What will happen when/if the PService deal is rejected?

DonDub said:
Now thats what I call a strange analogy!

Catholics were unemployed or forced into low skilled jobs and poor quality overcrowded housing. PS employees are guaranteed job for life, Rolls Royce pensions, pay levels above their private sector equivalents - I'm struggling to see any reasonable grounds to compare them to a genuinely oppressed group. Then again, every example of powerful vested-interest groups that come to mind - point to delusional self-serving arguments e.g. Coal miners in 1970s Britain, Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa, bankers, developers, the legal profession........
Click to expand...

Sorry , still don't where you are coming from !

What is happening here at the moment is an industrial relations problem and any comparisons with a centuries old bigotry/ politically driven problem in the North does'nt stand comparison.
 
PDF files on the full agreement on this link
[broken link removed]

Not true that there have been no redundancies already - plenty people on rolling temp contracts on 3 yrs+ being let go. People can be 10 yrs on a temp contract.

Also 3-5 yrs ago it was hard to recruit - the low pay was part of problem and include recruiitng of engineers and scientific staff..
 
Deiseblue said:
Sorry , still don't where you are coming from !

What is happening here at the moment is an industrial relations problem and any comparisons with a centuries old bigotry/ politically driven problem in the North does'nt stand comparison.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Why would the nation be focused on a mere industrial relations problem. The PS issue is central to the future of this country. It was always unfair and unconscionable that one sector of society had a unique set of gold plated conditions and protections. Add to the fact that this country has for most of its history been placed at the service of powerful vested interest groups e.g. the Church, certain professions,farmers, developers,unions, bankers etc, and you have sufficient reasons to argue that we require a radical rethink of what this country should be all about.
So, no, this is not just an industrial relations dispute - it is part of the battle for the future shape of this nations society and economy.
Very few powerful elites went quietly into the night - invariably they only go kicking and screaming. Unfortunate, but sadly, predictable.
 
Last edited:
DonDub said:
I don't agree. Why would the nation be focused on a mere industrial relations problem. The PS issue is central to the future of this country. It was always unfair and unconscionable that one sector of society had a unique set of gold plated conditions and protections. Add to the fact that this country has for most of its history been placed at the service of powerful vested interest groups e.g. the Church, certain professions,farmers, developers,unions, bankers etc, and you have sufficient reasons to argue that we require a radical rethink of what this country should be all about.
So, no, this is not just an industrial relations dispute - it is part of the battle for the future shape of this nations society and economy.
Very few powerful elites went quietly into the night - invariably they only go kicking and screaming. Unfortunate, but sadly, predictable.
Click to expand...

No matter which way you look at it the current industrial relations issue here is an issue which will ultimately be resolved by negotiation and to compare this IR problem to what at times was basically a civil war in the North caused mainly by oppressive sectarianism and costing thousands of lives to my mind is ,to say the least ,a stretch.

As to the future prospects of the country I would say that they depend rather more on whether the gamble of NAMA is success or not rather than by unilaterrally hitting PS terms and conditions.
 
Purple said:
Who's blaming the Public Sector?
I'm not aware of anyone who it. It just comes down to one simple fact: the government (the employer in this case) is broke and doesn't have the money to pay wages at the current level. The harsh reality is that means pay cuts or/and job losses and increases in taxation. (reduce outgoings and increase income 'till they match).
Click to expand...

Yes , but I think the government should be up front and give an indication of how much of the remaining cuts they expect the PS bill to contibute. Cowen has already suggested that only 500 million of the 3 billion for this years budget will be required to come from the PS bill. We don't know what is required from future years.
Maybe they have an idea behind closed doors, but I believe if they actually came out and said we require X billion from the PS billion and Y billion form the social welfare bill to be cut over the next 4 years, at least people would know what they were aiming for.
In the case of the PS bill, it may not result in further cuts in a couple of years but it could certainly minimse them.
 
Aurnia said:
Not true that there have been no redundancies already - plenty people on rolling temp contracts on 3 yrs+ being let go. People can be 10 yrs on a temp contract.
Click to expand...

I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis. When the money isn't there we will be in a better position to cut our cloth to suit our measure. That will ensure IMO an efficient service where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector. Golden pensions (THE ticking time bomb) should also go completely.
 
Firefly said:
I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis. When the money isn't there we will be in a better position to cut our cloth to suit our measure. That will ensure IMO an efficient service where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector. Golden pensions (THE ticking time bomb) should also go completely.
Click to expand...

Using that argument, everyone in the private sector should be employed on contracts.
 
Sunny said:
Using that argument, everyone in the private sector should be employed on contracts.
Click to expand...

