# Public Service work to rule?



## Caveat (24 Feb 2010)

What's going on - is a WTR in operation at the moment and if so where - right across the board?

I got the impression this was ongoing, then someone told me it wasn't, then someone told me it was...


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Yea, and no public servants need come on here during work-time and defend the Public Sector; that’s not part of your job description


----------



## z107 (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Why not pay them all double their previous wages?

We'll at least have maybe three or four months of no messing about. It will also speed things up a bit. This death by a thousand cuts is very disheartening.


----------



## Caveat (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Doesn't really affect us either way from a business POV anyway - we do the PS far more favours than they do us  - but I'd just like to know.


----------



## Padraigb (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

I have had several contacts with public service bodies in the past fortnight. All my business was transacted normally. From this I infer that if there is a work-to-rule in operation, it is not bringing everything to a juddering halt.

People in my sphere of acquaintance who are in the public service give me the impression that they are working normally. Some are angry or distressed about what has happened to their pay, their prospects for promotion, or their job security; but a greater number accept it with resignation.


----------



## Caveat (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Padraigb said:


> I have had several contacts with public service bodies in the past fortnight. All my business was transacted normally.


 
In most cases, my transactions have been normal too - I deal with the PS literally every day - but there has been some intransigence/awkwardness etc that I wouldn't normally expect on 3 or 4 occasions over the past couple of weeks. All HSE.

I mentioned it to a colleague who replied that as far as they knew, there was a WTR in operation. I just don't know though.


----------



## Shawady (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Caveat said:


> What's going on - is a WTR in operation at the moment and if so where - right across the board?
> 
> I got the impression this was ongoing, then someone told me it wasn't, then someone told me it was...


 
Yes, there is a work to rule going on but like Padraig said, most of my colleagues are just working normally.
There has been a couple of issues in my area recently that would have resulted in more hassle for ourselves than anything else, if we wanted to apply work-to-rule to the letter. From what I can see, most people just want to get on with their job.

I have heard there is supposed to be an escalation of it but I don't know what that means in real terms.


----------



## Bill Struth (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

There's definitely a work to rule among clerical grades in the civil service. I couldn't be positive about the wider public service. There are also counter closures and phone bans at different times.


----------



## MrMan (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Our local hospital stated to a friend of mine that while she could try to get through to her 94 yr old granny who was in for a few days (no visitors allowed due to a vomiting bug) the nurses probably wouldn't answer in the ward because they were on a work to rule! This proved to be the case. The phone continued to ring out and no contact could be made with that ward.


----------



## Caveat (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Shawady said:


> Yes, there is a work to rule going on but like Padraig said, most of my colleagues are just working normally.
> There has been a couple of issues in my area recently that would have resulted in more hassle for ourselves than anything else, if we wanted to apply work-to-rule to the letter. From what I can see, most people just want to get on with their job.
> 
> I have heard there is supposed to be an escalation of it but I don't know what that means in real terms.


 
Thanks - so now I know.

Not having a go at the PS but in our case anyway, it's proving to be very silly. As you say, it has worked out more inconvenient for the PS than for us on each occasion. The stances taken haven't even been logical. Hasn't cost us a cent so far - maybe 10 minutes extra admin.

As I said, we do more favours as a supplier than they do for us anyway so, if it turns out that a WTR attitude costs us financially, or in terms of time, we will simply apply our own WTR and claw any lost money back as there are plenty of ways of doing so - might even add in a few more % just for the inconvenience caused


----------



## johnd (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



MrMan said:


> Our local hospital stated to a friend of mine that while she could try to get through to her 94 yr old granny who was in for a few days (no visitors allowed due to a vomiting bug) the nurses probably wouldn't answer in the ward because they were on a work to rule! This proved to be the case. The phone continued to ring out and no contact could be made with that ward.



Tell your friend to buy her granny a mobile!


----------



## liaconn (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

There is a work to rule in place in the Civil Service. It means you have to stick strictly to your own job and not do the work of anyone who's on mat leave, sick leave or anything like that.  There is also limited industrial action in that we also can't answer phones on certain afternoons and can't prepare responses to Parliamentary Questions or representations from Ministers.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

What would happen if one person kept answering the phone on the off days?


----------



## liaconn (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

If they were in the Union they would be kicked out.


----------



## Ham Slicer (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Revenue 1890 numbers have been on and off for the past couple of weeks.  Mostly afternoons there is nobody home.  None of the Dublin tax offices are answering the phones this afternoon.

Tried to call 10 different numbers this morning in Revenue and the phone was only answered twice and hung up straight away.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



liaconn said:


> If they were in the Union they would be kicked out.


 What if they weren't in the union?


----------



## liaconn (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Well, then they wouldn't be taking part in the action. There's lots of people who aren't in the union and are going about business as usual. No one's shunning them or anything. They're entitled not to join a union if they don't want to.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Fair enough, thanks.


----------



## becky (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

The WTR is ongoing in the HSE and is being stepped up next week.  Stuff like short work stoppages planned etc.

Impact intend to do an audit of vacant posts so I'm expecting some trouble.  I have 2 vacant posts and the work is being cross covered as this was the practice here.  We are behind on work though.  

I think the unions are dissappointed with the impact so far but WTR like these takes ages to have any effect.


----------



## Vanilla (24 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

Apparently the CRO were having industrial action week before last.

Then last week I asked someone in the PRAI a question ( technical registration problem), was asked to fax in a letter and got a response saying 'The PRAI is not an advisory body'. I thought it was work to rule, but apparently not- just another bolshie civil servant. Usually the people in PRAI are brilliant, just got one of 'them ones'.


----------



## Shawady (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Caveat said:


> Thanks - so now I know.
> 
> Not having a go at the PS but in our case anyway, it's proving to be very silly. As you say, it has worked out more inconvenient for the PS than for us on each occasion. The stances taken haven't even been logical. Hasn't cost us a cent so far - maybe 10 minutes extra admin.
> 
> As I said, we do more favours as a supplier than they do for us anyway so, if it turns out that a WTR attitude costs us financially, or in terms of time, we will simply apply our own WTR and claw any lost money back as there are plenty of ways of doing so - might even add in a few more % just for the inconvenience caused


 
In my area anyway, I think it would be more hassle for us than the public if we tried to apply the WTR in its strictest terms. I think it is just human nature that most people just want to do their job.
As Liaconn has said there are some defined actions such as not working on lunch or not working late.


----------



## Shawady (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Purple said:


> What would happen if one person kept answering the phone on the off days?


 
There is a 10 point plan detailing what cannot be done by union members and if someone is found breaking the work to rule, they can be subject to disiplinary action by the central excecutive committee. Don't know what this means but probably told to leave the union.
One point that has caused a bit of hassle in our place is that we are not supposed to do the work of another grade. So if someone is off sick or on leave, that work is supposed to be left. However this can have a knock on effect for the rest of us and is proving to be more hassle for the employees than anything else.


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Feb 2010)

It seems that the refusal of the relevant department to deal with parliamentary questions is causing problems for TD's per today's Irish Times.


----------



## MrMan (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



johnd said:


> Tell your friend to buy her granny a mobile!



she isn't at her best mentally shall we say, so she has to be loooked after.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Shawady said:


> One point that has caused a bit of hassle in our place is that we are not supposed to do the work of another grade. So if someone is off sick or on leave, that work is supposed to be left. However this can have a knock on effect for the rest of us and is proving to be more hassle for the employees than anything else.


 
I don't get it - have the unions not thought of this or discussed it? It's totally counterproductive.

Can't go into specifics, and it's convoluted to explain anyway but a few stances taken with us as a supplier (apparently as a result of a WTR) have *actually cost the PS money* and quite a bit of hassle I'd say too. For us the impact was negligible. I don't understand the point of it.

I don't want to seem over belligerent, but there is no way that this is going to affect us as a business - if anyone gets too stroppy or awkward, we will simply make up the money elsewhere if necessary by charging for services/items that we should have been charging for anyway. Why should we be out of pocket?

What annoys me is that a WTR is supposed to demonstrate how previously flexible staff have been and how they have turned a blind eye and overlooked whatever. - is it not?

It doesn't seem to have crossed anyone's mind that suppliers to the PS often bend over backwards for them - we do.

There are all sorts of charges that strictly speaking we should be applying, all sorts of favours, free of charge replacements, hand delivering urgently required items at no charge etc etc


----------



## Shawady (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Caveat said:


> I don't get it - have the unions not thought of this or discussed it? It's totally counterproductive.


 
The top guys in the unions have decided upon this WTR strategy but there are so many different areas within the public service that some may have an effect on the government but many others won't. I think a previous poster mentioned that dealing with parlimetary questions is causing problems for them.
If we followed it strictly we would be make life more difficult for ourselves and postponing work that will just have to be done anyway.


----------



## Teatime (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*

A friend of mine working in a university was handed a memo detailing what to do as part of the work-to-rule. One of the items was not to reply to an email until the next day - is that not a go-slow rather than a work-to-rule?


----------



## Firefly (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Caveat said:


> Can't go into specifics, and it's convoluted to explain anyway but a few stances taken with us as a supplier (apparently as a result of a WTR) have *actually cost the PS money* and quite a bit of hassle I'd say too. For us the impact was negligible. I don't understand the point of it.


 
Since when did the unions ever care about this?


----------



## becky (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



MrMan said:


> she isn't at her best mentally shall we say, so she has to be loooked after.


 
Mr. Man - I heard from a colleague that there is WTR for nurses in Limerick where they won't answer telephones.


----------



## becky (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: PS work to rule?*



Teatime said:


> A friend of mine working in a university was handed a memo detailing what to do as part of the work-to-rule. One of the items was not to reply to an email until the next day - is that not a go-slow rather than a work-to-rule?


 
A WTR rule can have go slows like these as part of the WTR.  For example we have a a policy of responding to a certain query within 3 days.  However, in reality this query is responded to within 24 hours.  As part of the WTR we should/could wait 3 days.

WTR's are meant to cause disruption to the employer.  If this means that the members are disrupted in the process so be it.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2010)

So is disruption caused to suppliers just regarded as collateral as well?

I don't see why staff/unions cannot distinguish between their employer and their suppliers.


----------



## becky (25 Feb 2010)

Caveat said:


> So is disruption caused to suppliers just regarded as collateral as well?
> 
> I don't see why staff/unions cannot distinguish between their employer and their suppliers.


 
Yes I would say suppliers can be disrupted as well.  

Why would they be excluded specifically?  Maybe if you supply medicine or food perhaps.  I can't see the union making any consessions for say suppliers of stationary.


----------



## Henny Penny (25 Feb 2010)

I tried today to get through to revenue - no luck - phone message on answering service said due to industrial action 1890 number is not being answered. 
Spoke to receptionist in dept  of health today ... she said wtr was in operation but would try to put me through to a prinicipal officer whose union was not wtr ... after several attempts she informed me that they must all be sympathizing and that I should try tomorrow ... it'll probably be over by then!
Just one question ... why didn't someone in the government write 'responding to telephone queries' into the job description of civil servants?


----------



## becky (25 Feb 2010)

Henny Penny said:


> ... it'll probably be over by then!
> Just one question ... why didn't someone in the government write 'responding to telephone queries' into the job description of civil servants?


 If you mean the WTR will be over tommorow, afraid not. It's only getting going.  Answering telephone calls is a fairly common task written into a job spec. I have a list of specific duties which I issue to new staff and one of the tasks is to deal with telephone calls promptly. The non answering of phones is a form of industrial action which is short of strike action.  The employer has been informed of the action according to the industrial relations act. The employer can decide to reduce pay for non performance of certain duties by say 10%. This was what they threatened to do to nurses when they were looking for the 35 hour week a few years ago.


----------



## Birroc (25 Feb 2010)

becky said:


> The employer has been informed of the action according to the industrial relations act. The employer can decide to reduce pay for non performance of certain duties by say 10%.


