# What will happen when/if the PService deal is rejected?



## thedaras

Where does it leave the PS workers?

Will the government cut their wages again?

Will the government find other ways to get the 3bn?

How will/should they do this?

Talking to a PS worker today and  she said,she felt that with the deal looking like it will be rejected she felt very unsure of her future.

That if the deal goes through she at least could have some sense of security.
Because if the economy doesn't recovery in the next four years ,without the deal,they would be facing more pay cuts anyway.


----------



## RonanC

I dont believe there is any security in this deal for PS workers and if we/they think there is we/they really are fooling ourselves/themselves. 

Wages *will* be cut again in the next budget, the Government and Brian Cowen himself cant even guarantee against this not happening, because it will happen. We will need to find €3bn in cuts and another €3bn next year and then €2bn the following year, where will those cuts come from? 

I would also imagine that taxes will be looked at in a big way as well. 

There is also a false promise that the Government might look at restoring the pay cuts to the lower paid next year but that wont happen


----------



## cork

Public Sector workers are deluded. They are little Irelanders failing to look beyond this country. They could not be bothered with Greece or the lack of worldwide financial regualtion.

Let them strike - see where it gets them.


----------



## z107

I believe this latest agreement means nothing.
All it will do, if it's agreed, is stop strikes for a few months until the next budget.

There's nothing in it for the workers. They're going to get more pay cuts regardless.


----------



## DublinTexas

Our public finances can’t really be that bad, our green government just announced that they will give a grant of € 5,000 to each of the expected 10,000 electronic cars that will be sold here this year, that’s a whopping € 50,000,000. 

If we have money for that kind of effort, we for sure must have money to pay our underpaid, overworked and misunderstood public sector workers.

As long as our state wants to deliver as much services as possible via the public sector, Quango’s or state owned companies we will never have a true reform in the sector. 

If the pay deal is rejected the government sooner or later will find itself in the same situation as Greece, no money to pay anything with extreme high rates for borrowing.

The only way than is to hike taxes again (both direct and in-direct), try to increase borrowing and continue to do management by accident as they have done for the last couple of years.

What is required is a discussion about what services we want our state to deliver, a flexible way of sourcing such services and a fair deal for such sources.


----------



## RonanC

The agreement precludes from any form of industrial action being taken by PS workers in respect to any part of the agreement which can include more pay cuts


----------



## Shawady

RonanC said:


> Wages *will* be cut again in the next budget, the Government and Brian Cowen himself cant even guarantee against this not happening, because it will happen. We will need to find €3bn in cuts and another €3bn next year and then €2bn the following year, where will those cuts come from?


 
If this deal is accepted, I don't believe there will be pay cuts in this year's budget. Government have already indicated that they wanted savings of €500 million from the pay bill for next year and are confident they can achieve this through reforms rather than pay cuts.
In other years who knows, but is it not better to try and minimise pay cuts by trying to reform the service? If PS pay is cut again this year, they will not be reversed, even if Fine Gael get into power.


----------



## ivuernis

DublinTexas said:


> Our public finances can’t really be that bad, our green government just announced that they will give a grant of € 5,000 to each of the expected 10,000 electronic cars that will be sold here this year, that’s a whopping € 50,000,000.



I assume that like the car scrappage scheme the VAT and VRT kickbacks to the Exchequer will offset the grant. Not that I agree with either scheme btw.


----------



## DublinTexas

ivuernis said:


> I assume that like the car scrappage scheme the VAT and VRT kickbacks to the Exchequer will offset the grant. Not that I agree with either scheme btw.


 
No VRT on electric cars either. VAT wont be making up for it either because the 10,000 cars would otherwise be petrol engines, nobody really is going to buy an electronic card in additon to a petrol engine. So in fact the loss of VRT is to be added to this amount.


----------



## ivuernis

DublinTexas said:


> No VRT on electric cars either. VAT wont be making up for it either because the 10,000 cars would otherwise be petrol engines, nobody really is going to buy an electronic card in additon to a petrol engine. So in fact the loss of VRT is to be added to this amount.



I stand corrected, just read the PR. Certainly the potential €50m could be spent better elsewhere (or perhaps not borrowed as is more likely the case).


----------



## thedaras

MY God! Such wastage in this climate is just negligent.

Typical of what we have had to put with for many years,e-voting anyone...


----------



## sandrat

from talking to my colleagues who are in the union those who have mortgages and/or young families are planning on voting yes. The one's who have their mortgages paid will vote no, sadly there are a lot more of the no people where I work so it unfortunately won't be passed. In saying that a lot of people cannot afford an all out strike so maybe there is hope that they will accept it. I hope it is accepted. 

What happens if some unions accept it and others don't?


----------



## doubledeb

umop3p!sdn said:


> I believe this latest agreement means nothing.
> All it will do, if it's agreed, is stop strikes for a few months until the next budget.
> 
> There's nothing in it for the workers. They're going to get more pay cuts regardless.


 

Thats the point, part of this deal means that the PS cannot strike for the next 4 years if it is agreed, therefore the government can throw anything at them and tough it will have to be agreed to.  Fair enough no more pay cuts but that doesn't mean there won't be another pension levy, higher taxes or other ways of cutting the 3bn from the public pay.  Whats the point in agreeing? there is nothing in it for them, before this there were no talks of compulsary redundancies, now suddenly that seems to be part of the deal also? And if they don't agree, the threat of another 8% pay cut is on the cards.  So is this actually a deal? seems more like being dictated to tbh!


----------



## shnaek

DublinTexas said:


> What is required is a discussion about what services we want our state to deliver, a flexible way of sourcing such services and a fair deal for such sources.


I agree, but I wonder would we ever find agreement on what services we want? The State has a long history of poor delivery of services, and still the Irish people seem to want the government to do everything for them, regardless of how poorly it does this job.


----------



## z107

> I stand corrected, just read the PR. Certainly the potential €50m could be spent better elsewhere (or perhaps not borrowed as is more likely the case).


How could it be better spent?
Flushed down the toilet like the rest of our money and given to FF/nama/banks? That seems to be the other option.

I found it quite surprising that some of our money wasn't going to go into this black hole.


----------



## csirl

Agreement on this deal is irrevelant. A government with at most 2 years left to run cannot make promises that last 4 years. 

My feeling is that discussions over this will drag on, with some isolated incidents of individual groups of low paid public servants causing low level disruption from time to time and before we know it, there'll be an election and a new government in place.

What I cant understand is why compulsory redundancies are not being advocated by some sections of the PS. A lot of the PS workers I know are complaining about having to take pay cuts to keep some workers with no meaningful work to do, in jobs - would rather that PS workers with no work are laid off.


----------



## Complainer

csirl said:


> What I cant understand is why compulsory redundancies are not being advocated by some sections of the PS. A lot of the PS workers I know are complaining about having to take pay cuts to keep some workers with no meaningful work to do, in jobs - would rather that PS workers with no work are laid off.


Where are the public sector workers 'with no meaningful work to do'?


----------



## Towger

Complainer said:


> Where are the public sector workers 'with no meaningful work to do'?


 
An Post have a whole section, know as the Rubber Room.


----------



## Shawady

doubledeb said:


> Fair enough no more pay cuts but that doesn't mean there won't be another pension levy, higher taxes or other ways of cutting the 3bn from the public pay.


 
The 3 billion to be cut this year and next year does not have to come exclusively from the PS pay bill. It would be impossible to achieve. It is a mixture of increased taxation and spending cuts. As PS bill accounts for 1/3 of spending, it is reasonable to assume the majority of budget measures will not come from PS bill itself.


----------



## Latrade

The grant for purchasing electric cars has nothing to do with the pay deal or our expenses.

I'm interested in the views of the PS workers on the deal only by way of the friends of mine who work in the PS/CS. None that I know want to strike, they aren't being bullied into rejection, but they feel there's an expectation to do so.

As one said to me over a pint, he felt embarrassed to discuss with me his union leader stating there was nothing in this deal when what he saw was a guaranteed job for 4 years and the guarantee of no pay cut for 4 years. Just how many people out there wouldn't bite their employer's hand off to get that? Sure there's give and take, but if he's looking at paying the mortgage and feeding his kids, he's prepared to give up his right of strike and work extra hours in order to do have a 4 year guarantee.


----------



## Shawady

I would consider Jack O'Connor one of the more militant union leaders and outspoken critics of the government and he is recommending acceptance. I think that is quite telling. He obviously thinks it is the best outcome at this point in time


----------



## Latrade

Shawady said:


> I would consider Jack O'Connor one of the more militant union leaders and outspoken critics of the government and he is recommending acceptance. I think that is quite telling. He obviously thinks it is the best outcome at this point in time


 
That's another consequence of rejection aside from the economical ones; what about Beggs and O'Connor if it's rejected? The accepted it, they said it was the only deal on the table, that this is it, the best you'll get, is rejection of the deal also rejection of them?


----------



## doubledeb

Shawady said:


> The 3 billion to be cut this year and next year does not have to come exclusively from the PS pay bill. It would be impossible to achieve. It is a mixture of increased taxation and spending cuts. As PS bill accounts for 1/3 of spending, it is reasonable to assume the majority of budget measures will not come from PS bill itself.


 
Sorry I meant public spending.  Again the PS pay bill will come into it and if it doesn't directly get hit by means of a pay cut, higher taxes mean the same thing for the PS. They still have less money in their pockets!


----------



## thedaras

Towger said:


> An Post have a whole section, know as the Rubber Room.



While I agree with you, Wait for the following:

Thats in the Indo,what do you expect?

Some have the view that anything in the Indo is biased.

So basically anything in the Indo that they don't agree with ,is answered with the above.

So even if they print something like your link which is true,it will be said it.

There are many examples of this on here.


----------



## Shawady

Latrade said:


> That's another consequence of rejection aside from the economical ones; what about Beggs and O'Connor if it's rejected? The accepted it, they said it was the only deal on the table, that this is it, the best you'll get, is rejection of the deal also rejection of them?


 
Thats what I find strange about the whole episode. The leaders negoiated and then as quickly recommended rejecting it.
We have to see how the ballots go. It would be interesting if some of the unions that recommend rejection actually get an acceptance vote.


----------



## Latrade

thedaras said:


> While I agree with you, Wait for the following:


 
And the fact that An Post is a commercial operation and not pure PS/CS isn't slightly relevant to it being used as an example?


----------



## Latrade

Shawady said:


> Thats what I find strange about the whole episode. The leaders negoiated and then as quickly recommended rejecting it.
> We have to see how the ballots go. It would be interesting if some of the unions that recommend rejection actually get an acceptance vote.


 
The people involved in the negotiations are still pushing for its acceptance, it's their executives below them who represent the different sectors of the unions who are pushing for a rejection. It's a coup d'état within the unions.

Naturally I can't speak for those involved, but to me this just might be the beginnings of the "divide and conquer" conspiracy the unions warned against. I admire that it's the lower paid who are standing up to the union leaders and the previous pay deals (that never benefitted them) as well as the government, but it's likely to be a Pyrrhic victory.


----------



## thedaras

Shawady said:


> Thats what I find strange about the whole episode. The leaders negoiated and then as quickly recommended rejecting it.
> We have to see how the ballots go. It would be interesting if some of the unions that recommend rejection actually get an acceptance vote.



Yes, but then again Jack o Connor said this morning that the pay deal would be revisited,when the Government said it would never be revisited.

So about turns are not unique to the unions.


----------



## VOR

Latrade said:


> Naturally I can't speak for those involved, but to me this just might be the beginnings of the "divide and conquer" conspiracy the unions warned against.



How can it be a conspiracy when you are given a choice and the harsher alternatives are already on the table? It was a simple choice. Take it or leave it.


----------



## csirl

Complainer said:


> Where are the public sector workers 'with no meaningful work to do'?


 
A lot of Government programmes were scaled back or cut altogether in the last couple of years. The staff in each of these programmes therefore have less to do, and if their programme has been cut altogether, have no work to do.

As a general rule, less money = less staff required.


----------



## Latrade

VOR said:


> How can it be a conspiracy when you are given a choice and the harsher alternatives are already on the table? It was a simple choice. Take it or leave it.


 
The consipracy (probably a better term) related to the warnings that the Government were trying to cause splits in the unions in order to weaken them. Pitting union against union rather than as a unified voice. If it were a deliberate ploy, then the only conclusion is that it now appears to have worked perfectly.


----------



## thedaras

I watched the Frontline and there was a PS worker there ,and she was very much againist another PS worker,she let him have it!

So its Publc service against Public service.!


----------



## Caveat

@ Latrade

Whilst I would be barely able to contain myself at the prospect of a fractured and weakened trade union movement, I honestly don't think the government are that clever. 

Much as I loathe most of the union leadership they are pretty shrewd usually. 

If anything, I would say it was a case of the unions knowing that their bargaining power would be greatly lessened, saw the writing on the wall some time ago and made preemptive comments about dividing and conquering in an attempt to get the flak diverted to the government when the time came - which might just be about now.


----------



## Complainer

csirl said:


> A lot of Government programmes were scaled back or cut altogether in the last couple of years. The staff in each of these programmes therefore have less to do, and if their programme has been cut altogether, have no work to do.
> 
> As a general rule, less money = less staff required.


Have any new Govt programmes been started over that time?

Like I said, do you have any specifics (other than the one example Towger gave)?


----------



## VOR

Caveat said:


> If anything, I would say it was a case of the unions knowing that their bargaining power would be greatly lessened, saw the writing on the wall some time ago and made preemptive comments about dividing and conquering in an attempt to get the flak diverted to the government when the time came - which might just be about now.



+1 Watching Frontline I was struck by how Jack O'Connor looked like a man that had stared in to the abyss. He just seemed to realise that, as you say, the writing was on the wall.


----------



## csirl

Complainer said:


> Have any new Govt programmes been started over that time?
> 
> Like I said, do you have any specifics (other than the one example Towger gave)?


 
Got to the 2010 Book of Estimates and compare the figures in each of the Votes with the 2009 Book of Estimates. You will find 100s of examples of programmes being cut or scaled back. Book of Estimate is on the Dept of Finance website.


----------



## Latrade

I agree, that's why I used the term conspiracy. I think the government are being hardlined but without the attempt to divide the unions, I actually don't think it's in their or our long term interest to do so (as much as Social Partnership got lost during the boom I still see it as a wortwhile mechanism).

However, early on, especially with the negative media attention, it was suggested that this was a government strategy to tailor public opinion and split the unions. I too would say the government just isn't that clever or devious.

But the fracture is happening viewing from the outside. What will become individual negotiating (doing away with Beggs et al) may lead to small individual victory for the union concerned, but it ultimately weakens them in the longer term. 

My own view is that not only is rejection short-sighted economically and in terms of reality, but are members aware of the wheels they are now setting in motion. All union members need to do is look over to the UK and see just how far and influential their unions became when Heath's social partnership model was rejected and individual bargaining came in.



Caveat said:


> @ Latrade
> 
> Whilst I would be barely able to contain myself at the prospect of a fractured and weakened trade union movement, I honestly don't think the government are that clever.


----------



## Purple

The current situation (or cityation if you’re from Norn-Ireland) is akin to a family that promised the kids they would bring them to Disney Land next summer if they behaved, did their chores and were good in school. Well next summer is here but the parents have lost their jobs and the mortgage repayments have gone up and Disney Land is off the cards. The kids as a united group cried “BUT WE WANT TO GO TO DISNEYLAND, YOU SAID YOU WOULD BRING US. IT’S NOT FAIR!” The parents continue to explain, “It’s just not possible, it’s not your fault and we’re not blaming you but the money is just not there”.

The senior union officials who negotiated the deal are like the older children who, despite their tantrums, understand the reality of the situation. The problem is that their underlings are like the younger children who think if they cry and shout enough they will get their way.
There will be quite a few toys thrown out of quite a few prams over the coming months. I hope they don’t break anything important in the process.

I’m glad to see that even Jack O’Connor has, to a limited extent, grown up and accepted reality. I hope others follow suit.


----------



## VOR

Purple said:


> The senior union officials who negotiated the deal are like the older children



Jack O'Connor as a maturing spotty teenager. Blair Horan as a toddler in his pram. How do I wash that image from my mind? 

Too late...Liam Doran has arrived.


----------



## becky

VOR said:


> Too late...Liam Doran has arrived.


 
What age bracket is he?


----------



## doubledeb

Purple said:


> The current situation (or cityation if you’re from Norn-Ireland) is akin to a family that promised the kids they would bring them to Disney Land next summer if they behaved, did their chores and were good in school. Well next summer is here but the parents have lost their jobs and the mortgage repayments have gone up and Disney Land is off the cards. The kids as a united group cried “BUT WE WANT TO GO TO DISNEYLAND, YOU SAID YOU WOULD BRING US. IT’S NOT FAIR!” The parents continue to explain, “It’s just not possible, it’s not your fault and we’re not blaming you but the money is just not there”.
> 
> The senior union officials who negotiated the deal are like the older children who, despite their tantrums, understand the reality of the situation. The problem is that their underlings are like the younger children who think if they cry and shout enough they will get their way.
> There will be quite a few toys thrown out of quite a few prams over the coming months. I hope they don’t break anything important in the process.
> 
> I’m glad to see that even Jack O’Connor has, to a limited extent, grown up and accepted reality. I hope others follow suit.


 
I take your point, but whats missing here is that those same parents decided to take the kids' cousins to somewhere even better for the summer (the banks!) so even thought the money isn't there for their own kids, they seem to have plenty stashed away for the cousins, no wonder they are screaming and shouting


----------



## Firefly

doubledeb said:


> I take your point, but whats missing here is that those same parents decided to take the kids' cousins to somewhere even better for the summer (the banks!) so even thought the money isn't there for their own kids, they seem to have plenty stashed away for the cousins, no wonder they are screaming and shouting


 

True...but...the money is still not there.


----------



## VOR

becky said:


> What age bracket is he?



Liam is about 7 I'd say. For some reason he is in his communion suit and has his hand out for money. 
David Begg has Jack O'Connor in a headlock now and Jack is shouting "MERCY!!!!" Teenagers eh?


----------



## doubledeb

Fair enough, but they've given enough, leave them alone now. Go elsewhere for the cuts, not the ps pay, not education and certainly not sw.  All easy targets.  Now go after the big boys... please..


----------



## Firefly

doubledeb said:


> Now go after the big boys... please..


 
I agree the "big boys" should be targetted. However, these guys are usually well represented legally. They own groups of companies with assets given to wives/children, inter-company guarantees, off shore depsoits etc etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but getting money from them will take a lot of time through the courts. Easier & quicker to cut public expenditure and raise taxes.


----------



## doubledeb

Why get the courts involved?... slap on a wealth tax... with that tax on the richest in the country it would generate circa 4bn every year...
bobs your uncle!


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> Why get the courts involved?... slap on a wealth tax... with that tax on the richest in the country it would generate circa 4bn every year...
> bobs your uncle!


 
How do you figure that?


----------



## Latrade

doubledeb said:


> Fair enough, but they've given enough, leave them alone now. Go elsewhere for the cuts, not the ps pay, not education and certainly not sw. All easy targets. Now go after the big boys... please..


 
I'm losing my place in the analogy now. But your argument is that because the parents took the cousins to somewhere better when there was money, they should still take the kids to Disney Land as promised even though they don't have money. So in effect, out of spite you want the parents to take out a loan just to apease the kids' jealousy? And look at some means of going back to the cousins to get money off them for previous favours.

No body doubts or can disagree with the big boys helping us get into the mess. Just how do we go after them though? We've a new regulator who's sticking to his guns and is taking on one of the worst of them. Tick one against going after the big boys. 

We've the Gardai doing dawn raids, gathering evidence and even bringing people in for questioning. It's a slow process and the probability is that no actual law was broken, but again, tick one against going after the big boys.

It's happening, but it won't happen overnight. But there in the background is that the outgoing doesn't match the income. We have to borrow billions to pay public sector. The short term consequence of not halting that is a disaster. It's a tough call and will hit people hard, but we can't afford a PS/CS of that size or at that pay scale. 

Nothing, no big boy smokescreen, no strike, no work to rule, no morality tale of people having a reduce income, not even a change of Government is going to change that one simple problem. 

You're right, the wellbeing and finances 4 million people have effectively been gambled by a small few big boys. But by that virtue it isn't right that 500K (or however many PS/CS workers there are) people also hold 3.5 million people to ransom and gamble the future of everyone's wellbeing and finances.

This isn't public vs private anymore, this isn't I've suffered so you should, this is I want an economy that doesn't involve the IMF running our countryand that for the betterment of every person in the state sacrifices are going to have to be made.


----------



## michaelm

*What will happen when/if the Ps deal is rejected?*

I think it will be rejected.  But I don't think anything much will happen.  Work-to-Rules here and there a few token defiant gestures on the part of PS workers.  IMO the Government won't cut PS wages further but rather will re-jig the PAYE system at the next budget to take in whatever extra they need from all workers.  I expect that there will be an election in 2011 which will see FF ousted and Greens obliterated.  The PS will then get the overhaul it needs through partnership-based negotiation with the new FG/Lab Government.


----------



## thedaras

Posted inadvertantly.Aploligies


----------



## thedaras

becky said:


> What age bracket is he?



Somewhere around the "Dinosoar " era, Id imagine.lol


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> No body doubts or can disagree with the big boys helping us get into the mess. Just how do we go after them though? We've a new regulator who's sticking to his guns and is taking on one of the worst of them. Tick one against going after the big boys.



Fraud, reckless trading etc?
If a raft of senior bankers from all the major banks were staring at 15-25 years in prison I think most people would feel a lot better about taking pay cuts and increased taxes. Throw in the developers that were in cahoots with them and any politician and senior civil servant that can be shown to have been part of the circle and it would be just peachy.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> Fraud, reckless trading etc?
> If a raft of senior bankers from all the major banks were staring at 15-25 years in prison I think most people would feel a lot better about taking pay cuts and increased taxes. Throw in the developers that were in cahoots with them and any politician and senior civil servant that can be shown to have been part of the circle and it would be just peachy.


 
That's why I mention the Gardai investigation. If you want a conviction to stick, then you have to allow the investigation to go ahead without an pressure. 

But aside from that I personally don't feel life in prison will serve anything other than out of bitter resentment. For starters, keeping one of these guys in prison for 25 years is going to cost us what: about 100K a year? Great, that's really in the public interest. 

