Croke Park agreement: Invoke clause 1.28. (IT Opinion Article Eddie Molloy)

Let me rephrase so:

If you were in charge, do you think having your managers in a union would be beneficial? Do you not see a conflict of interest?


Now, seeing as you brought up the different unions above, do you think it would be easier or more difficult to bring about change if you had to deal with one or many unions?
 

I believe Chris was actually talking about the state old age pension in that post and the amount that people pay in through prsi compared to what they receive on reaching age 66.
 
I am a firm believer of public services delivery.

But If you subtract the savings from the embargo from the CPA savings - you are not left with alot.

There exists an ideal opportunity for real reform of how services can be delivered.

Govt seem to be more inclined to cut services than implement reform.

This is a disgrace.
 
cork said:
But If you subtract the savings from the embargo from the CPA savings - you are not left with alot.
Click to expand...
I don't often agree with you but that's an excellent point.
Does anyone have the date on what the savings are due to the embargo so that we can subtract them from the figures that the big-wigs from the top floor of Liberty Hall give us?
 
Purple said:
I don't often agree with you but that's an excellent point.
Does anyone have the date on what the savings are due to the embargo so that we can subtract them from the figures that the big-wigs from the top floor of Liberty Hall give us?
Click to expand...

I don't see the point, is it still not a saving? Fewer people are doing the work thus there is a concomitant saving?
 
dereko1969 said:
I don't see the point, is it still not a saving? Fewer people are doing the work thus there is a concomitant saving?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is disputing the saving, but the recruitment embargo came into effect prior to the CPA, so I presume the suggestion is that savings as a result of the embargo should be kept separate and not included as savings resulting from the CPA.

But then of course there's a converse argument that without the CPA there would be widespread industrial relations issues as retirees aren't replaced.
 
Shawady said:
I believe Chris was actually talking about the state old age pension in that post and the amount that people pay in through prsi compared to what they receive on reaching age 66.
Click to expand...

Yes that is correct, but for public sector pensioners the numbers will be even worse as many are able to retire a lot earlier with higher income and only in the last couple of years have they been paying the pension levy. Does someone have the average income for a public employee and average retirement age and lumpsum? Similar calculation as I made shouldn't be too difficult.
 
I read something last week that the average weekly wage in the PS (not including pension levy) was €900, which equates to approx 45K a year. As people generally retire on the top of their scale the actual average retirement age would be higher than this, i imagine.
The problem with the PS pension scheme is that although newer members make contributions, it is not invested in an actual pension fund.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register