 
I am curious why you refer to the government as the 'employer' as if this happens within other employments. Maybe I am wrong butI would say there is no other employer in Ireland that would put up with a work-to-rule like this.


----------



## Caveat (25 Feb 2010)

becky said:


> Why would they be excluded specifically?


 
Why??

A WTR is a protest - right? So what is it about suppliers that the HSE or wider public service is protesting about? The protest is meant to be against their employer, the state, as far as I was aware.

Put simply, suppliers should be excluded because it's got nothing to do them.

For exactly what reason should PS workers make it difficult for suppliers to do their job, regardless of what they are supplying?


----------



## becky (25 Feb 2010)

Birroc said:


> I am curious why you refer to the government as the 'employer' as if this happens within other employments. Maybe I am wrong butI would say there is no other employer in Ireland that would put up with a work-to-rule like this.


 I don't consider the government the employer. My employer is the HSE. I agree that some employers, namely private sector ones, wouldn't put up with this but you're not comparing like with like.


----------



## becky (25 Feb 2010)

Caveat said:


> Why??
> A WTR is a protest - right? So what is it about suppliers that the HSE or wider public service is protesting about? The protest is meant to be against their employer, the state, as far as I was aware.
> Put simply, suppliers should be excluded because it's got nothing to do them.
> For exactly what reason should PS workers make it difficult for suppliers to do their job, regardless of what they are supplying?


 This WTR is a form of industrial action just like a strike. The employer is the HSE in my case not the government . What about patients? My Dad has an OPD appointment next week which is an all day one. If a 3 hour stoppage was planned that day in the hospital, chances are the appointment will be cancelled. This has nothing to do with him either.


----------



## Caveat (26 Feb 2010)

becky said:


> This WTR is a form of industrial action just like a strike. The employer is the HSE in my case not the government.


 
Fine, the HSE then, doesn't matter - the point is that suppliers are certainly not your employer.



> What about patients? My Dad has an OPD appointment next week which is an all day one. If a 3 hour stoppage was planned that day in the hospital, chances are the appointment will be cancelled. This has nothing to do with him either.


 
No it hasn't but there is a difference.

The HSE and wider public service/sector are providing a service to the public.

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not I agree with the action or it's consequences I can see the logic in disrupting service to the public: disgruntled members of the public have no-one to complain to except the government - I presume it is intended that the pressure will further their cause.

I can also see the logic in disrupting services from the civil service directly to the government e.g. briefing on parliamentary speeches was mentioned.

What I can't see any logic in is making things difficult for suppliers to the extent where it costs both the PS and the suppliers time and money, when the supplies will be needed anyway, and when there will be no affect that I can see other than to annoy suppliers.


----------



## Firefly (26 Feb 2010)

Caveat said:


> What I can't see any logic in is making things difficult for suppliers to the extent where it costs both the PS and the suppliers time and money, when the supplies will be needed anyway, and when there will be no affect that I can see other than to annoy suppliers.


 
I think the whole idea of the WTR is that as many people as possible will be inconvenienced - suppliers included. The unions IMO don't care at all about the added costs/inconvenience to the HSE or suppliers.


----------



## VOR (26 Feb 2010)

becky said:


> The non answering of phones is a form of industrial action which is short of strike action. The employer has been informed of the action according to the industrial relations act. The employer can decide to reduce pay for non performance of certain duties by say 10%.


 
Could the HSE decide not to reduce the pay as above and issue formal warnings instead? Just asking out of curiosity.


----------



## Sunny (26 Feb 2010)

Maybe the Government should do its own work to rule and refuse to collect union subscriptions at source for a start.


----------



## becky (26 Feb 2010)

VOR said:


> Could the HSE decide not to reduce the pay as above and issue formal warnings instead? Just asking out of curiosity.


 
Yes they could do that and it actually has been mentioned.  However, they could only do it for tasks/jobs which are listed as part of the industrial action.  For example if the union state that there will be a work stoppage from 9 am - 1pm, the the employer can't discipline the staff member for not answering phones during this period.  However, if staff continue not to answer the phone from 2 - 5 then the employer can take disciplinary action.


