# On strike tomorrow but not happy!



## sidzer (23 Nov 2009)

Tomorrow I will be standing picketing in front of the school gates which will be locked...

My problem is that I didn't vote for a strike and have strong feelings against it. The ballot was in my opinion a bit misleading. There were three areas mentioned in the ballot one was regarding the changing of the terms and conditions of employment - 'if you want action taken by the union against any changes vote accordingly'.... A reduction of pay under the circumstances of the fiscal mess is hardly a change in terms and conditions!

Many teachers have expressed their surprise by how quick the unions were to shut up shop - and if 89% voted in favour of the union taking action 89% did not expect or wish to be out gate minding tomorrow....

The unions have not come up with anything close to a viable alternative to pay cuts to stablise economy. I will turn up tomorrow but if this stupidity continues I will have to reconsider my loyalties ..


----------



## shanegl (23 Nov 2009)

That's democracy for you, suck it up, solidarity brother!


----------



## Marion (23 Nov 2009)

Up to and including strike action was more than likely mentioned on the ballot paper.

What did people not understand?

Marion


----------



## Gordanus (24 Nov 2009)

I didn't vote for strike, but the majority did.  I didn't vote for Fianna Fail either, but I'm stuck with them.

so I'll be on strike, and with a government that won't listen.  Thought democracy was about representing the people?


----------



## Marion (24 Nov 2009)

It is.

Majority rules! That is the essence of a democracy.

Marion


----------



## Gordanus (24 Nov 2009)

And when the people make their feelings known? Does that not mean that the govt should take notice?  (am thinking of the anti Iraq war demos, the anti building over Viking Dublin demos...)


----------



## Marion (24 Nov 2009)

One should always take cognisance of what people are feeling.

But one cannot dispute a legal ballot.

Marion


----------



## Gordanus (24 Nov 2009)

Alas.  No point changing our minds when the blinking point of govt is to milk every last drop out of it.  We have a very badly educated electorate. No wonder, with policies indistinguishable between FF and FG - actually, do they have policies? or do they come up with new ones whenever they fancy?  They don't even have a philosophy...except maybe FG has more of an idea of ethics than FF.  I have to sign up to a Code of Ethics in my profession.  Maybe one for politicians would be a good idea?


----------



## becky (24 Nov 2009)

I'm a member of IMPACT and have spent a lot of time thinking what I will wear for 3 hours in the cold today - all sorted now.  A lot of my colleagues have said they voted NO (whether they did or not is another matter I know). So what I am wondering who this 79% are.  I'll do tomorrow but will probably resign if they want me out again and I don't think I'll be alone. I have been considering resigning for some time now but didn't want to go when the going got tough so to speak.  Anyway, the weather isn't too bad here so here's hoping rain will hold off until 1pm.


----------



## Marion (24 Nov 2009)

That's the beauty of the ballot box. Nobody knows!

I suspect one could take notice of the sartorial advice from Complainer and wear thermals and roll up the satin sleeves!!


Hmmm  ...


I reckon it's dress as normal. Bring a brolly!

Marion


----------



## Gordanus (24 Nov 2009)

Marion said:


> I reckon it's dress as normal. Bring a brolly!



The inside of a hospital is usually a great deal warmer than November outside!  (due to the amount of barely-dressed people inside, by which I do NOT, Purple, mean the nurses.) It'll be hat, warm coat, gloves etc.  Then inside for my unpaid 'strike' labour.


----------



## Marion (24 Nov 2009)

Maybe we could save a few bob by turning the heat down inside? 

Marion


----------



## Purple (24 Nov 2009)

Marion said:


> It is.
> 
> Majority rules! That is the essence of a democracy.
> 
> Marion



 There is also such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. For democracy to work those that lose the election have to feel that they will not be disenfranchised by the victors. What has happened over the last few months is the government called the bluff of the union fat cats and they are now seeking to take control back. To that end they have expended considerable energy manipulating their members to do what they want. The whole thing is dripping with Animal Farm analogies.


----------



## Purple (24 Nov 2009)

Gordanus said:


> by which I do NOT, Purple, mean the nurses.


 pity...


----------



## shnaek (24 Nov 2009)

Day of action has turned out to be a day of shopping up in the North. Didn't realise that was the purpose of the strike.


