Public sector workers (via their unions) are concerned solely with their entitlements and not with how they should be paid for.

In the wider economy these entitlements are paid for by workers with far fewer entitlements and greater risks in relation to the ones they do have.

On a personal level certainly a negative change in one's circumstances are most unwelcome. People outside of protected industries lack any choice in these changes, when the money runs out it's gone and it's time to adjust to what's available now.

People in protected industries (and this includes solicitors, banks etc) wield their influence to force the taxpayer to protect them from reality.

This is why my point is more or unless unchanged: You can argue all day and all night about what someone "should" be entitled to but if there's no money to pay for it then they simply won't get it. In the context of the Croke Park agreement it's ultimately pointless what the unions vote for and whether they strike or not, the money to maintain their pay and conditions does not exist.

Bumski · 21-04-2013 03:37PM

sharper wrote: »

However such entitlements do not exist in a vacuum. If your employer can no longer afford your entitlements then they come to an end either because you form a new agreement or because your employer ceases to do business.

Everyone not working in a protected industry understands this reality, any agreement you make is subject to uncertainty and risk in the future.

In the context of the public/private sector debate the word entitlement is used extensively because the public sector is severely lacking in awareness of this reality. Public sector workers (via their unions) are concerned solely with their entitlements and not with how they should be paid for.

In the wider economy these entitlements are paid for by workers with far fewer entitlements and greater risks in relation to the ones they do have.

On a personal level certainly a negative change in one's circumstances are most unwelcome. People outside of protected industries lack any choice in these changes, when the money runs out it's gone and it's time to adjust to what's available now.

People in protected industries (and this includes solicitors, banks etc) wield their influence to force the taxpayer to protect them from reality.

This is why my point is more or unless unchanged: You can argue all day and all night about what someone "should" be entitled to but if there's no money to pay for it then they simply won't get it. In the context of the Croke Park agreement it's ultimately pointless what the unions vote for and whether they strike or not, the money to maintain their pay and conditions does not exist.

Yes, and the understanding of this is probably why the Ps has not seen much by way of industrial unrest over the past few years notwithstanding the imposition of the pension levy and the 2009 pay cut.

There is a fundamental problem with the approach based on what the employer can afford when we're talking about govt as employer. Many western govt s are in deficit (if not all). Political issues decide on the incomes and expenditures of govts. Tax rates vary from country to country and sector to sector. In addition services provided vary (along with charges for those services)

So, for example, one can target salaries over 65k to save money or one can decide that if 65k is considered high pay a new tax band could target all high salaried individuals equally. But currently it appears with fine Gael against tax rises and labour protecting the lower paid, this is not currently a political option.

Equally the services provided by the Ps across the board are not provided at cost to the end user. Medical cards etc allow for the fact that our progressive tax system already targets higher paid workers to cross subsidise the rest.

BTW I'm not convinced that individual private sector workers are necessarily always concerned about how their demands are met by their employers.

I think that one of the main issues faced by govt in cp2 was the distrust individuals had based on the perceived abrogation of cp1 and the belief that cp2 if not fought would lead to cp3.

I've said several times here that these blanket agreements are a problem and that salaries need to be examined on a grade by grade basis to see if value is being got.

sharper · 21-04-2013 03:53PM

Bumski wrote: »

So, for example, one can target salaries over 65k to save money or one can decide that if 65k is considered high pay a new tax band could target all high salaried individuals equally. But currently it appears with fine Gael against tax rises and labour protecting the lower paid, this is not currently a political option.

People earning 65k are already paying a marginal rate of 52%, the latitude for "Just throw an extra tax on higher earners" is long gone. Future increases will have to come from the middle to low earning sections and when the average PAYE earner is being asked to pay more that's doing to make a big change to how they perceive public sector pay demands.

I've said several times here that these blanket agreements are a problem and that salaries need to be examined on a grade by grade basis to see if value is being got.

The blanket nature of these cuts is a serious issue. It's caused by an unwillingness to implement real reform however the resistance to reform comes from the public sector itself.

creedp · 21-04-2013 04:20PM

sharper wrote: »

In the context of the public/private sector debate the word entitlement is used extensively because the public sector is severely lacking in awareness of this reality. Public sector workers (via their unions) are concerned solely with their entitlements and not with how they should be paid for.

In the wider economy these entitlements are paid for by workers with far fewer entitlements and greater risks in relation to the ones they do have.

