# Is the Croke Park agreement sacrosanct because it would impact on TD's etc??



## NOAH (3 Nov 2010)

Am I right in assuming that the real reason the CP Agreement is set in stone is that if any changes were made to pay scales ie downward, it would impact on TD's salaries and others as well, ie downwards, if this is the case it is no wonder it will not be revisited and why it was signed  up to in the first instance.

They must think we are right eejits.

noah


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2010)

No, it won't be changed because all political parties now, rightly or wrongly, perceive the public sector vote as one block and so they are all trying to keep them happy by lying to them; “We won’t cut your pay”.


----------



## Leper (3 Nov 2010)

Purple, I dont agree with much of what you say, but I am with you on this one.

Regards

Leper


----------



## NOAH (25 Nov 2010)

Aha, so I was right,  what a clever deal for the TD's.   No mention of a cut in salaries.

The country is bust but ........ that's not sufficient reason to re-open the CP agreement!!   

I would say politicians in this country are on the slippery road to oblivion.

noah


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Nov 2010)

Purple said:


> No, it won't be changed because all political parties now, rightly or wrongly, perceive the public sector vote as one block and so they are all trying to keep them happy by lying to them; “We won’t cut your pay”.


 
Either that or they agree with your assertion after the 2010 budget that the Public Sector have paid their share .


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Either that or they agree with your assertion after the 2010 budget that the Public Sector have paid their share .



At that point they had. Now the country is in receivership things have changed. I still think they should not be singled out for unilateral pay cuts but numbers have to be reduced to a level that the state can afford. I am glad that retired public sector employees are now getting hit rather than just the current crop that are paying the levy and the pensions of those that have gone before.


----------



## shnaek (25 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Either that or they agree with your assertion after the 2010 budget that the Public Sector have paid their share .



It's not about paying a share. It's about living within a budget.


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Nov 2010)

Purple said:


> At that point they had. Now the country is in receivership things have changed. I still think they should not be singled out for unilateral pay cuts but numbers have to be reduced to a level that the state can afford. I am glad that retired public sector employees are now getting hit rather than just the current crop that are paying the levy and the pensions of those that have gone before.


 
So both of us agree that the Croke Park agreement should be honoured ?

No pay cuts and voluntary redundancies.


----------



## RonanC (25 Nov 2010)

shnaek said:


> It's not about paying a share. It's about living within a budget.


 
With an *unlimited budget* for the banks


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> So both of us agree that the Croke Park agreement should be honoured ?
> 
> No pay cuts and voluntary redundancies.



No, I don't agree. There should be redundancies and lots of them. If the state still can't foot the bill then cut pay. As shnaek said, it's about living within a budget, i.e. not living on borrowed money.


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Nov 2010)

Purple said:


> No, I don't agree. There should be redundancies and lots of them. If the state still can't foot the bill then cut pay. As shnaek said, it's about living within a budget, i.e. not living on borrowed money.


 
Redundancies and lots of them - voluntary or otherwise ?

After all voluntary redundancies effectively cut the pay bill .

So if such redundancies reduce the pay bill sufficiently to meet budgetary and IMF requirements then you would be happy ?


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Redundancies and lots of them - voluntary or otherwise ?
> 
> After all voluntary redundancies effectively cut the pay bill .
> 
> So if such redundancies reduce the pay bill sufficiently to meet budgetary and IMF requirements then you would be happy ?



I am in favour of small government so anything that reduces the size of it is welcome. 
The fact that it will help to meet budgetary requirements is an added bonus.


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Nov 2010)

Purple said:


> I am in favour of small government so anything that reduces the size of it is welcome.
> The fact that it will help to meet budgetary requirements is an added bonus.



Excellent , agreement is the best path forward I find !


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2010)

I didn't think you were of such a liberal view.


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Nov 2010)

Purple said:


> I didn't think you were of such a liberal view.


 
As long as it's between consenting parties and purely voluntary !


----------



## thedaras (25 Nov 2010)

I've said it before and Ill say it again,the only reason the present government are "saying" the Croke park agreement wont be touched is to keep the PS on their side.They can then go to an election saying,lads we did what we could..
This will not last, the IMF will sort it out..


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> I've said it before and Ill say it again,the only reason the present government are "saying" the Croke park agreement wont be touched is to keep the PS on their side.They can then go to an election saying,lads we did what we could..
> This will not last, the IMF will sort it out..


 
I know that you put great faith in the IMF slashing Public Sector pay , increments etc and sidelining the Unions.

