# IMPACT balloting members



## Caveat (28 Sep 2009)

Have I got this right - there is the threat of strike action if there are any attempts to implement changes concerning public sector redundancies, pay, pensions, working hours, any benefits...or basically anything at all whatsoever?

Is that roughtly it?


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

Caveat said:


> Have I got this right - there is the threat of strike action if there are any attempts to implement changes concerning public sector redundancies, pay, pensions, working hours, any benefits...or basically anything at all whatsoever?
> 
> Is that roughtly it?



That's it. 
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.


----------



## Shawady (28 Sep 2009)

Caveat said:


> Have I got this right - there is the threat of strike action if there are any attempts to implement changes concerning public sector redundancies, pay, pensions, working hours, any benefits...or basically anything at all whatsoever?
> 
> Is that roughtly it?


 
Caveat, As far as I know Impact members will be balloted soon for action which may include strikes. I don't think it will be the only public servie union to do this. I was talking to a public sector worker from a different union and he reckons he will be balloted soon.
As far as I know, a strike is only one of the options the union is looking at.


----------



## Shawady (28 Sep 2009)

Purple said:


> That's it.
> It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.


 
Purple, unfortunately thats the way it is in this country. Any area that has been mentioned as a candidate for cuts has been met with fierce resistance (farmers, social welfare, child benefit, arts council). The public sector unions are not going to be any different.
Everyone aggrees there must be cuts but very few want it to affect their area.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

Government wants a strike - every week saves c.2% of the public sector pay bill.


----------



## Shawady (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> Government wants a strike - every week saves c.2% of the public sector pay bill.


 
Thats assuming the whole of the public sector is on strike. It might be just targeted to front line services like the newly formed 24/7 group.


----------



## liaconn (28 Sep 2009)

Shawady said:


> Everyone aggrees there must be cuts but very few want it to affect their area.


 
Exactly.


----------



## dockingtrade (28 Sep 2009)

i was talking to a low paid ps worker at the weekend and her gripe like many like hers is with the higher paid ps workers. The thing is the unions are going to wrap the whole thing up as on vote for strike against pat cuts in the public service, and she will vote for it as it is the only way to protect her low wages. So why dont the govt come out with a tiered cut proposal and get some ps workers on their side?


----------



## Latrade (28 Sep 2009)

But we don't even know what cuts will be made yet. How can you ballot for a strike when there's been no actual statement or plan as to what changes will be made?

I'm probably wrong, but I heard IMPACT saying the represent the "healthcare" sector, I don't doubt this, but isn't it largely administrative functions rather than front line staff? I.e., the admin functions?

I think the point made on the radio by IMPACT was the most valid, that they _have_ to do this so that they don't set a precedent of "giving in" to cuts. And let's face it, no matter how necessary cuts may be, I couldn't see many giving up without some fight. Whether strikes are the right thing to do is another issue.

I'm not sure how much public support they will gain though.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> i was talking to a low paid ps worker at the weekend and her gripe like many like hers is with the higher paid ps workers. The thing is the unions are going to wrap the whole thing up as on vote for strike against pat cuts in the public service, and she will vote for it as it is the only way to protect her low wages. So why dont the govt come out with a tiered cut proposal and get some ps workers on their side?



Maybe because the higher paid public servants are not overpaid; the lower paid ones are.

Before anyone comes out with the BS about “how am I supposed to get by on X euros a week/month” please remember that you get paid according to your skill level/ value –add, not what your outgoings are. If that was the case people with a big family/ big mortgage/ drug addiction should get paid extra.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> i was talking to a low paid ps worker at the weekend and her gripe like many like hers is with the higher paid ps workers. The thing is the unions are going to wrap the whole thing up as on vote for strike against pat cuts in the public service, and she will vote for it as it is the only way to protect her low wages. So why dont the govt come out with a tiered cut proposal and get some ps workers on their side?


 
My civil servant neighbour says that the unions are taking the wrong stance. Most civil servants would prefer that useless State agencies and surplus and overpaid HSE administrators are got rid off rather than the entire PS taking a pay cut to keep these useless people in jobs.


----------



## dockingtrade (28 Sep 2009)

Purple said:


> Maybe because the higher paid public servants are not overpaid; the lower paid ones are.
> 
> Before anyone comes out with the BS about “how am I supposed to get by on X euros a week/month” please remember that you get paid according to your skill level/ value –add, not what your outgoings are. If that was the case people with a big family/ big mortgage/ drug addiction should get paid extra.


 

Its nothing go to do with overpaid or underpaid its the amount thats paid. It needs to be cut. The more your paid in an org that cant afford to pay you the more you should be cut, no? Do you suggest an individual assessment of everyone in the PS and cut based on that?


----------



## Sunny (28 Sep 2009)

Eamonn Gilmore was on RTE this morning and ruled out pay cuts in the public sector. He also disputed the fact that €4 billion needed to raised by the Government despite the fact that we have gone to the EU and ECB and told them that's we are doing.

I am beginning to seriously think that FF especially with Brian Lenihan might be the best option to get us out of this.  The others just make me despair.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

> Eamonn Gilmore was on RTE this morning and ruled out pay cuts in the public sector.


 
Gilmore isnt in Government, so wont have a say in this.

My sources say that a pay cut (yes, an actual cut, not a levy/tax) averaging 7-8% is on the cards for all public sector workers in the upcoming Budget.


----------



## z104 (28 Sep 2009)

Borrowing 400 million per week.


FOUR HUNDRED MILLION EUROS PER WEEK


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> Its nothing go to do with overpaid or underpaid its the amount thats paid. It needs to be cut. The more your paid in an org that cant afford to pay you the more you should be cut, no? Do you suggest an individual assessment of everyone in the PS and cut based on that?



 I agree with you, I think you mis-read my post.


----------



## DublinTexas (28 Sep 2009)

I am of the opinion that the state has a responsibility towards the civil or public servants that provide essential services of the state (front line staff like law enforcement, heath care, fire & rescue services and their needed management) and that we should pay them adequate. 

I am however also of the opinion that a waist full overblown apparatus in the public service is wrong and must be eliminated. We don’t need all the Quangos, pseudo agencies and large levels of administrators in for example the Health Service. 


The problem is that we for years have created an oversized “service” that does not need to provide value for money and is based on the fact that the rulers deem it necessary to have the state interfere as much as possible into the citizen lives and businesses. They also want to keep it that way because as soon as the state relinquishes control of its citizens they might revolt and do what they want (like vote NO in Lisbon Referendum). 


I know countries where certain types of civil servants (like police, fire & rescue services) have no right to strike at all in exchange for job security, a decent pay package and respect of their fellow citizens. 


We need a debate what services we want our state to provide and how far it should intrude into our daily business. Than we should discuss how many people we need to provide that service.


To discuss simply how we reduce staffing levels (i.e. we don’t replace person x is s/he is leaving, even if we need that person to provide important work) or how to reduce pay levels without looking that the substance behind it, is just wrong. We need to discuss if this is a communist republic with an overblown apparatus, a capitalist republic with a minimum of state interference, a social state accepting both state and private responsibility or a mixture. 


However having a union polling for strike action based on an umbrella reason like it’s currently going on is wrong. How can fair negotiations go on if one crazy site is having a loaded gun to the head of the other all the time?