I've been off-line for a few days and have just been going through a number of days posts and really nothing has changed .. all the private sector are the hard done by with no entitlements and worry about other poor people while all the PS have excessive entitlements and are only worried about themselves. No wonder there's a poisonous divide in this country.

I've just been listening to a lot of nashing of teeth here about a family member thinking of changing a job for a €20k increase and all people were worried about were whether the extra entitlements such as VHI, maternity leave and the bonus would be good enough on top of the €20k. Also concerned about the extra 20min commute .. ah it would be hard on her. No entitlements in the private sector indeed ... really is time to move on to read about real world issues.

sharper · 21-04-2013 04:36PM

creedp wrote: »

I've just been listening to a lot of nashing of teeth here about a family member thinking of changing a job for a €20k increase

This is a silly comparison. Any individual in the public sector could also change job to one which pays 20k more and still remain within the public sector.

The fact that you essentially ran out of entitlements after VHI and had to list "maternity leave" reveals how weak your point is.

woodoo · 21-04-2013 05:30PM

creedp wrote: »

I've been off-line for a few days and have just been going through a number of days posts and really nothing has changed .. all the private sector are the hard done by with no entitlements and worry about other poor people while all the PS have excessive entitlements and are only worried about themselves. No wonder there's a poisonous divide in this country.

I've just been listening to a lot of nashing of teeth here about a family member thinking of changing a job for a €20k increase and all people were worried about were whether the extra entitlements such as VHI, maternity leave and the bonus would be good enough on top of the €20k. Also concerned about the extra 20min commute .. ah it would be hard on her. No entitlements in the private sector indeed ... really is time to move on to read about real world issues.

Its funny that nobody ever takes any heed of what the other side says. Its as if everyone posting on these threads has memory problems. We just go on repeating our own arguments, learning nothing from the other side and never conceding an inch.

ballyharpat · 21-04-2013 08:02PM

creedp wrote: »

I've been off-line for a few days and have just been going through a number of days posts and really nothing has changed .. all the private sector are the hard done by with no entitlements and worry about other poor people while all the PS have excessive entitlements and are only worried about themselves. No wonder there's a poisonous divide in this country.

I've just been listening to a lot of nashing of teeth here about a family member thinking of changing a job for a €20k increase and all people were worried about were whether the extra entitlements such as VHI, maternity leave and the bonus would be good enough on top of the €20k. Also concerned about the extra 20min commute .. ah it would be hard on her. No entitlements in the private sector indeed ... really is time to move on to read about real world issues.

Yes, this is a conversation going on in every house in Ireland right now, I'm sure.......:eek:

Seriously, what world are YOU living in, your family member is very lucky, me and the majority of people do not have this problem, if I was getting a job offering 20k more, complaining is not something I'd be doing! And I am certain that the majority of people on the dole would be jumping on the chance to get a job with a raise of e400 per week.

Excuse me while I go and throw up, that is the kind of attitude that makes me sick!!

Good loser · 21-04-2013 10:14PM

creedp wrote: »

I've been off-line for a few days and have just been going through a number of days posts and really nothing has changed .. all the private sector are the hard done by with no entitlements and worry about other poor people while all the PS have excessive entitlements and are only worried about themselves. No wonder there's a poisonous divide in this country.

I've just been listening to a lot of nashing of teeth here about a family member thinking of changing a job for a €20k increase and all people were worried about were whether the extra entitlements such as VHI, maternity leave and the bonus would be good enough on top of the €20k. Also concerned about the extra 20min commute .. ah it would be hard on her. No entitlements in the private sector indeed ... really is time to move on to read about real world issues.

A relation of mine worked hard in the private sector for a year on 32k and got a job in the public sector recently on 60 k. He was flabbergasted at the level. Guess he'll just have to adapt!

Good loser · 21-04-2013 10:22PM

barneystinson wrote: »

A clerical officer is probably one of the easier grades to correlate to the private sector. My OH works as a CO as it happens, and she says it beggars belief that some of the women working with her earn nearly 40k, considering they can barely turn on a computer and spend most of their days generally being saucy with the staff & customers they provide admin support to.

I challenge you to show me a CO in the country near/at the top of the scale who has a role and workload that would command the same salary in the private sector.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying no CO is worth that money, because there are the ones who have to pick up the slack for the few loungers who'll never pull their weight, and end up doing 2 people's jobs. (Edited to include:) I also work in the civil service and I don't even know who's a CO or who isn't; there are certain people who are authorities on certain things because they give enough of a sh1t to know them - the system lets these people down in order to coddle the ones who just want a cushy number. That's the reality I see.