Now that that has failed to happen I can understand your bitterness particularly as the IMF have basically signed off on both the 4 year plan and the forthcoming budget.

I do appreciate that things may change in the future but can we not at least park this debate until or if it becomes a live issue again ?


----------



## thedaras (25 Nov 2010)

It has only been stalled..do you honestly believe that the existing agreement will remain?

Really interesting use of language " bitterness" "slashing public sector pay" " sidelining the unions" all very strong.... fascinating how you interpret others thoughts..


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> It has only been stalled..do you honestly believe that the existing agreement will remain?
> 
> Really interesting use of language " bitterness" "slashing public sector pay" " sidelining the unions" all very strong.... fascinating how you interpret others thoughts..


 
Ah good , so you don't want to see public sector pay slashed nor do you wish to see the unions sidelined ?

Good to learn.


----------



## thedaras (26 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Ah good , so you don't want to see public sector pay slashed nor do you wish to see the unions sidelined ?
> 
> Good to learn.


You asked a question of me as in "?" and then went on to answer the question yourself..Charming..
So you misquote me and now you are answering questions on my behalf..sounds to me like you are just short of posting on my behalf


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> You asked a question of me as in "?" and then went on to answer the question yourself..Charming..
> So you misquote me and now you are answering questions on my behalf..sounds to me like you are just short of posting on my behalf



Let's simplify matters 

Do you wish to see Public Sector pay slashed ?

Do you wish to see Unions sidelined ?


----------



## TarfHead (26 Nov 2010)

The question is not addressed to me, but, FWIW, IMHO ..



Deiseblue said:


> Do you wish to see Public Sector pay slashed ?


 
Slashed ? No. Ringfenced ? No



Deiseblue said:


> Do you wish to see Unions sidelined ?


 
Yes. Their influence is grotesquely out of proportion with their mandate.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> The question is not addressed to me, but, FWIW, IMHO ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As Public Sector workers are hugely unionised I would contend that they hold a huge mandate in respect of the Croke Park agreement and are more than entitled to defend the terms and conditions of their members in as far as possible.


----------



## TarfHead (26 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> As Public Sector workers are hugely unionised I would contend that they hold a huge mandate in respect of the Croke Park agreement and are more than entitled to defend the terms and conditions of their members in as far as possible.


 
Without the existence of the CPA, the budgetary choices would certainly have been different. The CPA means that the interests of a minority are held superior to those of a majority. That is why I wish to see unions sidelined.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> Without the existence of the CPA, the budgetary choices would certainly have been different. The CPA means that the interests of a minority are held superior to those of a majority. That is why I wish to see unions sidelined.



The CPA is an employer employee agreement negotiated between management and employee representatives under the watchful eye of Kieran Mulvey , Labour Court chairman which guaranteed pay and no compulsory redundancies in return for industrial stability and reform in order to achieve savings , it also appears that the IMF have no problems with the concept.

I would also contend that this agreement benefits society as a whole as it provides a basis for reform and prevents industrial chaos.

Public Sector pay is not ringfenced as demonstrated by the imposition of 2 pay cuts totalling approx 14 %.


----------



## thedaras (26 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Let's simplify matters
> 
> Do you wish to see Public Sector pay slashed ?
> 
> Do you wish to see Unions sidelined ?



I want to see the NUMBERS in the PS greatly reduced..

Unions as Ive said on many many occasions are needed,however the unions leaders who we have at the moment are not "Leaders", they are in  "partnership" with this government,they are on several boards,they are on huge salary's while shouting loud about workers pay/conditions etc,they have a cloud about unofficial funds hanging over them,they ( though Im open to correction) have not taken a pay cut,some of them earning 170k!

Here are the 2009 pay levels link;
[broken link removed]



John Carr INTO (35,000 members) €172,000, 
Peter McLoone Impact (65,000 members) €171,313.
John White ASTI €144,000 
Peter MacMenamin TUI between €131,748 and €150,712.
Jack O’Connor SIPTU earned a salary of €124,895 in 2008 (215,000 members).
Blair Horan CPSU (14,000 members) “about €120,000”.

".......of the 16 unions it contacted refused to reveal the pay levels of their bosses. These were the Communications Workers’ Union (Steve Fitzpatrick); Mandate (John Douglas); the Irish Bank Officials’ Association (Larry Broderick); the TEEU (Owen Wills); the Irish Nurses’ Organisation (Liam Doran); the Public Service Executive Union (Tom Geraghty); and the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants (Dave Thomas)."

Note the Irish information does not appear to include pension contributions.