----------



## Sunny (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> Gilmore isnt in Government, so wont have a say in this.
> 
> My sources say that a pay cut (yes, an actual cut, not a levy/tax) averaging 7-8% is on the cards for all public sector workers in the upcoming Budget.


 
If the Government don't get Lisbon or the Greens don't get two thirds approval for continuing in Government, Labour will be in the Government. Not as remote a chance as you seem to think. 

Even if it doesn't happen, he shouldn't be saying things like that because it gives Trade Unions the idea that if they can bring down the current Government and get labour in, they won't have to take the hit. If I was a Union leader, I would be delighted with his comments. It was irresponsible to make people think there is an alternative to whats coming. There simply isn't.


----------



## dockingtrade (28 Sep 2009)

Purple said:


> I think you mis-read my post.


 
Its a bit out of context .... maybe ?


----------



## dockingtrade (28 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> Eamonn Gilmore was on RTE this morning and ruled out pay cuts in the public sector. He also disputed the fact that €4 billion needed to raised by the Government despite the fact that we have gone to the EU and ECB and told them that's we are doing.
> 
> I am beginning to seriously think that FF especially with Brian Lenihan might be the best option to get us out of this.  The others just make me despair.


 
Christ! This guy thinks he's going to be taoiseach?  The current "bad" govt know cuts in the ps are badly needed. Gilmore says no! He has to play to the unions but his will cost him. Public sector votes wont be enough eamon. He realizes he needs public support plus as a labour leader support of the unions... they are not the same and are probably diametriclly apposed at this stage.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> Its a bit out of context .... maybe ?



I was making the point that it comes down to spending what we can afford. What people deserve, or think they deserve, or whose fault it is, is irrelevant. Ireland Inc is spending money it doesn’t have and so has to spend less. That’s all there is to it.


----------



## liaconn (28 Sep 2009)

Purple said:


> I was making the point that it comes down to spending what we can afford. What people deserve, or think they deserve, or whose fault it is, is irrelevant. Ireland Inc is spending money it doesn’t have and so has to spend less. That’s all there is to it.


 

I agree. But people can see this very clearly when it comes to cuts in Public Sector pay but start to scream blue murder when it comes to abolishing free university fees or means testing child benefit and so on.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree. But people can see this very clearly when it comes to cuts in Public Sector pay but start to scream blue murder when it comes to abolishing free university fees or means testing child benefit and so on.



I agree.


----------



## Deiseblue (28 Sep 2009)

All the other unions representing Public Sector workers will follow suit , SIPTU and the INO will definitely ballot members.
I would think that it's simply tactical at this stage and intended to fire a warning shot across the Governments bows !


----------



## Firefly (28 Sep 2009)

A new round of benchmarking is due - this time it should be down to reflect the comparison with the private sector. If benchmarking was fair on the way up it should be fair on the way down.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

Firefly said:


> A new round of benchmarking is due - this time it should be down to reflect the comparison with the private sector. If benchmarking was fair on the way up it should be fair on the way down.


 
Has the benchmarking process ever been fair?


----------



## liaconn (28 Sep 2009)

I can see quite clearly that the public sector pay bill is going to have to be reduced, whether by reducing staff numbers or introducing pay cuts. However, what I cannot understand is the way some private sector workers seem to regard this as a kind of victory for themselves. Do they not realise the huge ramifications it will have for them and their jobs as hundreds of thousands of PS workers  cut back on food shopping, hang on to their old cars, recycle their kids' clothes, cancel their gym membership, stop eating out, avoid using taxis etc etc. Not only will it directly affect these businesses but also their various suppliers. Public Sector pay may well be cut in the coming months but this will be, in effect, a pay cut for everyone who is lucky enough to hang onto their jobs.


----------



## dockingtrade (28 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I can see quite clearly that the public sector pay bill is going to have to be reduced, whether by reducing staff numbers or introducing pay cuts. However, what I cannot understand is the way some private sector workers seem to regard this as a kind of victory for themselves. Do they not realise the huge ramifications it will have for them and their jobs as hundreds of thousands of PS workers cut back on food shopping, hang on to their old cars, recycle their kids' clothes, cancel their gym membership, stop eating out, avoid using taxis etc etc. Not only will it directly affect these businesses but also their various suppliers. Public Sector pay may well be cut in the coming months but this will be, in effect, a pay cut for everyone who is lucky enough to hang onto their jobs.


 
I think the situation is gone beyond price deflation or wage deflation, these proposed cuts are not some well thought out fiscal strategy. Its about not going bankrupt, lets stay afloat 1st! Bottom line you cant maintain the same pay levels if your income is 33Bn and your expenditure is 50BLN. Comparision with the pay in the private sector or benchmarking really has nothing to do with it,there is no basis to compare pay with other countries or other sectors, we cant afford the bill!


----------



## liaconn (28 Sep 2009)

I agree. What I'm saying is, some misguided private sector workers seem to feel a reduction in Public Sector pay is a victory for themselves, not realising we will all be suffering from less income as a result. Im not saying it's avoidable, just that it's not an easy solution for anyone, wherever they work.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> i think the situation is gone beyond price deflation or wage deflation, these proposed cuts are not some well thought out fiscal strategy. Its about not going bankrupt, lets stay afloat 1st! Bottom line you cant maintain the same pay levels if your income is 33bn and your expenditure is 50bln. Comparision with the pay in the private sector or benchmarking really has nothing to do with it,there is no basis to compare pay with other countries or other sectors, we cant afford the bill!





liaconn said:


> i agree. What i'm saying is, some misguided private sector workers seem to feel a reduction in public sector pay is a victory for themselves, not realising we will all be suffering from less income as a result. Im not saying it's avoidable, just that it's not an easy solution for anyone, wherever they work.



+1


----------



## Shawady (28 Sep 2009)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is that this is the best chance the government will ever have to reform the public service.
Reports over the weekend suggest the government will cut pay by 5% to yield a gross saving of 1 billion. Why not put it back to the unions that if they can make this saving by natural wastage and changing work practices and allowances, then core pay will not be cut?
It will give an incentive for employees to embrace change.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

Shawady said:


> One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is that this is the best chance the government will ever have to reform the public service.
> Reports over the weekend suggest the government will cut pay by 5% to yield a gross saving of 1 billion. Why not put it back to the unions that if they can make this saving by natural wastage and changing work practices and allowances, then core pay will not be cut?
> It will give an incentive for employees to embrace change.


 
This is the big problem. If you put it back to the unions, they'll just spread the 5% cut across everyone. And this is the mistake that the Government makes also. An across the board cut is totally wrong. You should be able to cut a lot more than 5% off the public sector wage bill by getting rid of surplus staff in some areas and staff who have no work to do because their programmes are not receiving as much funding. 

Why should we pay ANY wages to staff who are surplus to requirements? The cuts should reflect what the customer i.e. the taxpayer wants in terms of efficiencies.


----------



## Shawady (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> This is the big problem. If you put it back to the unions, they'll just spread the 5% cut across everyone. And this is the mistake that the Government makes also. An across the board cut is totally wrong. You should be able to cut a lot more than 5% off the public sector wage bill by getting rid of surplus staff in some areas and staff who have no work to do because their programmes are not receiving as much funding.
> 
> Why should we pay ANY wages to staff who are surplus to requirements? The cuts should reflect what the customer i.e. the taxpayer wants in terms of efficiencies.