----------



## Squonk (24 Nov 2009)

shnaek said:


> Day of action has turned out to be a day of shopping up in the North. Didn't realise that was the purpose of the strike.


 Yep, I just heard that on the RTE news too. Shameful. That's patriotism for ya.


----------



## Caveat (24 Nov 2009)

...and there's irony for ya too.

Protesting because of the possibility of cuts due to the government not having enough money to pay the public sector paybill - then head off spending their money in a different jurisdiction, adding to the problem.


----------



## Bronte (24 Nov 2009)

Squonk said:


> Yep, I just heard that on the RTE news too. Shameful. That's patriotism for ya.


 
I'm sure the shopkeepers born in Ireland up North are delighted.


----------



## Deiseblue (24 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> There is also such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. For democracy to work those that lose the election have to feel that they will not be disenfranchised by the victors. What has happened over the last few months is the government called the bluff of the union fat cats and they are now seeking to take control back. To that end they have expended considerable energy manipulating their members to do what they want. The whole thing is dripping with Animal Farm analogies.


So your view is that the hundreds of thousands who mandated their unions to take strike action are sheep ?
Bit of a strech there I think , redefininig democracy to your own ends .


----------



## z107 (24 Nov 2009)

Patriotism is old hat.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> ...and there's irony for ya too.
> 
> Protesting because of the possibility of cuts due to the government not having enough money to pay the public sector paybill - then head off spending their money in a different jurisdiction, adding to the problem.


It is not inconsistent. If I am in a strike dispute with my employer why not give cutom to her competitor as an additional protest.


----------



## shnaek (24 Nov 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Patriotism is old hat.



“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” - Shaw


----------



## Squonk (24 Nov 2009)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is not inconsistent. If I am in a strike dispute with my employer why not give cutom to her competitor as an additional protest.


 I didn't realise that retail industry in the North was in competition with the South's public sector !!


----------



## Purple (24 Nov 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> So your view is that the hundreds of thousands who mandated their unions to take strike action are sheep ?
> Bit of a strech there I think , redefininig democracy to your own ends .



Fro a different thread;


johnd said:


> The union, which I only joined a month ago and will now be leaving had the vote for industrial action in March 2009. According to a memo we received yesterday 'they did consider a more up to date vote but as the situation is changed decide not to bother'. In real speak this means they guessed members might vote against the strike so decided not to ask members just in case.
> 
> A recruitment drive took place in the last few weeks and those who joined at that time are now wondering if the reason was to boost the union membership and so make the strike more successful?


----------



## cork (24 Nov 2009)

becky said:


> So what I am wondering who this 79% are.  I'll do tomorrow but will probably resign if they want me out again and I don't think I'll be alone. I have been considering resigning for some time now but didn't want to go when the going got tough so to speak.  Anyway, the weather isn't too bad here so here's hoping rain will hold off until 1pm.



I resigned from Impact about a month ago. I told them it was becaused pf the FAS saga.

I have no intention of striking next week.


----------



## shnaek (24 Nov 2009)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is not inconsistent. If I am in a strike dispute with my employer why not give cutom to her competitor as an additional protest.



So the shopping in the North is a public sector protest? Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Sumatra (24 Nov 2009)

As a matter of interest, does anyone know why St Andrews - a fee paying school is closed today because of the strike?


----------



## johnd (24 Nov 2009)

I presume they employ members of the ASTI or INTO. These school may be private but the salary of teachers is paid for by the state


----------



## Complainer (25 Nov 2009)

Sumatra said:


> As a matter of interest, does anyone know why St Andrews - a fee paying school is closed today because of the strike?


Castleknock College had pickets too, though St Conleths in Ballsbridge seemed to be operating as normal.


Marion said:


> That's the beauty of the ballot box. Nobody knows!
> 
> I suspect one could take notice of the sartorial advice from Complainer and wear thermals and roll up the satin sleeves!!


It's not often that my sartorial advice is taken on board by one so elegant. I'm humbled.


----------



## Caveat (25 Nov 2009)

Sumatra said:


> As a matter of interest, does anyone know why St Andrews - a fee paying school is closed today because of the strike?


 
Why would the fact that any school is fee paying make any difference though? Presumably if the teachers are union members that will dictate the position - no?