Not necessary (but a lot are) as the private sector is self-financing - if a company cannot afford its staff, wages or staff numbers are reduced. A lot more difficult (as we are seeing) in the PS to achieve.
 
Firefly said:
I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis. When the money isn't there we will be in a better position to cut our cloth to suit our measure. That will ensure IMO an efficient service where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector. Golden pensions (THE ticking time bomb) should also go completely.
Click to expand...

This is forbidden under EU law in all sectors of employment - contract employees automatically attain permanent status within a few years.
 
Firefly said:
where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector.
Click to expand...
I haven't laughed so much since I heard details of the latest bill from Anglo. Do let us know when you get back into the real world.
 
I've said this before..if we want to have a PS that we can afford we need to hire ALL (unless proven otherwise) future staff on a contract basis.
Click to expand...

As someone who has been on these rolling contracts for 4.5 years now I would hate to see this as the norm in any sector as it prohibits any sort of life planning and fosters a culture of worry and insecurity. For the month before the renewal date productivity slumps as people are anxiously waiting to hear if they will be renewed and starting to look elsewhere etc.

I would favour normal job contracts where as long as you meet targets /behave in a reasonable manner etc etc you have a job. In a slump do what any large company does and have a voluntary redundancy scheme and if necessary a structured compulsory redundancy scheme.
 
Productivity slump!
In my experience in the private sector any one on a contract,would increase productivity as if there are extensions given to the contract or the chance of a permanent job, they want to put their best foot forward.
And HR do look at these things
 
Galwaygirl said:
I would favour normal job contracts where as long as you meet targets /behave in a reasonable manner etc etc you have a job. In a slump do what any large company does and have a voluntary redundancy scheme and if necessary a structured compulsory redundancy scheme.
Click to expand...

I agree with this bit. Contract work is not the way to go for this country. It is next near impossible to even get a mortgage on contract nowadays. It does not help society.
What we need is the implementation of the existing employment laws. Companies/PS should be allowed to let go staff who are not meeting targets. But this should only be done after they give the person every chance.
If there is a slow down then redundacies should be inevitable.
 
Galwaygirl said:
As someone who has been on these rolling contracts for 4.5 years now I would hate to see this as the norm in any sector as it prohibits any sort of life planning and fosters a culture of worry and insecurity.
Click to expand...

C'mon, stop perpetuating an urban myth. You cannot be employed for 4.5 years on rolling contracts - its illegal. There is a maximum of 4 years that you can be on contract - if you are employed any longer, you are automatically permanent.


[broken link removed]
 
Productivity slump!
Click to expand...

You have no idea how these contract renewals work!! Where I work it is on a LIFO basis or an everyone or nobody basis. There are no permanent jobs unless a permanent staff member leaves (and none now with teh embargo) and the person hanging around on contracts for longest gets that automatically. Renewals are not based on performance and are purely budget based.

Try being highly motivated when you are being left hanging for weeks on end and listening to the rumour mill grinding!

I have 4.5 years PS exerience following 15 years Private sector and I can hand on heart say that I have never felt so insecure in a job!And before you ask why stay there it is because depite all that I love the job and am lucky to be in a PS area where learning new skills is encouraged.

C'mon, stop perpetuating an urban myth. You cannot be employed for 4.5 years on rolling contracts - its illegal. There is a maximum of 4 years that you can be on contract - if you are employed any longer, you are automatically permanent.
Click to expand...

are you calling me a liar?? It is perfectly possible if you are in an organisation with a lot of staff working on reduced hours or where official headcount has been frozen for years despite workload increasing. I am currently in the process of trying to get a CID but won't know until later in the summer if it is successful.
 
Complainer said:
I haven't laughed so much since I heard details of the latest bill from Anglo. Do let us know when you get back into the real world.
Click to expand...

Glad you find this thread funny.

The big banks similiar to the PS IMO as has been pointed out in previous threads - what I'm talking about is what happens in the real growth engine of this economy, the SMEs and export-led organisations.
 
To address the original question, what is the status now - rejection from all unions so far except SIPTU?

It makes for an odd outcome. The biggest union (by far?) accepting the deal and ICTU, the uber-union accepting it, but nobody else.

What say/influence do ICTU have then - none?
 
Caveat said:
To address the original question, what is the status now - rejection from all unions so far except SIPTU?
Click to expand...

Sorry for going off topic but this is another problem...the one-to-many relationship between the government and the unions. We have too many unions. Either the government deals with one delegate (ICTU or equiv) or each union continues to play hardball using veto powers. How would the unions like it if they had to deal with every government department individually?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top