But for one thing it absolves us for any individual criticism and that's worth it's weight in Ex Bankers and their new cell mate Bubba.

Prison is for those who are a danger to society, why swell it with people who just aren't a danger to public? Why swell the overtime of the Prison Officers as these guys are going to require more security than Joe O'Rielly. Keep prison for the real criminals who don't pay their TV licence I say.


----------



## Staples

Purple said:


> The current situation (or cityation if you’re from Norn-Ireland) is akin to a family that promised the kids they would bring them to Disney Land next summer if they behaved, did their chores and were good in school. Well next summer is here but the parents have lost their jobs and the mortgage repayments have gone up and Disney Land is off the cards. The kids as a united group cried “BUT WE WANT TO GO TO DISNEYLAND, YOU SAID YOU WOULD BRING US. IT’S NOT FAIR!” The parents continue to explain, “It’s just not possible, it’s not your fault and we’re not blaming you but the money is just not there”.
> 
> The senior union officials who negotiated the deal are like the older children who, despite their tantrums, understand the reality of the situation. The problem is that their underlings are like the younger children who think if they cry and shout enough they will get their way.
> There will be quite a few toys thrown out of quite a few prams over the coming months. I hope they don’t break anything important in the process.


 
Taking the child psychology analogy a little further, how likely is it that the smaller kids are likely to believe the parents again. 

If the parents say "Look I know we didn't bring you to Disneyland last year but IF YOU'RE REALLY GOOD NOW we guarantee we'll bring you to at least to (say) Salthill for each of the next four years", why would the children trust them, particularly if the promise came with a mumbled disclaimer along the lines of "provided we have the money".

Fool me once........etc


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> Prison is for those who are a danger to society, why swell it with people who just aren't a danger to public? Why swell the overtime of the Prison Officers as these guys are going to require more security than Joe O'Rielly. Keep prison for the real criminals who don't pay their TV licence I say.


I started that thread on April the first. Keep them in an open prison and use their personal assets to pay for it. Take away their liberty and leave them pennyless.


----------



## Complainer

csirl said:


> Got to the 2010 Book of Estimates and compare the figures in each of the Votes with the 2009 Book of Estimates. You will find 100s of examples of programmes being cut or scaled back. Book of Estimate is on the Dept of Finance website.


Perhaps you missed my last post, which said "Have any new Govt programmes been started over that time?"

Evidence of programmes being cut or scaled back is not evidence of staff sitting round doing nothing. So, do you have any evidence of this?


----------



## doubledeb

Latrade said:


> I'm losing my place in the analogy now. But your argument is that because the parents took the cousins to somewhere better when there was money, they should still take the kids to Disney Land as promised even though they don't have money. So in effect, out of spite you want the parents to take out a loan just to apease the kids' jealousy? And look at some means of going back to the cousins to get money off them for previous favours.
> 
> What I'm saying is look after the ones first that look after all the public services, not the ones who ruined the country.  Prioritise.


----------



## doubledeb

If the parents say "Look I know we didn't bring you to Disneyland last year but IF YOU'RE REALLY GOOD NOW we guarantee we'll bring you to at least to (say) Salthill for each of the next four years", why would the children trust them, particularly if the promise came with a mumbled disclaimer along the lines of "provided we have the money".

Fool me once........etc[/QUOTE]

+1


----------



## Purple

doubledeb said:


> If the parents say "Look I know we didn't bring you to Disneyland last year but IF YOU'RE REALLY GOOD NOW we guarantee we'll bring you to at least to (say) Salthill for each of the next four years", why would the children trust them, particularly if the promise came with a mumbled disclaimer along the lines of "provided we have the money".
> 
> Fool me once........etc[/QUOTE
> 
> +1



But everything is dependent on having the money.


----------



## doubledeb

I understand that but take it from those who can afford to give it, PS have already given it twice, enough is enough.


----------



## Purple

doubledeb said:


> I understand that but take it from those who can afford to give it, PS have already given it twice, enough is enough.



Take it from who then?


----------



## Latrade

doubledeb said:


> I understand that but take it from those who can afford to give it, PS have already given it twice, enough is enough.


 
As someone the unions claim "can afford it" I'd willingly pay even more tax in order to prop up an unsustainable PS/CS that is too big and too expensive for the country to afford. Heck I'd even give the keys of my house to facilitate such a fresh and proven economic principle.

It's only right that after years of frugal living and investment I take even more of a hit (besides the increased tax, substantial pay cuts, large job insecurity, increased working ours and output) for the poor management and expansion of service during the boom years and those who quietly accepted the rewards while the times were good.

Shall I make the cheque out to yourself or do you just want me to set up a standing order.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> As someone the unions claim "can afford it" I'd willingly pay even more tax in order to prop up an unsustainable PS/CS that is too big and too expensive for the country to afford. Heck I'd even give the keys of my house to facilitate such a fresh and proven economic principle.
> 
> It's only right that after years of frugal living and investment I take even more of a hit (besides the increased tax, substantial pay cuts, large job insecurity, increased working ours and output) for the poor management and expansion of service during the boom years and those who quietly accepted the rewards while the times were good.
> 
> Shall I make the cheque out to yourself or do you just want me to set up a standing order.



Well said.
It has to be remembered that in broad terms the public sector has done far better out of the celtic tiger boom than the private sector; ten years ago the public sector was paid more than the private sector and in the last ten years the pay gap between the two has increased, not decreased. This is particularly true amongst lower paid groups.


----------



## doubledeb

Your guess is as good as mine purple, but i'm sure there are ways and means, I agree the PS needs reform for example 2 prison officers driving an inmate 250m to go to a court to answer a non display of tax summons.... cost to the tax payer?.... €1,500!
Putting people in prison for non criminal offences?.... probably 200k per year. simple steps that need to be taken that are right under their noses. I understand that the govt need to take immediate action which they have done and the above examples would take a lot longer, but, show the public that there is some sort of long term plan to cut spending not alone on pay, but on other measures that are wasting money. We need to have a forward plan, trust and above all leadership.  Then we might start to have faith in the government, the public are begging for a light at the end of the tunnel.. show us one.


----------



## doubledeb

Just to note I am referring to the lower paid public servants, the ones that live week to week trying to keep a roof over their heads like a lot of others in the country, the ones that are the main bread winner in the house as their partner has also been made redundant and is entitled to nothing as the PS worker earns over €340 per week. Remember it wasn't the lower paid PS workers that ruined the public finances.
People always speak in broad terms thats the problem, most PS i know earn less than 30k per year.


----------



## Latrade

doubledeb said:


> People always speak in broad terms thats the problem, most PS i know earn less than 30k per year.


 
You're right of course, but remember that the broad terms principle applies to "those who can afford it" too.


----------



## doubledeb

Point taken, Just trying to fight a corner in a very large ring here latrade....


----------



## cork

They are countless talented people working in the public sector  who are doing pen pushing jobs/repeative jobs.

While at the same time - you cannot pay rates online, pay motor tax online for a goods vehicle etc.


----------



## Purple

doubledeb said:


> People always speak in broad terms thats the problem, most PS i know earn less than 30k per year.


 I'm always a but sceptical about that statistic. What proportion of PS employees earning under €30k a year are working part time or job sharing?


----------



## doubledeb

The pay scales for a clerical officer start at €23k p.a full time permanent.


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> The pay scales for a clerical officer start at €23k p.a full time permanent.


 
Is that a bad wage for a general administrative job?


----------



## Caveat

doubledeb said:


> The pay scales for a clerical officer *start at* €23k p.a full time permanent.


 


Have a guess what an office junior (roughly comparable) would earn?


----------



## Purple

doubledeb said:


> The pay scales for a clerical officer start at €23k p.a full time permanent.



Sure but are there any allowances for qualifications etc like there are for teachers?
What the headline figures are is one thing, what's on their P60 is what matters.


----------



## sandrat

Purple said:


> Sure but are there any allowances for qualifications etc like there are for teachers?
> What the headline figures are is one thing, what's on their P60 is what matters.


 
I have always started at the first point on the scale for any of the positions I have held regardless of having an Honours degree, Masters and post graduate diploma. I don't understand the teacher thing (surely if you need a teaching qualification then you should only start on point 1 rather than 3 for having that qualification) but I don't think it is widespread in the public sector.


----------



## Berni

doubledeb said:


> The pay scales for a clerical officer start at €23k p.a full time permanent.


Yes, but after 7 years it is €30,688, and eventually rises to €37,341.
So for most of the PS to be earning less than €30K, there would need to be an awful lot of very recent recruits, or people choosing to work part time.


----------



## Shawady

sandrat said:


> I have always started at the first point on the scale for any of the positions I have held regardless of having an Honours degree, Masters and post graduate diploma. I don't understand the teacher thing (surely if you need a teaching qualification then you should only start on point 1 rather than 3 for having that qualification) but I don't think it is widespread in the public sector.


 
Same here. I have improved my qualifications since going the civil service and have never got an extra allowance for it so I do not understand why it happens in other grades. Maybe this is one of the areas the government will look to make savings without hitting core pay?


----------



## doubledeb

Caveat said:


> Have a guess what an office junior (roughly comparable) would earn?


 
But a position in the CS was open to everyone, you could have applied, no one i know went into the civil service to get rich.


----------



## doubledeb

Berni said:


> Yes, but after 7 years it is €30,688, and eventually rises to €37,341.
> So for most of the PS to be earning less than €30K, there would need to be an awful lot of very recent recruits, or people choosing to work part time.


 
Yes there are a lot of recent (in the last 6 years) recruits, a position that was advertised regularly in the Irish Independent. Anyone (who wanted to earn after 25 years in the civil service 37k per year) could have applied for but didn't because the private sector was better paid.


----------



## doubledeb

Sunny said:


> Is that a bad wage for a general administrative job?


 
Try pay a mortgage and childcare out of it!


----------



## Staples

Purple said:


> Sure but are there any allowances for qualifications etc like there are for teachers?


 
Are there.......heck!  Would that there were.


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> Try pay a mortgage and childcare out of it!


 
That has nothing to do with it. Where would we be if we all got paid according to the bills we have? Should people with children be paid more? What about those people with a bigger house?


----------



## doubledeb

Some people seem to think it is a huge wage, its not.


----------



## Caveat

doubledeb said:


> But a position in the CS was open to everyone, you could have applied, no one i know went into the civil service to get rich.


 
 What are you talking about? I don't want a job in the CS.

It's not the point - you implied by quoting 23K that clerical officers were underpaid. They are not particularly, that's my point.


----------



## Sunny

Again, has nothing to do with thinking it is a large wage or small wage. The question should be is it a fair wage and the answer is yes. There are people in companies all over Ireland doing clerical officer type jobs earning less and not on pay scales so don't benefit from guaranteed increments.


----------



## doubledeb

Caveat said:


> What are you talking about? I don't want a job in the CS.
> 
> It's not the point - you implied by quoting 23K that clerical officers were underpaid. They are not particularly, that's my point.


 
I never said they were underpaid, they are low paid. purple was sceptical so I quoted a fact thats all
Someone else was trying to compare a junior office job to the CS that was my other point if it seems that good anyone could have gone for it!


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> I never said they were underpaid, they are low paid. purple was sceptical so I quoted a fact thats all
> Someone else was trying to compare a junior office job to the CS that was my other point if it seems that good anyone could have gone for it!


 
Just like any 'low paid' employees in the public sector are free to demonstrate their anger at the recent pay cuts and reform moves by joining the private sector. Do you think we will have many takers?


----------



## doubledeb

If the jobs were there maybe you would have.  I know many people that left the CS in the pas to go to the private sector... mostly.... because of pay...


----------



## thedaras

IF the jobs were there. that sums it up!

Id imagine those who left the CS to go into the private sector are mainly unemployed now.
If they had stayed they would at least have a job etc...


----------



## Caveat

+1 Sunny

Hang on a minute doubledeb, so you don't think clerical officers are underpaid - is this correct?

But, you are making a big deal out of the mortgage and childcare costs they might have to pay.  But they took the job anyway and made lifestyle choices regardless of financial consequences?

It was me who mentioned the office junior job - simply comparing roughly equivalent jobs as they have roughly equivalent salaries.  But it doesn't matter because apparently you don't think clerical workers are underpaid.

I don't know what your point is really.


----------



## doubledeb

Its true though, but thats not the PS workers fault is it?
Time to stop blaming the wrong people


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> If the jobs were there maybe you would have. I know many people that left the CS in the pas to go to the private sector... mostly.... because of pay...


 
And I know people who have gone the other way. One very recently actually.
The fact that the jobs aren't there shows how lucky the public sector is. They don't have to join the huge hoardes of people looking for scarce jobs. A few hundred thousand private sector employees are not so lucky.....

Who would you rather be, a clerical officer in the public sector earning €23k or a clerical officer in the private sector earning €25k in the current environment?


----------



## doubledeb

Caveat said:


> +1 Sunny
> 
> Hang on a minute doubledeb, so you don't think clerical officers are underpaid - is this correct?
> 
> But, you are making a big deal out of the mortgage and childcare costs they might have to pay. But they took the job anyway and made lifestyle choices regardless of financial consequences?
> 
> It was me who mentioned the office junior job - simply comparing roughly equivalent jobs as they have roughly equivalent salaries. But it doesn't matter because apparently you don't think clerical workers are underpaid.
> 
> I don't know what your point is really.


 
They are *low* paid, and now with the threat of another 8% cut if they don't accept the deal they certainly would be.  Not making a big deal out of it but they also have bills to pay.  Roughly comparable jobs yes, the same jobs no. 
My point is I am trying to defend those who think the PS workers are pen pushing wasters that do nothing all day bar sit at a desk, this is not the case.
Seems I am alone in my defence...


----------



## doubledeb

Sunny said:


> And I know people who have gone the other way. One very recently actually.
> The fact that the jobs aren't there shows how lucky the public sector is. They don't have to join the huge hoardes of people looking for scarce jobs. A few hundred thousand private sector employees are not so lucky.....
> 
> Who would you rather be, a clerical officer in the public sector earning €23k or a clerical officer in the private sector earning €25k in the current environment?


 
So by being _lucky_ they should be walked all over by the government?
It would have been very different 3 years ago... asked the same question


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> They are *low* paid, and now with the threat of another 8% cut if they don't accept the deal they certainly would be. Not making a big deal out of it but they also have bills to pay. Roughly comparable jobs yes, the same jobs no.
> *My point is I am trying to defend those who think the PS workers are pen pushing wasters that do nothing all day bar sit at a desk, this is not the case.*
> Seems I am alone in my defence...


 
Think you got that wrong!! 

I certainly don't think that about PS workers. I also don't think the lowest paid in the public sector are any worse off than the lowest paid people in the private sector. They do however, have job security so I am struggle to understand all the rubbish that it written.
The biggest scandel was the senior civil servants. That's who the junior members and their unions should be angry at.


----------



## doubledeb

I agree.. thats what the industrial action was for i assume..


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> So by being _lucky_ they should be walked all over by the government?
> It would have been very different 3 years ago... asked the same question


 
How are they been all worked over? Their employer is broke. Fair enough, they have taken a paycut. However, the employer has not made any compulsory redundancies. Happening all over the Country I am afraid.

Answer might have been different. Want to know the consequences. A lot of those people who chose the job on €25k have taken a 100% paycut. I suppose it serves them right for being greedy.


----------



## doubledeb

have you read the small print in this deal sunny?


----------



## doubledeb

Sunny said:


> How are they been all worked over? Their employer is broke. Fair enough, they have taken a paycut. However, the employer has not made any compulsory redundancies. Happening all over the Country I am afraid.
> 
> Answer might have been different. Want to know the consequences. A lot of those people who chose the job on €25k have taken a 100% paycut. I suppose it serves them right for being greedy.


 
We all have to make choices in life, some good some bad, unfortunately for some it was the wrong one... again how is it the PS fault exactly?


----------



## csirl

Clerical officers are similar to general office workers in e.g banks, insurance companies, call centres, multinational general employee etc. I would regard an "office junior" as someone just out of school or on work experience who is making the tea and doing gofor type stuff.

Out of interest how do clerical officer pay rates compare with bank, insurance company, call centre, multinational general employee etc.?

Though one observation I would make is that having a 25 year pay scale with the top workers earning nearly twice the bottom workers is unfair. By its nature, someone should become proficient in this type of job quite quickly - doesnt require 25 years, so doesnt need a 25 year payscale.


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> have you read the small print in this deal sunny?


 
What small print? That the deal is subject to economic conditions. What do people expect the Government to say?


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> We all have to make choices in life, some good some bad, unfortunately for some it was the wrong one... again how is it the PS fault exactly?


 
Not saying it is. Simply point out moaning about the pay cut they had to take, maybe they should stand back and thank their lucky stars that they are not taking a 100% pay cut. Most of the people on the dole lines did not cause this crisis either.


----------



## doubledeb

Its not a 25 year pay scale its 12 years then after a further 3 years another small increment, then 3years after that another.  then it stops. so 18 years it takes to get to 37k..


----------



## Berni

csirl said:


> Though one observation I would make is that having a 25 year pay scale with the top workers earning nearly twice the bottom workers is unfair. By its nature, someone should become proficient in this type of job quite quickly - doesnt require 25 years, so doesnt need a 25 year payscale.



It takes 11 years to reach the 'max' on the payscale, €35,471 and then there are two long service increments, paid 3 & 6 years after reaching the max.


----------



## doubledeb

Sunny said:


> What small print? That the deal is subject to economic conditions. What do people expect the Government to say?


 What the PS workers have to do in return?... read it and come back to me


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> Out of interest how do clerical officer pay rates compare with bank, insurance company, call centre, multinational general employee etc.?
> 
> .


 
We recently hired someone for our office to do general office admin on 19k a year. College Graduate with honours degree.


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> What the PS workers have to do in return?... read it and come back to me


 
You mean be flexible in their working practices? Work a bit harder? Promotion and increments progression linked to performance?

Wow, that is slavery

Can't believe I let myself be dragged into one of these discussions again! We will agree to disagree.


----------



## thedaras

> csirl
> 
> Clerical officers are similar to general office workers in e.g banks, insurance companies, call centres, multinational general employee etc. I would regard an "office junior" as someone just out of school or on work experience who is making the tea and doing gofor type stuff.



The problem is that this is exactly what they are doing, 10/15 years on in the CS.

If you stay doing the same job you stay on a similar low paid job.

Csirl 





> Out of interest how do clerical officer pay rates compare with bank, insurance company, call centre, multinational general employee etc.?



We need someone to do the calculations ,based on job security which is worth a lot of money and the pension .When those two are calculated then we can make a fair comparison.


----------



## doubledeb

Sunny said:


> You mean be flexible in their working practices? Work a bit harder? Promotion and increments progression linked to performance?
> 
> Wow, that is slavery
> 
> Can't believe I let myself be dragged into one of these discussions again! We will agree to disagree.


 
As I said get all the facts and come back to me
You have no idea


----------



## Sunny

doubledeb said:


> As I said get all the facts and come back to me
> You have no idea


 
Give me a link...

this is all I have

[broken link removed]

Give me more info and I will reconsider


----------



## Purple

doubledeb said:


> Its true though, but thats not the PS workers fault is it?
> Time to stop blaming the wrong people


Who's blaming the Public Sector?
I'm not aware of anyone who it. It just comes down to one simple fact: the government (the employer in this case) is broke and doesn't have the money to pay wages at the current level. The harsh reality is that means pay cuts or/and job losses and increases in taxation. (reduce outgoings and increase income 'till they match).


----------



## cork

The public sector largely seems not to be using midern Technology.

Apart from the Revenue.


There is an emphesis in the public service of clerical grades - not accountants, engineers etc

What we have is various grades clericalism


----------



## Deiseblue

If the deal is rejected I believe the Unions will revert to the work to rule scenario which as the Government admit was slowly grinding services to a halt to the extent that it was the Government who knocked on the Unions door to seek a deal ( although it appeared that that door was already swinging open ! ).

The question is will the Government tolerate such a work to rule or will they risk exacerbating the position by either suspending employees or cutting pay.

From the Union's point of view I think the idea of rolling strikes makes sense in that such action would cause immense difficulties and because such actions would enable the Unions to pay enhanced strike pay limiting financial difficulties for those on such strikes.

The Unions are of course aware t6hat the rejection of the deal would also cause the Government borrowing difficulties.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> The Unions are of course aware that the rejection of the deal would also cause the Government borrowing difficulties.


 If that's all they think it will do then they are bigger idiots than I thouight they were.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Not saying it is. Simply point out moaning about the pay cut they had to take, maybe they should stand back and thank their lucky stars that they are not taking a 100% pay cut. Most of the people on the dole lines did not cause this crisis either.



I don't agree with that. I think that public sector employees have a right to feel aggrieved. It doesn't change reality though.


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> If that's all they think it will do then they are bigger idiots than I thouight they were.


 
That's why I used the word " also "


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> I don't agree with that. I think that public sector employees have a right to feel aggrieved. It doesn't change reality though.



Of course they have a right to feel aggrieved. Didn't mean to I
imply they didn't. I don't think they have the grounds to justify an industrial relations war as one union put it.


----------



## DonDub

Feeling angry about pay cuts/pension levy is perfectly understandable. However,  anger doesn't justify irrationality and immorality. 
Consider the position of Protestants in Ulster who felt deeply aggrieved at the loss of their privileged access to jobs and housing - they had developed a sense of entitlement over generations, and felt threatened and angry when  their hegemony was challenged by Catholics, and ultimately the British government.
The PS situation is analogous to Ulster at that time - a privileged group, fighting to defend the indefensible. 
The only way to sustain the PS at its current size is to continue borrowing at unsustainable levels, and to increase tax levels even more drastically.This approach would of course ultimately destroy the country.
The painful reality is that the PS must be downsized significantly, and radically reformed to deliver services efficiently and cost effectively.   
Ulster said 'no', the PS says 'no', the people of Ireland must say 'yes', to any political party that is willing to take the brave and courageous decisions to face down  the PS, unions and other vested interest groups - to save Ireland from disaster.


----------



## doubledeb

Sorry sunny I can't provide a link.  I wish I could so everyone could see the real deal that is on the table.  I agree with posters that the PS needs reform, I think most PS workers would agree and all know that they, like most of the people in the private sector, would feel the pinch financially, but are afraid that they are going to get a lot more taken away. Yes, they were offered no more pay cuts but its such a broad area that they feel the government will work around it and put more levys on pay etc. Its one of those debates i think that no one can win, there is for and against in all areas. So I mite just bow out now...


----------



## Deiseblue

DonDub said:


> Feeling angry about pay cuts/pension levy is perfectly understandable. However, anger doesn't justify irrationality and immorality.
> Consider the position of Protestants in Ulster who felt deeply aggrieved at the loss of their privileged access to jobs and housing - they had developed a sense of entitlement over generations, and felt threatened and angry when their hegemony was challenged by Catholics, and ultimately the British government.
> The PS situation is analogous to Ulster at that time - a privileged group, fighting to defend the indefensible.
> The only way to sustain the PS at its current size is to continue borrowing at unsustainable levels, and to increase tax levels even more drastically.This approach would of course ultimately destroy the country.
> The painful reality is that the PS must be downsized significantly, and radically reformed to deliver services efficiently and cost effectively.
> Ulster said 'no', the PS says 'no', the people of Ireland must say 'yes', to any political party that is willing to take the brave and courageous decisions to face down the PS, unions and other vested interest groups - to save Ireland from disaster.


 
What a strange analogy !

One could equally compare Public Sector Union members to a Catholic minority unfairly targeted by a despotic Government.


----------



## DonDub

Deiseblue said:


> What a strange analogy !
> 
> One could equally compare Union members to a unfairly treated Catholic minority unfairly targeted by a despotic Government.



Now thats what I call a strange analogy!

Catholics were unemployed or forced into low skilled jobs and poor quality overcrowded housing. PS employees are guaranteed job for life, Rolls Royce pensions, pay levels above their private sector equivalents - I'm struggling to see any reasonable grounds to compare them to a genuinely oppressed group. Then again, every example of powerful vested-interest groups that come to mind - point to delusional self-serving arguments e.g. Coal miners in 1970s Britain, Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa, bankers, developers, the legal profession........


----------



## Deiseblue

DonDub said:


> Now thats what I call a strange analogy!
> 
> Catholics were unemployed or forced into low skilled jobs and poor quality overcrowded housing. PS employees are guaranteed job for life, Rolls Royce pensions, pay levels above their private sector equivalents - I'm struggling to see any reasonable grounds to compare them to a genuinely oppressed group. Then again, every example of powerful vested-interest groups that come to mind - point to delusional self-serving arguments e.g. Coal miners in 1970s Britain, Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa, bankers, developers, the legal profession........


 
Sorry , still don't where you are coming from !

What is happening here at the moment is an industrial relations problem and any comparisons with a centuries old bigotry/ politically driven  problem in the North does'nt stand comparison.


----------



## Aurnia

PDF files on the full agreement on this link
[broken link removed]

Not true that there have been no redundancies already - plenty people on rolling temp contracts on 3 yrs+ being let go. People can be 10 yrs on a temp contract.

Also 3-5 yrs ago it was hard to recruit - the low pay was part of problem and include recruiitng of engineers and scientific staff..


----------



## DonDub

Deiseblue said:


> Sorry , still don't where you are coming from !
> 
> What is happening here at the moment is an industrial relations problem and any comparisons with a centuries old bigotry/ politically driven  problem in the North does'nt stand comparison.



I don't agree. Why would the nation be focused on a mere industrial relations problem. The PS issue is central to the future of this country. It was always unfair and unconscionable that one sector of society had a unique set of gold plated conditions and protections. Add to the fact that this country has for most of its history been placed at the service of powerful vested interest groups e.g. the Church, certain professions,farmers, developers,unions, bankers etc, and you have sufficient reasons to argue that we require a radical rethink of what this country should be all about.
So, no, this is not just an industrial relations dispute - it is part of the battle for the future shape of this nations society and economy.
Very few powerful elites went quietly into the night - invariably they only go kicking and screaming. Unfortunate, but sadly, predictable.


----------



## Deiseblue

DonDub said:


> I don't agree. Why would the nation be focused on a mere industrial relations problem. The PS issue is central to the future of this country. It was always unfair and unconscionable that one sector of society had a unique set of gold plated conditions and protections. Add to the fact that this country has for most of its history been placed at the service of powerful vested interest groups e.g. the Church, certain professions,farmers, developers,unions, bankers etc, and you have sufficient reasons to argue that we require a radical rethink of what this country should be all about.
> So, no, this is not just an industrial relations dispute - it is part of the battle for the future shape of this nations society and economy.
> Very few powerful elites went quietly into the night - invariably they only go kicking and screaming. Unfortunate, but sadly, predictable.



No matter which way you look at it the current industrial relations issue here is an issue which will ultimately be resolved by negotiation and to compare this IR problem to what at times was basically a civil war in the North caused mainly by oppressive sectarianism and costing thousands of lives to my mind is ,to say the least ,a stretch.

As to the future prospects of the country I would say that they depend rather more on whether the gamble of NAMA is success or not rather than by unilaterrally hitting PS terms and conditions.


----------



## Shawady

Purple said:


> Who's blaming the Public Sector?
> I'm not aware of anyone who it. It just comes down to one simple fact: the government (the employer in this case) is broke and doesn't have the money to pay wages at the current level. The harsh reality is that means pay cuts or/and job losses and increases in taxation. (reduce outgoings and increase income 'till they match).


 
Yes , but I think the government should be up front and give an indication of how much of the remaining cuts they expect the PS bill to contibute. Cowen has already suggested that only 500 million of the 3 billion for this years budget will be required to come from the PS bill. We don't know what is required from future years.
Maybe they have an idea behind closed doors, but I believe if they actually came out and said we require X billion from the PS billion and Y billion form the social welfare bill to be cut over the next 4 years, at least people would know what they were aiming for.
In the case of the PS bill, it may not result in further cuts in a couple of years but it could certainly minimse them.


----------



## Firefly

Aurnia said:


> Not true that there have been no redundancies already - plenty people on rolling temp contracts on 3 yrs+ being let go. People can be 10 yrs on a temp contract.


 
I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis. When the money isn't there we will be in a better position to cut our cloth to suit our measure. That will ensure IMO an efficient service where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector. Golden pensions (THE ticking time bomb) should also go completely.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> The question should be is it a fair wage and the answer is yes.


 
Almost there...The question should be can we afford these wages


----------



## Sunny

Firefly said:


> I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis. When the money isn't there we will be in a better position to cut our cloth to suit our measure. That will ensure IMO an efficient service where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector. Golden pensions (THE ticking time bomb) should also go completely.


 
Using that argument, everyone in the private sector should be employed on contracts.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> Using that argument, everyone in the private sector should be employed on contracts.


 
Not necessary (but a lot are) as the private sector is self-financing - if a company cannot afford its staff, wages or staff numbers are reduced. A lot more difficult (as we are seeing) in the PS to achieve.


----------



## csirl

Firefly said:


> I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis. When the money isn't there we will be in a better position to cut our cloth to suit our measure. That will ensure IMO an efficient service where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector. Golden pensions (THE ticking time bomb) should also go completely.


 
This is forbidden under EU law in all sectors of employment - contract employees automatically attain permanent status within a few years.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector.


I haven't laughed so much since I heard details of the latest bill from Anglo. Do let us know when you get back into the real world.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> I haven't laughed so much since I heard details of the latest bill from Anglo. Do let us know when you get back into the real world.



Yea, you're right, it will never happen.


----------



## Galwaygirl

> I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis.


 
As someone who has been on these rolling contracts for 4.5 years now I would hate to see this as the norm in any sector as it prohibits any sort of life planning and fosters a culture of worry and insecurity. For the month before the renewal date productivity slumps as people are anxiously waiting to hear if they will be renewed and starting to look elsewhere etc.

I would favour normal job contracts where as long as you meet targets /behave in a reasonable manner etc etc you have a job. In a slump do what any large company does and have a voluntary redundancy scheme and if necessary a structured compulsory redundancy scheme.


----------



## thedaras

Productivity slump!
In my experience in the private sector any one on a contract,would increase productivity as if there are extensions given to the contract or the chance of a permanent job, they want to put their best foot forward.
And HR do look at these things


----------



## VOR

Galwaygirl said:


> I would favour normal job contracts where as long as you meet targets /behave in a reasonable manner etc etc you have a job. In a slump do what any large company does and have a voluntary redundancy scheme and if necessary a structured compulsory redundancy scheme.



I agree with this bit. Contract work is not the way to go for this country. It is next near impossible to even get a mortgage on contract nowadays. It does not help society.
What we need is the implementation of the existing employment laws. Companies/PS should be allowed to let go staff who are not meeting targets. But this should only be done after they give the person every chance. 
If there is a slow down then redundacies should be inevitable.


----------



## csirl

Galwaygirl said:


> As someone who has been on these rolling contracts for 4.5 years now I would hate to see this as the norm in any sector as it prohibits any sort of life planning and fosters a culture of worry and insecurity.


 
C'mon, stop perpetuating an urban myth. You cannot be employed for 4.5 years on rolling contracts - its illegal. There is a maximum of 4 years that you can be on contract - if you are employed any longer, you are automatically permanent.


[broken link removed]


----------



## Galwaygirl

> Productivity slump!


 
You have no idea how these contract renewals work!! Where I work it is on a LIFO basis or an everyone or nobody basis. There are no permanent jobs unless a permanent staff member leaves (and none now with teh embargo) and the person hanging around on contracts for longest gets that automatically. Renewals are not based on performance and are purely budget based.

Try being highly motivated when you are being left hanging for weeks on end and listening to the rumour mill grinding! 

I have 4.5 years PS exerience following 15 years Private sector and I can hand on heart say that I have never felt so insecure in a job!And before you ask why stay there it is because depite all that I love the job and am lucky to be in a PS area where learning new skills is encouraged. 



> C'mon, stop perpetuating an urban myth. You cannot be employed for 4.5 years on rolling contracts - its illegal. There is a maximum of 4 years that you can be on contract - if you are employed any longer, you are automatically permanent.


 
are you calling me a liar?? It is perfectly possible if you are in an organisation with a lot of staff working on reduced hours or where official headcount has been frozen for years despite workload increasing. I am currently in the process of trying to get a CID but won't know until later in the summer if it is successful.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> I haven't laughed so much since I heard details of the latest bill from Anglo. Do let us know when you get back into the real world.


 
Glad you find this thread funny.

The big banks similiar to the PS IMO as has been pointed out in previous threads - what I'm talking about is what happens in the real growth engine of this economy, the SMEs and export-led organisations.


----------



## Caveat

To address the original question, what is the status now - rejection from all unions so far except SIPTU? 

It makes for an odd outcome. The biggest union (by far?) accepting the deal and ICTU, the _uber-union_ accepting it, but nobody else.

What say/influence do ICTU have then - none?


----------



## Firefly

Caveat said:


> To address the original question, what is the status now - rejection from all unions so far except SIPTU?


 
Sorry for going off topic but this is another problem...the one-to-many relationship between the government and the unions. We have too many unions. Either the government deals with one delegate (ICTU or equiv) or each union continues to play hardball using veto powers. How would the unions like it if they had to deal with every government department individually?


----------



## csirl

Galwaygirl said:


> are you calling me a liar?? It is perfectly possible if you are in an organisation with a lot of staff working on reduced hours or where official headcount has been frozen for years despite workload increasing. I am currently in the process of trying to get a CID but won't know until later in the summer if it is successful.


 
Headcount, reduced hours etc. are irrelevant. Based on the information you have provided, you are already on CID by default. 

A relative of mine works in a part of the PS where rolling contracts are the norm. Says her boss takes advantage of the fact that a lot of employees are ignorant of the law - would deliberately not tell them when they had acquired permanency. When she herself was offered CID, she got a long speach from the boss about how lucky she was, and how she should be thankful to him for doing this favour etc. etc. etc. and how she's lucky that she has a job etc.etc. even though she knew that he was legally required to do so as she'd exceeded the 4 year limit. He also doesnt formally present the CID contracts to some staff at all as he likes the idea that they think they are only temporary staff as this motivates them to work harder to acquire "permanency" that they already have. I'm told that this practice is common among management in this particular part of the PS - its likely that you work in this area.


----------



## Shawady

Caveat said:


> To address the original question, what is the status now - rejection from all unions so far except SIPTU?
> 
> It makes for an odd outcome. The biggest union (by far?) accepting the deal and ICTU, the _uber-union_ accepting it, but nobody else.
> 
> What say/influence do ICTU have then - none?


 
To address the original question, you may find each union doing a solo run. 
Liam Doran has already said they will be putting forward alternative proposals at their conference in May. Maybe they will have ideas to save money by reforms but just don't want to 'dance to the government's tune' as he put it. If they can save money they will prob try and stop further pay cuts for their members and their members alone.
Other unions like Unite are looking for a reversal of the pay cuts, which is not going to happen.


----------



## Caveat

Solidarity eh?


----------



## thedaras

> Galwaygirl
> Posts: 70
> 
> You have no idea how these contract renewals work!! Where I work it is on a LIFO basis or an everyone or nobody basis. There are no permanent jobs unless a permanent staff member leaves (and none now with teh embargo) and the person hanging around on contracts for longest gets that automatically. Renewals are not based on performance and are purely budget based.



All or none basis! 

LIFOs!


All of this is so wrong, and is huge part of the problem in the PS.

It sounds like a system that is Jurassic.


----------



## Galwaygirl

> All of this is so wrong, and is huge part of the problem in the PS.



Completely agree with you there!


----------



## thedaras

Its great to see that you agree.

The unions are responsible for LIFOs and for all or none basis.

I know this for a fact as when I was in the PS god help anyone who tried to step outside the box or to argue that LIFOS are utterly ridiculous.

If you don't agree with either of those or any action someone takes,it is beyond comprehension to not partake.

Maybe the people who are in the PS ,should be prepared to more flexible and not insist on LIFOS and all for one basis etc.


----------



## becky

What's a LIFO?


----------



## thedaras

Last in first out...


----------



## thedaras

Its not just the LIFOs and the all or none that cause problems ,its being unable to move dept, being only allowed to do exactly what your job is ,no diversions like watering a plant ,god forbid.And by the way there are people who want to be flexible who would welcome change and reform.

There are a lot of people in the PS who feel totally tied,by militant unions and their reps.
I think these people should gather strength and not be bullied into submission by those with vested interests.
Maybe the time has come to revolt!

If there was more flexibility, more people open to change, more recognition of productivity, actions that have consequences either good or bad,reform etc,those who are the good ones will soon see the results,and hopefully that would be in monetary form.

But look ,this is the way things should be in both sectors.Progression is easier in the private sector and even easier when the unions are not involved.

If the deal is rejected it will be a win for the unions but a loss for the workers .IMHO.


----------



## Leper

Cork's post of Let the Public Service strike and see what happens is fairly naive.  Just remember a few Juniors in the Passport Office over a few days brought more reaction than a general strike over any long term.

I wonder what was next. Perhaps, we will find out!!!!!!!


----------



## NOAH

IMF = end of unreal working patterns, bring them on.


noah


----------



## aonfocaleile

The reality is that the deal has to be put to a vote of all members of each union (with the possible exception of unite?). The executive committees can only make a recommendation to the members. SIPTU have recommended a yes vote and IMPACT is declining to recommend a yes vote, which isn't the same as as recommending a no vote. Some of the more moderate civil service unions are recommending acceptance such as the AHCPS. I'm not sure what the PSEU is recommending. We won't know the outcome until early May but its not looking good to be honest and some of the more militant unions could screw it up for those willing to accept it.


----------



## Shawady

aonfocaleile said:


> The reality is that the deal has to be put to a vote of all members of each union (with the possible exception of unite?). The executive committees can only make a recommendation to the members. SIPTU have recommended a yes vote and IMPACT is declining to recommend a yes vote, which isn't the same as as recommending a no vote. Some of the more moderate civil service unions are recommending acceptance such as the AHCPS. I'm not sure what the PSEU is recommending. We won't know the outcome until early May but its not looking good to be honest and some of the more militant unions could screw it up for those willing to accept it.


 
I think the PSEU are recommending a Yes and Impact are now going back to Kieran Mulvey for clarification over certain issues, which would suggest they might change their recommendation.
I'm surprised that the CPSU are recommending rejection as if there is going to some reversal of pay cuts (and its a big if), their members will be first in line.
What may happen is the unions representing nurses/teachers/guards will recommend rejection as allowances are more common in these areas compared to other admin/clerical type grades.


----------



## Caveat

Sounds like a wise assessment to me Shawady.


----------



## michaelm

NOAH said:


> IMF = end of unreal working patterns, bring them on.


Mention of IMF is simply an empty threat intended to scare union members into accepting the deal; the empty promise is no pay cuts or redundancies.  Standard tactics, like on Lisbon2 where the empty threat was that we would be kicked out of the EU and the empty promise was "Yes for Jobs".





aonfocaleile said:


> The reality is that the deal has to be put to a vote of all members of each union (with the possible exception of unite?).


Unite members will be voting on the deal.


----------



## Sunny

What happens if some unions vote to accept it and some don't? Is it an all or nothing situation?

Where do the ICTU stand in all this? I haven't heard anything from David Begg who you would imagaine as part of the board of the Central Bank is well aware of the consequences of voting no.


----------



## Husker

thedaras said:


> There are a lot of people in the PS who feel totally tied,by militant unions and their reps.
> I think these people should gather strength and not be bullied into submission by those with vested interests.
> Maybe the time has come to revolt!


 
Leave the union then.


----------



## Shawady

Sunny said:


> What happens if some unions vote to accept it and some don't? Is it an all or nothing situation?
> 
> Where do the ICTU stand in all this? I haven't heard anything from David Begg who you would imagaine as part of the board of the Central Bank is well aware of the consequences of voting no.


 
Don't know what will happen if some accept and some reject but its worth remembering that 73% of PS workers are employed in health and education so if there is not aggreement there its hard to see how real progress will be made.

David Begg recommended a Yes vote on the deal last night.
http://www.independent.ie/national-...te-as-union-leader-supports-deal-2140407.html


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> Glad you find this thread funny.
> 
> The big banks similiar to the PS IMO as has been pointed out in previous threads - what I'm talking about is what happens in the real growth engine of this economy, the SMEs and export-led organisations.


I've worked in the SMEs and the export-led organisations, and they are really no different from the big banks or the big public service organisations. Most people work really hard most of the time. Some people don't. Some of the chancers get sorted out, some don't. 

This myth of the 'self-correcting' private sector just doesn't stand up. When they screw up, they get bailed out by the State, either by bank bailouts, or by the State providing staff for private sector businesses and calling shelf stacking 'work experience' (see http://www.politics.ie/economy/126386-*wpp*1-2-latest-*fas*-scam-1.html)


----------



## thedaras

Husker said:


> Leave the union then.



I did!


----------



## thedaras

Shawady said:


> Don't know what will happen if some accept and some reject but its worth remembering that 73% of PS workers are employed in health and education so if there is not aggreement there its hard to see how real progress will be made.
> 
> David Begg recommended a Yes vote on the deal last night.
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...te-as-union-leader-supports-deal-2140407.html


I dont think a lot of PS supporters believe anything in the INdo?


----------



## thedaras

Posted twice,apoligies


----------



## VOR

As someone who sat on the board of the Central Bank since 1995 and was chairman of the audit committee, David Begg would do well to keep his head down.


----------



## Sunny

VOR said:


> As someone who sat on the board of the Central Bank since 1995 and was chairman of the audit committee, David Begg would do well to keep his head down.


 
I know. I am not sure the current head of the ICTU should be anywhere near the board of the Central Bank anyway.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> I've worked in the SMEs and the export-led organisations, and they are really no different from the big banks or the big public service organisations. Most people work really hard most of the time. Some people don't. Some of the chancers get sorted out, some don't.


What utter rubbish. There is a world of a difference between an export focused SME and a public sector body (bank or other). If you think otherwise you are delusional. 



Complainer said:


> This myth of the 'self-correcting' private sector just doesn't stand up. When they screw up, they get bailed out by the State, either by bank bailouts, or by the State providing staff for private sector businesses and calling shelf stacking 'work experience' (see http://www.politics.ie/economy/126386-*wpp*1-2-latest-*fas*-scam-1.html)


 More nonsense. If an SME itn't run properly is goes bankrupt. If a state monopoly or public sector body is badly run it simply charges more for the services provided or sucks up more tax payers money. An SME with the sort of La-La-Land working hours, holidays and general work practices common in the public sector would be long gone out of business and a few unskilled floor sweepers thrown in for free by the government wouldn’t make a whit of a difference. The FAS work experience scheme is a joke. Most SME's are looking for skilled people and many (like the one I am in) still can't get them.


----------



## Galwaygirl

> A relative of mine works in a part of the PS where rolling contracts are the norm. Says her boss takes advantage of the fact that a lot of employees are ignorant of the law - would deliberately not tell them when they had acquired permanency. When she herself was offered CID, she got a long speach from the boss about how lucky she was, and how she should be thankful to him for doing this favour etc. etc. etc. and how she's lucky that she has a job etc.etc. even though she knew that he was legally required to do so as she'd exceeded the 4 year limit. He also doesnt formally present the CID contracts to some staff at all as he likes the idea that they think they are only temporary staff as this motivates them to work harder to acquire "permanency" that they already have. I'm told that this practice is common among management in this particular part of the PS - its likely that you work in this area.


 
God, he sounds like a real charmer! I am aware of the law alright but would rather if my place of work would not force me into to any legal challenges. Maybe they think I will turn into a dosser overnight or something!! 

On the original question - from talking to people at work I think a lot of people (especially people with mortgages/kids) feel that any agreement is better than none right now.


----------



## Leper

Let's wait please.  Pre-empting what will happen if the PS rejects the deal is fairly stupid.   You dont give a child a soother before he cries - mind you, a soother in hand is always wise though.

Public Service people will not be influenced by what they read in forums because they have been scapegoated for long enough.  (Let's not get into this either at this time).

This Recession (or normal times if you are my age) is all about reducing pay in the Public and Private sectors.  Look around you, 25/30 jobs coming in McDonalds is major news on national television.  A few vacancies in some Call-Centre is announced like it was the panacea of all ills.

The SME people played their card i.e 'We want wages reduced'  -  They are fairly quiet at the moment.  But, make no mistake, this Recession is about making the Richer richer.  Everything else is only a cheap smokescreen.


----------



## thedaras

Leper





> Let's wait please. Pre-empting what will happen if the PS rejects the deal is fairly stupid. You dont give a child a soother before he cries - mind you, a soother in hand is always wise though.


If you have a child who is used to having a soother, you would have many soothers throughout the house ,just in case.

Unless of course you are trying to wean them off it,then you just have to listen to them scream and wail untill they realise they are not getting it afterall.
In this case parents would normally agree as to what will happen in that situation,not ignore it,and adopt a wait and see and then panic.

YOU may not want to get into a discussion about it ,and I note nor do you want to get into a discussion about the Ps..
Well dont then, you are free not to read any of the posts,Its laughable to read through the post and then say, one;lets not get into it  and two; lets not discuss it!!
I suggest you don't read the posts then,as there are many many people who do, judging by the amount of people who have posted in response to the original post..
Interestingly though,you had your say...


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> The SME people played their card i.e 'We want wages reduced'  -  They are fairly quiet at the moment.  But, make no mistake, this Recession is about making the Richer richer.  Everything else is only a cheap smokescreen.


 How on earth did you come up with that, Comrade?


----------



## Deiseblue

Perhaps Leper heard it from Richie Boucher ?


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Perhaps Leper heard it from Richie Boucher ?


 Why do you say that? I think Mr Boucher would be making much more money if the boom had continued.


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> Why do you say that? I think Mr Boucher would be making much more money if the boom had continued.


 
But would Brian Goggin have retired if the boom had continued ?


----------



## Mouldy

Purple said:


> More nonsense. If an SME itn't run properly is goes bankrupt. If a state monopoly or public sector body is badly run it simply charges more for the services provided or sucks up more tax payers money. An SME with the sort of La-La-Land working hours, holidays and general work practices common in the public sector would be long gone out of business and a few unskilled floor sweepers thrown in for free by the government wouldn’t make a whit of a difference. The FAS work experience scheme is a joke. Most SME's are looking for skilled people and many (like the one I am in) still can't get them.


 
Funny enough, those same "la la" conditions plus our alledgedly inflated salaries were still not nealry enough for the PS section that I work in to attract staff during the boom years. In fact several of our talented people left very intresting, demanding and fullfilling posts to go and work in the private sector, where the bonus culture and very high starting salary that everyone says wasn't there, was there.

But this is all deflecting from the orginal question. If the PS deal is rejected then the government will cut PS wages in the next budget. There isn't much in the deal to appease the masses, but there isn't much in it to hurt them either. I think people who feel they have a stake in the deal will vote for it regardless of what their union tells them.

M


----------



## Purple

Mouldy said:


> Funny enough, those same "la la" conditions plus our alledgedly inflated salaries were still not nealry enough for the PS section that I work in to attract staff during the boom years. In fact several of our talented people left very intresting, demanding and fullfilling posts to go and work in the private sector, where the bonus culture and very high starting salary that everyone says wasn't there, was there.



Did they go and work in SME's or was it to multinationals?


----------



## thedaras

Having spoken to a number of PS workers at the weekend, it seems that the vote will be to accept the deal.
The threat of rejection, is apparently just a way of saying we wont be doing anything for you without a fight.


----------



## Mouldy

Some went to work in what I guess would be SMEs. My point wasn't that SME's don't need ot be competitive, but that PS salaries and T&Cs still couldn't lure pople from the private sector then. Given that PS salaies have decreased in take home terms by approx 8.5% on avarage and the DB pension will no longer apply to new entrants from next year (or whenever, don't have the excat time to hand), the T&Cs like holidays etc may still not be enough to attract talent into the future either. The PS, like any industry, needs to offer attractive packages to attract the right people at technical levels.


----------



## txirimiri

thedaras said:


> Its not just the LIFOs and the all or none that cause problems ,its being unable to move dept, being only allowed to do exactly what your job is ,no diversions like watering a plant ,god forbid.And by the way there are people who want to be flexible who would welcome change and reform.
> 
> Thedaras, I know you have posted before about working in the CS, so I can only assume that this is based on what you apparently experienced - but honestly, what planet was this on and in what century??
> 
> I am a mid ranking CS, in theory I think contracted to work a 37.5 hour week. I normally work a 42/45 hour week approx. I work from home online 1 or 2 nights a week and would work at weekends on a not regular but not infrequent basis. None of this is paid. I do my job, other people's jobs if they are not around or on holiday or if the workload needs to be shared out because it is particularly heavy at a given time.Basically I do the work that needs to be done. Not only am I  'unable to move dept', but if promotions ever get started again, I would be very unlikely to get a promotion in my current Dept as all promotions have for some time been on the basis on inter-departmental competition and the norm has been to move Dept if promoted. Rather annoying for me, as I have a particular academic qualification, a personal interest in and commitment to, and 15 yrs experience in my current area of work.
> 
> As for comments that there is nothing in the deal for CS workers, as far as I am concerned there is absolute job security and no further wage cuts for 4 years, which in the current climate is the equivalent of gold dust. Happily, most of the CS in my Union seem to share this view and it has just been passed by over 80% of the members who voted.


----------



## txirimiri

And, thedaras, you will be very happy to hear that, yes indeed, we did once have people who came and watered the plants in the office (although I am not aware that we were ever contractually forbidden to water them ourselves as you seem to suggest you experienced), but with budgets being tightened, its now up to us to get the watercans out ourselves ....


----------



## thedaras

What do you mean ,what planet and century?
Are you looking for the name of the place I worked in and the year?

My heart bleeds for anyone having to work 42 to 45 hours a week..and it bleeds even more profusely for those having to water a plant..

Where did I suggest that workers were "contractually forbidden to water" the plants ourselves?

So how is Spain?


----------



## annet

Well IMPACT have done a complete 360, they got clarifications and now the deal done in croker is suddenly not too bad for the health sector.  Heaven help us IMPACT thinks bed closures, staff not been replaced..... budgets been slashed in public hospitals, beds on corridors, A&E overcrowding is ok... we're right back on the slippery slope back to the 80's.... 

I wonder how this will go down with all those in SIPTU and IMPACT who pay their union subs and not to mention the IMNO?  Doran will be flipping....


----------



## Purple

annet said:


> Well IMPACT have done a complete 360, they got clarifications and now the deal done in croker is suddenly not too bad for the health sector.  Heaven help us IMPACT thinks bed closures, staff not been replaced..... budgets been slashed in public hospitals, beds on corridors, A&E overcrowding is ok... we're right back on the slippery slope back to the 80's....
> 
> I wonder how this will go down with all those in SIPTU and IMPACT who pay their union subs and not to mention the IMNO?  Doran will be flipping....



This whole situation is like a group of children whose parents gave them loads of pocket money and promised them a trip to Disney Land next summer. Now one parent has lost their job and the other has taken a pay cut. The parents sit the kids down and explain that as mortgage rates have gone up and their income is down and they are spending 50% more than they earn the trip to Disney is off and pocket money will have to be cut.

Some of the kids are smart enough to realise that they have to face up to reality and just deal with the way the world is. The rest are lying on the floor kicking their legs in the air screaming “But it’s not fair! I want to go to Disneyland!!

IMPACT are just the latest child that has been coaxed off the floor, given a hug and, after about 100 attempts, have finally understood that screaming “But it’s not fair!” doesn’t change the reality that yes, life can be very unfair but understanding that is part of becoming a grown-up.

Poor ickle didums.


----------



## Deiseblue

The " But it's not Fair " concept or what I consider to be the usual cut and thrust of Union/Employer negotiations has post the Croke park agreements produced the following via clarifications and an LRC ruling :

1. The review of P S pensions will not now take place until at least 2014.

2. Teacher's holidays will remain unchanged.

3. The jobs for life for Impact members within the HSE is to continue.

Not a bad return for digging your heels in I would have thought ?

Into the equation I think we should factor in the question of the General Election in 2012 ( perhaps earlier ? ) , I can certainly see FF seeking to appease PS workers by ensuring same of the pay cuts are reversed.


----------



## thedaras

An example of what purple says about kids in Disneyland is given in the post above.
ie: NAH NA NA NA NAH.


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> An example of what purple says about kids in Disneyland is given in the post above.
> ie: NAH NA NA NA NAH.


 
I think you are going to have to clarify this statement for the adults on the site ?

Nah na na na nah is simply not a reply to the points I made .


----------



## thedaras

Using puples anonlogy of kids in Disneyland.. Maybe we didn't get to go to Disneyland in the USA  but We got to go to Disneyland in Paris .Not a bad deal for digging your heels in,and hey look at what else we got,or Nah na na na nah.


----------



## thedaras

Deiseblue said:


> The " But it's not Fair " concept or what I consider to be the usual cut and thrust of Union/Employer negotiations has post the Croke park agreements produced the following via clarifications and an LRC ruling :
> 
> 1. The review of P S pensions will not now take place until at least 2014.
> 
> 2. Teacher's holidays will remain unchanged.
> 
> 3. The jobs for life for Impact members within the HSE is to continue.
> 
> Not a bad return for digging your heels in I would have thought ?
> 
> Into the equation I think we should factor in the question of the General Election in 2012 ( perhaps earlier ? ) , I can certainly see FF seeking to appease PS workers by ensuring same of the pay cuts are reversed.




These are the terms that some of us on here have been saying the PS are so privileged to have and Im delighted that you are now saying its not a bad return,thats progress..


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> These are the terms that some of us on here have been saying the PS are so privileged to have and Im delighted that you are now saying its not a bad return,thats progress..


 
These are simply part of the terms and condtions you are employed under when you join the PS and which the Unions are endeavouring to protect by whatever means they can in very difficult times.

Of course they are privileged to have such terms and conditions but that's what their employers signed up to.

The clarifications are important if the Government want to get this deal through which it's becoming increasingly obvious they are desperate to do.

I think we would be better served dealing with the realities of the situation rather than dealing in analogies which is really a facile technique.


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> Using puples anonlogy of kids in Disneyland.. Maybe we didn't get to go to Disneyland in the USA but We got to go to Disneyland in Paris .Not a bad deal for digging your heels in,and hey look at what else we got,or Nah na na na nah.


 
Perhaps if we stuck to the actualities of the situation rather than resorting to analogies then we might be better served ?


----------



## thedaras

Do you mean analogies like this;

"Deiseblue;Quote"One could equally compare Public Sector Union members to a Catholic minority unfairly targeted by a despotic Government."..

Back to your post; the unions are protecting terms and conditions that are no longer sustainable!
This means they win the battle but lose the war.

Waterford crystal comes to mind ,a militant union fighting for workers rights and where are they now? The dole queue..

Greece also comes to mind, when people try to protect all their terms and conditions regardless of how the country is doing, the PS end up in a worse place.


----------



## txirimiri

thedaras said:


> What do you mean ,what planet and century?
> Are you looking for the name of the place I worked in and the year?
> 
> My heart bleeds for anyone having to work 42 to 45 hours a week..and it bleeds even more profusely for those having to water a plant..
> 
> I'm not suggesting that working 42 hours a week or watering your own plants is a terrible hardship. I am responding to the consistent impression you give on this site that civil servants sit around counting the minutes that they work and fomenting revolution if they have to work a second over their contracted time or have a second shaved off their numerous daily tea breaks. That they refuse or are forbidden by their tyrannical union bosses to share workloads, work creatively and do stuff that needs to be done, irrespective if it is above or below their pay grade. That they can only ever work in the one Department from the minute they join til the minute they retire.
> 
> This fantasy civil service is so remote from the one I work in, I therefore asked the ironic question about planet and century.
> 
> By the by, for someone who lauds the fantastic creativity and fast-moving practicality of the private sector over the public, I find the automatic assumption that the number of weekly hours spent in the office is related to efficiency and productivity rather odd.


----------



## Complainer

txirimiri said:


> This fantasy civil service is so remote from the one I work in, I therefore asked the ironic question about planet and century.
> 
> By the by, for someone who lauds the fantastic creativity and fast-moving practicality of the private sector over the public, I find the automatic assumption that the number of weekly hours spent in the office is related to efficiency and productivity rather odd.


Hear, hear.


----------



## thedaras

Point is ,You would not be allowed to water the office plants without having a union rep pull you up over it..Working any hours in any week would be a blessing for those who have lost their jobs.
You have failed to notice that I try not to go off topic therefore when a topic about the PS and their lack of work ethic does come up,I ,of course respond accordingly.
However ,when it comes to a thread discussing how wonderful some of them are, I also join in ,In fact ,I started a thread on that exact topic,once again ,you have obviously failed to notice this,perhaps you could try be a little less selective of the threads you view and you will see evidence of same!

To answer your ironic question, It certainly would appear that its about a different planet and century and there is where the irony is!


----------



## thedaras

Purple said:


> This whole situation is like a group of children whose parents gave them loads of pocket money and promised them a trip to Disney Land next summer. Now one parent has lost their job and the other has taken a pay cut. The parents sit the kids down and explain that as mortgage rates have gone up and their income is down and they are spending 50% more than they earn the trip to Disney is off and pocket money will have to be cut.
> 
> Some of the kids are smart enough to realise that they have to face up to reality and just deal with the way the world is. The rest are lying on the floor kicking their legs in the air screaming “But it’s not fair! I want to go to Disneyland!!
> 
> IMPACT are just the latest child that has been coaxed off the floor, given a hug and, after about 100 attempts, have finally understood that screaming “But it’s not fair!” doesn’t change the reality that yes, life can be very unfair but understanding that is part of becoming a grown-up.
> 
> Poor ickle didums.



Hear, Hear Or should that be Listen ,listen


----------



## annet

*Protestations*

This whole debacle comes down to money, protecting public sector employment, wages and pensions etc. and its less to do with protecting services or their quality.     

As for the IMNO they can add themselves to this equation because if they were really concerned about sector cuts, bed closures, waiting lists and persons waiting on trolley's, and how queue jumping is more to do with ability to pay rather than need and how this all impacts on service delivery, where was all their protestations in the public interest through all the years they received benchmarking and overinflated salaries etc?  Are they saying these problems didnt exist!


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> Do you mean analogies like this;
> 
> "Deiseblue;Quote"One could equally compare Public Sector Union members to a Catholic minority unfairly targeted by a despotic Government."..
> 
> Back to your post; the unions are protecting terms and conditions that are no longer sustainable!
> This means they win the battle but lose the war.
> 
> Waterford crystal comes to mind ,a militant union fighting for workers rights and where are they now? The dole queue..
> 
> Greece also comes to mind, when people try to protect all their terms and conditions regardless of how the country is doing, the PS end up in a worse place.


 
You have taken my quote totally out of context .

That was simply my reply to what I considered to be an extraordinary analogy raised in that particular thread by another poster in an attempt to point out the facile nature of the technique.

Did you have to do much trawling to find that quote ?

In the context of the Waterford Glass it should also be borne in mind that the vast percentage of ex Glass Workers retired on large pensions or indeed on unparralled redundancy packages. 

It is of course very sad that the employers totally underfunded the pension scheme and equally sad that consumer demand , appalling management and currency difficulties caused the demise of the Glass but hopefully the new facility in the Mall will employ many of the recently redundant satff , equally one is hopeful that Unite's action in taking the Government to the EC court will prove beneficial in terms of these worker's pensions.


----------



## thedaras

Certainly the teachers who were on strike during students leaving cert year,who were out on strike for some days,did not make up the missed classes to the students.

Where is the "we care for our students"  in that scenario??


----------



## Complainer

thedaras said:


> Point is ,You would not be allowed to water the office plants without having a union rep pull you up over it.


This is just nonsense. You seem to be living in the 1970's.


annet said:


> This whole debacle comes down to money, protecting public sector employment, wages and pensions etc. and its less to do with protecting services or their quality.
> 
> As for the IMNO they can add themselves to this equation because if they were really concerned about sector cuts, bed closures, waiting lists and persons waiting on trolley's, and how queue jumping is more to do with ability to pay rather than need and how this all impacts on service delivery, where was all their protestations in the public interest through all the years they received benchmarking and overinflated salaries etc?  Are they saying these problems didnt exist!


The INMO have been extremely vocal for many years about the many problems that remain in the health services today. If you didn't hear their protestations, perhaps that is because the mainstream media weren't too interested in these issues or because you didn't really want to listen to union protestations anyway.


----------



## shnaek

I am just wondering where the 6bn in cuts in the next 2 budgets are going to come from? What do ye think? The capital budget will suffer anyway - it always does. But even so, 6bn is a hell of a lot of money. And we are still borrowing 20bn a year just to keep still - right? The sums don't add up to me. There is going to have to be some serious budget wizardry straight out of Harry Potter to get this thing all worked out.


----------



## thedaras

Deiseblue said:


> You have taken my quote totally out of context .
> 
> That was simply my reply to what I considered to be an extraordinary analogy raised in that particular thread by another poster in an attempt to point out the facile nature of the technique.
> 
> Did you have to do much trawling to find that quote ?
> 
> In the context of the Waterford Glass it should also be borne in mind that the vast percentage of ex Glass Workers retired on large pensions or indeed on unparralled redundancy packages.
> 
> It is of course very sad that the employers totally underfunded the pension scheme and equally sad that consumer demand , appalling management and currency difficulties caused the demise of the Glass but hopefully the new facility in the Mall will employ many of the recently redundant satff , equally one is hopeful that Unite's action in taking the Government to the EC court will prove beneficial in terms of these worker's pensions.



Ok, so an analogy by one poster is facile but not when another analogy is used to point out how facile they are..Right ,,,got it..

Unparalleled,I don't think so,have you heard of the redundancy packages to the PS?

You fail to mention that if conditions actually were as you say, the case in Waterford crystal, then most certaintly ,the unions making unreasonable demands would have put the nail in the coffin. 

The older workers ,who perhaps are in a better position to be the most militant,and in a better postion to dig in their heels have not taken into account as they leave with their "unparralled redundancy  packages" ,that although their jobs are gone,there would have been others who could have contuined to work there,if the company had still exsisted that is.

It was the same with SR Technics ,older workers who had morgages paid , children who are finished college,leaving with a good package etc are in a much better position ,and are therefore not as bothered if there is a job left for those coming after them..
To sum up, life is not all about what one person/group can get for themselves, to the detriment of all others..


----------



## thedaras

Today, 02:50 PM
Complainer  
Frequent Poster

Location: South Dublin
Posts: 2,842

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedaras  
Point is ,You would not be allowed to water the office plants without having a union rep pull you up over it.
Complainer;"This is just nonsense. You seem to be living in the 1970's."
Quote

Saying it is nonsense is implying its an untruth? Is this what you are saying?
There are many,many examples of this in the PS. FACT. At the risk of repeating myself ,I was that soldier.
I know of a worker who is employed by the PS,who tried to put curtains around a bed when they had fallen down,he was told ,by the union rep ,that he was not to do this as it was not his job! There was an old woman in the bed...You can say as many times as you like that it is nonsense,I know for a fact that this was/has/is happened/ing


----------



## thedaras

Just for the purpose of clarification;
When I wrote; You would not be allowed to water the office plants without having a union rep pull you up over it,....I didn't mean that literally.

I didn't mean they would literally haul you over the plant!

I meant,pull you up over it in terms of ,taking you aside and mentioning that you should not be doing this as it was not your job.

As some posters seem to think things like this do not happen,I felt perhaps they were thinking of the wrong meaning..


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> Ok, so an analogy by one poster is facile but not when another analogy is used to point out how facile they are..Right ,,,got it..
> 
> Unparalleled,I don't think so,have you heard of the redundancy packages to the PS?
> 
> You fail to mention that if conditions actually were as you say, the case in Waterford crystal, then most certaintly ,the unions making unreasonable demands would have put the nail in the coffin.
> 
> The older workers ,who perhaps are in a better position to be the most militant,and in a better postion to dig in their heels have not taken into account as they leave with their "unparralled redundancy packages" ,that although their jobs are gone,there would have been others who could have contuined to work there,if the company had still exsisted that is.
> 
> It was the same with SR Technics ,older workers who had morgages paid , children who are finished college,leaving with a good package etc are in a much better position ,and are therefore not as bothered if there is a job left for those coming after them..
> To sum up, life is not all about what one person/group can get for themselves, to the detriment of all others..


 
 I knew that any reasonable person would be able to see my point about pointless analogies 

Could you post the details regarding the redundancy packages available to the Public Sector , I am not aware of such packages !

Again I can only reiterate that Waterford Glass as constituted under the previous appalling management never had a chance of succeeding , the fact that the remaining workers lost their pension is nothing to do with the Unions , hopefully the Union's court case will go some way towards redressing the position.

It is a consolation that vast members of the workforce retired with large pensions and as I said unparralled redundancy packages.


----------



## DonDub

shnaek said:


> I am just wondering where the 6bn in cuts in the next 2 budgets are going to come from? What do ye think? The capital budget will suffer anyway - it always does. But even so, 6bn is a hell of a lot of money. And we are still borrowing 20bn a year just to keep still - right? The sums don't add up to me. There is going to have to be some serious budget wizardry straight out of Harry Potter to get this thing all worked out.



Interesting question. Our cop-out government has made sure that the single largest item of expenditure in the state (PS pay) will not be tapped again. Their 'savings through efficiencies' trade-off will go the way of all previous attempts at PS reform - precisely nowhere. The unions who have signed up to this clause will now bend their considerable energies to ensuring that nothing changes.
Many of the PS unions and their members must (secretly) see this deal as an unbelievable victory given the current economic climate - essentially, they have ensured that the private sector will continue to carry the cost of an absolutely unsustainable PS. Whilst many PS employees will for now, continue to enjoy guaranteed tenure, luxury pensions and high earnings - it is abundantly clear that their victory in this battle is almost certainly a Pyrrhic one. As the government has now few options left to cut spending and increase revenue - it will increase direct/indirect taxes and slash capital expenditure. This of course will further weaken the economy - and will very likely trigger economic collapse. What then for the PS? Almost certainly, it will undergo a rapid, bloody, and very painful down-sizing, in numbers and earnings, at the behest of the IMF.
Fantasy? Look at Greece - committed (at IMF insistence) to €30 billion in spending cuts, and even this staggering amount is unlikely to be enough to turn their economy around. So, to all the PS unions and their apologist, I say, well done, you, the bankers, the developers and our weak-kneed government have truly knackered this country - and thats no mean achievement...


----------



## Purple

Well said DonDub


----------



## thedaras

Deiseblue said:


> I knew that any reasonable person would be able to see my point about pointless analogies
> 
> Could you post the details regarding the redundancy packages available to the Public Sector , I am not aware of such packages !
> 
> Again I can only reiterate that Waterford Glass as constituted under the previous appalling management never had a chance of succeeding , the fact that the remaining workers lost their pension is nothing to do with the Unions , hopefully the Union's court case will go some way towards redressing the position.
> 
> It is a consolation that vast members of the workforce retired with large pensions and as I said unparralled redundancy packages.



The availability of DBPS early retirement with pension,is virtually unknown  in the private sector,average  private sector worker couldn't afford nor access early retirement with pension on this scale.
The norm in the PS is an absolute rarity in the private sector,the vast majority of payouts in the private sector,are cash only with many paying only statutory.

Read below for unparalleled!

As requested,
Extract from ;*Report of the Special Group on Public
Service Numbers and Expenditure
Programmes
*
Public servants are generally entitled to retire on a full Defined Benefit pension (calculated at half of the average annual salary over the final three years of service), after 40 years’ service, together with a lump sum of up to one-and-a-half times the final salary. Employees may retire after reaching the age of 60 (the compulsory retirement age is 65), with pro rata reductions for those with fewer than 40 years’ service, although those retiring between the ages of 50 and 60 incur an ‘actuarial reduction’ to reflect the longer retirement period. *](The key benefit of the recently-introduced Incentivised Scheme for Early Retirement is that it eliminates the actuarial reduction for this age group.)* After retirement, it has been the practice to index pension rates in line with earnings, which carries a very high actuarial cost and is not generally available in the private sector.
In addition to the basic public service pension system, the Group notes the existence of a range of accelerated / ‘added years’ arrangements across  various areas of the public service. These accelerated arrangements are more costly to the Exchequer, and their existence and budgetary implications do not appear to be widely known or appreciated by the general public. For example, Gardaí are free to retire on full pension at the age of 50 (an effective 10 years’ added service on the assumption of an entry age of 20); some engineers, who might enter the public service at the age of
35, would accrue full pension entitlements at age 65 (again an effective 10 added years); teachers with 35 years service are eligible to retire from age 55 on; some hospital consultants may be entitled to up to 10 added years of service; and a High Court judge, who might typically be appointed to the bench at 50 years of age, is entitled to full pension at age 65 (an effective 25 added years). Accelerated accrual terms also apply in certain top-level public sector posts although it must be said similar pension arrangements at these  levels can apply in the private sector.
Given the above arrangements, the Group observes that the annual cost of purchasing similar pension arrangements (including the earnings-linking of pension benefits) in the private sector would be very high indeed: ranging from around 27% of annual salary in the case of a typical civil servant employed prior to 2004 to 31% for a teacher entitled to retire at age 55; 33% for a hospital consultant; 48% in the case of a Garda member; and as high as 87% of annual salary in the case of a High Court judge. The cost of providing similar benefits in a Defined Contribution arrangement, which is more generally applicable in the private sector, would be significantly higher in all cases."end extract.


----------



## Deiseblue

We were debating the relative merits of the Waterford Glass redundancy package with similar packages you said were available in the PS.

What you have detailed is the incentivised early retirement package , a horse of a very different colour !


----------



## thedaras

Those who read my post,can draw their own conclusions..


----------



## Pique318

Slightly off track, but something that has always bothered me, is how all 'Front-line' staff (nurses, teachers etc.) can cry about paycuts affecting the quality of patient care or whatever, yet when the chequebook comes out, these problems are no more.

So, higher pay equals better care. Or conversely, cut my pay and the patients get less care ? This from a caring profession ? Hhmmm. Everybody's got their price, huh ?

Anyway, carry on you lot.


----------



## Purple

To ad to Pique's post, why is it that only "front line" staff deserve to be well paid and how come none of them are ever lazy or selfish?


----------



## Complainer

Pique318 said:


> , yet when the chequebook comes out, these problems are no more.


Whoever said that the 'problems are no more'?


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Whoever said that the 'problems are no more'?



 That's true, nurses went on strike to get a bigger slice of the health budget and within a few weeks of getting it they were picketing A&E departments protesting about lack of resources. Nothing highlighted their hypocrisy more.


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> Those who read my post,can draw their own conclusions..


Absolutely.

However you specifically referenced PS redunancy packages in your post and then posted detailed info on the incentivised retirement scheme.

There is a world of difference as redundancy packages are open to all whereas the early retirement scheme targets a specific age profile.

I do agree that the incentivised early retirement scheme is a good one as it suits both employer and employee indeed I myself availed of such a scheme in the Private Sector


----------



## Mouldy

DonDub said:


> So, to all the PS unions and their apologist, I say, well done, you, the bankers, the developers and our weak-kneed government have truly knackered this country - and thats no mean achievement...


 
Just to be clear on this, over the last 18 months the PS has had a hiring freeze, let go all of its temporary staff, reduced pay by an average of 5%, cancelled agreed pay rises and upped the employee pension contributions by 7%. The range of measure agreed in the CP deal, if put through, will further improve the PS efficiency and reduce costs. 

It is also not true to state that past reforms of the PS have come to nothing, although I agree that they have not all being implemented. I invited posters here to start a thread on previous reforms and I’d attempt to verify which ones had been left undone providing the need was still relevant. No takers from that one but then again the type of people who make idiotic allegations wouldn’t do any basic research when they can just read the Sunday Independent or listen dot the Newstalks Breakfast show to get their anti-PS invective delivered straight to their noggin.

The PS and their Unions no more knackered this country than the Private sector and their unions.

In voting for the CP deal I’ll be accepting further reform and drawing a line under pay disputes, but don’t think for one minute that there won’t be more pay cuts and or voluntary redundancies from the PS. The Public Sector pay bill is the well to draw from if tax increases are not enough by themselves. 

It’s a shame that 2 years after the global credit crisis began, the Public Service worker is still being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy. And its worse still when people who should know better pop up like a nodding dog to add their support to such nonsense.

M


----------



## thedaras

Where do you hear /read that the PS is being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy?

I have to say, I have never seen a post or read anywhere that the PS were to blame for bringing down the Irish economy..We are not stupid,,most of the posters ,perhaps all the posters,here are very well aware of what brought the Irish economy down! 
However that is a different discussion which I'm more than happy to get involved in ,should you decide to start a thread about it.

Private sector  still carry the cost of PS pensions.

PS pay is the single biggest outlay for the exchequer.

The general view is that it is too expensive.And we can no longer afford it.


----------



## Deiseblue

It may certainly be your view that PS outlay is too expensive and that we can no longer afford it.

It certainly is not the Government's view as they seem happy to apply a wage freeze for 4 years and take the question of pension reform off the table for the same period.

Indeed there is also the carrot of reversing wage cuts via efficiencies.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> It may certainly be your view that PS outlay is too expensive.
> 
> It certainly is not the Government's view as they seem happy to apply a wage freeze for 4 years and take the question of pension reform off the table for the same period.
> 
> Indeed there is also the carrot of reversing wage cuts via efficiencies.



I think it’s more a case that it’s the government accept that while it is too expensive they can’t do anything more about it.


----------



## Staples

Mouldy said:


> Just to be clear on this, over the last 18 months the PS has had a hiring freeze, let go all of its temporary staff, reduced pay by an average of 5%, cancelled agreed pay rises and upped the employee pension contributions by 7%. The range of measure agreed in the CP deal, if put through, will further improve the PS efficiency and reduce costs.
> 
> It is also not true to state that past reforms of the PS have come to nothing, although I agree that they have not all being implemented. I invited posters here to start a thread on previous reforms and I’d attempt to verify which ones had been left undone providing the need was still relevant. No takers from that one but then again the type of people who make idiotic allegations wouldn’t do any basic research when they can just read the Sunday Independent or listen dot the Newstalks Breakfast show to get their anti-PS invective delivered straight to their noggin.
> 
> The PS and their Unions no more knackered this country than the Private sector and their unions.
> 
> In voting for the CP deal I’ll be accepting further reform and drawing a line under pay disputes, but don’t think for one minute that there won’t be more pay cuts and or voluntary redundancies from the PS. The Public Sector pay bill is the well to draw from if tax increases are not enough by themselves.
> 
> It’s a shame that 2 years after the global credit crisis began, the Public Service worker is still being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy. And its worse still when people who should know better pop up like a nodding dog to add their support to such nonsense.
> 
> M


 
At last, some badly needed perspective.

By the way, net pay is down in the Public Sector is down 20% relative to 18 months ago.  For those advocating further cuts, how much is enough?   

Realistically, my employer can't afford to pay me at all.  Should I be happy to work for food vouchers?


----------



## Firefly

Staples said:


> At last, some badly needed perspective.
> 
> By the way, net pay is down in the Public Sector is down 20% relative to 18 months ago. For those advocating further cuts, how much is enough?
> 
> *Realistically, my employer can't afford to pay me at all*. Should I be happy to work for food vouchers?


 
At last, some badly needed acknowledgement.


----------



## thedaras

You said it, " Realistically,my employer cant afford to pay me at all".

If that were the situation in the private sector,you would be on the dole.


----------



## Mpsox

Mouldy said:


> Just to be clear on this, over the last 18 months the PS has had a hiring freeze, let go all of its temporary staff, reduced pay by an average of 5%, cancelled agreed pay rises and upped the employee pension contributions by 7%. The range of measure agreed in the CP deal, if put through, will further improve the PS efficiency and reduce costs.
> 
> It is also not true to state that past reforms of the PS have come to nothing, although I agree that they have not all being implemented. I invited posters here to start a thread on previous reforms and I’d attempt to verify which ones had been left undone providing the need was still relevant. No takers from that one but then again the type of people who make idiotic allegations wouldn’t do any basic research when they can just read the Sunday Independent or listen dot the Newstalks Breakfast show to get their anti-PS invective delivered straight to their noggin.
> 
> The PS and their Unions no more knackered this country than the Private sector and their unions.
> 
> In voting for the CP deal I’ll be accepting further reform and drawing a line under pay disputes, but don’t think for one minute that there won’t be more pay cuts and or voluntary redundancies from the PS. The Public Sector pay bill is the well to draw from if tax increases are not enough by themselves.
> 
> It’s a shame that 2 years after the global credit crisis began, the Public Service worker is still being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy. And its worse still when people who should know better pop up like a nodding dog to add their support to such nonsense.
> 
> M


 
There is some good comments in this post until you get to the last point. The Public Sector is not being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy, the Irish economy just doesn't have the money to keep paying you at the rates we were. It's as simple as that. 

I'm in the private sector and myself and everyone of my remaining colleagues have taken paycuts because our employer couldn't afford the wagebill. They weren't blaming us for revenue being down, they just couldn't afford the bill, hence why we've reduced headcount by 25% in 20 months and taken cuts of 5%-15% as well


----------



## Staples

Mpsox said:


> they just couldn't afford the bill, hence why we've reduced headcount by 25% in 20 months and taken cuts of 5%-15% as well


 
So what further deductions in pay would you be prepared to endure?


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> You said it, " Realistically,my employer cant afford to pay me at all".
> 
> If that were the situation in the private sector,you would be on the dole.


 
Except of course if you work in either of our two major Banks , both of whom paid the first tranche of the national Wage Agreement towards 2016 .

One sector that we can all agree played a major part in our economic downfall , surely ?


----------



## Purple

Staples said:


> By the way, net pay is down in the Public Sector is down 20% relative to 18 months ago.  For those advocating further cuts, how much is enough?


 What do you mean by "net pay"? The phrase is usually used to mean after tax pay. If that was the case then gross pay must be down by around 30%. Is this the case?


----------



## Firefly

Mpsox said:


> The Public Sector is not being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy, the Irish economy just doesn't have the money to keep paying you at the rates we were. It's as simple as that.


 
+1 .. that's it in a nutshell


----------



## ashambles

> What do you mean by "net pay"? The phrase is usually used to mean  after tax pay. If that was the case then gross pay must be down by  around 30%. Is this the case?


If anyone is seeing this reduction I'd recommend having a close look at their payslip - mistakes aren't unknown by payroll depts.

But perhaps it's the simple mistake I've heard some public servants make where they think a avg 5% paycut + avg 7%pension + 6%tax adds up to a rounded net 20%. Usually to complete the B_é_al bocht they throw in some hoped for payrises to round it up to 25%.

Using TaxCalc.eu I see that since 2008 there's an 11.3% reduction in net pay for a public servant earning 50k. The reduction for a private sector worker is 4.7% so there's a 6.6% difference in net terms. (We'll assume that the private sector worker makes no pension contribution and wasn't laid off or had a pay cut.)

Worse off would be a public sector worker on 30k with a 13.2% reduction whereas a private sector worker would have seen a 4.5% cut. However overall I believe both the median and average incomes were around the 45-55k level.

On an individual basis the difference would be less again if a public sector worker received a pay increment in 2009 and 2010 - as 10's of thousands no doubt will.


----------



## thedaras

Deiseblue said:


> Except of course if you work in either of our two major Banks , both of whom paid the first tranche of the national Wage Agreement towards 2016 .
> 
> One sector that we can all agree played a major part in our economic downfall , surely ?



Absolutely..

I understand the ESB also got a pay rise ..


----------



## Mpsox

Staples said:


> So what further deductions in pay would you be prepared to endure?


 
Honestly don't know, I know what I could afford to take without it affecting my standard of living, mainly because aside from a mortgage, I don't have any other personal debt. My concern would be that long term savings plans for education/pension etc would suffer. However, if it was 10% or so, I'd endure it because I'd have to. It's still more then the dole

In real terms, the cuts were probably more severe because variable pay (eg bonus/commission etc) were also cut


----------



## Staples

Mpsox said:


> Honestly don't know, I know what I could afford to take without it affecting my standard of living


 
Well what if you were forced with a pay cut that DID affect your standard of living or even your ability to cover the basics. That's the situation a lot of public servants are already in not withstanding the possibility of further cuts. I know of some colleagues who qualify for Family Income Support by dint of their low income. These are among the people that many here would like to see their pay cut further.



Purple said:


> What do you mean by "net pay"? The phrase is usually used to mean after tax pay. If that was the case then gross pay must be down by around 30%. Is this the case?


 
The 20% net reduction in pay is the consequence of the pension levy, salary "adjustment" and various tax increases. The bottom line figures on my salary slip don't lie.



thedaras said:


> You said it, " Realistically,my employer cant afford to pay me at all".
> 
> If that were the situation in the private sector,you would be on the dole.


 

Yes but it's not the private sector.  If I and others like me were on the dole, you, and others like you, could expect to have your public services provided on a voluntary basis. 

Then you'd have something to complain about.


----------



## Firefly

Staples said:


> Well what if you were forced with a pay cut that DID affect your standard of living or even your ability to cover the basics. That's the situation a lot of public servants are already in not withstanding the possibility of further cuts. I know of some colleagues who qualify for Family Income Support by dint of their low income. These are among the people that many here would like to see their pay cut further.


 
I'd probably look for another job.


----------



## Mpsox

Staples said:


> Well what if you were forced with a pay cut that DID affect your standard of living or even your ability to cover the basics. That's the situation a lot of public servants are already in not withstanding the possibility of further cuts. I know of some colleagues who qualify for Family Income Support by dint of their low income. These are among the people that many here would like to see their pay cut further.
> .


 
I've got staff in the same position. No one wants to take a pay cut and no one wants others to take pay cuts, it's just that we don't have the money

I, or anyone who works in my company, doesn't have increments either, so the effect on our take home pay is likely to be more longer term then public sector employees who have got increments


----------



## shnaek

So the lesson that the Irish government want us to pass on to our children is - 
get a job in the Public Sector,
get a job in the bank,
get a job in the ESB


----------



## Purple

Staples said:


> The 20% net reduction in pay is the consequence of the pension levy, salary "adjustment" and various tax increases. The bottom line figures on my salary slip don't lie.



So your take home pay is down 20%. That's a big drop but it's not all because of pay cuts. The PS pension levy is, in my opinion, a pay cut by another name. I don't see how you can count tax increases as a pay cut though.


----------



## Firefly

shnaek said:


> So the lesson that the Irish government want us to pass on to our children is -
> get a job in the Public Sector,
> get a job in the bank,
> get a job in the ESB


 
You could do worse


----------



## Towger

shnaek said:


> So the lesson that the Irish government want us to pass on to our children is -
> get a job in the Public Sector,
> get a job in the bank,
> get a job in the ESB


 
If that not the advice they have been giving for the last 70 years?


----------



## Staples

Purple said:


> I don't see how you can count tax increases as a pay cut though.


 
I don't.  I said my net pay was down 20%.  Pay cuts, pension levies, income levies, tax hikes.  Regardless of what they're called, they all eat away at the bottom line.  Cumulative effect, 20%.


----------



## thedaras

Staples;1038664;Yes but it's not the private sector.  If I and others like me were on the dole said:
			
		

> And wouldn't you?  Complain that is..when you are paying so much for a service to be provided....
> 
> If I and others like me, were on the dole,you could expect to have your private services provided on a voluntary basis..
> 
> Then you would have something to complain about,,but waitaminute...bit of a difference here, you can choose not to use the service or go to another service provider ,one who is competitive by cutting costs etc...


----------



## ashambles

> I don't.  I said my net pay was down 20%.  Pay cuts, pension levies,  income levies, tax hikes.  Regardless of what they're called, they all  eat away at the bottom line.  Cumulative effect, 20%


I suspect you haven't used taxcalc.eu to support your view that you're down 20%, in reality only massive salaries saw this sort of net decrease. Average salaries are down as I mentioned above by about 11-12% which is about 6-7% worse than people unaffected by non tax related cuts.

Looking at your payslip is useful, but you actually need to put it alongside the 2008 equivalent to see what effect tax relief has on the bottom line.

I've seen a few public service pay slips and noticed they show the pension levy clearly whereas the tax relief is correctly done but hidden away in the tax paid figures. As a result people thought they were relatively worse off than they were.

The payslip makes it seem worse than it is, my advice again go to taxcalc.eu and see the real decrease. What it feels like, what it looks like, and what it actually is are different things. 

Exaggerating the severity of the cuts only lessens sympathy for what was genuinely a substantial pay cut.


----------



## Complainer

thedaras said:


> If that were the situation in the private sector,you would be on the dole.





Mpsox said:


> I've got staff in the same position. No one wants to take a pay cut and no one wants others to take pay cuts, it's just that we don't have the money


The big difference between public and private sector is that in the private sector, reduced revenue is generally a sign of reduced demand. In the public sector, there is no such link, and indeed in some cases, less revenue means higher demand for services.

The services still need to be provided.


----------



## Howitzer

Complainer said:


> The big difference between public and private sector is that in the private sector, reduced revenue is generally a sign of reduced demand. In the public sector, there is no such link, and indeed in some cases, less revenue means higher demand for services.
> 
> The services still need to be provided.


Funny though, that a number of years ago when the economy was going full tilt, and there was very little demand for some services, that expenditure in those areas still increased. 

FAS is an obvious example. Oh God what an example. The Social Welfare system, and it's administration was never rationalised and/or modernised.

A number of the semi-states that my company did work are only now implementing the moderisation they could and should have been implementing during the boom.

More an observation to your observation than anything else. I guess that's just the way life works?


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> The big difference between public and private sector is that in the private sector, reduced revenue is generally a sign of reduced demand.



Or increased competition; the market working so that supply equals demand. This drives down costs, providing better value to the customer. 

It can also be that while demand stays the same consumers of the product or service may have less money to pay for it. This means that they become more price sensitive and seek lower prices, as has happened with supermarkets. Now that I think of it the same is happening in the public sector; there’s not as much money around to pay for the services so the service providers have to find a way of providing them for less money. Perfect. Thanks.


----------



## Deiseblue

shnaek said:


> So the lesson that the Irish government want us to pass on to our children is -
> get a job in the Public Sector,
> get a job in the bank,
> get a job in the ESB



Hardly.

The glaring difference being that the PS suffered substantial pay cuts whereas the Banks and the ESB paid the first tranche of the National Wage Agreement.

Anybody with a modicum of sense would take up employment in the Banks as despite playing a major part in the destruction of our economy they will always be bailed out by the Government and the taxpayer !


----------



## Mpsox

Complainer said:


> The big difference between public and private sector is that in the private sector, reduced revenue is generally a sign of reduced demand. In the public sector, there is no such link, and indeed in some cases, less revenue means higher demand for services.
> 
> The services still need to be provided.


 
In the private sector, reduced revenue can also be a case of customers wanting better deals and demanding price cuts, as opposed to reduced demand.

You're correct in that in some areas in the public sector less revenue may mean more demand for services (eg social welfare) but there are plenty of areas in the public sector where demand has fallen from peak times, eg new car registration, planning offices. Some of the non-specialised staff in those areas perhaps could have been redeployed. Regardless, increased demand is an arguement for better resourcing, it's not in itself an arguement to maintain salaries


----------



## thedaras

Would it be that easy though to get the staff whose services are not as in demand to move to another department?


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> The services still need to be provided.


 
+1 

but....from a previous poster

"....the Irish economy just doesn't have the money to keep paying you at the rates we were. It's as simple as that."


----------



## cork

Some public servants are living in the land of make believe. They think everybody else got the benefit of the celtic tiger. They think they are hard done by.

That said - I think that they will vote for the Croke Park deal.

Eamon Gilmore can't even express an openion on the Croke Park deal for fear of ofending his union comrades.


----------



## Purple

cork said:


> Some public servants are living in the land of make believe. They think everybody else got the benefit of the celtic tiger. They think they are hard done by.


Yes, some of them do but most of them, if they think about it, realise that this is not the case and while some sectors did very well indeed on average the public sector did better than the private sector. 
On the other hand some people in the private sector think that all public sector employees work very short hours, have a fantastic pension and enjoy very long holidays. They are equally wrong; some of the PS enjoy such pay and conditions but most don't.

If the Croke Park deal is accepted then I don't think any reasonable person could say that the Public Sector, as a group, have not done their part and taken at least their share of the pain. I’m sure PS employees will continue to moan and complain and rightly so; they have a lot to moan and complain about.


----------



## Deiseblue

Unfortunately for the public I think the justified moaning you speak of is going to have a rather drastic effect on public services.
I have talked to teachers,guards and nurses who have told me that morale is at an all time low and that they intend to do their job but have no intention of going the further mile as they have gladly done in the past.


----------



## ashambles

> ... have no intention of going the further mile as they have gladly done  in the past.


Well I suppose we'll just have to get used to our public services not giving it 110% (120%?), I'm not sure how we can prepare ourselves for such a bewildering event. Counselling perhaps?


----------



## Deiseblue

ashambles said:


> Well I suppose we'll just have to get used to our public services not giving it 110% (120%?), I'm not sure how we can prepare ourselves for such a bewildering event. Counselling perhaps?



Let me give an examplle to clarify my comments.

Two teachers who work in the same school are friends of mine , post work they coach and manage the school soccer team who play in inter schools tournaments , they also do the same for a school based under age team who compete in the local junior league playing on Saturdays and training on Wednesdays.

They have now decided that they have better things to be doing with their free time and have told the parents that if the teams are to continue then volunteers to pick up the slack will have to be found.

This has caused absolute uproar !

Tough on the kids I know but that is the level of anger out there.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Let me give an examplle to clarify my comments.
> 
> Two teachers who work in the same school are friends of mine , post work they coach and manage the school soccer team who play in inter schools tournaments , they also do the same for a school based under age team who compete in the local junior league playing on Saturdays and training on Wednesdays.
> 
> They have now decided that they have better things to be doing with their free time and have told the parents that if the teams are to continue then volunteers to pick up the slack will have to be found.
> 
> This has caused absolute uproar !
> 
> Tough on the kids I know but that is the level of anger out there.



I really don't understand why a teacher would do that. I know many GAA coaches are teachers and as far as I know they are not giving that up.


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> I really don't understand why a teacher would do that. I know many GAA coaches are teachers and as far as I know they are not giving that up.



In fairness to the two teachers involved they have done it for over 20 years and are just so disillusioned at the moment that their hearts just are not in it and feel that it's now up to the parents to lend a hand.

I also play 5 a side with a number of teachers who tell me that they are considering either doing the same or cutting down the number of hours they contribute , this crosses both codes - GAA and soccer.


----------



## Caveat

Deiseblue said:


> They have now decided that they have better things to be doing with their free time...


 
Ah so it's just bitterness then? "We'll show them" stuff?


----------



## thedaras

Deiseblue said:


> In fairness to the two teachers involved they have done it for over 20 years and are just so disillusioned at the moment that their hearts just are not in it and feel that it's now up to the parents to lend a hand.
> 
> I also play 5 a side with a number of teachers who tell me that they are considering either doing the same or cutting down the number of hours they contribute , this crosses both codes - GAA and soccer.



The logical conclusion of what you say about the two teachers involved is that they were not doing it for the love of their students in the first place,which in fairness thats what most of them claim,but rather were doing it because they were being well paid,now that they feel they are not as well paid they couldn't be bothered.nice..

The same goes for the teachers who went on strike during the year, especially those teachers who had stressed leaving cert students,due to missing school on these days, the teachers didn't bother to make up that time to their much cared for students!!

You say it caused absoloute uproar? By who? usually we hear these types of things(absolute uproar) on Joe Duffy,I havnt heard any parents either on the radio /tv or in fact any media complaining of teachers giving up their voluntary work..

Either way,this can easily be solved, by parents doing this instead,many of the parents will now be unemployed and very happy to do this..

Most areas have a locall Gaa club anyway ,the same goes for soccer/rugby clubs and its the parents who run those teams,maybe the children of the teachers you speak of ,could have children in one of those voluntary run clubs.
My husband runs a local team ,on a voluntary basis,and funnily enough there are kids there whose parents are teachers..
Would the teachers be as quick to remove their kids from all clubs/teams that are run on a voluntary basis?

Maybe we should all give up doing voluntary work,,due to the fact that we are disillusioned,but I would think most people would not abandon the kids and would continue to do this..

The school my kids attend do have lots of after school activity's,but all are paid for by the parents.
I have four children, aged from early 20s to ten,that is a lot of school years experience, never not once have I had the children in any activity's  run by the teachers  that didn't involve me paying for it..I could count on one hand the amount of time any of the teachers spent any extra time with any of the kids for free..

Historically Gaa etc are run on a voluntary basis..And usually those who volunteer to get involved do so because they have a passion for it.

MY sister is a teacher, she has such a great life, guaranteed job/pension,works from 8.55 until 2.30 has so much time off during the year,plus she has all of July and August off.She has a house in France that she swans off to for the summer,gives grinds which is a nice extra income,these are things that most of us cannot do..

To sum up,there may well be some students who avail of the schools GAA and soccer facilities but I for one cant recall a time when it was the students looking to form this type of club ,but rather it was the teacher who came looking for students to get involved..
If your two friends are no longer interested,I would say they should stop doing it as this is not good for our precious children.


----------



## Deiseblue

Absolutely.

A combination of anger , disillusionment and bitterness.

Allied perhaps to a sense that the thousands of voluntary hours they have contributed have gone unrecognised in the rush to portray them as pariahs who do the bare minimuml to earn their wages.
Thedaras

The two men in question are in their fifties and have been in charge of the two teams I alluded to for over twenty years , both teams were in existence prior to their employment - does it really matter on what basis the school teaam started as long as it's an outlet for the kids ?

I can quite understand why they have given it up , their pay has been unilaterally cut , their voluntary contributions are unappreciated/unrecognised and yes they are angry , time to do those little jobs around the house and perhaps to get out for a few pints with the missus on a wednesday night ! - as you say time for the parents to give a hand.

You're right , your sister has a great job - swanning of to France ( the cheek of her ) , I'm nearly as envious of her as you obviously are !


----------



## Staples

ashambles said:


> I suspect you haven't used taxcalc.eu to support your view that you're down 20%,.


 
Curiously, you're right. I've made the obvious mistake of comparing current payslips against the old ones, taking account of any other relevant factors that may have affected the bottom line. I've been doing this for years, now.  Silly me.



ashambles said:


> Exaggerating the severity of the cuts only lessens sympathy for what was genuinely a substantial pay cut.


 
I'm neither exaggerating nor looking for sympathy. (This wouldn't exactly be the forum for the latter.) I'm simply trying to articulate the level of "pain" already endured by me and others like me in the (seemingly forlorn) hope that it might encourage an informed debate.


----------



## Purple

+1 on thedaras post; my kids do plenty of after school activities run by teachers. All of them charge a considerable amount for doing so.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> A combination of anger , disillusionment and bitterness.


I've done plenty of voluntary work over the years, maybe not thousands but certainly over a 1000. As it is voluntary and not directly related to my job I don't seek to get some sort of indirect payment for it... otherwise it wouldn't really be voluntary, would it?



Deiseblue said:


> Allied perhaps to a sense that the thousands of voluntary hours they have contributed have gone unrecognised in the rush to portray them as pariahs who do little or nothing to earn their wages.


 We have the best paid teachers in the OECD. Only Greece has a shorter school year. It can be a stressful job but the very long holidays, short hours, good pension, paid sick leave, career breaks and (still) very high pay should at least make up for that.


----------



## Staples

Firefly said:


> "....the Irish economy just doesn't have the money to keep paying you at the rates we were. It's as simple as that."


 

But it's not as simple as that.  The Government doesn't have the money to meet all its current public expenditure committments, of which pay is just one (albeit a sizeable one).  Welfare makes up another huge proportion with programme expenditure (principally health) accounting for the rest.

If it's a good idea, therefore,  to slash people's pay simply because you don't have the money, one could argue that it's an equally good idea to slash social welfare payments and withdraw whay might otherwise be regarded as essential public services.  Equally, one could argue that we should let the banks fail "because we haven't got the money to save them.  It's as simple as that".

I would agree that in an era of tight resources, tough choices have to be made but there comes a point at which it becomes unreasonable to further tap into any single area of expenditure.  I would contend that we've well reached that point.

Perhaps the money that can somehow be "found" to support failed entities like Anglo and Nationwide should be put to better use with a consequential relief of more normal aspects of public expenditure.


----------



## thedaras

Deiseblue said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> A combination of anger , disillusionment and bitterness.
> 
> Allied perhaps to a sense that the thousands of voluntary hours they have contributed have gone unrecognised in the rush to portray them as pariahs who do the bare minimuml to earn their wages.
> Thedaras
> 
> The two men in question are in their fifties and have been in charge of the two teams I alluded to for over twenty years , both teams were in existence prior to their employment - does it really matter on what basis the school teaam started as long as it's an outlet for the kids ?
> 
> I can quite understand why they have given it up , their pay has been unilaterally cut , their voluntary contributions are unappreciated/unrecognised and yes they are angry , time to do those little jobs around the house and perhaps to get out for a few pints with the missus on a wednesday night ! - as you say time for the parents to give a hand.
> 
> You're right , your sister has a great job - swanning of to France ( the cheek of her ) , I'm nearly as envious of her as you obviously are !



Like I said they were obviously happy with their pay and conditions for the last 20 years then..thanks for clarifying that..
The point about my sister is that she can do all this,go to France for the whole summer, afford a second house and the upkeep of same all on a teachers wage..
Oh and she on her teachers hours also has more spare time than anyone else in the family to do little jobs around the house,that should be houses as she has two..


----------



## ashambles

> taking account of any other relevant factors that may have  affected the bottom line. I've been doing this for years, now.  Silly  me.


Surely the only "relevant factors" in claiming there's been a 20% net decrease in pay due to government intervention, are tax, levies and pay cuts. In some cases hours and overtime could be down but you weren't claiming that. 

Forget about your payslips which we clearly can't and don't want to see. You may as well tell us you've a secret document which proves the earth is flat. 

However the paycuts and levies are well known so if you give us a salary level that would be down by about 20% net over 18 months then we can see if particular pay grades have somehow been hit much harder than the average ones. If it's just the lads on 200k then to be honest that's fine.


----------



## shnaek

You either take pride in your work, or you don't. It's as simple as that. This is something we need to foster in our citizenry, along with a sense of responsibility, if we ever want to have a mature society.


----------



## shnaek

Staples said:


> But it's not as simple as that.  The Government doesn't have the money to meet all its current public expenditure committments, of which pay is just one (albeit a sizeable one).  Welfare makes up another huge proportion with programme expenditure (principally health) accounting for the rest.
> 
> If it's a good idea, therefore,  to slash people's pay simply because you don't have the money, one could argue that it's an equally good idea to slash social welfare payments and withdraw whay might otherwise be regarded as essential public services.  Equally, one could argue that we should let the banks fail "because we haven't got the money to save them.  It's as simple as that".
> 
> I would agree that in an era of tight resources, tough choices have to be made but there comes a point at which it becomes unreasonable to further tap into any single area of expenditure.  I would contend that we've well reached that point.
> 
> Perhaps the money that can somehow be "found" to support failed entities like Anglo and Nationwide should be put to better use with a consequential relief of more normal aspects of public expenditure.



All of those points are true. Social welfare should be cut, because we can't afford these rates. And some services (non essential ones - if agreement can ever be reached on serivces which aren't essential) should also be cut. 

Nobody is happy about paying for the banks. 

And yet - even if the bank bailout costs us 30bn - we are borrowing 20bn EVERY YEAR to pay for the running of the country. 

Scary.


----------



## UptheDeise

shnaek said:


> All of those points are true. Social welfare should be cut, because we can't afford these rates. And some services (non essential ones - if agreement can ever be reached on serivces which aren't essential) should also be cut.
> 
> Nobody is happy about paying for the banks.
> 
> And yet - even if the bank bailout costs us 30bn - we are borrowing 20bn EVERY YEAR to pay for the running of the country.
> 
> Scary.


 
Will we have to borrow €4 billion this year alone just to pay back the interest on previous borrowings?


----------



## Sunny

UptheDeise said:


> Will we have to borrow €4 billion this year alone just to pay back the interest on previous borrowings?


 
Whats your point? Thats the problem with debt. The repayments consumes money that would be better spent on delivering public services. We still have to pay it though.


----------



## Staples

ashambles said:


> Surely the only "relevant factors" in claiming there's been a 20% net decrease in pay due to government intervention, are tax, levies and pay cuts. In some cases hours and overtime could be down but you weren't claiming that.
> 
> Forget about your payslips which we clearly can't and don't want to see. You may as well tell us you've a secret document which proves the earth is flat.
> 
> However the paycuts and levies are well known so if you give us a salary level that would be down by about 20% net over 18 months then we can see if particular pay grades have somehow been hit much harder than the average ones. If it's just the lads on 200k then to be honest that's fine.


 
I don't feel the need to prove my point beyond all doubt. 

What I'm referring to is the differnce between my net pay in early/mid 2008 and my net pay now. Taking account of deuctions for other purposes (VHI, etc), my net pay, as a consequence of the pension levy, income levy, tax hikes, etc. is down 20%. I don't need to consult a third party website to confirm this.

Whether you choose to believe me is your own business. Frankly, I'm past caring.


----------



## Latrade

shnaek said:


> You either take pride in your work, or you don't. It's as simple as that. This is something we need to foster in our citizenry, along with a sense of responsibility, if we ever want to have a mature society.


 
True enough, but perhaps a different debate. However, in this context it does have some merit, that being what is expected of an employee's commitment to a job/employer.

I'd accept that this entails a sense of pride, or achievement, but I have my life clearly segregated. I like my work, I give a lot to making my work and my employer successful and I have a lot of time and respect for my employer. But, that 9-5 or whatever is just for my mortgage, bills and cost of living. My job is my family, that's my "life" as such. If I won the a good sized lotto, I'd give up employment in a heartbeat.

Ultimately we need public services and we need a civil service, but by that same virtue, in most cases they're just people like us working to pay the mortgage. There's a difference that some chose a field that provides a service to the public, either "front-line" or in an other capacity and so there's some sacrifice that goes into that. 

I'm only speaking for myself, but when it comes to judging the PS/CS, I don't judge them on the basis of expecting anymore more dedication and commitment from them than I give to my employer. 

I sometimes get the impression that the general impression is that it is a Public and Civil Servitude, rather than Service.


----------



## Sunny

Staples said:


> I don't feel the need to prove my point beyond all doubt.
> 
> What I'm referring to is the differnce between my net pay in early/mid 2008 and my net pay now. Taking account of deuctions for other purposes (VHI, etc), my net pay, as a consequence of the pension levy, income levy, tax hikes, etc. is down 20%. I don't need to consult a third party website to confirm this.
> 
> Whether you choose to believe me is your own business. Frankly, I'm past caring.


 
You do have to prove it if you are saying that you it's not fair that your employer wants more out of you because you are down 20%. 
I am down the income levy, tax increases, VHI as well. And I took a 7% pay cut on my basic pay and lost a 75% of salary performance related bonus (depsite having met the contractual conditions for the bonus). My pension fund is down about 35-40% with no guarantee that it will recover before I am due to retire. And everyone else in my company did the same despite the fact that we made money.  

Now ask me if I think I should pay higher tax. Yes I do. If my employer asks for me to take another cut because conditions are so tough, I will. Do I still do free overtime for my company? Yes. Do I still answer the phones despite it not being in my contract? Yes. Do I despise the so called leaders of this Country for getting us into this mess? With a passion. Do I want my mother who has worked with the vunerable and sick in society all her life to earn less money or get a smaller person. Of course not. Do I realise that there is no other option? Yes. 

We have pampered ourselves for too long and deluded ourselves into thinking we were great because we sold houses to each other. Germany spent a decade going through pain to get themselves competitive again. We now have to do the same. We either do it now or we sacrifice future generations because we were too selfish and greedy to sort out our own problems. The vast majority of people in this country in both public and private sector are overpaid. The real private sector who operate in competitive markets (ESB and Banks are not private sector) will adjust or will die. The public sector will have to do the same. Won't be easy but we have done it before and we will do it again.


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> My pension fund is down about 35-40% with no guarantee that it will recover before I am due to retire. And everyone else in my company did the same despite the fact that we made money.


Just to be clear, this loss is down to investment decisions. You made a decision to invest in equity and/or property funds, with the objective of achieving substantial growth. You read the blurb from your employer or the pension provider telling you the risks involved in these choices. You had options to choose cash or bond funds with much lower or no risk, and much lower expected return. But you chose (as I chose) the high-risk, high-expected-return option.


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> Just to be clear, this loss is down to investment decisions. You made a decision to invest in equity and/or property funds, with the objective of achieving substantial growth. You read the blurb from your employer or the pension provider telling you the risks involved in these choices. You had options to choose cash or bond funds with much lower or no risk, and much lower expected return. But you chose (as I chose) the high-risk, high-expected-return option.


 
Funny enough, many of the unions did the same thing which is why they are now short of funds.

Strange isn't it that the 'reckless, disgraceful and greedy' behaviour of the banks and investors didn't really bother them then?


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> many of the unions did the same thing which is why they are now short of funds.


Source please?


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> Just to be clear, this loss is down to investment decisions. You made a decision to invest in equity and/or property funds, with the objective of achieving substantial growth. You read the blurb from your employer or the pension provider telling you the risks involved in these choices. You had options to choose cash or bond funds with much lower or no risk, and much lower expected return. But you chose (as I chose) the high-risk, high-expected-return option.


 
And your point is? I get a pension based on what I put in and on investment returns. I accept the risks. But that's the point. It's my risk. 
I would gladly pay a pension levy etc if at the end of the day, I was guaranteed a defined pension and I could remove that risk.


----------



## Mpsox

Complainer said:


> Source please?


 
here's one source

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siptu-losing-members--and-its-shirt-on-stocks-1849279.html


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> I've done plenty of voluntary work over the years, maybe not thousands but certainly over a 1000. As it is voluntary and not directly related to my job I don't seek to get some sort of indirect payment for it... otherwise it wouldn't really be voluntary, would it?
> 
> We have the best paid teachers in the OECD. Only Greece has a shorter school year. It can be a stressful job but the very long holidays, short hours, good pension, paid sick leave, career breaks and (still) very high pay should at least make up for that.


 
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear , the two men in question ran the soccer teams on a purely voluntary basis for 20 years and never expected any pay for it.

They mowed and lined pitches , picked up kids and dropped them off and organised refs etc. if anything it cost them a fortune in petrol costs and these guys raised thousandsby fundraising.

While they certainly expected little thanks they did not expect to be denigrated in the media or by members of the public for simply being teachers.

Is it any wonder that after 20 years they have decided to call it quits ?

Indeed it is a stressful job but aas you saw the compensatory elements of the job are very good , these however are the terms and conditions that Government as employer signed up to and which the teachers are entitled to defend.


----------



## Howitzer

Mpsox said:


> here's one source
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siptu-losing-members--and-its-shirt-on-stocks-1849279.html


Specifically 


> Mr O'Connor's union has suffered losses on world stock markets where its speculative bets have tumbled, according to the 2008 accounts. The union lost €2.8m on what it called "impairment of investments" -- meaning losses on the stock market.
> Siptu's losses have straddled falls in the US, European and United Kingdom stock markets. The union also dabbled unsuccessfully in Pacific and Japanese equities.
> At year-end, its portfolio was worth €10.7m against €13.4m in 2007. After the end of 2008, Siptu took a loss on an equity fund and switched into cash instead. Siptu employed BoI's, AIB's and Irish Life's investment arms as managers of its portfolios. The accounts reveal that the bosses maintain a fine fleet of motor cars.
> Last year Siptu still owned cars to the value of €1.8m and spent more than €500,000 on new vehicles. It sold €712, 000 worth of cars .


I know some people have issues reading the Indepedent so may not click through.


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> And your point is? I get a pension based on what I put in and on investment returns. I accept the risks. But that's the point. It's my risk.
> I would gladly pay a pension levy etc if at the end of the day, I was guaranteed a defined pension and I could remove that risk.



That's my point. It is your risk. You chose the high-risk option and you lost the gamble. I don't see why your pension woes were mentioned here at all. It has no relevance to this discussion.

If you wanted a pension levy/DB pension, perhaps you should have looked for an employer that provides one.



Mpsox said:


> here's one source
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siptu-losing-members--and-its-shirt-on-stocks-1849279.html


That doesn't say anything about the union being 'short on funds' as Caveat has claimed.


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> That doesn't say anything about the union being 'short on funds' as Caveat has claimed.


 
Call it what you like. Losses, less money than they would have hoped, short on funds...

They have lost millions. As has been stated on many occasions their losses have led to much speculation as to whether they could afford sustained strike pay, should circumstances require this.

So, when asking for a source which part did you need clarification on 

- that the unions gambled on high risk investments - whilst hypocritically criticising the actions of those same banks & investors?

- or that they lost millions?


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> Call it what you like. Losses, less money than they would have hoped, short on funds...
> 
> They have lost millions. As has been stated on many occasions their losses have led to much speculation as to whether they could afford sustained strike pay, should circumstances require this.
> 
> So, when asking for a source which part did you need clarification on
> 
> - that the unions gambled on high risk investments - whilst hypocritically criticising the actions of those same banks & investors?
> 
> - or that they lost millions?


It's not really a matter of 'what I like to call it'. I didn't bring up the issue. You claimed that the unions were short on funds. It is now clear that you had no justification for this claim, beyond some idle speculation from right-wing media. I suspected that this was yet another of those idle claims about unions that frequently appear here on AAM, so I just wanted to take the opportunity to clarify that there was nothing of substance behind it.


----------



## thedaras

[





> QUOTE=Deiseblue;1039442]Perhaps I wasn't quite clear , the two men in question ran the soccer teams on a purely voluntary basis for 20 years and never expected any pay for it.
> 
> They mowed and lined pitches , picked up kids and dropped them off and organised refs etc. if anything it cost them a fortune in petrol costs and these guys raised thousandsby fundraising.
> 
> While they certainly expected little thanks they did not expect to be denigrated in the media or by members of the public for simply being teachers.
> 
> Is it any wonder that after 20 years they have decided to call it quits ?
> 
> Indeed it is a stressful job but aas you saw the compensatory elements of the job are very good , these however are the terms and conditions that Government as employer signed up to and which the teachers are entitled to defend.".