Now how many comrades earn this much?

If he and the rest of the elite in the trade union movement were serious socialists that they claim to be , then they should lead by example.

Jack O'connor perfectly illustrates the problems with socialism. 
 Orwell provides an excellent summary:

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"


----------



## Shawady (26 Nov 2010)

What do people think of the fact that the IMF/EU delegation are meeting ICTU today?
Is it just as a gesture or would they prefer to keep them part of the process.
The IMF are not obliged to deal with unions and am just wondering are people surprised they are.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1126/economy_bailout.html


----------



## TarfHead (26 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> The CPA .. guaranteed pay and no compulsory redundancies in return for industrial stability and reform in order to achieve savings


 
Industrial stability is a norm. Work stoppages, work to rule, etc. are all aberrations from that norm. The expectation that one should be compensated for not misbehaving is one that I do not share.

In tackling the current budget deficit, the CPA ringfences a significant portion of Government spending. To address the deficit, the Government has to make, what I consider to be, disproportionate savings in all other spending, such as social welfare and public services.

As I posted earlier, the influence of unions is grotesquely out of proportion with their mandate.


----------



## DerKaiser (26 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I would also contend that this agreement benefits society as a whole as it provides a basis for reform and prevents industrial chaos.


 
I think I can say the following as an independent observer:

There are 450,000 people unemployed and 300,000 people employed in the public service. The croke park agreement has most likely meant that those on social welfare will be hit harder than if there was no negotiated agreement in place for public service pay. 

As an exercise in self interest for their members the unions have done a good job. Those on social welfare will be less well off. Society as a whole may well be better off on this occasion purely due to the fact that the unions would inflict pain on society if the agreement was breached. The unemployed, on the other hand, have no trump card.

If the unemployed somehow could support a union and organise unrest and blockages in response to welfare cuts the game would change. We would have a situation where we would have chaos no matter what way the cuts fell.

In short the unions bargaining power compared to the lack of a strong collective voice for the unemployed has worked to the advantage of public sector workers at the expense of the unemployed.  If you think of society as a pie, unions are not doing anything other than ensuring their member's slice of the pie is as large as it can be, meaning someone will have to make do with a smaller slice. 

I'm not looking to get into a big argument here saying people on social welfare should be exempt from cuts, as it is not something I believe. Personally I think that social welfare should be hit harder than public sector pay in 2011 as it has not been hit as hard up to now. If further cuts are needed thereafter I'm not sure I'd have the same view though.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> Industrial stability is a norm. Work stoppages, work to rule, etc. are all aberrations from that norm. The expectation that one should be compensated for not misbehaving is one that I do not share.
> 
> In tackling the current budget deficit, the CPA ringfences a significant portion of Government spending. To address the deficit, the Government has to make, what I consider to be, disproportionate savings in all other spending, such as social welfare and public services.
> 
> As I posted earlier, the influence of unions is grotesquely out of proportion with their mandate.



Industrial stability as you say should be the norm however when pay cuts are unilaterally imposed and tensions increase between employers and employees then such stability is threatened - hence the Croke Park deal.

As I have already pointed out I believe the Unions have a huge mandate in agreeing and defending this deal.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

Shawady said:


> What do people think of the fact that the IMF/EU delegation are meeting ICTU today?
> Is it just as a gesture or would they prefer to keep them part of the process.
> The IMF are not obliged to deal with unions and am just wondering are people surprised they are.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1126/economy_bailout.html



I believe that the IMF are acutely aware of the power of Irish unions and the central place in formulating and agreeing policy they have granted by Government and as such felt obliged to meet them.

Indeed it's been a long time since I've seen Jack O'Connor so upbeat when interviewed after the meeting !


----------



## TarfHead (26 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Industrial stability as you say should be the norm however when pay cuts are unilaterally imposed and tensions increase between employers and employees then such stability is threatened - hence the Croke Park deal.


 
So when your employer is broke, they should be forced to spend money they don't have ?



Deiseblue said:


> As I have already pointed out I believe the Unions have a huge mandate in agreeing and defending this deal.


 
I don't doubt or contend that they have a huge mandate from their members. My assertion is that their influence creates an inequality nationally. which is why I posted that I wish to see them sidelined.


