# Public Service Pay Agreement



## zztop (30 Mar 2010)

No more pay cuts until 2014 ie levy and cuts to stay
Those earning less than 35k to get some pay back ?
Incentive to go extended by one year to 2011

Based on savings by transformation agenda.

Well what the thoughts on that


----------



## theresa1 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

A complete defeat for the union's if you ask me. What was all the work to rule for etc. if they agree to this? Being a member of a union is pointless - no money back and ah sure we will have a review next year and in future year's. The Government have got what they want - you have to hand it to them.


----------



## DB74 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

The agreement to give some of the pay reductions back to those on < €35K is a bit of a cop-out for the current government. The next goverment will have a headache with this one.


----------



## Sunny (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

Its very vague so is impossible to comment. It deserves a chance to succeed though. As long as the Unions are serious about 'transformation' it might be a good opportunity.


----------



## Caveat (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



theresa1 said:


> Being a member of a union is pointless - no money back...


 
Have to say this speak volumes.



Sunny said:


> Its very vague so is impossible to comment. It deserves a chance to succeed though. As long as the Unions are serious about 'transformation' it might be a good opportunity.


 
I agree.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Sunny said:


> Its very vague so is impossible to comment. It deserves a chance to succeed though. As long as the Unions are serious about 'transformation' it might be a good opportunity.



+1
Like most of these agreements it could be great or it could be useless. It will come down to the ability and competence of senior management and ministers and what level of obstructionism the unions engage in. To date ability and competence by those at the top has been in very short supply and the unions have generally managed to stymie change while holding onto pay increases.


----------



## Firefly (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



theresa1 said:


> A complete defeat for the union's if you ask me. What was all the work to rule for etc. if they agree to this?


 
The protests IMO were to prevent further cuts in the 2010 budget. 

I presume the gov bond rates will start heading back up now again as the further 3bn in cuts the gov promised for 2010 can't be achieved (we've heard so much about transformation & better working practices that I won't hold my breath).


----------



## bogle (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Purple said:


> +1
> Like most of these agreements it could be great or it could be useless. It will come down to the ability and competence of senior management and ministers and what level of obstructionism the unions engage in. To date ability and competence by those at the top has been in very short supply and the unions have generally managed to stymie change while holding onto pay increases.



I knew Purple and his band of merry men wouldn't be overly happy with this deal. Therefore from my perspective as an ordinary union member it must be a good


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



bogle said:


> I knew Purple and his band of merry men wouldn't be overly happy with this deal. Therefore from my perspective as an ordinary union member it must be a good



Well as long as you, and other "ordinary union members" all right that's the main thing, so what if it damages the rest of the country. I'll give the unions that; they are consistent, they don't care who they hurt or what damage they do as long as their interests are served.


----------



## Yorrick (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

The Unions are beaten. This is just a smokescreen to fool their membership.
The Govt. do seem intent on pushing reform and reduction in numbers.


----------



## Shawady (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

It's early days. It has to be accepted by members, which I hope it is.
I think there is positives in it for both sides.
I hope it is not portrayed in the media as 'the government bottles it' or 'the unions were defeated'. It is potentially is an agreement that could transform the public service, which can only be a good thing.


----------



## Mouldy (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

The Unions went into these talks knowing that there was nothing to be gained bar a freeze on future paycuts. So in terms of what they could have got, they got everything they could have hoped for.

Whether or not these changes get voted through by the membership is another thing entirely. A lot of public servants would prefer another paycut over a longer core working week, reduction in family friendly conditions and mandatory redeployment, depending on their circumstances.

And of course you’ll always have the die-hards who will insist on the previous pay cuts being reimbursed which could never happen.

This whole process could have been a master stroke by the government if anyone believed they were capable of it. They agree a deal that the Union members reject, then proceed with more pay cuts knowing that the Unions can’t complain about it.

M


----------



## bogle (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Shawady said:


> It's early days. It has to be accepted by members, which I hope it is.
> I think there is positives in it for both sides.
> I hope it is not portrayed in the media as 'the government bottles it' or 'the unions were defeated'. It is potentially is an agreement that could transform the public service, which can only be a good thing.



Indeed.