----------



## liaconn (26 Feb 2010)

Henny Penny said:


> I tried today to get through to revenue - no luck - phone message on answering service said due to industrial action 1890 number is not being answered.
> Spoke to receptionist in dept of health today ... she said wtr was in operation but would try to put me through to a prinicipal officer whose union was not wtr ... after several attempts she informed me that they must all be sympathizing and that I should try tomorrow ... it'll probably be over by then!
> Just one question ... why didn't someone in the government write 'responding to telephone queries' into the job description of civil servants?


 

The not answering telephone calls is not part of the work to rule. It is part of an additional industrial action whereby certain tasks which would form part of our role profile eg preparing responses to Parliamentary Questions are not to be undertaken.


----------



## Howitzer (26 Feb 2010)

This work to rule - not answering phones / covering for other people - has nothing to do with enacting change. It's about making the union members FEEL as if they are doing something to enact change.

The Unions have been rendered impotent by their failure to maintain strike funds and their members failure to withstand a period - or even a day - without pay.

My company does a lot of work with the Public Sector and our experience with regards to the taking of phone calls has not been all that different to before this action. A number of my colleagues would be on site within the PS and confusion and mixed messages abound. But if it wasn't this it'd be something else. The overall level of productivity, from our perspective, is unchanged. However the members feel like they're doing something, and that's the main thing.


----------



## johnd (26 Feb 2010)

Heard someone on Morning Ireland complaining that the Passport Office is not answering their phones today and saying people going away this weekend will not be able to get their passport on tome.  Do people really wait until the day before they are going away to look for a passport?  Are they mad? Even if you have no intention of going away a passport as a means of identification is very handy to have and you never know when the chance of a holiday might come along.


----------



## liaconn (26 Feb 2010)

Howitzer said:


> This work to rule - not answering phones / covering for other people - has nothing to do with enacting change. It's about making the union members FEEL as if they are doing something to enact change.


 
Huh????


----------



## Shawady (26 Feb 2010)

Howitzer said:


> It's about making the union members FEEL as if they are doing something to enact change.


 
Personally I think it is more to do with the unions themselves seeing to be doing something.


----------



## VOR (26 Feb 2010)

So far, and you can correct me if I am wrong, we have:
- Not answering phones
- Delay in the reply to emails
- Not training new recruits
- Not issuing passports
- Working to the minimum expected under service levels
- Not attending to Dail questions.

Is that the list so far? I wonder what is next?


----------



## becky (26 Feb 2010)

Howitzer
This work to rule - not answering phones / covering for other people - has nothing to do with enacting change. It's about making the union members FEEL as if they are doing something to enact change.

*I agree unions have to be seen to be doing something because a strong messgae went back to the unions that srtike action wasn't a runner.*

The Unions have been rendered impotent by their failure to maintain strike funds and their members failure to withstand a period - or even a day - without pay.

*I agree. However, strike funds have always very little so a strike fund would have been of little use to me. My pay has been cut by €100 a week since this time last year and while I could manage a day here, not a hope on an ongoing basis.*

My company does a lot of work with the Public Sector and our experience with regards to the taking of phone calls has not been all that different to before this action. A number of my colleagues would be on site within the PS and confusion and mixed messages abound. But if it wasn't this it'd be something else. The overall level of productivity, from our perspective, is unchanged. However the members feel like they're doing something, and that's the main thing.

*It's hard to generalise here. There has been no change to output in my section. However, from next week we are not dealing with any FOI for example. Now I get maybe 4 a year so there will be no significant change here but other sections would have 3 or 4 a week.*


----------



## liaconn (26 Feb 2010)

Not fast tracking anything at a Minister's request (eg a passport needed in a hurry).


----------



## Bronte (26 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> Not fast tracking anything at a Minister's request (eg a passport needed in a hurry).


 
If that's the way Ireland runs it's riduculous.  What kind of a way is it to run a country whereby a minister has to get your passport.


----------



## liaconn (26 Feb 2010)

He doesn't have to get your passport. He/She will sometimes request that one be processed extra quickly because a constituent needs one in a hurry.