 
Then cut the unions out and speak to the heads of each division. 
If the government stated it would not cut core pay if certain targets could be met I think most employees would respond positively. Less numbers employed would also mean lower pension costs in the future.


----------



## liaconn (28 Sep 2009)

As a Civil Servant you have no idea how much I would love to see some real reform, proper deployment of staff etc. There is an awful lot of good things in the Public Sector and some really excellent workers but there is also a lot of wastage, inefficiences and terrible waste of talent and enthusiasm which then turns into cynicism and demotivation.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2009)

Shawady said:


> Then cut the unions out and speak to the heads of each division.
> If the government stated it would not cut core pay if certain targets could be met I think most employees would respond positively. Less numbers employed would also mean lower pension costs in the future.


 
This could work, but only if each division is given a target number of mandatory redundancies.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> As a Civil Servant you have no idea how much I would love to see some real reform, proper deployment of staff etc. There is an awful lot of good things in the Public Sector and some really excellent workers but there is also a lot of wastage, inefficiences and terrible waste of talent and enthusiasm which then turns into cynicism and demotivation.



Well said


----------



## dockingtrade (28 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> a target number of mandatory redundancies.


 
long term redundancies work, but the deficit is too wide right now. This would only add to the deficit. We cant afford it at the moment.

has the prospect of the IMF been put to the union bosses. Whats their belief on that? Whats their view on this possiblilty, and the prospect of 30% cuts. Or if this happens will they just blame the govt.


----------



## The_Banker (28 Sep 2009)

How about implementing a pay cut of 5% and then adding the caveat that unless there is reform there will be another 5% cut in 6 months.

The kid gloves have to come off at this stage. If the unions want to strike then take them on. They will have to be faced sooner or later anyway.


----------



## VOR (28 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> As a Civil Servant you have no idea how much I would love to see some real reform, proper deployment of staff etc. There is an awful lot of good things in the Public Sector and some really excellent workers but there is also a lot of wastage, inefficiences and terrible waste of talent and enthusiasm which then turns into cynicism and demotivation.


 
Well said.
You know if the gutless management had actually managed the PS none of this would be happening. If they performanced managed like any good manager then the dead wood would be long gone or we would at least know who to sack first.

As it stands the useless and incompetent hide behind the hard worker. It is totally unacceptable.


----------



## gipimann (28 Sep 2009)

Peter McLoone, Gen Sec of IMPACT will be on Pat Kenny's show tonight.


----------



## annet (28 Sep 2009)

Jack O'Connor from Siptu was also on about his opposition to any public sector wage cuts - his answer to the problem was to introduce a 48% tax rate although it would be correct to say he was less than vague when it came to what wage it would apply from - about €100,000 - and yet he couldnt produce any figures on how much money this new tax rate would bring in or plug the gap in our deficit in current expenditure.


----------



## Teatime (28 Sep 2009)

annet said:


> Jack O'Connor from Siptu was also on about his opposition to any public sector wage cuts - his answer to the problem was to introduce a 48% tax rate although it would be correct to say he was less than vague when it came to what wage it would apply from - about €100,000 - and yet he couldnt produce any figures on how much money this new tax rate would bring in or plug the gap in our deficit in current expenditure.


 
Jack O'Connor makes me cringe. He was trying to convince Matt Cooper that only 9% of private sector works have taken a pay cut. He is not living in the real world.

We are heading for civil war, the public sector v private sector with the government in the middle. I fear for this country now.


----------



## dockingtrade (28 Sep 2009)

Teatime said:


> Jack O'Connor makes me cringe. He was trying to convince Matt Cooper that only 9% of private sector works have taken a pay cut. He is not living in the real world.
> 
> We are heading for civil war, the public sector v private sector with the government in the middle. I fear for this country now.


 
did Matt say anything to him about the thousands of redundancies as a retort. Id love to know how union members that have lost their jobs feel about jacks such strong stance against pay cuts in the public sector... its easy but tough against the govt, try save some jobs jack. Did he give his text book definition of deflation again.The union leaders are pitting public vs private they will f$cking ruin us, the final nail...sorry


----------



## annet (28 Sep 2009)

Another issue is that some private sector workers whose salary is funded through public sector grants are linked to public sector salary scales - so I wonder where this all sits in terms of planned cuts in public sector wages - are these going to be part of it - and are these going to be balloted by IMPACT.  

Another farce is this 24/7 public sector alliance....where was this collective opposition of an "alliance" to cutbacks in both services and pay when Govt was dishing out embargoes on public sector recruitment, there was cuts in health services, closure of wards and also garda stations.... this alliance only transpired when they all realised that cutbacks in their members pay and allowances was clearly on the Govt's radar?  I heard the spokesperson for this group - Des Kavanagh who is head of the PNA spurning on about these groups losing their sunday and christmas day premiums - defending the indefensible like the fact that Gardai allowance includes one for rent and they might not even be renting - he pointed out that Gardai were working Sunday's and had to cover events like croke park (you think that public order and traffic management wasnt part of their actual job for a minute) and then he said that these allowances were secured through agreement from the 1970's or was it the 80's.  

The only people I'd have SOME kind of sympathy for is fire and ambulance services....!


----------



## bogle (29 Sep 2009)

Teatime said:


> ... We are heading for civil war, the public sector v private sector with the government in the middle. I fear for this country now.




Dude calm down, no need to be so alarmist!


I watched the debate on Pat Kenny's show last night. How come IBEC, ISME, SFA were not to be seen?

It seemed to me that by the end of the show, some of the private sector bods were siding with the public sector workers!


----------



## Shawady (29 Sep 2009)

The_Banker said:


> How about implementing a pay cut of 5% and then adding the caveat that unless there is reform there will be another 5% cut in 6 months.
> 
> The kid gloves have to come off at this stage. If the unions want to strike then take them on. They will have to be faced sooner or later anyway.


 
I think something like this could work.
Even say the government want to cut 5% of the wage bill every year for the next 3 years. It can be all in pay or all in actual numbers or a mixture of both. At least if gives an incentive to employees to do more with less.


----------



## Caveat (29 Sep 2009)

Teatime said:


> Jack O'Connor makes me cringe.


 
+1

The guy is a complete fool IMO - he has nothing to say, zero debating skills and is not at all bright TBH. He was utterly pathetic on the show. I've no idea how he is in the postion he is.


----------



## Deiseblue (29 Sep 2009)

The Government would seem to be in a cleft stick situation here.
If they reduce public sector pay across the board by 5% then I have no doubt we will see hugely damaging strikes and the Unions will refuse to negotiate on public sector reform.
Perhaps the Mandate suggestion of pay and pension protection in return for reform is a runner ?


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2009)

bogle said:


> It seemed to me that by the end of the show, some of the private sector bods were siding with the public sector workers!


 ICTU and IBEC are two sides of the same coin; the management and non-management side of the protected sector. I know the foreign multinationals have to join when they get their IDA hand-outs but they are not real members.



Deiseblue said:


> Perhaps the Mandate suggestion of pay and pension protection in return for reform is a runner ?



How will that reduce costs in the short term?


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Sep 2009)

Purple said:


> ICTU and IBEC are two sides of the same coin; the management and non-management side of the protected sector. I know the foreign multinationals have to join when they get their IDA hand-outs but they are not real members.
> 
> 
> 
> How will that reduce costs in the short term?


I take it that you agree that public sector reform could deliver more than a putative 5% pay cut ?
Possibly a two year time frame ?


----------



## Latrade (30 Sep 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I take it that you agree that public sector reform could deliver more than a putative 5% pay cut ?
> Possibly a two year time frame ?


 
Ok, I'll take the point that it may be more beneficial, but we don't have 2 years. It really is that important.

Plus, the cynic in me thinks "oh now you want to talk about reform". You know what: it's a bit late for that. We both know that reform should have taken place a long time ago, however I'm sure if we're both honest, that there was no chance in hell that it could ever have been brought to the table, even with a crystal ball. Any hint of reform in the past has been met with resistence and threatened industrial action.

The opportunity for reform discussion has gone, that ship has sailed, maybe the PS Unions let it sail, maybe there wasn't the political will to enter into reform negotiations, it's not important any more. 

This is with no offence, no disrespect and full sympathy to anyone in the PS or CS, but this country cannot afford you. If we do not do something immediately about public spending, we really are heading into dark times.

I'm sorry, I know that will be tough on a lot of employees and I hope all cuts are proportionate and rational (i.e. based upon where there is a need for cut and those roles are excessive rather than just easy targets). But for the 4 million people who live in this country and not just the proportion who work in the PS/CS we have to cut.

A more productive route would be to look to agree the untouchables and look at where it is more appropriate to make cuts. However, I understand that this is conceding some members will ose their jobs.


----------



## Delboy (30 Sep 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> The Government would seem to be in a cleft stick situation here.
> If they reduce public sector pay across the board by 5% then I have no doubt we will see hugely damaging strikes and the Unions will refuse to negotiate on public sector reform.
> Perhaps the Mandate suggestion of pay and pension protection in return for reform is a runner ?



how bad can the strikes be? An awful lot of public sector employees must have mortgages, really large ones for younger workers. Whats the pay when you go on strike? a hundred a week from the union or something like that?

I cannot see how many workers, public or private, can go on strike for a prolonged basis given the debts we all have and the loans that have to be serviced. So let a strike happen...not 1 day events, but a prolonged strike and bring this to a head in a short space of time (if teachers etc attempt to go out for 1 day at a time, every few weeks or so, keep the buildings locked on their return and don't pay them until a resolution is agreed)


----------



## TarfHead (30 Sep 2009)

Delboy said:


> how bad can the strikes be?


 
Does Maggie Thatcher still send you a card at Christmas  ?


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I take it that you agree that public sector reform could deliver more than a putative 5% pay cut ?
> Possibly a two year time frame ?


 Reform without a serious reduction in both pay and numbers is meaningless. Reform should mean a reduction in pay by 5-15% (5% at the top, 15% at the bottom) and a reduction in numbers of 20% (30% or more in the HSE). Unfortunately we don’t have the resources to effect any real reform now; slash and burn is the only option.


----------



## VOR (30 Sep 2009)

Purple said:


> we don’t have the resources to effect any real reform now; slash and burn is the only option.


 
Purple - You remind me of a senior manager I know in a large American multi. He has a saying when they are taking over a business. He looks for "a long straight wall" at the head office.

I asked him why and he said " so we can line up all management and shoot them in one go!!"


----------



## Delboy (1 Oct 2009)

TarfHead said:


> Does Maggie Thatcher still send you a card at Christmas  ?



you dont see the media in the Uk over-run with the beardies everytime the govt make a decision that affects the country. I watch ch4 news and newsnight,some of bbc news...question time etc...and I could count on 1 hand the amount of times I've seen or heard union officials being part of the debate.
And yet, the sky has'nt falling in on the average worker over there, public or private. They have as much protection as workers here through national and EU laws....but yet the unions in this country have to be sat down and talked with several tiems a year just so the country is'nt plunged into strikes etc


----------



## bogle (1 Oct 2009)

TarfHead said:


> Does Maggie Thatcher still send you a card at Christmas  ?



Bet he has a big poster off her stuck up on his bedroom wall 

Seriously though they definitely do have their problems over there...

National Mail Strike May Hit U.K.
[broken link removed]

Travel chaos for Tube passengers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8090608.stm?lsf

Brown says U.K. strikes are 'not defensible'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/world/europe/01iht-brits.4.19847459.html

Also in my opinion UK (and continential) workers and their unions are much more militant than Irish ones.


----------



## DonDub (3 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> Reform without a serious reduction in both pay and numbers is meaningless. Reform should mean a reduction in pay by 5-15% (5% at the top, 15% at the bottom) and a reduction in numbers of 20% (30% or more in the HSE). Unfortunately we don’t have the resources to effect any real reform now; slash and burn is the only option.


 
I couldn't agree more.
Furthermore, the PS does not have the capacity to reform from within-management, employees and unons are all part of the problem, indeed, the vast majority of managers in the PS are union members. I have family and friends in PS - and the picture they paint of their workplace environments is mind-boggling - rampant ineffciency, incompetence at every level, an us versus them mentality, time served valued above competence. We need political action to radically reform, restructure and downsize the PS. The frst step is to boot the incompetent F.Failers and Vegtables out of office........


----------



## BeanPole (3 Oct 2009)

DonDub said:


> We need political action to radically reform, restructure and downsize the PS. The frst step is to boot the incompetent F.Failers and Vegtables out of office........


 
I couldn't agree more with you, but would a FG/Labour government be any different? 

Sad to say, but Brian L is probably the best chance we have out of this mess.

The archaic working practices, pay increment scales, travel days, gold plated pensions etc, must all be cut with a minimum of 20% pay cuts across the board. The party is over boys - but my fear is that the Commies in SIPTU, IMPACT and all the rest will win the day and we (the private sector workers) will continue to feel the pan


----------



## bogle (3 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> ... but my fear is that the Commies in SIPTU, IMPACT and all the rest will win the day and we (the private sector workers) will continue to feel the pan



Impact have members who are engineers, pilots, air traffic controllers, software engineers, computer experts  etc. etc. - infact just about every technical and professional job you can think of. Are you seriously suggesting these people are "Commies"!  

Dude its very hard to take your posts seriously when you come out with this sort of silliness, which is frankly starting to verge on the hysterical


----------



## BeanPole (3 Oct 2009)

bogle said:


> Impact have members who are engineers, pilots, air traffic controllers, software engineers, computer experts etc. etc. - infact just about every technical and professional job you can think of. Are you seriously suggesting these people are "Commies"!


 
Are you seriously suggesting that the leadership of the trade union movement in Ireland are not Communists? Just look at the eulogy that Jack O'Connor gave to a fellow Comrade and ex CPI leader, at his death in 2006:
[broken link removed]





bogle said:


> Dude its very hard to take your posts seriously when you come out with this sort of silliness, which is frankly starting to verge on the hysterical


 
Not as hard as it is to take someone seriously who refers to another person as "Dude"

Its a word I haven't heard since the 70s. Aah, the Seventies !!! A glorious time when all of Europe were brought to their knees by wildcat strikes in the West and Communist oppression in the East.

How cool would the Commie dudes leading SIPTU and IMPACT think that would be?

Power to the people Comrade!


----------



## bogle (3 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the leadership of the trade union movement in Ireland are not Communists? Just look at the eulogy that Jack O'Connor gave to a fellow Comrade and ex CPI leader, at his death in 2006:
> [broken link removed]
> 
> 
> ...



You're getting ridiculous now! I was talking about Impact not SIPTU. If nothing else you're posts are good for a laugh 


Dude PS: Don't forget to check for Reds under the bed before you go to sleep


----------



## BeanPole (4 Oct 2009)

A pathetic response.

To describe the concerns of the private sector worker as "good for a laugh" is disgusting.

So much for workers' solidarity. Long live IMPACT, and the cushioned life of the public sector worker !


----------



## bogle (4 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> To describe the concerns of the private sector worker as "good for a laugh" is disgusting.



Dude please stop misquoting me. 
If you read what I said you'll find that I was speaking in the singular not the plural!


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the leadership of the trade union movement in Ireland are not Communists? Just look at the eulogy that Jack O'Connor gave to a fellow Comrade and ex CPI leader, at his death in 2006:



 My problem with Jack O'Connor isn't that he's a communist (and he is in all but name), it's that he's a fool, working way beyond his ability.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2009)

bogle said:


> You're getting ridiculous now! I was talking about Impact not SIPTU.



SIPTU have the lion’s share of the block vote in the ICTU so they run the show there. They are to ICTU what the institutional investors are to the banks. 
The leadership of IMPACT has shown itself to be just as greedy and self serving as any other union.


----------



## Lex Foutish (4 Oct 2009)

bogle said:


> You're getting ridiculous now! I was talking about Impact not SIPTU. If nothing else you're posts are good for a laugh
> 
> 
> Dude PS: *Don't forget to check for Reds under the bed before you go to* *sleep*


 
Why are you bringing Cork people into this, Bogle?

You make us sound like a bunch of perverts!


----------



## dockingtrade (5 Oct 2009)

A communist on 120k a year.....?  Ive made this point several times before. The fat cats of the boom like politicians,bankers and developers, you'd have to throw in the unions leaders there too.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

I've no problem with people being well paid (or being rich). It's hypocrisy and incompetence from supposed leaders I have  a problem with.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Oct 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> A communist on 120k a year.....? Ive made this point several times before. The fat cats of the boom like politicians,bankers and developers, you'd have to throw in the unions leaders there too.


 Wait 'til we see - 120,000 euro a year , that would have got you on 1/25th of a Brian Goggin - probably less if you threw in stock options !


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> I couldn't agree more with you, but would a FG/Labour government be any different?
> 
> Sad to say, but Brian L is probably the best chance we have out of this mess.
> 
> The archaic working practices, pay increment scales, travel days, gold plated pensions etc, must all be cut with a minimum of 20% pay cuts across the board. The party is over boys - but my fear is that the Commies in SIPTU, IMPACT and all the rest will win the day and we (the private sector workers) will continue to feel the pan


So now it's a communist plot !
That must be up there with your previous assertions that there are jobs out there for everyone ( as long as you are prepared to get on your bike ) and as such the JSA should be cut to 70 or 90 euros a week and then be terminated after a year and the minimum wage should be dercreased by 50% .
Lets have a bit of realism please.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> So now it's a communist plot !
> That must be up there with your previous assertions that there are jobs out there for everyone ( as long as you are prepared to get on your bike ) and as such the JSA should be cut to 70 or 90 euros a week and then be terminated after a year and the minimum wage should be dercreased by 50% .
> Lets have a bit of realism please.


We're spending 50% more than we take in... how's that for realism?


----------



## dockingtrade (5 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> I've no problem with people being well paid (or being rich). It's hypocrisy and incompetence from supposed leaders I have a problem with.


 
Agree 100%.  These socialists leaders go on about fat cats and accountabilty at board level of banks and consequences these people should face. Jack O'Connors attempt of a defensive of McLoone on today FM was pathetic. What do SIPTU members think of that, or is it "protect your own" regardless. 

I have no problem with someone on €1M a year,  but socialist union hardliners on 6 figure salaries. Its like the king of vegetitarians sitting down to lamb chops.


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> The archaic working practices, pay increment scales, travel days, gold plated pensions etc, must all be cut with a minimum of 20% pay cuts across the board.


 
Beanpole

Still wondering how you came up with 20% across the board and what analysis you used.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> We're spending 50% more than we take in... how's that for realism?


So you agree with Beanpole's assertions that the JSA should be reduced to at most euro 90 a week and such allowance should then be terminated after a year , equally do you agree that the minimum wage be reduced by 50% ?
Do you realistically think the Goverment will proceed along those lines and if so do you think the people/unions will accept them ?
A realistic answer please.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> So you agree with Beanpole's assertions that the JSA should be reduced to at most euro 90 a week and such allowance should then be terminated after a year , equally do you agree that the minimum wage be reduced by 50% ?
> Do you realistically think the Goverment will proceed along those lines and if so do you think the people/unions will accept them ?
> A realistic answer please.



I think we need to balance the books. That should involve tax increases and spending cuts. Tax increases should seek to minimise the disincentive to work that high marginal tax rates produce. I am in favour of a reduction in public sector pay of between 10-15% and a reduction in public sector numbers of around the same amount.
I think reducing teachers pay is better than removing classroom assistants (that’s just an example) so where budgets can be met through pay reductions then a more structured approach to head-count reduction can be taken.
On the tax front I am in favour of taxing children’s allowance  and introducing property tax (I have 4 children and a big mortgage that I paid loads of stamp duty on so I’m one of the ones who will be hit hardest). I am in favour of vastly reducing the threshold for paying income tax both the lower and higher rate (people should pay income tax on everything over €5000 a year). I would not increase tax rates.
On the welfare front I think that those living with their parents should get €50-€70 a week. People paying a mortgage etc and with other overheads should get more. Generally welfare payments are too high, so is the minimum wage. Both should be reduced at the same time; something in the order of 20%.

On the medical card front I would charge for each GP visit, maybe €5 and for each home visit I would charge €15. When people get something for free they are far more likely to abuse it (and they do abuse it). I would pay consultants less and increase their working week. I would ban strikes in the public sector or in sectors that provide critical or essential services.

I would increase the length of the school year by at least 6 weeks. That way teachers and children would have more time to cover a curriculum that seems to get longer every year and parents would incur less expense organising childcare for their children during the long summer holidays.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> I think we need to balance the books. That should involve tax increases and spending cuts. Tax increases should seek to minimise the disincentive to work that high marginal tax rates produce. I am in favour of a reduction in public sector pay of between 10-15% and a reduction in public sector numbers of around the same amount.
> I think reducing teachers pay is better than removing classroom assistants (that’s just an example) so where budgets can be met through pay reductions then a more structured approach to head-count reduction can be taken.
> On the tax front I am in favour of taxing children’s allowance and introducing property tax (I have 4 children and a big mortgage that I paid loads of stamp duty on so I’m one of the ones who will be hit hardest). I am in favour of vastly reducing the threshold for paying income tax both the lower and higher rate (people should pay income tax on everything over €5000 a year). I would not increase tax rates.
> On the welfare front I think that those living with their parents should get €50-€70 a week. People paying a mortgage etc and with other overheads should get more. Generally welfare payments are too high, so is the minimum wage. Both should be reduced at the same time; something in the order of 20%.
> ...


So in essense you agree that Beanpole's suggestions are way over the top !
At least your suggestions form the basis for reasonable argument with the exception of course of banning strikes in the public sector and in essential service areas - pure pipe dream !


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> So in essense you agree that Beanpole's suggestions are way over the top !
> At least your suggestions form the basis for reasonable argument with the exception of course of banning strikes in the public sector and in essential service areas - pure pipe dream !



Right, it's your turn; what do you propose?


----------



## Pique318 (5 Oct 2009)

I've got a new name for you...


Silk Cut Purple


----------



## Firefly (5 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> I think we need to balance the books. That should involve tax increases and spending cuts. Tax increases should seek to minimise the disincentive to work that high marginal tax rates produce. I am in favour of a reduction in public sector pay of between 10-15% and a reduction in public sector numbers of around the same amount.
> I think reducing teachers pay is better than removing classroom assistants (that’s just an example) so where budgets can be met through pay reductions then a more structured approach to head-count reduction can be taken.
> On the tax front I am in favour of taxing children’s allowance and introducing property tax (I have 4 children and a big mortgage that I paid loads of stamp duty on so I’m one of the ones who will be hit hardest). I am in favour of vastly reducing the threshold for paying income tax both the lower and higher rate (people should pay income tax on everything over €5000 a year). I would not increase tax rates.
> On the welfare front I think that those living with their parents should get €50-€70 a week. People paying a mortgage etc and with other overheads should get more. Generally welfare payments are too high, so is the minimum wage. Both should be reduced at the same time; something in the order of 20%.
> ...


 
+1

I'd also get rid of junior ministers, half the existing number of TDs and likewise with the quangos.


----------



## Sunny (5 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> Right, it's your turn; what do you propose?


 
How about a ban on pay and job cuts in the private sector unless companies close down. All workers made redundant in the private sector should be given jobs in the public sector. Nurses, teachers and guards should be given 25% pay rises. Other public sector workers should only get 10% for the pain and suffering of the past 12 months. The tax rate for people earning less than 40,000 should be reduced to 0.5%. People earning over 100,000 should pay 94% tax rate and be flogged once a year to pay for this.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

Sunny said:


> How about a ban on pay and job cuts in the private sector unless companies close down. All workers made redundant in the private sector should be given jobs in the public sector. Nurses, teachers and guards should be given 25% pay rises. Other public sector workers should only get 10% for the pain and suffering of the past 12 months. The tax rate for people earning less than 40,000 should be reduced to 0.5%. People earning over 100,000 should pay 94% tax rate and be flogged once a year to pay for this.



You copied that off the SIPTU website!


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> Right, it's your turn; what do you propose?


I would agree broadly with the proposals for restoring confidence as outlined by the Labour Party - see www.labour.ie .


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I would agree broadly with the proposals for restoring confidence as outlined by the Labour Party - see www.labour.ie .



Don't make me read through all that rubbish! Where's the proposal?

Edit; Do you mean [broken link removed]?
If so it tells me nothing. There is zero content and zero about reducing the deficit.

BTW, that rubbish about investing in skills is not going to sort anything out. If we had a really good plan and stuck to it we'd start to see returns in about 15-20 years.


----------



## Sunny (5 Oct 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I would agree broadly with the proposals for restoring confidence as outlined by the Labour Party - see www.labour.ie .


 
How on God's earth does anything in that document solve the €20 billion hole in our public finances? And I have read it in detail before you ask.


----------



## VOR (5 Oct 2009)

Let's start with this one:
*5. Reforming Public Services: Labour is determined to lead reform in our Public Services to deliver better, more cost effective services in the interests both of promoting economic activity and of developing a fairer society.*

It is quite obvious to me that it means we must streamline the entire sector and cut where necessary. Or am I reading this wrong?

- Far greater mobility of staff within the public sector will be required, so that key posts can be filled by transferring staff from low to high priority areas. With that kind of flexibility in place, payroll costs can be reduced without undue damage to services. The implementation of this scheme should be complemented by full flexibility of movement between all branches of the public and civil service for relevant grades.
- Redundancy package to remove approximately 1000 staff in the management grades​
- Evaluation of public spending in the civil service
- Open recruitment to all public service posts should now be introduced. Every promotional opportunity in the public sector should be advertised for open competition.​


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Oct 2009)

VOR said:


> Let's start with this one:
> *5. Reforming Public Services: Labour is determined to lead reform in our Public Services to deliver better, more cost effective services in the interests both of promoting economic activity and of developing a fairer society.*
> 
> It is quite obvious to me that it means we must streamline the entire sector and cut where necessary. Or am I reading this wrong?
> ...


 Seems quite reasonable - how about it Purple or are you determined to stick to the slash and burn principle at the expense of more innovative ideas ?
Perhaps you might read the Labour document before dismissing it as rubbish or are you that blinkered ?


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

We don't have 3-5 years. We don't have the luxury of being able to use a scalpel to make the cuts. 1000 jobs out of the entire public sector is less than a drop in the ocean.


----------



## Sunny (5 Oct 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> Seems quite reasonable - how about it Purple or are you determined to stick to the slash and burn principle at the expense of more innovative ideas ?
> Perhaps you might read the Labour document before dismissing it as rubbish or are you that blinkered ?


 
€22 billion deficit.

There are no ideas in there.
We have been hearing about public sector reform and greater mobility for at least 10 years now especially when benchmarking was brought in and nothing happened. What will be different this time? We are the middle of an economic crisis. We don't have 5-10 years of borrowing at those or at anywhere near those levels unless you want to cripple the next generation because of our greed and reluctance to suffer some pain. I owe my good fortune career wise to the people who took the medicine back in the 80's and early 90's and who suffered greatly. I want to do the same for the next generation. If that means taxing me to the hilt while I have a job, then do it. Just get us out of this mess. 

Like I say, I read the document and its tripe. And I say that as someone who was a Labour supporter until I saw their response to this crisis.


----------



## csirl (5 Oct 2009)

> How on God's earth does anything in that document solve the €20 billion hole in our public finances?


 
Simple question. Is the deficit gross or net of bank bailout money? What is the deficit excluding money given to the banks, which is a one off?


The excess numbers and overpayment of the "public service" is mainly in the State funded private sector area than those employed by the State. There is a tendancy in debates to lob private sector workers who are paid out of the public purse into the "public pay bill". All this has arisen because we have the worst case scenario from an accountability and funding point of view in many key public service delivery areas i.e. the private sector monopoly. The health service is a classic example - overstaffed, over paid, dont deliver. People forget that the bulk of the health service in Ireland is delivered by private sector organisations i.e. hospitals primarily owned by private religious organisations, and because we dont tender the services or pay them on work done, they take us to the cleaners.


----------



## Sunny (5 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> Simple question. Is the deficit gross or net of bank bailout money? What is the deficit excluding money given to the banks, which is a one off?
> 
> 
> .


 
It's still €20-22 billion.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> Simple question. Is the deficit gross or net of bank bailout money? What is the deficit excluding money given to the banks, which is a one off?


 The bank bailout has nothing to do with it. It’s the shortfall in current taxation for current and capital spending. 
Given that if tax rates stay the same revenue from taxation will drop again next year as the productive sector of the economy shrinks again and outgoings will increase due to sitting-on-your-hole-for-another-year increments in the public sector we don’t have time to flute around for another six months.


----------



## cork (5 Oct 2009)

Many people working in the higher grades of the public service are bad managers.

There is no requirement that the Head of Finance is a Finacial Accountant.

The Head of IT needs no IT qualifications.

The one thing they are good at is claiming expenses.

What we see is that the Higher Grades hiding behind the lower grades.

Expect to see more of this.

The Labour party as per normal lacks any bottle for either public sector pay cuts or serious reform.


----------



## csirl (5 Oct 2009)

Sunny said:


> It's still €20-22 billion.


 

So the deficit is 4-5k per person. Why do I have the sneaky feeling that me and my family will pay more than this amount? Its always like that - I dont think there's been any scenario ever in this country where a cost has been added and where me and my family only had to pay our pro rata share or less. Its always more and always significantly more. And our household income is fairly average - it's not as if we're rich.


----------



## Mpsox (5 Oct 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> Seems quite reasonable - how about it Purple or are you determined to stick to the slash and burn principle at the expense of more innovative ideas ?
> Perhaps you might read the Labour document before dismissing it as rubbish or are you that blinkered ?


 
2 years ago I had 2 interviews for jobs in the public sector(county council if you must know). I attended at their interview site in Dublin City centre. On both occassions I was met and greeted by the trade union rep who attended the interviews and recorded the notes of it. He told me that he was "there to protect my interests" or words to that effect. 

An ex of mine works for the department of justice, she was told she would struggle to get promoted unless she joined the union.

What you are suggesting above is a great idea (actually it's a common sense idea that should have always existed) but do you honestly believe that the Labour party and the unions would allow this to simply happen given that the impact on some of it's members may not be positive and given that it would significantly reduce union power in the public sector. Or would they ask for a "co-operation" payment as part of any deal on this?


----------



## Protocol (5 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> Simple question. Is the deficit gross or net of bank bailout money? What is the deficit excluding money given to the banks, which is a one off?


 
Here is the recent Exchequer statement:

Press release:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6007&CatID=1&StartDate=1+January+2009&m=n

Document:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/exchequerstatements/2009/Excheqstatsept.pdf


You will see that the deficit includes a 4bn investment in Anglo.

It also includes the usual payments to the NPRF, which AFAIK were used for the investments in AIB and BoI.


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> An ex of mine works for the department of justice, she was told she would struggle to get promoted unless she joined the union.
> 
> quote]
> 
> Whoever told her that was talking absolute rubbish. How on earth could union membership affect her promotion chances. The Union has absolutely no say, whatsoever , in who is and isn't promoted. They may be allowed raise objections if they felt a particular competition wasn't run fairly and their objections may or may not be taken on board for future competitions but that's it. They have no say whatsoever in what particular individuals should be placed on promotion panels.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> Whoever told her that was talking absolute rubbish. How on earth could union membership affect her promotion chances. The Union has absolutely no say, whatsoever , in who is and isn't promoted. They may be allowed raise objections if they felt a particular competition wasn't run fairly and their objections may or may not be taken on board for future competitions but that's it. They have no say whatsoever in what particular individuals should be placed on promotion panels.


 Sure thing


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

Instead of being sarcastic, could you explain why you don't agree with me. I have worked in the Public Sector for many years and have never, ever, ever heard of anyone not being promoted because they weren't in a Union.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2009)

A friend of mine works in a 3rd level HR department. He said the single biggest issue that comes up from staff is intimidation from the union and the single biggest problem he has is keeping the union out of the HR department. He’s worked in the public sector all his life and is a union member. He used to work in a different 3rd level institute but had to transfer after speaking against a union motion for strike action.


----------



## Mpsox (5 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> Mpsox said:
> 
> 
> > An ex of mine works for the department of justice, she was told she would struggle to get promoted unless she joined the union.
> ...


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

The oriignal remark was made about a person working in the Dept of Justice and implied that not joining a union would prevent promotion in the Civil Service. This is absolutely untrue (and I'm not a union rep or anything). Sorry for going at you Purple, but I'm just so sick and tired of nonsense being written about the Civil Service that just isn't true. It gets really tiring. I don't argue about issues raised re overstaffing, poor deployment of staff, and certain other things because they are true and are as frustrating for Civil Servants who have to work with the system as for the other taxpayers out there who have to finance it. But making up stupid nonsense just to support an argument really gets to me.


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> liaconn said:
> 
> 
> > If they have no particuler say in promotion then what on earth are they doing sitting in on external recrutiment interviews?. I've never heard of that happening in the private sector
> ...


----------



## Mpsox (5 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> Mpsox said:
> 
> 
> > They would also not be allowed sit in on interviews run by the Public Appointments Commission.
> ...


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

What I'm talking about is your statement that not joining a Union affects your promotion chances in the Civil Service. That is simply not true, whether you're being interviewed by PAC or internally within your own Department.


----------



## Sunny (5 Oct 2009)

Protocol said:


> Here is the recent Exchequer statement:
> 
> Press release:
> http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6007&CatID=1&StartDate=1+January+2009&m=n
> ...


 
Even if we don't include the €4.7 billion paid to Anglo and NPRF, we are still on a track for a deficit of around €20 billion by year end.


----------



## Mpsox (5 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> What I'm talking about is your statement that not joining a Union affects your promotion chances. That is simply not true, whether you're being interviewed by PAC or internally within your own Department.


 
I can only go by what a non union member working in a govt department told me. I have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve her and cannot think of any reason why she would tell me something that wasn't true. I accept that the official policy may say differently but policy and reality on the ground is different

Out of curiosity I asked 4 other friends and family members this afternoon who work in various parts of the public sector if not being in a union would affect their promotion chances. All 4 said that it would, especially if the other applicants were union members and the management team in the area were weak


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

That may be the case in semi state bodies, I wouldn't know, but it is not the case in the Civil Service and I have no idea why someone would have told your ex such a load of rubbish unless there's something very strange going on in Dept of Justice.


----------



## csirl (5 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> liaconn said:
> 
> 
> > They were when the PAC interviewed me on 2 occassions. The guy concerned (who was very nice I have to say) introduced himself as a union rep, never spoke or asked question in the interview, just took the notes for the interview panel having said that he would be doing so at the start of the interview. That is not me union bashing or public sector bashing, that is me stating a simple actual fact.
> ...


----------



## Mpsox (5 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> Mpsox said:
> 
> 
> > Are you sure you didnt pick him up wrong? I've done some public service interviews in the past (and turned down a couple of PS jobs) and sat on a couple of interview panels in a former life - usually 3 person panel - 2 public servants and 1 independent external person. 2 ask questions and the other takes note, but doesnt ask questions. They usually rotate the note taking between the 3 people. The note takers are not union representatives. Whereas I have come across some unorthodox stuff done by the public servants on a couple of ocassions, I never came across any union interference. Under no circumstances would a union rep ever be allowed to sit in on an interview, not even as an observer, or even talk to candidates beforehand. To be honest, there is a tendency in the public service to automatically appoint people who's interviews have been "polluted" because the public service is paranoid about lawsuits - I would imagine if anyone complained that a union rep was in the room, they would be offered a job to prevent a lawsuit. Easy way to find out who is in the room - you can FOI the notes and they'll tell you. I havent sat on any interviews in the past 6-7 years - have moved onto other things - so unless there has been a drastic change in rules in the meantime, this must be one of those urban legends.
> ...


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

And he definitely said he was from a Union? Not just an independent observer of some sort?


----------



## csirl (5 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> And he definitely said he was from a Union? Not just an independent observer of some sort?


 
Usually this is the role of the independent person on the panel - to ensure that the public servants dont stray from the procedures or have any bias. They generally arent public servants, so definately would not be members of a public service union.