----------



## csirl (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

Its a combination of a u-turn by the Unions and the Government making promises that they will never have to keep as they wont be in power when the time comes to deliver them.


----------



## VOR (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Mouldy said:


> The Unions went into these talks knowing that there was nothing to be gained bar a freeze on future paycuts. So in terms of what they could have got, they got everything they could have hoped for.
> 
> Whether or not these changes get voted through by the membership is another thing entirely. A lot of public servants would prefer another paycut over a longer core working week, reduction in family friendly conditions and mandatory redeployment, depending on their circumstances.



+1 Mouldy. I think the unions had played the money card too heavily. The unions went after pay and the Gov have now blindsided them with  conditions. IMO, this is best illustrated by the year extension to the retirement. It is great for those nearing retirement but will just mean the remaining staff will be moved around more and work longer hours.

Personally, I would take a 20% cut not to have extended core hours and the risk of being sent to Ballygobackwards. 

But overall it would appear to be a fair solution. The unions save face with existing union members and the Gov gets the promise of reform. Now to see how it is applied.


----------



## michaelm (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

I would view the deal as a victory for commonsense.  I certainly don't see it hurting the country.  An end to industrial action and an agreement on real change in the public sector has to be good news for all, even the cranks.  The Government have given away nothing really as I don't think they were going to cut public sector wages directly again anyway (the abandonment of the agreed increased in the Towards 2016 deal, the pension levy and pay cut were not insubstantial).  The next budget probably wouldn't have and now won't target any particular group but will target everyone through a re-jig of the PAYE system.


----------



## thedaras (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard Blair horan say on several occasions that he would settle for nothing less than a return of the wage prior to the paycuts to the lower paid public servants by the end of this year.

This has not happened.....


----------



## QED (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

What sort or numbers (or %) need to be cut to make 2bn in savings?
Is this possible?

Maybe a huge cut in overtime is what's needed?


----------



## Sherman (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

The only savings that will come about as a result of this deal will be those arising from a reduction in headcount.

The benchmarking fiasco over the last ten years has shown that the public service is institutionally incapable of delivering any form of meaningul reform. And before any public servants start listing the meaningless 'concessions' they've made in the last decade, I'm talking about genuine, measurable reforms that impact on the State's bottom line.


----------



## Howitzer (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

I was like totally proved wrong.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=128915&page=2

Those at the top retain their Xmas presents whilst those at the bottom might get a couple of quid in a couple of years if they reform their work practices and if the economy doesn't deteriorate futher.

In fact the extension of "retire on full benefits" date further benefits those at the top as they pull up the ladder on the way out.


----------



## Staples (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Yorrick said:


> The Govt. do seem intent on pushing reform and reduction in numbers.


 
Reductions in numbers are relatively easy to achieve if the quality of the service doesn't really matter.

Now that there's been some agreement on the concept of reform, it'll be intersting to see what form the Government believes this should take.  Personally, I don't think they have a notion of what they really want in this regard or that they'd recognise real reform if it knocked on the front door of Leinster House.

For my own part, I don't think that public servants have anything to fear from a reform agenda that's driven by the genuine objective of improving public service delivery.  However, the inevitable politically-driven ham-fisted approach is likely to just annoy everyone.


----------



## VOR (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Staples said:


> Now that there's been some agreement on the concept of reform, it'll be intersting to see what form the Government believes this should take.



Will An Bord Snip Nua not be a template? Granted it is not customer-centric but surely it is a start.


----------



## Staples (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



VOR said:


> Will An Bord Snip Nua not be a template? Granted it is not customer-centric but surely it is a start.


 
This was mostly about cuts to services.  It didn't address structural reform.


----------



## emaol (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Howitzer said:


> I was like totally proved wrong.
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=128915&page=2
> 
> ...



+1 euthanise the upper echelons!


----------



## z107 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

This should stop any strikes until the next budget.
The government as about nine months now to break the unions or outsource and privatise as much as possible.

There will be more public sector wage cuts in the next budget. There has to be or it'll be bankrupt country time.


----------



## Caveat (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Staples said:


> Now that there's been some agreement on the concept of reform, it'll be intersting to see what form the Government believes this should take. Personally, I don't think they have a notion of what they really want in this regard or that they'd recognise real reform if it knocked on the front door of Leinster House.