It sounds to me like they did this for the accolades they received and now that the massaging of their egos is no longer being given they are no longer prepared to do it...

And so what that they did this,they didn't have to,they choose to do it,hence the word voluntary.

There are thousands of people who volunteer to do stuff like this.
They are not special just because they are teachers..


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> It's not really a matter of 'what I like to call it'. I didn't bring up the issue. You claimed that the unions were short on funds. It is now clear that you had no justification for this claim, beyond some idle speculation from right-wing media. I suspected that this was yet another of those idle claims about unions that frequently appear here on AAM, so I just wanted to take the opportunity to clarify that there was nothing of substance behind it.


 
Idle speculation? Ok, I need some clarification of my own at this stage if you don't mind. 

Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying that the link/text from Mpsox/Howitzer is simply a fabrication? 

Since I know you have issues with the Indo are you honestly claiming that you have not heard of this yourself via other media?


----------



## johnd

thedaras said:


> Oh and she on her teachers hours also has more spare time than anyone else in the family to do little jobs around the house,that should be houses as she has two..



Are you being just a little sarcastic


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> Idle speculation? Ok, I need some clarification of my own at this stage if you don't mind.
> 
> Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying that the link/text from Mpsox/Howitzer is simply a fabrication?
> 
> Since I know you have issues with the Indo are you honestly claiming that you have not heard of this yourself via other media?


Ok then, let me try it a 3rd time, since you didn't seem to get it the first two times, when I said;



Complainer said:


> That doesn't say anything about the union being 'short on funds' as Caveat has claimed.





Complainer said:


> You claimed that the unions were short on funds. It is now clear that you had no justification for this claim, beyond some idle speculation from right-wing media.



That article does not say anything about the union being short on funds. In fact, the says that ;


> [broken link removed]'s two biggest  public service unions have been building up huge war chests ahead of possible strike action.



So come on, make your mind up, which Indo article would you like me to believe today?


----------



## Firefly

SIPTU has 50m in reserves and Impact has 25m. Surely an act of patriotism would be for them to invest this in the Solidarity bond 

As these bosses of these are getting huge salaries/bonuses and perks, perhaps the PS should be striking against their own union!


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> Ok then, let me try it a 3rd time, since you didn't seem to get it the first two times, when I said


 
You can try it as many times as you like. You seem to have some silly pedantic issue with the specific phrase 'short on funds'. You know what I am saying. I have no interest in discussing it further.



> That article does not say anything about the union being short on funds. In fact, the


 
 My beloved Indo? 

Unlike, it seems some PS workers and union apologists (many of whom only started disliking the Indo when they were told to), I happen to think it's a very poor paper and always have done. This of course does not mean that everything printed in it is a lie. 

Which leads me to...



> So come on, make your mind up, which Indo article would you like me to believe today?


 
Oh the irony. Have a quick look through this site and see how many times PS defenders have whined on about it being a 'rag' and 'anti-PS' etc only to miraculously develop the ability to accept an article as long as it supports their view.

Re the the 'war chest' story - haven't heard until now. Doesn't really matter since there is almost a year between the two articles and things can change. The news about the unions losing millions via risky investments was certainly not limited to the Indo. But if you don't accept it maybe you can do your own research.


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> You can try it as many times as you like. You seem to have some silly pedantic issue with the specific phrase 'short on funds'. I have no interest in discussing it further.


Glad to see that we're agreed that there was no basis for this claim.




Caveat said:


> Unlike, it seems some PS workers and union apologists (many of whom only started disliking the Indo when they were told to), I happen to think it's a very poor paper and always have done. This of course does not mean that everything printed in it is a lie.
> 
> Which leads me to...
> 
> Oh the irony. Have a quick look through this site and see how many times PS defenders have whined on about it being a 'rag' and 'anti-PS' etc only to miraculously develop the ability to accept an article as long as it supports their view.


Again, great to see that we are in agreement. It is a rag, and I don't really believe anything they say. When you see two completely contradictory headlilnes from articles just two months apart, it completely exposes the complete lack of any journalistic standard.

And indeed, you are right that many people were a bit late in realising this, though I'm not sure what is meant by 'when they were told do'. I'm kind-of surprised that there hasn't been some proposal from the unions for a boycott of the rag, given their strong anti-union bias. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has 'been told to' dislike the Indo, but maybe you know different.



Caveat said:


> Re the the 'war chest' story - haven't heard until now. Doesn't really matter since there is almost a year between the two articles and things can change. The news about the unions losing millions via risky investments was certainly not limited to the Indo. But if you don't accept it maybe you can do your own research.


Two months between the two articles, not a year. If I had to go do my own research for every unfounded anti-union claim here on AAM, I really wouldn't have time to work/rest/play. It would be a full-time job in itself, so I'll decline your kind offer on that one.


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> My beloved Indo?
> 
> Unlike, it seems some PS workers and union apologists (many of whom only started disliking the Indo when they were told to), I happen to think it's a very poor paper and always have done. This of course does not mean that everything printed in it is a lie.
> 
> Which leads me to...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony. Have a quick look through this site and see how many times PS defenders have whined on about it being a 'rag' and 'anti-PS' etc only to miraculously develop the ability to accept an article as long as it supports their view.


 Yes, the "your beloved indo" line remins me of a child saying "well why don't your just marry it so!" 

+1 on the rest.


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> [
> 
> It sounds to me like they did this for the accolades they received and now that the massaging of their egos is no longer being given they are no longer prepared to do it...
> 
> And so what that they did this,they didn't have to,they choose to do it,hence the word voluntary.
> 
> There are thousands of people who volunteer to do stuff like this.
> They are not special just because they are teachers..


 
These men did it both for the love of the game and to help the kids in their charge for over 20 years and to suggest otherwise is simply unfair.

They are angry , disillusioned and have now decided that they have done enough , more than enough I would have said.

Perhaps the fact that you are obviously hugely envious of your sister's great job , foreign holidays , two houses and earning power has coloured your observations on teachers.

More luck to her I say !


----------



## csirl

> Quote:
> QUOTE=Deiseblue;1039442]Perhaps I wasn't quite clear , the two men in question ran the soccer teams on a purely voluntary basis for 20 years and never expected any pay for it.
> 
> They mowed and lined pitches , picked up kids and dropped them off and organised refs etc. if anything it cost them a fortune in petrol costs and these guys raised thousandsby fundraising.
> 
> While they certainly expected little thanks they did not expect to be denigrated in the media or by members of the public for simply being teachers.
> 
> Is it any wonder that after 20 years they have decided to call it quits ?
> 
> Indeed it is a stressful job but aas you saw the compensatory elements of the job are very good , these however are the terms and conditions that Government as employer signed up to and which the teachers are entitled to defend.".
> It sounds to me like they did this for the accolades they received and now that the massaging of their egos is no longer being given they are no longer prepared to do it...
> 
> And so what that they did this,they didn't have to,they choose to do it,hence the word voluntary.
> 
> There are thousands of people who volunteer to do stuff like this.
> They are not special just because they are teachers..


 
Just because these teachers quit coaching the school team, it does not mean they quit coaching kids. In most sports there is a shortage of coaches, particularly at underage level. I think it is very plausable that a disgruntled teacher may decide to stop coaching the school team and start coaching a kids team in their local club instead.


----------



## RonanC

The deal has been rejected by the CPSU

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0512/pay.html


----------



## thedaras

Deiseblue said:


> These men did it both for the love of the game and to help the kids in their charge for over 20 years and to suggest otherwise is simply unfair.
> 
> They are angry , disillusioned and have now decided that they have done enough , more than enough I would have said.
> 
> Perhaps the fact that you are obviously hugely envious of your sister's great job , foreign holidays , two houses and earning power has coloured your observations on teachers.
> 
> More luck to her I say !



You say they did it for the love of the game and to help the kids in their charge, My point is ,they were prepared to do it for the love of the game and to help the kids as long as their pay wasnt affected,you have said that now that their pay/conditions is affected they are no longer prepared to do it.So you are agreeing with me!

I could have a similar lifestyle to my sister...perhaps better..she could be envious of me,for all you know,I have stated what my sister has,but you do not know what I have.

I may have several foreign holidays, several houses and more earning power than my sister,for all you know,so your unjustified conclusion of my envy, I'm afraid is unfounded.. 
Like I stated earlier but you perhaps missed is that I have had 44 combined years of experience of kids in school,but you obviously don't feel that gives me any insight into teachers ,rather its my envy of my sister,what an unusual conclusion to draw..

The childish thing of oh your just jealous is what I hear from my ten year and his friends.. You could apply this to absolutely every argument,ie; the bank workers got a pay rise,we complain, but they say we are just jealous.
The PS have jobs for life etc,we complain,they answer your just jealous etc etc.
So lets not complain about anyone ,because its not that we think its wrong its just because we are jealous..hilarious.
Draw your own conclusions...


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> Two months between the two articles, not a year.


 
Complainer, the references to losses were according to *2008* accounts.


----------



## Deiseblue

Let's see how I drew my conclusions.

The point I made was that due to anger , bitterness and disillusionment two teacher friends of mine had decided to withdraw from after hours voluntary work with school soccer teams , I also suggested that other teachers of my acquaintance were considering following the same path , I did say that it was sad but that is the reality out there.

As part of your argument you then brought in to the equation your sister's great job , the fact that she swanned off to her second house in France every summer , her short hours and the fact that she made more money from grinds and then we had the comment about cleaning the second house !

You very well have have a better lifestyle and own more property than your sister ( as you say I know nothing about you ) but as a blind man can see your tone of envy/begrudgery suggests otherwise.


----------



## thedaras

The following is how I drew my conclusion;
Your point re the teachers anger etc you said was due to anger,bitterness and disillusionment.Which once again, (based on your facts they have been doing  willingly for 20 years),means that because their pay is affected, they are now withdrawing this service.
To further help make this clear, when they were paid well,ie;not angry bitter disillusioned they did it willingly.
Now what part of that does not conclude that because their pay is affected they will no longer do it?
I feel it is a fair conclusion.

I brought my sisters job into the argument not because she has a totally irrelevant job to the one you speak of,but rather that she has the same job,so it is relevant .

Not because as you state that I am envious of her.These are facts,she does have these things which I state and again its totally relevant and a justified argument ,due to you saying the teachers you speak of will now have time to do little jobs around the house and go for a pint with the missis on a wednesday night.

You then say its my envy,rather than looking at what the issue is about,ie;teachers and their jobs.

You say they are bitter etc,and I used my sisters circumstances to show how well she is doing As a teacher..

It is quite obvious that you are using a red herring.
I  find this use of avoidance tactics quite bizarre.
You are concentrating on an illogical conclusion of envy rather than the fact that both the teachers you speak of and my sister have exactly the same jobs,yet you portray them as somewhat different to the reality I experience both from having a family member and 44 combined years of experience.


----------



## cork

RonanC said:


> The deal has been rejected by the CPSU
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0512/pay.html




My feeling is still the unions will accept the deal.


----------



## Latrade

thedaras said:


> The following is how I drew my conclusion;
> Your point re the teachers anger etc you said was due to anger,bitterness and disillusionment.Which once again, (based on your facts they have been doing willingly for 20 years),means that because their pay is affected, they are now withdrawing this service.
> To further help make this clear, when they were paid well,ie;not angry bitter disillusioned they did it willingly.
> Now what part of that does not conclude that because their pay is affected they will no longer do it?
> I feel it is a fair conclusion.


 
I think the point being made with the example related partially to pay, but also to the perception of teachers, as given in your example of your sister. Many teachers do extra and put in additional time on a voluntary basis (many others do too in other employment). I took up the example to reflect that it was as much them being tired as being portrayed as workshy and just doing the minimum (as in teachers are paid X amount for X hours with X holidays) and the additional work they put in contributing to school teams etc isn't recognised.

I don't think it unreasonable that those teachers who do put extra effort being annoyed that all are portrayed as workshy, lazy, etc. So as I saw it the pay was the straw that broke the camel's back.


----------



## Latrade

cork said:


> My feeling is still the unions will accept the deal.


 
They're now saying they may have another vote if there is support for the deal from other unions. Lisbon 2 springs to mind.


----------



## Shawady

RonanC said:


> The deal has been rejected by the CPSU
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0512/pay.html


 
Have to say, I find it a bit strange the CPSU have rejected this deal.
If there is money to be given back in future years, (and admitidly it is a big if), the lower paid will get preference. 
Also, if the government have to target further pay cuts I would not be surprised if lower paid employees were exempt.


----------



## thedaras

Latrade said:


> I think the point being made with the example related partially to pay, but also to the perception of teachers, as given in your example of your sister. Many teachers do extra and put in additional time on a voluntary basis (many others do too in other employment). I took up the example to reflect that it was as much them being tired as being portrayed as workshy and just doing the minimum (as in teachers are paid X amount for X hours with X holidays) and the additional work they put in contributing to school teams etc isn't recognised.
> 
> I don't think it unreasonable that those teachers who do put extra effort being annoyed that all are portrayed as workshy, lazy, etc. So as I saw it the pay was the straw that broke the camel's back.



My point still remains that whatever it was that caused this to happen,it didn't happen before the pay cuts.

In what way do they want recognition? That their pay isn't cut or that we should be full of admiration or that we don't ever criticize them?
And if any of the above happens ..guess what ..we will withdraw our voluntary services from our beloved students.After we strike of course..

Just as well that others still continue to do voluntary work,and are not doing it for recognition. Most of those who volunteer, do so,because they care,and would not stop because they get no credit for it. 

Many teachers in fairness will continue to do this,perhaps just one or two will withdraw,and complain and moan that they have better things to do as stated earlier,but most people realize the serious situation the country is in,and may well strike,work to rule ,protest etc,but most wont pull the carpet from under the kids..Thankfully.


----------



## Latrade

thedaras said:


> My point still remains that whatever it was that caused this to happen,it didn't happen before the pay cuts.


 
I don't see why this example is such an issue. Just going off your example and the other posts here it isn't just about pay, it's also about workload, hours etc. The general theme being various aspects of the public sector don't do an awful lot for the amount they're paid. So it's more than level of pay, it's working conditions also.

Here was an example where two teachers didn't just do the minimum and facilitated an extra curricular activity in their own time for the last 20 years all of which has been of benefit to pupils and even to the school, you could even argue to some extent (though at a push) the state.

Yes, many people do voluntary work. I've coached rugby for the local team, I've friends who give a lot of time to their GAA clubs, none of this though is linked directly to our work. Parents and pupils want such things as sports teams, music, theatre, or anything such activity and expect the school to provide them. 

This is just two people who've put a lot of their own time into school soccer teams off their own backs. Haven't asked for anything and have just got on with it. They then read daily or hear daily just how little they do, how they finish at 2:30, have half the year off in holidays and so on that basis should be paid less. 

It's just two teachers who have done extra for the benefit of the school and pupils who haven't asked for anything in the way of recognition or pay and after seeing themselves lumped in with examples like your sister have had enough. I can see their point.

The simple moral being that like a lot of things in life it's the actions (or inactions) of a majority who spoil it for the majority of reasonable, hard working, sensible people.


----------



## thedaras

Every after school activity my kids go to ,is paid for by me.


> *Latrade;]The simple moral being that like a lot of things in life it's the actions (or inactions) of a majority who spoil it for the majority of reasonable, hard working, sensible people.
> Latrade*


Couldn't agree with you more ,it is the action or inaction of the MAJORITY who spoil things..


----------



## Latrade

thedaras said:


> Every after school activity my kids go to ,is paid for by me.


 
Which probably covers insurances, facilities, and whatever, it doesn't mean it goes into the teacher's pocket.


----------



## thedaras

Oh right so the teacher who does a drama class/basketball/tennis etc after school , doesn't get paid for doing it?

This is news to me..


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> Which probably covers insurances, facilities, and whatever, it doesn't mean it goes into the teacher's pocket.


 When we pay for after school activities we make the cheque out to the teacher, not the school.


----------



## thedaras

We also make the cheque out to the teacher and not the school..and are told not to give the money into the school secretary or the child's teacher but to the teacher who is actually running the after school activity.


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> Complainer, the references to losses were according to *2008* accounts.


So were the references to the 'war chests';


> Siptu, the largest trade union in Ireland, which claims 252,000 members, has an 'Industrial Contingency Fund' of €16m. In addition, it has a 'General Fund' of €16m, much of which would be available in the event of a declaration of industrial warfare. *At the end of last year Siptu transferred €1.5m from its general fund to the 'Industrial Contingency Fund'.*


----------



## Purple

€16’000’000 is a lot of money but if they pay strike pay of, say €250 per week that’s 64’000 weeks so if 25% of their members go out on strike they can only pay them for one week.


----------



## Caveat

OK Complainer - but it doesn't actually matter. 

Money comes out of one fund, into another, cash diverted etc etc 

They lost a lot of money via backfiring investments despite criticising the same practices themselves. That's the only point I'm making.


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> OK Complainer - but it doesn't actually matter.
> 
> Money comes out of one fund, into another, cash diverted etc etc
> 
> They lost a lot of money via backfiring investments despite criticising the same practices themselves. That's the only point I'm making.



They have €32 million now and lost €2.8 in 2008. It’s a big loss but it hardly puts them on their knees.
That said it doesn’t take away from your point.


----------



## csirl

Purple said:


> When we pay for after school activities we make the cheque out to the teacher, not the school.


 
This is unusual. I'm involved in a voluntary capacity in sport and it would be highly unusual for a coach of a school team to be paid directly by the parents. If payments have to be made by parents, it is usually to the school or to the local or national sports organisation. And coaches would usually be volunteers. In cases where a coach is paid - maybe is a full time schools coach provided by the sporting organisation, the cheque would usually be made out to the sports organisation who in turn would pay the coach as an employee. Its bad financial practice to have cheques made out to the individual. 

Are you referring to actual official school activities or activities run by private individuals (self employed) who rent out school premises out of hours?

P.S. the sport I'm involved in provides the coaching free of charge to the schools/children. Coaches are volunteers and equipment is paid for by the national governing body (partially funded by Irish Sports Council grants). This would be normal for most sports.


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> They lost a lot of money via backfiring investments despite criticising the same practices themselves.


I'm not clear on what you mean by 'criticising the same practices'. I don't recall any broad union criticisms of investing in equity funds. Perhaps you could clarify?


----------



## thedaras

Not at all unusual where my school is concerned.I have been paying the teacher directly since the kids were in junior infants..
The teacher teaches in the school,actual school activities,not run by a self employed person.
He/she sends out a note in the childs bag, and we are told to give the money to him/her not to the office or the childs teacher..I don't see any problem with this..


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> This is unusual. I'm involved in a voluntary capacity in sport and it would be highly unusual for a coach of a school team to be paid directly by the parents. If payments have to be made by parents, it is usually to the school or to the local or national sports organisation. And coaches would usually be volunteers. In cases where a coach is paid - maybe is a full time schools coach provided by the sporting organisation, the cheque would usually be made out to the sports organisation who in turn would pay the coach as an employee. Its bad financial practice to have cheques made out to the individual.
> 
> Are you referring to actual official school activities or activities run by private individuals (self employed) who rent out school premises out of hours?
> 
> P.S. the sport I'm involved in provides the coaching free of charge to the schools/children. Coaches are volunteers and equipment is paid for by the national governing body (partially funded by Irish Sports Council grants). This would be normal for most sports.



I’m talking about after school activities such as art, computers etc. They are provided by one of the teachers and cheques are made out to the teacher concerned. None of my children play sport after school in the school. They do GAA, swimming and rugby but none of them are linked to their school.


----------



## csirl

thedaras said:


> Not at all unusual where my school is concerned.I have been paying the teacher directly since the kids were in junior infants..
> The teacher teaches in the school,actual school activities,not run by a self employed person.
> He/she sends out a note in the childs bag, and we are told to give the money to him/her not to the office or the childs teacher..I don't see any problem with this..


 
But this isnt being paid to the teacher? Its being collected on behalf of the school - the teacher doesnt get paid.


----------



## thedaras

Why ,if the teacher doesn't get paid would the cheque be made out to the teacher not the school?

Like for example for school books etc,they tell us to make the cheque out to the school.

This is for after school activity's that the teacher runs himself after school, a few of the teachers would run classes after school,like basket ball, art, tennis,guitar, French,All are teachers of the subjects in the school and the classes start directly after school.

I have to say it is a revelation to me to hear that the fees go to the school when the cheques are made out to the teacher running it!! 

I'm really surprised,so surprised in fact that I find it very hard to believe!
I will ask my sister, she runs an after school class.


----------



## Complainer

It may well vary by schools. In some schools, the people running the activities are just renting a room from the school, so they take the money themselves, pay some rent to the school and keep the profits. In other cases, the activities are organised by the school, who collect the money themselves and pay the instructors.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> It may well vary by schools. In some schools, the people running the activities are just renting a room from the school, so they take the money themselves, pay some rent to the school and keep the profits. In other cases, the activities are organised by the school, who collect the money themselves and pay the instructors.



I agree... and I’m sure they are all declaring the income in their tax return, just as they do for grinds they give in their home or the homes of pupils.


----------



## Latrade

thedaras said:


> Oh right so the teacher who does a drama class/basketball/tennis etc after school , doesn't get paid for doing it?
> 
> This is news to me..


 
I've never paid a teacher directly, so I can't comment. In addition, there is no indication the two teachers in the example were paid directly for their time either.


----------



## thedaras

I don't recall saying the two teachers in the example were paid directly!!
 I find it very hard to believe that teachers do this for nothing even if the cheque is made out to the school.

In addition the classes are not cheap, nor subsidized,so the school would be creaming it if they got all the money..No, sorry I don't believe they get nothing for it.


----------



## cork

Why don't people report teachers to the Revenue?

They are also giving grinds etc.


----------



## Latrade

thedaras said:


> I don't recall saying the two teachers in the example were paid directly!!


 
But surely that was the point under discussion: the two teachers who decided to stop the activities? In the same way we have to trust your example of your sister with the information you provided, we have to take the same view with this example of two teachers who've put a lot in for no extra pay (as far as I'm aware with friends it isn't paid work and is voluntary through work...though the schools in some cases insist it goes ahead or atleast put pressure on teachers to form these groups) and have decided to stop doing the extra stuff.