Mpsox - can you contact the organisation who did the interview and ask for the notes? Usually they'll give them out free of charge informally because they know that they'll have to give them if a FOI request is lodged anyway. That way we'll find out for certain who was in the room.


----------



## liaconn (5 Oct 2009)

That's why I thought it was strange. My father used to chair interviews for the PAC and his role was to oversee the interview and make sure it was conducted properly while the experts on the board (eg engineers, architects, people who worked in the Agency concerned) asked the technical questions. I have absolutely no idea what a union member could be overseeing.


----------



## becky (5 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> That's why I thought it was strange. My father used to chair interviews for the PAC and his role was to oversee the interview and make sure it was conducted properly while the experts on the board (eg engineers, architects, people who worked in the Agency concerned) asked the technical questions. I have absolutely no idea what a union member could be overseeing.


 
My boss sits on PAS boards and there use to be a PAS rep who took notes of the questions asked.  Not sure on the process since the Commision of Public Service Appointments (CPSA) got set up.

I'm in the HSE and we deal with unions all the time but they never get involved with the actual selection process, CPSA would lose their life.


----------



## becky (5 Oct 2009)

cork said:


> Many people working in the higher grades of the public service are bad managers.
> 
> There is no requirement that the Head of Finance is a Finacial Accountant.
> 
> ...


 
In the HSE the Finacial Accountant - grade VIII must have the relevant accountance exams.

Not too sure about the Head of IT though.


----------



## bogle (5 Oct 2009)

becky said:


> In the HSE the Finacial Accountant - grade VIII must have the relevant accountance exams.
> 
> Not too sure about the Head of IT though.



In my own organisation (CS) the H/IT has a research masters in computer science. Most of my colleagues have degrees or diplomas in computing or information systems, some of us have multiple primary degs and post grads, other colleagues in different sections from more of a science back round would be very computer literate and some would be qualified up to PhD level.

I've never heard of a union rep being present at an interview in my 14 years working in the CS/PS.


----------



## becky (5 Oct 2009)

bogle said:


> In my own organisation (CS) the H/IT has a research masters in computer science. Most of my colleagues have degrees or diplomas in computing or information systems, some of us have multiple primary degs and post grads, other colleagues in different sections from more of a science back round would be very computer literate and some would be qualified up to PhD level.
> 
> I've never heard of a union rep being present at an interview in my 14 years working in the CS/PS.


 
I'd be pretty sure out head of IT has a formal qualification but I'm not too sure if it's essential.  In ICT most have a formal qualifcation.  Less so in HR and Finance, but I am only basing this on the people I know.


----------



## bogle (5 Oct 2009)

Kieran Mulvey, the Head of the Labour Relations Commission was interviewed on Newstalk’s breakfast show this morning and on RTE radio news this evening about partnership, what happened in the 80s (country was said to be broke then but in reality a huge amount of money was moved off shore  – the revenue spending most of the 90s trying to get it back!!) and how the circle might be squared this time. 

I thought what he had to say was very reasonable. I believe the interview is available as a podcast from Newstalk.


----------



## Complainer (5 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> They were when the PAC interviewed me on 2 occassions. The guy concerned (who was very nice I have to say) introduced himself as a union rep, never spoke or asked question in the interview, just took the notes for the interview panel having said that he would be doing so at the start of the interview. That is not me union bashing or public sector bashing, that is me stating a simple actual fact.





liaconn said:


> That may be the case in semi state bodies, I wouldn't know, but it is not the case in the Civil Service and I have no idea why someone would have told your ex such a load of rubbish unless there's something very strange going on in Dept of Justice.


Indeed - absolute rubbish. If MPSOX wants to go on the record about what the competition in question was, a simple request to PAS will identify the interview board, and there won't be any union members there. Public sector or semi-state - no difference.



cork said:


> Many people working in the higher grades of the public service are bad managers.
> 
> There is no requirement that the Head of Finance is a Finacial Accountant.
> 
> ...



It is really quite funny how you castigate the Labour party for the state of the public sector. You seem to forget about which party has been in power for the last 15 years. (Hint: It is one of the three big ones, and it is not Labour or FG - geddit?).

The best IT Manager (for a $1 billion business) that I've ever reported to was a marketing guy, with no IT qualifications. Many private sector companies (and some public ones) have a policy of rotating heads of function around various roles, so this year's head of HR may well be next year's head of IT. It's not unusual at all.


----------



## Pique318 (6 Oct 2009)

Complainer said:


> . Many private sector companies (and some public ones) have a policy of rotating heads of function around various roles, so this year's head of HR may well be next year's head of IT. It's not unusual at all.


That's the most insane thing I've heard about a companys practice, and one that neither I nor any of my friends have heard about, let alone experienced.

So the head of HR suddenly becomes responsible for the IT framework and the head of IT becomes responsible for the HR responsibilities of a normal (potentially non-IT) company!?

Dear Jebus, I'm glad I don't work for that company. I can't see such lunacy being in any way positive for the sustained growth (or even preventing chaos!) in any organisation.


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2009)

Complainer said:


> Indeed - absolute rubbish. If MPSOX wants to go on the record about what the competition in question was, a simple request to PAS will identify the interview board, and there won't be any union members there.


Are you accusing MPSOX of lying?


----------



## Mpsox (6 Oct 2009)

Purple said:


> Are you accusing MPSOX of lying?


 
I don't believe they are accusing me of lying, I believe they feel I must obviously be mistaken since they believe that the public sector can do little wrong, that everything is done by the board and that trade unions have little or no impact in any areas.

I can only go by what I heard with my own ears. I'm not saying the individual concerned was a full time union rep, he may indeed have been a public sector employee with a legitimate management reason to be on an interview panel, however that is not how he represeted himself to me on greeting me on the site.

I've no intention of wasting my money on an FOI request, whilst it would be interesting, it would solve little purpose. Frnakly, having already seen my income reduced this year by 15% following tax increases and pay cuts, I've more practical things to do with my money

.


----------



## VOR (6 Oct 2009)

Wrong thread


----------



## Complainer (7 Oct 2009)

Pique318 said:


> That's the most insane thing I've heard about a companys practice, and one that neither I nor any of my friends have heard about, let alone experienced.
> 
> So the head of HR suddenly becomes responsible for the IT framework and the head of IT becomes responsible for the HR responsibilities of a normal (potentially non-IT) company!?
> 
> Dear Jebus, I'm glad I don't work for that company. I can't see such lunacy being in any way positive for the sustained growth (or even preventing chaos!) in any organisation.


You obviously haven't been keeping up with management development practices - see [broken link removed] for more background.



Mpsox said:


> I can only go by what I heard with my own ears. I'm not saying the individual concerned was a full time union rep, he may indeed have been a public sector employee with a legitimate management reason to be on an interview panel, however that is not how he represeted himself to me on greeting me on the site.


That's a slightly different spin on things from your original claim.


Mpsox said:


> I've no intention of wasting my money on an FOI request, whilst it would be interesting, it would solve little purpose. Frnakly, having already seen my income reduced this year by 15% following tax increases and pay cuts, I've more practical things to do with my money


PAS are generally very good on customer service, so a simple request with details of the compeition and approx interview dates should be enough to get clarification. It is unlikely that there is any need for FOI. But if there is, I'll cover the costs.


----------