But the fact is that situation wouldn't be allowed to persist in private business, or if it did the person doing all the work would get most/all of the pay.

First class contribution. After more than 30 years in the public service I agree fully with your views on CO's. That's one good reason why they're well overpaid. The pension and security being others.

Godge · 21-04-2013 11:28PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Most ridiculous statement :rolleyes: By the way does any one in the PS work for below min wage. Big business makes the profits in the private sector and an average worker would be lucky in most cases to get an increase in wages as a result of a companies performance.
How come in this country we have had year after year of improved performance in the export market without much increase in employment. Companies are there to make a profit, Not provide employment and wage increases to it workers.

Have you read any statistics or posts on this thread.

The FACTS as repeated time and again from CSO statistics show that private sector wages are rising while public sector wages are falling.

As for your minimum wage analogy, IT IS ILLEGAL TO WORK FOR LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE. How could anyone in the public sector work for less than the minimum wage???!!???

The reason we have inproved export performance without jobs is because the owners of capital are keeping it all for themselves.

creedp · 22-04-2013 08:55AM

Good loser wrote: »

A relation of mine worked hard in the private sector for a year on 32k and got a job in the public sector recently on 60 k. He was flabbergasted at the level. Guess he'll just have to adapt!

I'm sure he'll cope admirably with the financial gain but soon he'll learn to keep that quiet as the private sector knives will be out to slash him!

creedp · 22-04-2013 09:06AM

sharper wrote: »

This is a silly comparison. Any individual in the public sector could also change job to one which pays 20k more and still remain within the public sector.

The fact that you essentially ran out of entitlements after VHI and had to list "maternity leave" reveals how weak your point is.

What's silly about it? That it is OK to talk about inflated wages and inceases in the PS but please don't mention to well paid and priviledged hardworking private sector workers .. now that would be silly indeed.

Oh sorry I forgot to mention the share scheme ... I believe €13k was the amount and the pension .. get real .. its patently obvious in many threads here that many people simply want to b1tch about somebody elses position and plead the poor mouth about themselves.

We hear that if PS not happy with their lot, i.e. don't dare complain about pay reductions, then they should re-train and get out into the private sector .. when if the cap fits I say .. it seems to me there are a lot of well paid jobs in the private sector which employers can't find suitable canditates to fill. That person I was talking about was head hunted, another family connection in the IT support sector is also being head hunted at present. I think these are capable people but I don't think they are geniuses which could suggest to me that there is a lack of suitable canditates out there to fill vacant posts at present. So maybe people should spend less time sniping about what others have and put more effort into bettering their own position.

Now that's a harsh and unfair thing to say but to be honest I'm tired of hearing it from the other side of the fence.

creedp · 22-04-2013 09:12AM

ballyharpat wrote: »

Yes, this is a conversation going on in every house in Ireland right now, I'm sure.......:eek:

Seriously, what world are YOU living in, your family member is very lucky, me and the majority of people do not have this problem, if I was getting a job offering 20k more, complaining is not something I'd be doing! And I am certain that the majority of people on the dole would be jumping on the chance to get a job with a raise of e400 per week.

Excuse me while I go and throw up, that is the kind of attitude that makes me sick!!

I'm living in a pretty normal household with a pretty normal extended family. As I said before many times its only the PS family members have had a pay cut while 2 guys working in the construction sector have lost their jobs. Everyone else is doing nicley thank you very much and certainly have been receiving their pay increases and a couple continuing to receive healthy bonuses during the worst economic crisis ever to hit this country. I'm sure you have a different story to recount but that is mine as is as legitimate as any fact posted on these threads.

I hope I didn't upset you Sunday pm too much .. I find if you have a read of the Sindo it will get your PS bile to a new cresendo and you'll be fine.

Celticfire · 22-04-2013 09:56AM

Good loser wrote: »

A relation of mine worked hard in the private sector for a year on 32k and got a job in the public sector recently on 60 k. He was flabbergasted at the level. Guess he'll just have to adapt!

Seeing as there's an embargo on recruitment, what job was he able to take up?
That job would if it existed have to be advertised with the remuneration clearly spelled out in the advertisement, So I look forward to a link.

Is he doing the same job as he was in the Private sector?

sarumite · 22-04-2013 10:11AM

Godge wrote: »

Have you read any statistics or posts on this thread.

The FACTS as repeated time and again from CSO statistics show that private sector wages are rising while public sector wages are falling.