 
Why do you say this? 

I think its highly likely that they would have plenty of ideas but in reality they fear that they will simply be rejected by unions.

It is the unions that make reform such a difficult area, not a lack of ideas or political will. Governments have simply learned to deal with the fact that any aspect of reform must be proposed in such a way that it appears to make concessions, or makes concessions, to the unions. This makes it much more complex and slow moving.

If the government hasn't a clue about real reform then who does - the CS/PS themselves? If so, speak up please!


----------



## VOR (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Caveat said:


> If the government hasn't a clue about real reform then who does - the CS/PS themselves? If so, speak up please!



I have a cunning plan. 
The upper echelons of the PS/CS will all take their  retirement by the end of 2011 thus reducing the pay bill. That will be the naysayers out of the way. 

The government  will then host a competition in the PS/CS whereby the best ideas win  promotion. There's your meritocracy and reform in one go. No need for expensive reform boards or consultants. Happy days!!!


----------



## Sunny (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

It's in everyones interests that a deal was done. We need a functioning public service, not one crippled by industrial action. The Government has said it won't touch pay and conditions if savings are made. It is now to the Unions and their members to deliver those savings. The least they deserve is the opportunity to make them before we start calling it a wasted opportunity. The difference this time compared to previous times is that people outside Ireland are watching. There is no room for fudging issues or gamesmanship. There has be impact on the bottom line of the public finances. 
For the sake of everyone, I hope they succeed despite my skepticism that they wont.


----------



## Pique318 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the previous benchmarking/2016 pay agreements made on the understanding that improvements in efficiency and reforms to working practices were made ?
What happened to those reforms then ?
Why should we expect this time around to be any better ?


----------



## Sunny (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Pique318 said:


> Why should we expect this time around to be any better ?


 
Because there is no choice. Savings are made or they aren't. If they aren't and the Government do nothing, then we are joining Greece in getting a bailout and the EU/IMF will do it for us. 

I have a feeling the unions know this and would prefer trying to work with the Irish Government rather than one of those outside bodies. They really couldn't care less about work to rule or protest marches.


----------



## csirl (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

Its quite obvious that new entrants will be given yellow pack terms and conditions and the existing left as is. Savings will be achieved as older staff retire and get replaced by yellow packs.


----------



## Pique318 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Sunny said:


> Because there is no choice. Savings are made or they aren't. If they aren't and the Government do nothing, then we are joining Greece in getting a bailout and the EU/IMF will do it for us.


I agree with this ?/\ /\





Sunny said:


> I have a feeling the unions know this and would prefer trying to work with the Irish Government rather than one of those outside bodies. They really couldn't care less about work to rule or protest marches.


but not with this /\ /\

I wish I had your faith in the intelligence of the Union leadership !


----------



## Sunny (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Pique318 said:


> I wish I had your faith in the intelligence of the Union leadership !


 
I wish I really believed what I said!


----------



## DerKaiser (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Howitzer said:


> In fact the extension of "retire on full benefits" date further benefits those at the top as they pull up the ladder on the way out.


 
These will be the same people who'll complain bitterly when the link to salary inflation is broken (not seeing the irony of being spared the salary link during the first period of deflation and wage cuts in recent memory)


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> This should stop any strikes until the next budget.
> The government as about nine months now to break the unions or outsource and privatise as much as possible.
> 
> There will be more public sector wage cuts in the next budget. There has to be or it'll be bankrupt country time.



Dear God !

Are you not prepared to give the putative deal a chance ?

If efficiencies/reforms deliver the required savings then what's the problem in part reversing the pay cuts or at worst freezing pay levels.

Is it possible that you merely wish to inflict further pay cuts on PS workers rather than contemplate alternatives ?

As for breaking the unions , don't make me laugh !


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Deiseblue said:


> Dear God !
> 
> Are you not prepared to give the putative deal a chance ?
> 
> ...


 I think experience shows that the PS Unions are able to run rings around the PS management when it comes to reform. The Benchmarking fiasco is a good example of this.



Deiseblue said:


> As for breaking the unions , don't make me laugh !


 I agree, they are way to powerful to be broken by a mere elected government.


----------



## Staples (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Caveat said:


> Why do you say this?
> 
> I think its highly likely that they would have plenty of ideas but in reality they fear that they will simply be rejected by unions.
> 
> It is the unions that make reform such a difficult area, not a lack of ideas or political will.


 
Your faith in the country's elected legislators is clearly stronger than mine!

My perception is that, collectively, the political system has a view that "something must be done".  however, I don't believe that ideas for reform go beyond tinkering around the margins or in pursuing certain bones of contention.  I don't believe there's a collective understanding of what might be reasonably expected from a efficient public service, taking account of all its many facets, or what it would be required to create it.


----------



## cork (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

If efficiencies/reforms deliver the required savings then taget those earning <35000.

But efficiencies/reforms will have to be delivered.

A compromise that will lead to reform - or those lower paid workers wll not get pay levels reversed.


----------



## z107 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



> Dear God !
> 
> Are you not prepared to give the putative deal a chance ?
> 
> ...


Before today, the goverment stated that it need to make billions of euros worth of savings. 3 or 4 billion per budget for a number of years.
Today we will probably see the near nationalisation of one or more bankrupt banks, and we also hear that Quinn have had the administrators called in. Think about it, it is meltdown time.

You can be sure that any 'reforms' the unions have just won't even come close to the billions of savings that's required.

If we paid the public sector zero - would this even be enough?


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> Before today, the goverment stated that it need to make billions of euros worth of savings. 3 or 4 billion per budget for a number of years.
> Today we will probably see the near nationalisation of one or more bankrupt banks, and we also hear that Quinn have had the administrators called in. Think about it, it is meltdown time.
> 
> You can be sure that any 'reforms' the unions have just won't even come close to the billions of savings that's required.
> ...



Well of course the required savings will not be made from either Public Sector pay cuts or efficiencies - nor did Brian Lenihan ever intend or state that they should be , no matter how much is saved in the Public Sector it will only represent a small percentage of what is nationally required.

You are of course quite right about the Banks and Quinn - bloody Private Sector marching us all over the cliff !


----------



## z107 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

How will the savings be made, if not from Public Sector pay cuts or efficiencies?


----------



## Shawady (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Sunny said:


> It's in everyones interests that a deal was done. We need a functioning public service, not one crippled by industrial action. The Government has said it won't touch pay and conditions if savings are made. It is now to the Unions and their members to deliver those savings. The least they deserve is the opportunity to make them before we start calling it a wasted opportunity. The difference this time compared to previous times is that people outside Ireland are watching. There is no room for fudging issues or gamesmanship. There has be impact on the bottom line of the public finances.
> For the sake of everyone, I hope they succeed despite my skepticism that they wont.


 
+1.
It is everyone's interest to have an efficient public service. The government has now given an incentive for public sector workers to accept reforms that will reduce costs. It won't happen overnight but if the deal is accepted at least it will bring some stability.


----------



## Shawady (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> How will the savings be made, if not from Public Sector pay cuts or efficiencies?


 
Public sector pay bill accounts for approx 1/3 of government spending so whatever savings are required , I assume pay bill will have to contribute 1/3 to this. The government have also flagged they will introduce new taxes to increase revenue.


----------



## z107 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



> The government have also flagged they will introduce new taxes to increase revenue.


Could it be the case that instead of reducing public sector pay, everyone will have to pay higher taxes?
The unrepresented will suffer, in other words?


----------



## csirl (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> This should stop any strikes until the next budget.
> The government as about nine months now to break the unions or outsource and privatise as much as possible.
> 
> There will be more public sector wage cuts in the next budget. There has to be or it'll be bankrupt country time.


 
When will we have the next Budget?

The maximum vote the Government will have after the autumn by-elections, if all independents, greens, ex-PDs etc. stay on board, will be 84. If it drops below 83 we have an election. We seem to average 2 resignations/deaths per annum. Law of averages suggests we are in the last year of the current Government. There's a very good chance that the first and only act of the 3 newly elected TDs will be to vote on the dissolution of the Dail!!!


----------



## Shawady (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> Could it be the case that instead of reducing public sector pay, everyone will have to pay higher taxes?
> The unrepresented will suffer, in other words?


 
I don't think the government was ever going to try and reduce the deficit just by spending cuts or just by tax increases, rather than a mixure of both.


----------



## Staples (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> Could it be the case that instead of reducing public sector pay, everyone will have to pay higher taxes?
> The unrepresented will suffer, in other words?


 

So are you saying that public sector workers should absorb ALL required suffering?


----------



## z107 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



> So are you saying that public sector workers should absorb ALL required suffering?


I don't believe anyone should suffer apart from the government, and those directly responsible for the depression.
It does seem to me that the private sector is being hit much, much harder, with huge job losses, bust companies and swinging pay cuts that won't be reversed. Why are the private sector currently absorbing all of the suffering?

I can't afford to pay any more tax. Really, I don't want to be forced to hand over yet more of my money to FF and their cronies. It looks like that's what is going to happen if the government backs down.


----------



## liaconn (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Shawady said:


> +1.
> It is everyone's interest to have an efficient public service. The government has now given an incentive for public sector workers to accept reforms that will reduce costs. It won't happen overnight but if the deal is accepted at least it will bring some stability.


 
Where is the incentive in this deal?  A commitment not to 'cut pay' does not mean that they can't impose further 'levies' instead. In addition, the fact that the _Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts of 2009_ can be invoked as a cop out for anything else, makes this deal a bit meaningless for Public Servants.


----------



## Shawady (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



liaconn said:


> Where is the incentive in this deal? A commitment not to 'cut pay' does not mean that they can't impose further 'levies' instead. In addition, the fact that the _Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts of 2009_ can be invoked as a cop out for anything else, makes this deal a bit meaningless for Public Servants.


 
Whats the alternative? Continue WTR until December and get our pay cut again? Would you not rather see savings by reform instead?

Any specific time frame to restore pay would never be accepted because they would have to reverse the social welfare cuts. I don't expect to get pay cut back anytime soon but if my pay is not cut further I can live with it.


----------



## z107 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



> Would you not rather see savings by reform instead?


What will this 'reform' entail?
Remember, it'll have to save a huge amount of money.


----------



## Shawady (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> What will this 'reform' entail?
> Remember, it'll have to save a huge amount of money.


 
Well less people working in the public sector for a start. 
Flexibility between departments would mean areas that are not busy could release staff to busier areas instead of replacing people that retire.
I don't think it would be simple or happen overnight but both the government and the unions suggested there was potential large savings without cutting pay.

I don't work in the health sector so I can't comment on some of the other proposals regards shift work and allowances.


----------



## Staples (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> I can't afford to pay any more tax


 
Regetably, affordability has nothing to do with it. I couldn't afford a 20% cut in my net pay in the last 10 months but I got it anyway. I've swallowed the medicine (reluctantly) and didn't go on strike. While I accept the economic straits in which the country finds itself, I feel I've done my bit thank you very much.   

And by the way, if tax increases occur, public servants get hit as well.


----------



## z107 (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



> Well less people working in the public sector for a start.
> Flexibility between departments would mean areas that are not busy could release staff to busier areas instead of replacing people that retire.
> I don't think it would be simple or happen overnight but both the government and the unions suggested there was potential large savings without cutting pay


Cut jobs instead of pay?


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> How will the savings be made, if not from Public Sector pay cuts or efficiencies?[/
> 
> I think we are going to see additional direct and indirect taxation including property tax and hopefully we will see the reintroduction of a wealth tax.
> 
> I think that there is a strong possibility that the PRSI ceiling will be abolished , however the advent of Mr. Lenihan's social contribution may render the question of PRSI reform moot.


----------



## Firefly (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



umop3p!sdn said:


> Cut jobs instead of pay?


 
I can see this happening via early retirement options and those retirees not being replaced. Sadly, this will mean reduced services for the public. 

If it was me I'd target the managment grades in a big way. The unions constantly argue that front line staff are essential and lower paid - fair enough. The real issue IMO is reducing costs in non-front line staff particularly the management grades.


----------



## Husker (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



Sunny said:


> It's in everyones interests that a deal was done. We need a functioning public service, not one crippled by industrial action. The Government has said it won't touch pay and conditions if savings are made. It is now to the Unions and their members to deliver those savings. The least they deserve is the opportunity to make them before we start calling it a wasted opportunity. The difference this time compared to previous times is that people outside Ireland are watching. There is no room for fudging issues or gamesmanship. There has be impact on the bottom line of the public finances.
> For the sake of everyone, I hope they succeed despite my skepticism that they wont.


 
+1

Sensible post, Sunny.  There is now responsibility on all sides to implement change and efficiency at all levels of the public service.  Although details are sketchy, this is exactly what those advocating change were asking for - lower numbers, greater efficiencies, performance-related increments and promotions.  As usual here in relation to the unions, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.


----------



## ashambles (30 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*

Early retirement is as expensive as keeping people on, in the short to medium term.

If someone is close to a full pension, and the people taking this option usually are, there's the the 150% tax free lump sum and the pension net of tax levies etc. is only 20-30% cheaper to pay than the full salary.

On top of that you've to consider if the person is healthy, relatively young and wealthy then it's likely that a significant chunk of the pension will be spent abroad and outside of Ireland's tax net.

In some cases the retirees will reduce the already scarce amount of available jobs in the private sector (e.g. gardai with security roles etc.).

Voluntary redundancy would/will be even worse, it'll end up being seized by people who're only a few years from retirement.

It's daft, but from the clowns who brought us benchmarking what can we expect.


----------



## thedaras (30 Mar 2010)

Is it just me,or has there been very little comment/analysis of the pay agreement in the media today?

Am I being cynical in saying that the timing was in the governments/unions favour?

Am I right in saying that the public service ( up to 35k )are now not included in any future paycuts (until 2014 )therefore the 3bn will have to come from the private sector?

Would anyone else like to be in this position?

If so how could they get this guarantee from their employers?

ie; anyone earning up to 35k a year,should they now be exempted from any paycut untill 2014?


----------



## Husker (30 Mar 2010)

I think the logic is that savings made will, in the first instance, benefit those earning less than 35k per year - not that they're immune from pay cuts for four years.  If there are no savings made, or worse, then pay cuts will continue.  Feel free to sensationalise, though.


----------



## thedaras (31 Mar 2010)

Who is sentationalising? 

Feel free to sensationalise what exactly?

Always amazes me the tone of some posts, when you try to get to the bottom of things and ask legitimate questions?


----------



## Mouldy (31 Mar 2010)

There is nothing in this deal for PS workers. A promise not to cut pay until 2014 cannot be kept and anyway one of the conditions is that in the event if further financial crisis, this will be reversed. Since further financial crisis is guaranteed by yesterdays bank numbers, I think we can safely expect more pay cuts.

The Government on the other hand, got agreement on a range of public sector reforms whichl, depending on your circumstances, could be a very bad thing for PS workers. It’s difficult to see how union members, particularly those earning over 35k, would vote for this deal.

This is not a comment on public service reform, just the deal that was done on Monday night. It seems to me that behind all the rhetoric, it was just a mechanism to end the WTR and give the country some sense of normality again regarding public services. That being the case, everyone involved in the disputes can now claim victory and will go back to work as if nothing ever happened.

M


----------



## Pique318 (31 Mar 2010)

Mouldy said:


> T
> The Government on the other hand, got agreement on a range of public sector reforms


I thought we had agreement on this years ago...nothing ever happened though !


----------



## Firefly (31 Mar 2010)

Pique318 said:


> I thought we had agreement on this years ago...nothing ever happened though !


 

+1 Objectives should be *SMART* (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time Bound) . 

The reforms objective fails on # 1, 2, 5 IMO.


----------



## Papercut (31 Mar 2010)

*Re: Public Sector Pay Agreement*



liaconn said:


> Where is the incentive in this deal?


No compulsory redundancies?


----------



## liaconn (31 Mar 2010)

Mouldy said:


> There is nothing in this deal for PS workers. A promise not to cut pay until 2014 cannot be kept and anyway one of the conditions is that in the event if further financial crisis, this will be reversed. Since further financial crisis is guaranteed by yesterdays bank numbers, I think we can safely expect more pay cuts.
> 
> The Government on the other hand, got agreement on a range of public sector reforms whichl, depending on your circumstances, could be a very bad thing for PS workers. It’s difficult to see how union members, particularly those earning over 35k, would vote for this deal.
> 
> ...


 
+1.  I think any union member who votes for this is crazy. There are so many out clauses for the Government, the whole thing is meaningless.


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2010)

liaconn said:


> +1.  I think any union member who votes for this is crazy. There are so many out clauses for the Government, the whole thing is meaningless.



Maybe it was an unspoken realisation on the part of the union leadership that things are so bad they have no choice. Maybe they aren't stupid after all.


----------



## Caveat (31 Mar 2010)

Exactly.

I think people have simply got so used to unions negotiating tactics in the good times, the 'hand-out to everyone' Bertie times, that they think unions can endlessly get what they want no matter what the circumstances. They can't.


----------



## Caveat (31 Mar 2010)

Pique318 said:


> I thought we had agreement on this years ago...nothing ever happened though !


 


Firefly said:


> +1 Objectives should be *SMART* (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time Bound) .
> 
> The reforms objective fails on # 1, 2, 5 IMO.


 
This is the absolutely killing part as far as I'm concerned.

_Agreement?! _Oh how magnanimous of you Mr 'I'm on a fantastic salary and as much of a capitalist as any other businessman but if I grow a beard and don't wear a tie people will think I'm down to earth'.

Why on earth do we need _agreement_ or _permission_ for reform? If there is an admission of the need for reform (and many PS workers on this very site think so) then it must be done. Simple as that. Nobody seems to dispute the fact that reform is needed and plenty of it, and that appears to have been the case for some time.

Yet, government must dangle carrots to let unions _allow_ them to reform?

It's laughable.


----------



## Sherman (31 Mar 2010)

The point is all of these reforms have already been paid for several times over via benchmarking. Just bloody get on with it already.


----------



## Mouldy (31 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Maybe it was an unspoken realisation on the part of the union leadership that things are so bad they have no choice. Maybe they aren't stupid after all.


 
Pretty much. The unions knew that the current impasse is a no win situation. Asking for the paycuts to be reversed put the CPSU in an impossible position (They would descibe it as a starting position, I'm sure)

Smart deal for the unions as it absiolves them of having to fight a battle they know they can't win. 

Benchmarking had already been implemented when I joined the PS, so the reforms, whatever they were, should have been a part of my T&Cs. Most if not all of the senior PS pople and Gov ministers who agreed that deal are no longer in their positions, it was 8 years ago. Instead of banging on about it here and dragging this thread off topic, why don't posters start a new thread listing the reofrms that were meant to have happend and i'll endevour to see if I've been a part of or witness to any of them. Given the amount of change i've seen I my own job, I'd be surpised if a lot of boxes wern't already ticked or have become irrelevant. But not surpirsed that a lot wasnn't carried out as well.

M


----------



## thedaras (31 Mar 2010)

Information on the pay agreement;
www.cpsu.ie


----------



## Pique318 (31 Mar 2010)

Glad to see this in there at last! 
"The introduction of new or improved technology... will be regarded as the norm." 
Are the train drivers covered by this?


----------



## Teatime (31 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> Oh how magnanimous of you Mr 'I'm on a fantastic salary and as much of a capitalist as any other businessman but if I grow a beard and don't wear a tie people will think I'm down to earth'.


 
I thought you were losing it Caveat but then I re-read it and the penny dropped...


----------



## dave28 (2 Apr 2010)

I thought "benchmarking" was intended to bring Civil & Public Servants pay in line with the Private Sector pay (during Celtic Tiger years, which they claimed they were missing out on).
So whats the problem with "Benchmarking 2" to bring C & PS pay back down in line with Private Sector ?


----------



## Purple (2 Apr 2010)

dave28 said:


> I thought "benchmarking" was intended to bring Civil & Public Servants pay in line with the Private Sector pay (during Celtic Tiger years, which they claimed they were missing out on).
> So whats the problem with "Benchmarking 2" to bring C & PS pay back down in line with Private Sector ?



Benchmarking had a one-way valve.


----------



## StevieC (2 Apr 2010)

I hate this "whats in it for me attitude". Seriously, not every cost saving should equate to more pay for PS/CS.

Country is broke, PS/CS has taken cuts, private sector has taken cuts, everyone is blaming each other. 

When the house is on fire, you dont sit around saying I'm not leaving until I know that I will be put up in a nice hotel. You dont sit around saying I refuse to leave until the arsonist with the matches is put in jail. You get out and get on with things. Staying in the house and getting burned is the same in this case as the PS/CS taking industrial action. All it does is hurt everyone.


----------



## Purple (2 Apr 2010)

Well said StevieC.


----------



## RMCF (3 Apr 2010)

I think the panel on the Late Late the other night summed it up perfectly when they said that public sector workers are kidding themselves (or being lied to by their union leaders) if they think that they aren't going to get hit big time over the next decade or so.

As they pointed out, wages in the public sector have nearly quadrupled in the last 10 years or so (their wages now account for nearly two-thirds of the Gov's income), and when a country is as bankrupt as we are then the Gov has no other option but to make big cuts. And they will.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Apr 2010)

RMCF said:


> I think the panel on the Late Late the other night summed it up perfectly when they said that public sector workers are kidding themselves (or being lied to by their union leaders) if they think that they aren't going to get hit big time over the next decade or so.
> 
> As they pointed out, wages in the public sector have nearly quadrupled in the last 10 years or so (their wages now account for nearly two-thirds of the Gov's income), and when a country is as bankrupt as we are then the Gov has no other option but to make big cuts. And they will.


 
The current Givernment won't dare cut wages further if the current deal is accepted.
Labour will hopefully form a large part of any Government following the next election and will not impose pay cuts.
In any event if the efficiencies/reforms provide the savings required then their should be no reason for further pay cuts rather we should see a partial reversal of pay cuts already imposed.


----------



## VOR (6 Apr 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> In any event if the efficiencies/reforms provide the savings required then their should be no reason for further pay cuts rather we should see a partial reversal of pay cuts already imposed.



It would appear that the teachers will reject the reforms. Where can the government go now? They made a reasonable offer which the union leaders agreed to. If this is thrown back at the government then what are they to do?


----------



## Howitzer (6 Apr 2010)

VOR said:


> It would appear that the teachers will reject the reforms. Where can the government go now? They made a reasonable offer which the union leaders agreed to. If this is thrown back at the government then what are they to do?


Lisbon 2?


Union leaders are insiders, they just play the game. 

Make all sorts of concilliatory noises in negotiations with the guys who've been scratching their backs for the last 10 years.
Make the deal the senior civil servants and politicos want but they know will be rejected by their members.
And when it is go back into new negotiations with their buddies without losing face.
Everyone's a weiner. Roll up, roll up.


----------



## Sunny (6 Apr 2010)

Well if they are free to reject it but like the Aer Lingus cabin crew, they have to realise that there are consequences. They keep mentioning the phrase 'industrial relations war'. Well at this stage, bring it on. The Government will have my full support.


----------



## Shawady (7 Apr 2010)

VOR said:


> It would appear that the teachers will reject the reforms. Where can the government go now? They made a reasonable offer which the union leaders agreed to. If this is thrown back at the government then what are they to do?


 
What is likely is that some public sector unions will reject it and some will accept it. 
Where I work, there may be 4 or 5 different unions representing staff so there could be difficulties if only one of these unions put a picket on the workplace. Or if one grade was trying to implement reforms and other grades were not cooperating because they rejected the deal.
It's going to get messy.


----------



## Caveat (7 Apr 2010)

Well so far only the TUI have rejected - is this correct?

I'll probably be accused of being a cold capitalist or something,  but who cares if they reject it? They only have 15,000 members. It's not like the entire education system is poised to collapse because of them.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

If one union rejects it and puts a picket in place will members of other unions who accept it pass the picket?


----------



## Shawady (7 Apr 2010)

Purple said:


> If one union rejects it and puts a picket in place will members of other unions who accept it pass the picket?


 
When the CPSU held a one day strike after the pension levy last year, Impact members in my workplace were instructed it was accpetable for them to go to work on that day as they were not on strike but I know a lot of people were not comfortable with that. I suppose a lot of people do not like passing a picket, particularly if their colleagues are on it.


----------

