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........
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.
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.
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).
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.
The question should be is it a fair wage and the answer is yes.
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.
Using that argument, everyone in the private sector should be employed on contracts.
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.
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.where poor performance will be rewarded with a cancelled contract...just like the private sector.
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.
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.
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.
Productivity slump!
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.
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.
To address the original question, what is the status now - rejection from all unions so far except SIPTU?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?