The FACTS repeated time and again show that avergae private sector wage has increased and average public sector has decreased. It has been shown time again that this statistic does not necessarily mean that private sector wage is rising or public sector wage is falling. It is really frustrating when people continually make assumptions based on limited statistical information.

sean200 · 22-04-2013 10:51AM

Good loser wrote: »

A relation of mine worked hard in the private sector for a year on 32k and got a job in the public sector recently on 60 k. He was flabbergasted at the level. Guess he'll just have to adapt!

A relation of mine worked hard in the public sector for a year on 32k and got a job in the private sector recently on 60 k. He was flabbergasted at the level. Guess he'll just have to adapt

Godge · 22-04-2013 12:15PM

sarumite wrote: »

The FACTS repeated time and again show that avergae private sector wage has increased and average public sector has decreased. It has been shown time again that this statistic does not necessarily mean that private sector wage is rising or public sector wage is falling. It is really frustrating when people continually make assumptions based on limited statistical information.

The information is slowly building up to confirm the evidence that there are more jobs in the private sector. Even IBEC agree:

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0422/383726-ibec-jobs-report/

"IBEC said that the private sector was a net contributor to job growth last year. There was a 2.3% fall in numbers working in the public sector over the last year, while employment in the private sector rose by almost 1%."

As for pay, the 70 manufacturing companies/plants that have agreed pay increases in the last year include Abbott, Bausch & Lomb, Becton Dickinson, Bristol Myers, Dulux, GlaxoSmithKline, MeckSharpeDohme, Nestle, Pfizer, Proctor & Gamble, Bulmers, Dairygold, Glanbia, various co-ops, Lakeland Dairies, Monaghan Mushrooms, Analog Devices, Apple, Graingers Sawmill, SR Technics, Pepsico.

I have already documented the increases in retail companies earlier in the thread.

How much evidence do you need?

sharper · 22-04-2013 12:27PM

creedp wrote: »

What's silly about it? .

It's silly because you've switched from a discussion around what particular roles pay and the increases or decreases in those roles to a random anecdote concerning a person switching roles.

As I pointed out a person could within the public sector switch from a 30k role to a 50k one and then paint that as representative.

It is what it is, silly. The fact that "maternity leave" is your number 2 benefit to the amazing conditions you're trying to paint the job is having just makes it even sillier.

Oh sorry I forgot to mention the share scheme ... I believe €13k was the amount and the pension .. get real ..

The package of benefits you're talking about here - bonus and share scheme at that level - is highly unusual. What industry is this job in? It sounds like something we should all get into.

creedp · 22-04-2013 12:46PM

sharper wrote: »

It's silly because you've switched from a discussion around what particular roles pay and the increases or decreases in those roles to a random anecdote concerning a person switching roles.

As I pointed out a person could within the public sector switch from a 30k role to a 50k one and then paint that as representative.

It is what it is, silly. The fact that "maternity leave" is your number 2 benefit to the amazing conditions you're trying to paint the job is having just makes it even sillier.

The package of benefits you're talking about here - bonus and share scheme at that level - is highly unusual. What industry is this job in? It sounds like something we should all get into.

I'm not going to get into the 'its a silly' discussion .. or your's is sillier that mine!! How about you tell your tale and I tell mine and we can both pretend they are respresentative of a sector .. how about that for a compromise.

In this particular case .. its a pharmaceutical company but not one of the big players. By the way how do you know if this is a highly unusual package for someone at this level?

You seem to be preoccupied with maternity benefits .. how come? ... issue for this person is that she didn't want to leave an employer that paid a full salary during maternity to some where that didn't, hence an important criterion for her .. OK with you?

Another extended family member has a similar package in the food manufacutring sector ... so maybe its not that unusual after all?

I'm am not going to enter a discussion where I try to justify any of the above to you .. I've seen that happen once too often. You can accept it or leave it thats your perogative.

sharper · 22-04-2013 12:56PM

creedp wrote: »

How about you tell your tale and I tell mine and we can both preten

I haven't predicated my points on any "tales", anecdotes or "I know someone who..."'s.

The original point you were replying to was about the difference in an entitlement which comes from a private entity and one which comes with a government guarantee and is funded by the taxpayer - one comes with risk, the other does not.

Private sector entitlements are consequently subject to risks and likely to be renegotiated on an on-going basis as conditions change.