_Edit: d'oh - just noticed johnd's post..._


----------



## cork (30 Nov 2009)

A further skrike on Trursday will achieve nothing.

I expect it to be called off.


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> Fro a different thread;


 Purple , is this  a direct quote from a Union memo  ? - " they did consider a more up to date vote but as the situation is changed decide not to bother " What does it mean ?
In what context was it stated ?


----------



## csirl (30 Nov 2009)

cork said:


> A further skrike on Trursday will achieve nothing.
> 
> I expect it to be called off.


 
I hear that only certain parts of the PS are striking - some of the unions were unsuccessful in getting a mandate to strike for a second day.


----------



## liaconn (30 Nov 2009)

I think it's that they didn't look for a rolling mandate, and it's too late now to have a vote for Thursday.


----------



## Complainer (30 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> I hear that only certain parts of the PS are striking - some of the unions were unsuccessful in getting a mandate to strike for a second day.


I don't think unions look for a mandate for each strike day. My union IMPACT certainly don't work this way. The vote for strike action taken a few weeks ago was general, rather than limited to specific days or dates.


----------



## Shawady (30 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> I hear that only certain parts of the PS are striking - some of the unions were unsuccessful in getting a mandate to strike for a second day.


 
Did you hear what unions?
Sounds messy.


----------



## liaconn (30 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> I don't think unions look for a mandate for each strike day. My union IMPACT certainly don't work this way. The vote for strike action taken a few weeks ago was general, rather than limited to specific days or dates.


 
Apparently the AHCPS only voted for a mandate for last Tuesday. Now they've run out of time for another vote and don't know what's going to happen.


----------



## roker (30 Nov 2009)

I think the pensioners should go on strike.


----------



## becky (30 Nov 2009)

Strong rumour here that it will not go ahead and PS/CS's will be expected to take 12 days unpaid leave.


----------



## Holtend82 (1 Dec 2009)

Does anyone know if the strike is going ahead ? I am an impact member and got an email yesterday of the time im due to pickot but im hearing today it may be called off ?


----------



## dockingtrade (1 Dec 2009)

Holtend82 said:


> Does anyone know if the strike is going ahead ? I am an impact member and got an email yesterday of the time im due to pickot but im hearing today it may be called off ?


 
Can you not ask the union. Not being smart here but is it hard to communicate with them, out of interest.


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

We got an email yesterday saying that the Dept of Finance had been given notice that members of the CPSU, IMPACT and PSEU would be on strike on Thursday. We're still hoping there'll be a last minute agreement and it won't go ahead.


----------



## QED (1 Dec 2009)

becky said:


> Strong rumour here that it will not go ahead and PS/CS's will be expected to take 12 days unpaid leave.


 
That is crazy. If the Public Service work can be done satisfactorily with everyone taking an additional 12 days off, surely this is admitting that the service is over-staffed?


----------



## Purple (1 Dec 2009)

QED said:


> That is crazy. If the Public Service work can be done satisfactorily with everyone taking an additional 12 days off, surely this is admitting that the service is over-staffed?



Yep, but as a stort term measure that's a 5% reduction in pay which is a very good start.


----------



## dockingtrade (1 Dec 2009)

Purple said:


> Yep, but as a stort term measure that's a 5% reduction in pay which is a very good start.


 
I cant see this leading to a 5% reduction. As i said in another thread people on over-time can make up this reduction over the year. When people are onm this leave will other be on overtime also.


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

QED said:


> That is crazy. If the Public Service work can be done satisfactorily with everyone taking an additional 12 days off, surely this is admitting that the service is over-staffed?


 
Or that some services will suffer, due to the necessity to save money. There's going to be a prioritisation exercise in most areas due to the embargo on replacing staff so I suppose this will be factored in as well. Also, during next year there will be major reform and efficiencies introduced or the unpaid leave will continue into 2011. It's not seen as a final solution but a temporary one while the Public Service introduces new practices.


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> I cant see this leading to a 5% reduction. As i said in another thread people on over-time can make up this reduction over the year. When people are onm this leave will other be on overtime also.


 
I think they're also looking at the whole issue of overtime, pay rates for this etc.