----------



## Shawady (26 Nov 2010)

@ Der Kaiser. I disagree that social welfare will be cut further due to the CPA. The fact is that PS pay was cut 14% last year and unemployment benefit cut 4% (This was actually less than the 5% recommended by Colm Mc Carthy). Social welfare benefits increased dramatically during the last decade are the country can no longer afford them regardless of the CPA. As a civil servant I would be very surprised if there were no more pay cuts between now and 2014 anyway.
Regards the unemployed not having a voice, it is my recollection that in 2004 Bertie became a socialist and hosted Fr Sean Healy at several FF workshops. Guess what - social welfare shot up. In one year alone, it was increased by 12%.In money terms not a lot, but way above inflation all the same.

One could argue that the 4.5 billion old age pension being ringfenced means that other social welfare benefits will require deeper cuts.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> So when your employer is broke, they should be forced to spend money they don't have ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt or contend that they have a huge mandate from their members. My assertion is that their influence creates an inequality nationally. which is why I posted that I wish to see them sidelined.


 
The Croke Park agreement enables the savings to be made through a combination of reform and voluntary redundancies and not via pay cuts - not a bad compromise I would have thought ?

The Union's exist to protect the terms and conditions of their members as mandated by their members.

It's down to Governments to protect the interests of the state and it's citizens and as such entered into the CP deal .


----------



## TarfHead (26 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> The Croke Park agreement enables the savings to be paid through a combination of reform and voluntary redundancies and not via pay cuts - not a bad compromise I would have thought ?


 
And where are the reforms ? AFAIK, the Civil Service Department heads were each meant to have their plans for reform prepared by the end of September. This has now been kicked ahead to March/April 2011, and no certainty that that date will be met. How does this yield savings ? A unilateral pay cut would have yielded savings today.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> I want to see the NUMBERS in the PS greatly reduced..
> 
> Unions as Ive said on many many occasions are needed,however the unions leaders who we have at the moment are not "Leaders", they are in "partnership" with this government,they are on several boards,they are on huge salary's while shouting loud about workers pay/conditions etc,they have a cloud about unofficial funds hanging over them,they ( though Im open to correction) have not taken a pay cut,some of them earning 170k!
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you !

Under the Croke Park agreement PS numbers are to be greatly reduced by voluntary redundancies and costs by reform in order to protect pay levels - very desirable all round I would have thought ?

I have no problems with Union leader's salaries - a very tough job at the best of times - never mind now.

Decent salaries yes but let's not pretend they fall in to the " fat cat " category - you'd get 24 Jack O'Connors for 1 Brian Goggin !


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> And where are the reforms ? AFAIK, the Civil Service Department heads were each meant to have their plans for reform prepared by the end of September. This has now been kicked ahead to March/April 2011, and no certainty that that date will be met. How does this yield savings ? A unilateral pay cut would have yielded savings today.


 
Indeed unilaterasl pay cuts would have delivered immediate savings and quite possibly strikes - now that would have really impressed the IMF.

The unions have also been pushing for the reform plans to be delivered - Management eh ! - what can you do with them ?


----------



## shnaek (26 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> And where are the reforms ?



Indeed! So far the agreement has facilitated talk about reform, and talk and excuse making is what the 'service' does best!


----------



## DerKaiser (26 Nov 2010)

Shawady said:


> @ Der Kaiser. I disagree that social welfare will be cut further due to the CPA.


 
Quite simply I believe the sum of social welfare cuts and public sector wage cuts is a fixed amount with the only political call being how to divide the cuts between the two. In my mind, this political call has been strongly driven by who has the greater collective bargaining power.

I agree there is a very strong argument for saying that social welfare was always going to bear the brunt of the budget cuts this time around. In this context it probably makes sense to give the croke park agreement one more year to see if it can achieve anything in the way of savings or efficiencies.



Shawady said:


> @ One could argue that the 4.5 billion old age pension being ringfenced means that other social welfare benefits will require deeper cuts.


 
I'd strongly agree with this.  

If you were to means test on a needs basis I believe OAPs would not be the most vulnerable group on social welfare (compared to young families or the disabled), as a large proportion would have life time savings and low living costs.

My only conclusion as to why they have been protected to such an extent has to be a cynical one based on their high propensity to vote.

I lost a lot of sympathy for the plight of OAPs following the undeserved outrage on the removal of the medical card from those on quite high incomes.


----------



## gipimann (26 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> And where are the reforms ? AFAIK, the Civil Service Department heads were each meant to have their plans for reform prepared by the end of September. This has now been kicked ahead to March/April 2011, and no certainty that that date will be met. How does this yield savings ? A unilateral pay cut would have yielded savings today.


 

Here's the action plan for the civil service, which has been compiled from the action plans of the individual departments.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/civilservactionplan.pdf


----------