The ultimate point again being that there are some who do the minimum and reap the benefits in all areas and all sectors, but there are many in all areas and all sectors who do the extra and end up getting penalised on the basis of the minority.

I'm not arguing against the need for cuts, I nailed those colours to mast early on, they have to be made. It doesn't mean I can't sympathise with those who face cuts or even feel that the portraying them all as lazy, workshy jobsworths is an incorrect generalisation. 

The example given of the two teachers, I can fully sympathise with how they must be feeling especially if it's assumed that they enjoy and reap the same as the example of your sister. And that's it.


----------



## csirl

As a general rule, most teachers involved in official school sports teams are volunteers. Same may not apply to commericially run afterschool activities.


----------



## Purple

latrade said:


> i'm not arguing against the need for cuts, i nailed those colours to mast early on, they have to be made. It doesn't mean i can't sympathise with those who face cuts or even feel that the portraying them all as lazy, workshy jobsworths is an incorrect generalisation.



+1


----------



## thedaras

Latrade said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> But surely that was the point under discussion: the two teachers who decided to stop the activities
> 
> ?
> 
> The point I was making was although it was said in the post that there was "uproar",I heard no such thing in any media whatsoever.
> The second point I made was that they only stopped their volunteer work when they no longer had their ego massaged /and or paycuts etc.
> The point being they were happy to do so once their terms and conditions were not affected,now that they have been they no longer want to do it ,so much for caring for the kids..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> In the same way we have to trust your example of your sister with the information you provided, we have to take the same view with this example of two teachers who've put a lot in for no extra pay (as far as I'm aware with friends it isn't paid work and is voluntary through work...though the schools in some cases insist it goes ahead or atleast put pressure on teachers to form these groups) and have decided to stop doing the extra stuff.
> 
> I have never said the two in the post are paid,I dont doubt that they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> The ultimate point again being that there are some who do the minimum and reap the benefits in all areas and all sectors, but there are many in all areas and all sectors who do the extra and end up getting penalised on the basis of the minority.
> 
> 
> This happens when its said that they have sacrificed so much for the kids,"going for a pint with the missus"," having time to do little jobs around the house"..
> There is very hard to believe and therfore is challanged,by giving examples of how if it quacks like a duck etc..
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 'm not arguing against the need for cuts, I nailed those colours to mast early on, they have to be made. It doesn't mean I can't sympathise with those who face cuts or even feel that the portraying them all as lazy, workshy jobsworths is an incorrect generalisation.
> 
> Im not arguing against the need for cuts either.
> We have to face the fact that teachers have it good.I use my sisters lifestyle as an example.They are well paid,they do a lot less hours per week work than any other profession,they have more holidays than the rest of us,they have the ability to earn extra income,ie grinds and after school classes(PAID FOR)
> 
> 
> 
> HTML:
> 
> 
> The example given of the two teachers, I can fully sympathise with how they must be feeling especially if it's assumed that they enjoy and reap the same as the example of your sister. And that's it.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not sympathize at all with them,like I said earlier if ,as they consistently claim ,they really cared about the kids,they would not stop doing voluntary work.
> Just like many others who do voluntary work who have no jobs!
> I do not sympathize with teachers during a critical time to go on strike and will not make up those days.


----------



## Latrade

And that's where we differ. We take your example at face value and agree it's an pleasant and nice lifestyle your sister has, but we don't take the other example at face value and feel it deserves more scrutiny. Ho hum I guess.

For you they're all living the pleasant life of your sister and for me that's not representative of the majority.

For you their decision to quit doing the extra work was on the basis of money, for me it goes deeper and has as much to do with your view they're all lazy living in luxury despite all the extra unpaid effort they've put in over the years not being acknowledged by us or their employer.

As I said, the cuts have to be made, that's the reality. But I think I'm human enough to not demonise every working in the PS/CS on the basis they are concerned about their future nor that there is a disproportionate impact on the lower paid. I accept that there's to be some collateral damage in these cuts, but I'm not going to take delight in it, I'm not going to give the impression they deserve it in some way.


----------



## thedaras

A post is challenged with an opposing view,backed up by personal experience and/or evidence of same..What a revelation...
Would have thought that this is what mature debate is about.

Every post has opposing views, and its a bit like a debate, except some don't want to hear the others views.
 Or take the moral highground,to the level of telling others that they,themselves are human enough not to be demonic,and of course they don't take delight in the collateral damage.
Naturally implying that the other does..

So lets take the post  at face value;
I take the post about the two teachers at face value and agree they are overworked and underpaid,should stop their voluntary work,have more time to do little jobs around the house,go for a pint with the missus,and of course there is uproar when they decide to stop the voluntary work..
Heres how the debate would look..
Ah the poor things, thats terrible..They should do less hours,get more money, definitely no more voluntary work,please God let them have time to do little jobs around the house and bring ,the missus out for a pint.
No way are they withdrawing their services due to paycuts,bless them for all the extra unpaid effort they've put in over the years,and not even being acknowledged by us or their employer.

Now if someone could just direct me to a site where I can post on where no one will challenge my views ...ho hum..


----------



## Deiseblue

*So lets take the post at face value;*
*I take the post about the two teachers at face value and agree they are overworked and underpaid,should stop their voluntary work*


OK , let's take my opening post at face value .

I challenge you to outline where I said that the two teachers in question were " overworked and underpaid " , nor did I state that they should "stop their voluntary work " - I said that it was sad but that is what's happening out there and I understood why they were doing it .

I do appreciate that you strongly feel that your sister is underworked and overpaid which unfortunately has coloured your view of teachers however as I have pointed out before the terms and conditions she enjoys were signed up to by her employer.

Perhaps it might have been an idea to have dwelt a little more on the contents of my post before adapting it to fit your arguments ?


----------



## thedaras

Where have I said *you said* the teachers were overworked and underpaid?
Where have I said *you said* they should stop their voluntary work?
I have never said you said either of the above.

The nub of my point is that as you just posted above,my sister enjoys the Terms and conditions of her job.

That is where we differ, she has a job for life, she gets to finish much earlier than most employees,she gets a ridiculous amount of time off,she has loads of time to do little jobs around her house/s,she not only has another house,but has the time to go there for the whole summer/easter/Christmas.She cannot be sacked.etc etc.

So heres where you may have dwelt a little longer on the contents of my post!

She ,unlike the two teachers you mention, enjoys having all this, and is humble enough to acknowledge this..and is very thankful for her job .

Some people will never be happy no matter how much they get..some people then get greedy..Thankfully my sister recognizes how lucky she is,which I must say is a much more attractive trait than consistent moaning, when you have it good..


----------



## Complainer

thedaras said:


> She cannot be sacked.etc etc.


Not true.


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> Where have I said *you said* the teachers were overworked and underpaid?
> Where have I said *you said* they should stop their voluntary work?
> I have never said you said either of the above.
> 
> The nub of my point is that as you just posted above,my sister enjoys the Terms and conditions of her job.
> 
> That is where we differ, she has a job for life, she gets to finish much earlier than most employees,she gets a ridiculous amount of time off,she has loads of time to do little jobs around her house/s,she not only has another house,but has the time to go there for the whole summer/easter/Christmas.She cannot be sacked.etc etc.
> 
> So heres where you may have dwelt a little longer on the contents of my post!
> 
> She ,unlike the two teachers you mention, enjoys having all this, and is humble enough to acknowledge this..and is very thankful for her job .
> 
> Some people will never be happy no matter how much they get..some people then get greedy..Thankfully my sister recognizes how lucky she is,which I must say is a much more attractive trait than consistent moaning, when you have it good..


 
Nonsense !

In your post yesterday you stated and I quote " I take the post about the two teachers at face value and agree they are overworked and underpaid,should stop their voluntary work" etc.

You call that taking my post at "face value" , I never said that teachers were underpaid , overworked or should cease voluntary work.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Not true.



In theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice they are not.


----------



## DonDub

*Fiction:* The prime cause of the destruction of this economy was/is the global banking crisis
*Fact:* Ultimate responsibility for the destruction of this economy lies at the door of Fianna Fail - who gleefully capitulated to demands of powerful interest groups, including bankers, developers and public sector unions


B][B*]Fiction*: Most public servants are low paid
*Fact:* Public servants are (and have been for years) paid more than their private sector equivalents
[

*Fiction: Most public servants sought employment in the public service, not as means to an end, but to serve the greater good, whilst most other people sought to chase higher earnings in the private sector
Fact: Most people will seek employment that suits their skills, interests and earning aspirations - regardless of the sector

Fiction Teachers are a noble race of people, driven by a great desire to   educate the youth of this country - and consistently dedicate unpaid hours to this higher calling
Fact Most teachers are keen to do a good job, many of whom were attracted to teaching by the generous renumeration and the short hours and long holidays - with very, very few dedicating any unpaid time to their charges

Fiction Most public servants participate in performance management, and can disciplined or sacked for consistent poor performance or gross misconduct
Fact It is easier to freeze a snowball in hell than to effectively discipline a public servant, especially teachers - when I think of some of the morons that thought me and my children

Fiction: There is a vicious and unfounded anti PS campaign underway, whilst the real culprits are getting away scot free 
Fact:The PS was bloated and inefficient before the economic crisis - it needed to be radically reformed at least 20 years ago. Tax revenues have fallen from c.€50 billion to c.€30billion, and the PS pay-bill costs c.€20billion. We absolutely have to shrink the size of the PS to fit the new reality - fact!!*


----------



## thedaras

#291      
 13-05-2010, 09:28 AM
Deiseblue  
Frequent Poster

Posts: 169

Let's see how I drew my conclusions.



> *Deiseblue;The point I made was that due to anger , bitterness and disillusionment two teacher friends of mine had decided to withdraw from after hours voluntary work with school soccer teams , I also suggested that other teachers of my acquaintance were considering following the same path , I did say that it was sad but that is the reality out there.*



Hello...what else would cause this anger , bitterness and disillusionment??
If its not money??
Once again like Ive stated several times, you said this was the cause of their withdrawal,
so they are angry at what exactly,bitter at what exactly and disillusioned at what exactly..
The fact that their pay is cut is the blindingly obvious answer.
The clue is in this; they did not withdraw their services until their pay was affected.
What part of that do you not get?


----------



## thedaras

Complainer said:


> Not true.



So out of all the things I have posted you point to one thing ,which you say is not true.
Good to know you don't disagree with the other points.

The reality is that it is almost impossible for a teacher to be sacked.
The reality is that unlike some of the teachers that I know,who are really glad of a great job,with security, pension,very short working hours fantastic holidays, plenty of time to do little jobs around the house,go for pints,etc,they are actually satisfied and happy to do this job.

They are grateful to have all of the above,and are quite embarrassed about those who are greedy and try to give the impression that teachers are martyrs to the cause.

Those who do this are putting a spotlight on how good they really have it.

Teachers that I know, wouldn't dream of pulling out of voluntary services, wouldn't moan consistently about how difficult their job is  etc,they get on with what they know is a good thing,and wish those who try to make it look otherwise would stop doing so..because they know we are not stupid..


----------



## Complainer

DonDub said:


> *Fiction:* Blah blah blah
> *Fact:* Blah blah blah


Just FYI - Putting 'Fact' in bold in front of the text doesn't actually make it true.


----------



## DonDub

Complainer said:


> Just FYI - Putting 'Fact' in bold in front of the text doesn't actually make it true.


 
Really - in my opinion they are facts, based on experiences and observations over several decades, or perhaps those dozy teachers I encountered were figments of my imagination......


----------



## Complainer

DonDub said:


> in my opinion they are facts


Facts aren't matters of anyone's opinion - they are (or are not) facts.


----------



## DonDub

Complainer said:


> Facts aren't matters of anyone's opinion - they are (or are not) facts.


 
Who decides something represented as a fact is the 'truth', let me guess, a person or people, which of course brings subjetivity into play. So, in my (well informed opinion) the facts I have stated are a fair and reasonable representation of reality. Now, if you would care to refrain from playing word games - you might perhaps provide 'factual' rebuttals to the points I have made....


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> #291
> 13-05-2010, 09:28 AM
> Deiseblue
> Frequent Poster
> 
> Posts: 169
> 
> Let's see how I drew my conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hello...what else would cause this anger , bitterness and disillusionment??
> If its not money??
> Once again like Ive stated several times, you said this was the cause of their withdrawal,
> so they are angry at what exactly,bitter at what exactly and disillusioned at what exactly..
> The fact that their pay is cut is the blindingly obvious answer.
> The clue is in this; they did not withdraw their services until their pay was affected.
> What part of that do you not get?


 
And again you've neatly sidestepped my point.

You referenced my post , suggested that you were taking it at " face value " and stated that I suggested that the two teachers in question were overworked , underpaid and further stated that I suggested that they should were right to give up the voluntary work - as I say absolute and utter nonsense on your part.

You are merely misquoting me for your own ends.

Of course the teachers are entitled to be angry,bitter and disillusioned about two unilateral pay cuts , would'nt you be ?

Of course they feel undervalued and given the rather slewed view of the job they do by the media and by some members of the public as I said I can see their point of view


----------



## Complainer

DonDub said:


> Who decides something represented as a fact is the 'truth', let me guess, a person or people, which of course brings subjetivity into play. So, in my (well informed opinion) the facts I have stated are a fair and reasonable representation of reality. Now, if you would care to refrain from playing word games - you might perhaps provide 'factual' rebuttals to the points I have made....


Merriam Webster seems to have a fairly definition of fact to yours - see 
[broken link removed]

Unfortunately, if I found it necessary to provide factual rebuttals to all the nonsense posted on AAM about public services and public sector, it would be a full time job.


----------



## DonDub

Complainer said:


> Merriam Webster seems to have a fairly definition of fact to yours - see
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Unfortunately, if I found it necessary to provide factual rebuttals to all the nonsense posted on AAM about public services and public sector, it would be a full time job.




Nice dodge...avoid getting into a real debate...blah,blah,blah....


----------



## shanegl

..


----------



## DonDub

Deiseblue said:


> And again you've neatly sidestepped my point.
> 
> You referenced my post , suggested that you were taking it at " face value " and stated that I suggested that the two teachers in question were overworked , underpaid and further stated that I suggested that they should were right to give up the voluntary work - as I say absolute and utter nonsense on your part.
> 
> You are merely misquoting me for your own ends.
> 
> Of course the teachers are entitled to be angry,bitter and disillusioned about two unilateral pay cuts , would'nt you be ?
> 
> Of course they feel undervalued and given the rather slewed view of the job they do by the media and by some members of the public as I said I can see their point of view



I understood thedaras post to be an imaginary situation where he would show his response to you and others who take a certain view of the teachers,if he took the post at face value.In otherwords ,if he had no argument with what you stated,and in this context, he was correct in his observations.

In fairness to thedaras,I have not seen him say your posts are absolute and utter nonsense, nor that you are envious,these kind of things,which you bring into a debate are classic sidestepping technics.
The consistent redherrings and word smithing is also another classic.


----------



## Complainer

DonDub said:


> Nice dodge...avoid getting into a real debate...blah,blah,blah....


Let's not kid ourselves that this = real debate.


----------



## Purple

DonDub, I find debating with Complainer about the Public Sector and/or left wing politics is like arguing evolution with a creationist; you can present any facts you like but they will be countered with dogma. It's pointless.

Some posters never offer an opinion; they are above entering into a debate with the ill-informed masses. They just snipe from the side lines. The best tactic when dealing with then is to point out the flaws in their points rather than rising to the bait.


----------



## thedaras

Very well put purple..

dondub; I was pointing out that if I were to take the posts at face value,the reply would be as I had stated, ie;agree with everything the posters state about teachers being underpaid and overworked etc.

I showed how the answer would look and hopefully how ridiculous it would look.
Which obviously worked..


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> Very well put purple..
> 
> dondub; I was pointing out that if I were to take the posts at face value,the reply would be as I had stated, ie;agree with everything the posters state about teachers being underpaid and overworked etc.
> 
> I showed how the answer would look and hopefully how ridiculous it would look.
> Which obviously worked..


 
It certainly is a novel concept.

Misrepresent everything I said in my opening post and then base your replies on those misrepresentations.

The machiavellian nature of your argument has left me most confused.

Let me conclude by saying , yes the two teachers in question have decided to cease their voluntary work with the two teams due to anger , bitterness and disillusionment at two unilateral pay cuts and at the rather hostile view taken of their job by certain elements of the media and the public.

What more can I say ,that's the sad reality out there.


----------



## brigade

DonDub said:


> I understood thedaras post to be an imaginary situation where he would show his response to you and others who take a certain view of the teachers.


 
I didn't take thedaras initial post to be imaginary, like wise deiseblues initial post did not take a certain view of the teachers. He was just relaying how two teacher friends of his felt!

It was later posts which brought the topic down, to a point now where it's getting silly.


----------



## Sunny

brigade said:


> It was later posts which brought the topic down, to a point now where it's getting silly.


 
Every thread on this subject eventually gets silly....


----------



## thedaras

brigade said:


> I didn't take thedaras initial post to be imaginary, like wise deiseblues initial post did not take a certain view of the teachers. He was just relaying how two teacher friends of his felt!
> .




[





> B]Heres how the debate would look..
> Ah the poor things, thats terrible..They should do less hours,get more money, definitely no more voluntary work,please God let them have time to do little jobs around the house and bring ,the missus out for a pint.
> No way are they withdrawing their services due to paycuts,bless them for all the extra unpaid effort they've put in over the years,and not even being acknowledged by us or their employer.
> [/B]


Above is the post you speak of.
Once again I will say that what I was showing was an imaginary situation where I took all the posts about teachers pay/conditions and not challenge them.
I thought it was blindingly obvious that I wouldn't reply to a post that way!


----------



## brigade

Actually, thats not the post I speak of.
Your initial post on the subject of the teachers was post #253.


----------



## thedaras

Could you expand please,why would you think 253 was imaginary?
I have no idea why post 253 would be thought of as imaginary?


----------



## cork

The Croke Park deal is a good deal for those working in the public sector in light of a county with a massive budget deficit.


----------



## brigade

thedaras said:


> Could you expand please,why would you think 253 was imaginary?
> I have no idea why post 253 would be thought of as imaginary?


 
I never said it was imaginary. 
Please re-read my post from this morning.


----------



## DonDub

Purple said:


> DonDub, I find debating with Complainer about the Public Sector and/or left wing politics is like arguing evolution with a creationist; you can present any facts you like but they will be countered with dogma. It's pointless.
> 
> Some posters never offer an opinion; they are above entering into a debate with the ill-informed masses. They just snipe from the side lines. The best tactic when dealing with then is to point out the flaws in their points rather than rising to the bait.



I think you are right Purple, I find they generally zone in on a minor point - then argue it to death. It would be great to engage in a real debate - to get a real answer or counter-argument, but hey, that would be a lot to ask from people who have spent years defending the indefensible....


----------



## thedaras

> #346
> Today, 11:43 AM
> brigade
> Frequent Poster
> 
> Posts: 51
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by DonDub
> *I understood thedaras post to be an imaginary situation where he would show his response to you and othe rs who take a certain view of the teachers.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Brigade"I didn't take thedaras initial post to be imaginary, like wise deiseblues initial post did not take a certain view of the teachers. He was just relaying how two teacher friends of his felt!
> 
> 
> 
> It was later posts which brought the topic down, to a point now where it's getting silly.
> [/QUOTE).
> 
> Don dub is correct is his post above.
> You will need to point out what the "initial " post has to do with anything!!I never suggested that the initial post was an imaginary situation.
> 
> As you can see don dub is referring to how I  posted about a situation if I was to agree with everything.
> You then mention post 253,I am totally baffled as to what your point is.
Click to expand...


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Unfortunately, if I found it necessary to provide factual rebuttals to all the nonsense posted on AAM about public services and public sector, it would be a full time job.


 
I'm sure it would get past the unions too


----------



## Shawady

Impact have backed Croke Park deal. If SIPTU do the same it looks like it will be passed by ICTU.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Caveat

Shawady said:


> If SIPTU do the same it looks like it will be passed by ICTU.


 
And do you think they will?

(Might read as a smart-ass response but it's a genuine question!)


----------



## Shawady

Caveat said:


> And do you think they will?
> 
> (Might read as a smart-ass response but it's a genuine question!)


 
There was a strong acceptance from Impact (77%) so I would be surprised it SIPTU rejected it.
I know other PS workers  on AAM are against the deal but I honestly don't there will be any thing better on offer.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out as it looks like 'frontline staff' such as nurses, teacher etc will reject it and 'non-frontline' staff will accept.


----------



## Latrade

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/siptu-joins-impact-to-back-croke-park-deal-461300.html

Votes are in, passed by SIPTU.


----------



## becky

Shawady said:


> There was a strong acceptance from Impact (77%) so I would be surprised it SIPTU rejected it.
> I know other PS workers on AAM are against the deal but I honestly don't there will be any thing better on offer.
> It will be interesting to see how it plays out as it looks like 'frontline staff' such as nurses, teacher etc will reject it and 'non-frontline' staff will accept.


 a high acceptance by Impact yes, but a low turn out, 50 odd % which surprised me, as the turn out for previous votes was higher as far as I remember.


----------



## Pique318

Deiseblue said:


> Let me conclude by saying , yes the two teachers in question have decided to cease their voluntary work with the two teams due to anger , bitterness and disillusionment at two unilateral pay cuts and at the rather hostile view taken of their job by certain elements of the media and the public.


 
The way I see this is that their reaction is completely spiteful.
They were doing voluntary work while being compensated extremely well for doing their job (hours, annual leave, holidays etc.). 
When things took a turn for the worse, they 'abandoned the most vulnerable/needy in society'. Very caring actions from a 'caring profession' who 'only have the good of the children at heart', unless it affects their pay-packet.



Deiseblue said:


> What more can I say ,that's the sad reality out there.


Sadly, yes !


----------



## Caveat

becky said:


> a high acceptance by Impact yes, but a low turn out, 50 odd % which surprised me, as the turn out for previous votes was higher as far as I remember.



Battle weary probably.


----------



## becky

Caveat said:


> Battle weary probably.


 Agree. The Impact rep came to my workplace one luchtime and 10 people showed up -3 of who were shop stewarts. When he came last time regarding the WTR and strikes 30 people showed up.


----------