If you disagree with that charcterisation then say so and explain why. Otherwise stop with the silly anecdotes because it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion and to all the world seems like an attempt by you to avoid the topic.

creedp · 22-04-2013 02:10PM

sharper wrote: »

I haven't predicated my points on any "tales", anecdotes or "I know someone who..."'s.

The original point you were replying to was about the difference in an entitlement which comes from a private entity and one which comes with a government guarantee and is funded by the taxpayer - one comes with risk, the other does not.

Private sector entitlements are consequently subject to risks and likely to be renegotiated on an on-going basis as conditions change.

If you disagree with that charcterisation then say so and explain why. Otherwise stop with the silly anecdotes because it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion and to all the world seems like an attempt by you to avoid the topic.

Thanks very much for your discerning analysis of the quality of others input :rolleyes: (I don't like using those guys but in this case I will most certainly make an exception) but I've no intention of being lectured by anyone (subject to the mods of course) with regard to what is appropriate/innapropriate material to be included in this or any other thread. If you don't like it ignore it ...

barneystinson · 22-04-2013 02:19PM

sharper wrote: »

...the difference in an entitlement which comes from a private entity and one which comes with a government guarantee and is funded by the taxpayer - one comes with risk, the other does not.

Private sector entitlements are consequently subject to risks and likely to be renegotiated on an on-going basis as conditions change.

If you disagree with that charcterisation then say so and explain why.

I disagree.

Why? Croke Park Agreement, pension levy, paycut, reduced scales for new entrants, reduced pension ENTITLEMENTS for new entrants...

And apparently the Govt intends to legislate to further reduce these entitlements.

Hardly risk free then, these entitlements.

sharper · 22-04-2013 02:31PM

barneystinson wrote: »

reduced scales for new entrants, reduced pension ENTITLEMENTS for new entrants...

i.e. people who got the previous entitlements still get them, only new people get the reduced entitlements.

Those that thought they had certain provisions still do.

Not really the best support for your argument is it?

Hardly risk free then, these entitlements.

As close to risk free as can be found anywhere. Money in a deposit account is considered essentially risk free yet as can be seen sometimes even very low risks can be realised. That doesn't mean you should deposit your money on a horse in the local betting shop instead and it doesn't mean therefore public and private sector risks are the same.

barneystinson · 22-04-2013 02:50PM

sharper wrote: »

i.e. people who got the previous entitlements still get them, only new people get the reduced entitlements.

Those that thought they had certain provisions still do.

Not really the best support for your argument is it?

As close to risk free as can be found anywhere. Money in a deposit account is considered essentially risk free yet as can be seen sometimes even very low risks can be realised. That doesn't mean you should deposit your money on a horse in the local betting shop instead and it doesn't mean therefore public and private sector risks are the same.

That's just ridiculous - you said public sector entitlements are risk free. I've given you specific examples of how they aren't, and now you're saying "as close to risk free as can be found".

Well someone somewhere has to have the lowest risk (unless your a communist/socialist, which I suspect you're not) so why not the PS, which traditionally (in every country) employs people in the long term and with relatively fewer opportunities for advancement, and in fact the purpose of this thread was to discuss what the NEXT set of revisions of these entitlements should be.

tayto lover · 22-04-2013 05:24PM

Good loser wrote: »

A relation of mine worked hard in the private sector for a year on 32k and got a job in the public sector recently on 60 k. He was flabbergasted at the level. Guess he'll just have to adapt!

He probably told you as he felt it would help your argument on Boards

sharper · 22-04-2013 05:28PM

barneystinson wrote: »

That's just ridiculous - you said public sector entitlements are risk free. I've given you specific examples of how they aren't, and now you're saying "as close to risk free as can be found".

You gave five examples:

1. Croke Park Agreement

2. pension levy

3. paycut

4. reduced scales for new entrants

5. reduced pension ENTITLEMENTS for new entrants...

#1 I don't know how to even interpret because it encompasses the rest of your examples.

#2 and #3 are repeatedly argued by the public sector to be the same thing.

#4 and #5 apply only to those that never had the entitlements in the first place and weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

So essentially you have one example: The public sector had its pay cut.

Not very representative of the various entitlements afforded public sector workers now is it?

so why not the PS, which traditionally (in every country) employs people in the long term and with relatively fewer opportunities for advancement

Traditionally also the public sector accepts a cost for that long term stability in the form of lower pay. In Ireland it's the reverse, greater stability, better conditions and better pay. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course we have a public debate where it's impossible to get even basic facts agreed upon - like the balance of risk enjoyed by the public and private sectors, one long recognised by banks when giving mortgages.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments