Yes.
How has the recession affected you?
- Thread starter thedaras
- Start date
Yes.
If the Croke Park agreement is not honoured and pay cuts are imposed and if subsequently industrial action is mandated by members then yes I would support such action.
Lots of ifs and buts before it comes to that however and I do expect the CP agreement to be honoured.
However as current events may tempt the Government to break the agreement I think that it behoves the unions to emphasise the consequences that will follow such a betrayal of faith .
How about you , do you approve of such industrial action ?
I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who thought this. I was only discussing this with my OH last night and was saying about the amount of people I see in shopping centres and retail parks etc , who are spenidng money and not just browsing. I have a cousin who works in the Travel Industry and she was busier than ever over the summer with all hols being snapped up.
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,428
So Deiseblue, given the following three options where for arguments sake, the savings made for option 1 and 2 are the same, which option do you prefer?
Option 1: Scrap the CP agreement, keep the number of staff and reduce pay for all current PS staff to achieve the required savings
Option 2: Keep the CP agreement but reduce the number of staff to achieve the required savings
Option 3: Keep the CP agreement and the number of staff and look elsewhere for the required savings (and if so exactly where do you propose they find them?)
Maybe we can conclude this by saying;
There have been SEVEN THOUSAND PS who have expressed an interest in taking the deal..
This would indicate that they can see that the writing is on the wall.
And finally that the IMF are coming and they know this,and therefore want to get out before it is no longer voluntary,but compulsory..
There have been SEVEN THOUSAND PS who have expressed an interest in taking the deal..
This would indicate that they can see that the writing is on the wall.
And finally that the IMF are coming and they know this,and therefore want to get out before it is no longer voluntary,but compulsory..
Simple really , The agreement allows for voluntary redundancies,incentivised early retirement as well as other reforms so option 2 as outlined by you does not offend any of the terms of the agreement.
Of course this option is only part of the agreement.
Is this the option you favour as well ?
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,428
It is actually (the option I favour). I have a lot of sympathy for those in the PS who are on the average (or less than average) wages and have been hit hard in the last budget. And it is obvious that the numbers employed in the PS are well above what they were say 8 years ago so I would imagine there is plenty of scope to reduce the numbers. That said I would also be in favour of pay cuts for those in the PS on high wages.
7,000 expressions of interest do not 7,000 applications make.
Lots of people will initially express interest in order to quantify what their entitlements are under the deal but will not then proceed to the application process - basically they are hedging their bets.
And as for the IMF being a panacea for our difficulties , I just don't see it myself.
Well you started the rhetorical questions
OK, so you have stated that if the union were mandated you would support them as a matter of principle - but do you, personally think it is fair or reasonable to instigate disruptive industrial action given the current circumstances - leaving aside for a moment the Croke park agreement?
My rationale was based on the CP agreement not being honoured.
You cannot leave the CP agreement out of the equation.
I'm not quite sure what you are asking me .
I know - but is that all?
Just for a moment, forget it exists.
If you approve of industrial action to be taken as a result of public sector pay or conditions being rationalised.
Forget about the agreement, do you, personally think it is is righteous or morally correct in the current circumstances?
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,428
Caveat I think Deiseblue already answered that question in post #126. As it happens I agree with him/her - why always look at cutting pay across the board in the PS - why not look at the numbers instead and cut there. Not saying I agree with everything in the CP agreement (or even know everything in it to be honest) but for me the numbers in the PS is the first problem to address.
Yes, and since 2006 a lot of public servants have bought houses on mortgages based on their existing salary and pay scale at the time..Those salaries were set in stone at the time, as public service salaries usually were. So people who took on a mortgage on the basis of a secure salary and a guaranteed pay scale, and who assumed they were making an informed decision, are really struggling now.
A lot of people's salaries have dropped to zero from the salary that they based their mortgage repayments on.
I think that's a very valid point, but I still think the Croke Park agreement will have to be broken.
You're missing my point. Public Servants, and the banks lending them money, were lead to believe their salaries were fixed in stone, so the stress testing would have taken that into account.
Why would anyone's salary be set in stone? Are you claiming that there is no way that a Public Servant can lose their job? Or become ill and unable to work?
Civil Servant's earned a guaranteed salary and, bar succumbing to a long term illness or committing some serious offence (embezzling or some such) that salary and your salary scale was, yes, very very very safe. Therefore, when civil servants sought mortgages, the amount they were given took that into account.
And please don't start on a rant about Civil servants not being sacked for under performance. That's another debate and one I agree with entirely.