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

becky said:


> Strong rumour here that it will not go ahead and PS/CS's will be expected to take 12 days unpaid leave.


 
On top of generous annual leave and uncertified sick leave, Jaysus will they be in work at all


----------



## RonanC (1 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> On top of generous annual leave and uncertified sick leave, Jaysus will they be in work at all


 
Generous annual leave?? 21 days is generous is it?

Stop trying to stir things up again and lets leave things be


----------



## RonanC (1 Dec 2009)

Latest is that there will be between 14 and 20 days unpaid leave for PS/CS workers. I'd imagine that there will be more time off for thie higher paid


----------



## Howitzer (1 Dec 2009)

Risks: You facilitate the creation of yet more inefficient work practices which ultimately necessitate more overtime payments. Ding, ding, ding. The overtime payments are the problem people.

You pander to aging PS/CS emplyees, giving them extra time off (unpaid) without affecting their pension entitlements. Ding, ding, ding. The pension entitlements are the problem people.

These 2 groupings appear to me to be the most intransigent with regards to change. This solution, and the threat to extend these arrangements indefinately, are no threat atall. This could potentially be just another bag of carrots with any savings being born by the consumer through withdrawal of, deemed, less essential services with ultimately no real reforms taking place.


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

RonanC said:


> Generous annual leave?? 21 days is generous is it?
> 
> Stop trying to stir things up again and lets leave things be


 

Annual Leave 21 days, Average uncertified sick leave 11 days, new unpaid leave 12 days. That's 44 days or the guts of 2 1/2 months a year. 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny (1 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> Annual Leave 21 days, Average uncertified sick leave 11 days, new unpaid leave 12 days. That's 44 days or the guts of 2 1/2 months a year.
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
Thats a generalisation. There is enough in the proposal to debate without going down the usual road of back and forth insults.

For me I can't see how the proposals will work for the frontline staff in a way that would be acceptable to the public.


----------



## RonanC (1 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> new *unpaid* leave


 
In the CS you are only permitted *7 *uncertified sick days in any 12 month period, and only 2 days at a time, any more than that requires a cert from a doctor.

Minimum annual leave entitlement under the working time act is 20 days for full time employees. 1 extra day is really generous isnt it. 

Now can we not get onto the matter in hand. 

14-20 unpaid leave days and trying to avert another day of strike in the Public Service. Nobody wants to strike.


----------



## Sunny (1 Dec 2009)

RonanC said:


> 14-20 unpaid leave days and trying to avert another day of strike in the Public Service. Nobody wants to strike.


 
Its hard to comment without the figures but I can't see it being acceptable to the Government. Even the Unions are only talking about €800m of savings. Likely to be alot less so we are still way short of the €1.3 billion that the Government claims it wanted.


----------



## RonanC (1 Dec 2009)

I think overtime and other allowances may also be taken into consideration too. I believe that front line services will be affected by this proposal but in my opinion i'd rather time off *unpaid *to working more for less pay. But not everyone will agree. 

I wonder will the unions require membership agreement in order to go through with this.


----------



## csirl (1 Dec 2009)

RonanC said:


> I think overtime and other allowances may also be taken into consideration too. I believe that front line services will be affected by this proposal but in my opinion i'd rather time off *unpaid *to working more for less pay. But not everyone will agree.
> 
> I wonder will the unions require membership agreement in order to go through with this.


 
Unpaid leave allows people to claim the dole for these days - no different to any other employees on short weeks.


----------



## Caveat (1 Dec 2009)

I think its kind of ingenious in a way TBH.

Will it not be a bit of logistical/admin nightmare though?


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

This exact same discussion is going on in the Budget 2010 forum. Any chance they could both be merged?


----------



## Caveat (1 Dec 2009)

liaconn said:


> This exact same discussion is going on in the Budget 2010 forum. Any chance they could both be merged?


 
I'm sure the one up above will end up down here soon anyway.


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

Sunny said:


> Thats a generalisation. There is enough in the proposal to debate without going down the usual road of back and forth insults.
> 
> For me I can't see how the proposals will work for the frontline staff in a way that would be acceptable to the public.


 
Never meant to insult anyone, just providing a reputable link to back up my point, which seems to be warranted these days


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

Firefly

If you heard of a factory shutting its doors for two weeks and telling its staff they wouldn't be paid for those two weeks, would you go around saying 'lucky them, they're getting more holidays'.

Talk about insensitive.


----------



## DB74 (1 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> I don't think unions look for a mandate for each strike day. My union IMPACT certainly don't work this way. The vote for strike action taken a few weeks ago was general, rather than limited to specific days or dates.


 
So at what point does a vote to strike expire, as such?

Do the unions have to give official notice that strikes from a particluar ballot will NOT take place any more then?

Please excuse my ignorance in this area.


----------



## becky (1 Dec 2009)

Caveat said:


> I think its kind of ingenious in a way TBH.
> 
> Will it not be a bit of logistical/admin nightmare though?


 
This option was explored in the HSE about a year and a half ago and from what I remember it was the who is and who isn't front line staff that caused the difficulties.


----------



## becky (1 Dec 2009)

csirl said:


> Unpaid leave allows people to claim the dole for these days - no different to any other employees on short weeks.


 
Not if you pay a modified PRSI stamp. I pay this stamp and have no entitlement to this form of social welfare.


----------



## Complainer (1 Dec 2009)

DB74 said:


> So at what point does a vote to strike expire, as such?
> 
> Do the unions have to give official notice that strikes from a particluar ballot will NOT take place any more then?
> 
> Please excuse my ignorance in this area.


Don't know, to be honest. I can't remember exactly how it was phrased on the ballot paper.


----------



## RonanC (1 Dec 2009)

From the CPSU website regarding the original ballot


----------



## Sunny (1 Dec 2009)

Very democratic

It is important that we get a very high turnout in this ballot *and also that members vote overwhelmingly in favour of the protests and industrial action campaign*.

No pressure then!


----------



## thedaras (1 Dec 2009)

Howitzer said:


> Risks: You facilitate the creation of yet more inefficient work practices which ultimately necessitate more overtime payments. Ding, ding, ding. The overtime payments are the problem people.
> 
> You pander to aging PS/CS emplyees, giving them extra time off (unpaid) without affecting their pension entitlements. Ding, ding, ding. The pension entitlements are the problem people.
> 
> These 2 groupings appear to me to be the most intransigent with regards to change. This solution, and the threat to extend these arrangements indefinately, are no threat atall. This could potentially be just another bag of carrots with any savings being born by the consumer through withdrawal of, deemed, less essential services with ultimately no real reforms taking place.


 
 Exactly!! Watch how the government pander!!!


----------



## Shawady (1 Dec 2009)

Caveat said:


> Will it not be a bit of logistical/admin nightmare though?


 
This is true. Unless they cut everyone's pay by 4 or 5% (whaterver the 12 days relate to) and spread it out over the year. It would then be left to individuals to organise their 12 days at loacal level.
They do something like this for term time. Parents take unpaid leave during the summer but their pay is paid over the year pro-rata.


----------



## Howitzer (1 Dec 2009)

liaconn said:


> Firefly
> 
> If you heard of a factory shutting its doors for two weeks and telling its staff they wouldn't be paid for those two weeks, would you go around saying 'lucky them, they're getting more holidays'.
> 
> Talk about insensitive.


You would if the factory simultaneuosly had to fullfill orders which necessitated the same employees working overtime to make up for hours it was shut, or if you were a senior employee nearing retirement age with a defined benefit pension.

I think that's a closer analogy.


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

Then your gripe is with frontline staff. In my Department we certainly won't be getting paid overtime, I can assure you. It's very unfair to make out that this will be available to everyone. A huge majority of us are just losing the pay, full stop so my analogy is closer to the situation for most people.


----------



## Howitzer (1 Dec 2009)

I don't have a gripe with front line staff. I just don't think this will bring about any savings there.

In other areas there will be savings but these short term savings will of no concern for anyone nearing retirement as their final salary, ignoring unpaid days, will be what is taken into account.

This leads on to those already retired. With benchmarking their retirement packages increased in line with existing staff. A pay reduction would have had the opposite effect. This "days off" garbage has no effect on them. The exact same scenario as the Pension evy.