----------



## Howitzer (26 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> Not fast tracking anything at a Minister's request (eg a passport needed in a hurry).


See, the thing is, is this something that is really required? Arguably in any work environment it's good practice to occaisionally just stop doing certain tasks and see what happens.

If anyone was so inclined this would be a fantastic opportunity to rationalise the workload within their office. Stop doing busy work. Focus on the real world.


----------



## VOR (26 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> Not fast tracking anything at a Minister's request (eg a passport needed in a hurry).


 
I am with the unions on that one. Jaysus, I feel weird now after saying that. Absolute joke that a leader of a government department would still have his/her hands on the parish pump.


----------



## liaconn (26 Feb 2010)

Howitzer said:


> See, the thing is, is this something that is really required? Arguably in any work environment it's good practice to occaisionally just stop doing certain tasks and see what happens.
> 
> If anyone was so inclined this would be a fantastic opportunity to rationalise the workload within their office. Stop doing busy work. Focus on the real world.


 
Like not answering parliamentary questions?


----------



## ashambles (26 Feb 2010)

In normal circumstances if an individual staff member decided not to answer phones would that be acceptable within the public sector? Would it not lead eventually to disciplinary action.

Disciplinary action should lead to a strike, and since the workers seemingly won't strike the whole thing would collapse in days. So in theory the government can call the unions bluff by finding a reason to suspend a few workers.

But perhaps the government and unions are colluding into allowing the action go on long enough so that the initial purpose of reversing paycuts can be changed into stopping future paycuts and re-entering some sort of "partnership" negotiations. Much like the quick fizzling out of resistance to the pension levy. Dressed up as victory for the unions and a show of conciliation from the government.

I seem to remember unions blustering about massive industrial action back in Decemeber, whatever this is it's not massive - scarcely any worse than before is the common judgement. 




(There is a beneficial side to WTRs as they give an insight into normal work practices e.g. why does Cork even have a passport office, does any other city outside the capital have one, is it not just a proxy via post/courier for Dublin anyway - can this office be justified. 

Then ASTI's threat of a WTR on standing in for retired middle management helped highlight that in 50 teacher school, around 10 will be assistant principals in addition to the principal and deputy principal. A somewhat high ratio of mgmt to staff that to the cynics seems designed as a pension boosting arrangement)


----------



## Firefly (26 Feb 2010)

Where do people see this going? The government obviously doesn't have the money and if anything further cuts could be on the cards. What do the unions honestly expect to achieve (apart from disruption)?


----------



## liaconn (26 Feb 2010)

Well, for a start, a warning to the Government that they cannot just keep coming back to public servants, like a handy piggy bank, everytime they need to make cuts. Some people have already cut back to the bone and really can't cut back anymore unless it's on food bills/mortgage/electricity.

Also, the fact that some very senior Civil Servants did not get the same paycut as everyone else, due to their bonus being counted as core wage. has not helped the mood. 'Animal Farm' as someone called it.


----------



## z107 (26 Feb 2010)

> He doesn't have to get your passport. He/She will sometimes request that one be processed extra quickly because a constituent needs one in a hurry.


That's an absolute disgrace!
So normal people have to wait that little but longer then? while the local TD exerts their power.
We may now have better TVs and mobile phones, but other than that, Ireland is still firmly in the 1950s.

'Visit Ireland for the 50's experience' should be the tourism board's slogan.


(Actually, at least in the 1950s we still had some rail infrastructure left)


----------



## liaconn (26 Feb 2010)

It is 'normal people' who go to TDs looking for this perk. It is 'normal people' who have created this system by voting for the guy that does them a favour as opposed to the guy who is equipped for the job.


----------



## johnd (26 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> That's an absolute disgrace!
> So normal people have to wait that little but longer then? while the local TD exerts their power.
> We may now have better TVs and mobile phones, but other than that, Ireland is still firmly in the 1950s.
> 
> ...



Thats says it all really

Between Jan 2008 - May 2009 4,  3283 "special requests for passports" went through TD's.  Pat (the Cope) Gallagher led the way with 539 requests and Mary Coughlan followed with 499 requests. Donegal TD's accounted for one third of all requests. Mary Coughlan denied it was  unfair to ordinary members of the public. All parties seem to agree as they all voted to retain the service.  (I looked it up on google)


----------



## Firefly (26 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> Also, the fact that some very senior Civil Servants did not get the same paycut as everyone else, due to their bonus being counted as core wage. has not helped the mood. 'Animal Farm' as someone called it.


 
That was a disgrace IMO. Just like regresive taxes, the % taken from the guys at the top should have been larger. 

With prices falling in the private sector, downward pressure on the minimum wage and ever-increasing budget deficits, I honestly think we are only seeing the start of wage cuts in the PS.


----------



## z107 (26 Feb 2010)

> With prices falling in the private sector, downward pressure on the minimum wage and ever-increasing budget deficits, I honestly think we are only seeing the start of wage cuts in the PS.


Yes, this is just the beginning.

Wasn't it explained in the budget how many billions were going to be saved each year? 3billlion, 4 billion etc, etc. They can either increase taxes and borrowing or reduce spending. If they increase taxes even more, it'll finished off more private firms and the situation will spiral downwards even faster. Ultimately they'll end up collecting less tax. The only option they have is PS pay cuts.


----------



## Leper (26 Feb 2010)

What's a Work-to-Rule? - What's a G0-Slow? What is this? What is that?

The question here is why is the Public Service being screwed whee others are not?

The answer is that the Public Service staff has been villified by the media and the politicians.  We can ask questions all day and all night, but the bottom line is that the Public Service has been segregated from the rest of society and screwed.


----------



## RMCF (26 Feb 2010)

Surely on a 'work to rule' it would still mean you have to do the basic functions expected of the job?

If so, why is the passport office allowed to stop dealing with customers at 1pm? Surely it is their job remit, even at the bare minimum, to address the public from 9am-5pm?


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Feb 2010)

The early closing of the Passport Office is additional industrial action and not part of the work to rule.


----------



## z107 (26 Feb 2010)

> The question here is why is the Public Service being screwed whee others are not?


News today:
80 jobs gone from fashion company
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/...nterim-examinership-447873.html#ixzz0gevQ10eV
Another 65 at Boston Scientific
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055822476
Postbank closing 1000 offices
Hughes & Hughes bookstores have gone into receivership
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0226/hugheshughes.html
UCI Cinema in Tallaght closing

and of course the usual list of insolvency notices:
[broken link removed]

So, I don't think it's just the public sector being screwed.


----------



## Teatime (26 Feb 2010)

Leper said:


> ...but the bottom line is that the Public Service has been segregated from the rest of society and screwed.


 
Kinda like lepers?


----------



## Leper (26 Feb 2010)

Yes Teatime, but there is a cure for leprosy!


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Yes, this is just the beginning.
> 
> Wasn't it explained in the budget how many billions were going to be saved each year? 3billlion, 4 billion etc, etc. They can either increase taxes and borrowing or reduce spending. If they increase taxes even more, it'll finished off more private firms and the situation will spiral downwards even faster. Ultimately they'll end up collecting
> less tax. The only option they have is PS pay cuts.



Not according to Brian Lenihan who says he intends to reform the tax system in 2011 and whereas tax rates may remain unchanged a social contribution will be introduced together with water and local charges ,so it looks like more pain for everyone but at least there is a certain fairness to it.


----------



## Caveat (27 Feb 2010)

I'm surprised something like this wasn't tried in the first place TBH.


----------



## D8Lady (27 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> UCI Cinema in Tallaght close.



I thought we had huge cinema audiences in this country?
Surely they could drop the prices ticket prices or have better discounts for unwaged. Popcorn alone should be halved in price.
And its still a young population in Tallaght. 

That's a really, really bad sign. Hope it can be rescued. Same with Hughes & Hughes. Upward only rents are killing retail.


----------



## z107 (27 Feb 2010)

I thought that UCI thing was a bit odd. Maybe they're opening up a new one or something.


----------