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

And a straight paycut would be much harder on existing (not entitled to any overtime) public servants. Surely the bigger picture here is immediate savings accompanied by a real incentive to buy in to reform and restructuring of areas of the public sector that need to operate more efficiently. Going back over 'well, this should have been done before..' is pointless. There's lots of things that 'should have been done', including many things for which people in the Private Sector are responsible. We are where we are and need to move on in a way which will achieve results and cause the least amount of suffering possible.


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

liaconn said:


> Firefly
> 
> If you heard of a factory shutting its doors for two weeks and telling its staff they wouldn't be paid for those two weeks, would you go around saying 'lucky them, they're getting more holidays'.
> 
> Talk about insensitive.


 
People in the private sector are being let go, having the hours reduced, put on 3 day weeks etc, so why not apply the same in the PS if the employer (government) can't afford it?


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

To add, I wouldn't be saying lucky them they have more holidays, I'd welcome to the gang!


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

Eh, we are having our hours and pay  reduced and you seem to be annoyed by it.


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

liaconn said:


> Eh, we are having our hours and pay reduced and you seem to be annoyed by it.


 
Point taken, it's the uncertified sick leave that gets me though. I think there needs to be reform big time here. Perhaps uncertified sick leave should be unpaid?


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

Well, this has been widely discussed on other threads so no point in going over it here. Just to point out though, we are allowed a maximum of 7 not 11 uncertified days.


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

liaconn said:


> Well, this has been widely discussed on other threads so no point in going over it here. Just to point out though, we are allowed a maximum of 7 not 11 uncertified days.


 
Whether you're allowed 7 days is irrelevant, the report states that the average taken was 11. Anyway, the concept of allowed uncertified sick leave is absurd imo. 

Agreed on leaving it there though as not relevant to title thread.


----------



## Complainer (1 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> Anyway, the concept of allowed uncertified sick leave is absurd imo.
> .


Perhaps you should let the many private sector employers who offer uncertified sick leave know about their absurdity. I've always had reasonable uncertified sick leave in my (most private sector) career. It is not unusual.


----------



## liaconn (1 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> Whether you're allowed 7 days is irrelevant, the report states that the average taken was 11. Anyway, the concept of allowed uncertified sick leave is absurd imo.
> 
> Agreed on leaving it there though as not relevant to title thread.


 
They said the average amount of sick leave taken (not uncertified sick leave) was 11. Again, the accuracy and detail of this and factors to be taken into account has been widely discussed elsewhere and can easily be located. I really don't think this thread needs to be dragged down that road.


----------



## Firefly (1 Dec 2009)

Happy to leave it there.


----------



## csirl (1 Dec 2009)

liaconn said:


> Then your gripe is with frontline staff. In my Department we certainly won't be getting paid overtime, I can assure you. It's very unfair to make out that this will be available to everyone. A huge majority of us are just losing the pay, full stop so my analogy is closer to the situation for most people.


 
liancon is correct. In my former life working for a Government Dept I was never paid overtime and had no entitlement to overtime, regardless of how many hours worked. My impression is that the core civil service has a lot of atypical conditions such as no such thing as overtime and obligations to "get the work finished" no matter how long it takes. Its not unusual for some parts of the civil service to be working 60 hour weeks for no extra pay. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of quangos and other parts of the public service (usually the parts that are politically connected) are rife with overtime, extra attendance payments, allowances, sick leave etc. etc. The big losers in this are the core civil service.


----------



## Purple (1 Dec 2009)

csirl said:


> liancon is correct. In my former life working for a Government Dept I was never paid overtime and had no entitlement to overtime, regardless of how many hours worked. My impression is that the core civil service has a lot of atypical conditions such as no such thing as overtime and obligations to "get the work finished" no matter how long it takes. Its not unusual for some parts of the civil service to be working 60 hour weeks for no extra pay. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of quangos and other parts of the public service (usually the parts that are politically connected) are rife with overtime, extra attendance payments, allowances, sick leave etc. etc. The big losers in this are the core civil service.



That's very much my impression as well.
In Animal Farm parlance; "Civil Service good, Public Service bad".


----------



## Caveat (1 Dec 2009)

Apparently Thursday's strike has been averted - or at least deferred until after the budget.  Official announcement soon - if not already.  Agreement in principle around the area of 12-20 days unpaid leave - details to be ironed out.


----------

