Public Sector Unions to Take Action

truthflyer

老大 wrote: »

These public sector c..ts make me sick !!

I know someone working in a council and he complained about having to take a €50 pw pay cut (which is going into his own bloody penion ffs!)

Its well known that irish public sector staff are getting a premium over private staff - this will have to change, you cant have higher wages than similar in private sector,iron clad pensions, 6+ weeks holidays, nonsense days off like 'holy-days' etc..

I work in a multinational company...
this month alone Im going to suffer around a 20% cut due to sales being down.
Thats this month alone.
Next month it will be worse... and in three months I could be redundant.
I accept that there are 'some' public staff who are low paid (im only on the average ind wage myself) and that its hard to take a cut in those circumstances... but really if your not happy with it get another job!

Public sector maintain that everyone in the private sector are creaming it off for the past few years:rolleyes:
I accept that those wan....s sorry bankers (and i mean the guys at the top - not the guys at the local branch who are just in a job) should be arrested and put in prison if its found that ANY wrongdoing has transpired. Also why are public and private bosses getting huge payoffs for quitting their job!??

If it was me i'd get my weeks wages and good luck..!

rant over..!

Well said!

kippy

Okay,
I cant say I agree with a striking public sector but let me just say a few things.
There are a lot of people on this thread and on this forum in general (for both "sides") who say, I am on low wages, my work is boring, I work too hard, I work harder than others, I dont get paid enough, I have no pension, I have a crap pension, I deal with the public and its stressful etc etc.
I've often had these thoughts myself and made decisions based on them. It doesnt really matter who or what you work for, if you arent happy with your pay and employment conditions you should do what it takes to get into a different position. End of. No one is going to make you a saint because you work long hours.
At the end of the day live is very very short. The majority of us have to work to get the money to make life that bit easier, but we also need to make sure we have time for the important things.
We are all bickering about Public versus Private sector, Public saying they never benefited (while of course they have) in the same way that every private worker has benefited from raises in minimum wages and lower indirect taxes.
Cuts are needed in the Public sector paybill and this will no doubt piss off some of the hardliners. This will no doubt result in strike action but to be fair I can see where some of the Unions are on in relation to "being fair".
The topcaps in public and private sector who have already creamed off vast amounts of money are walking away from jobs with massive golden handshakes and little talk about investigations into what was going on.
WE ALL need to make sure these guys get away with nothing and that Ireland is seen to prosecute those that have done wrong. After that we need to get in a government with a far better understanding of economics.

Kippy

Hillel

grahamo wrote: »

You are not totally correct either. State employees hired before 1995 cannot be made compulsorily redundant, they can go voluntarily. The reason for this is they pay a different class PRSI and are therefore not entitled to any form of social welfare or state pension. Employees post 1995 pay the standard rate PRSI and are entitled to social welfare and a state pension (with enough contributions). So they can be made compulsorily redundant. Their jobs are certainly not safe.
If they have 40 years service to qualify for the full public sector pension (obviously none of these have 40 years service and I doubt many of them will) Their SW pension is deducted from their public sector pension.

I did say earlier:

Hillel wrote: »

Now the more recent contracts for state employees may be different, I don't know, I simply haven't seen them.
However, even if they are, it doesn't really matter.
A state employee, on more onereous T's and C's couldn't be selected for redundancy over his collegue.
If he were, it could be legally challenged on the basis that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy.

I believe that state employees, recruited post 1995, can't be made compulsorily redundant, because of:
1) Custom and Practice in the Public Service, see earlier posts, and
2) Unfair dismissals legislation, see my post above.
I also believe that contract staff, with over 4 years continuous service, are in exactly the same position.
If anyone has hard information to the contrary, e.g. recent legal opinion in this area, I will readily give way to it.

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

I did say earlier:I believe that state employees, recruited post 1995, can't be made compulsorily redundant, because of....

Last-in-first-out is also a custom and practice in the some parts of private sector. Likewise, the unfair dismissals act also applies there and not just in the public sector.

molloyjh

Just to throw this into the discussion:

If AIBs first move to reduce its costs was to make wholesale wage cuts across the company what do people here think would happen? If they didn't instead make other savings first etc?? They haven't laid anyone off, they haven't cut wages and there is no sign of them doing so (in fact after BoI announced their staff will be getting bonuses its highly likely AIB will have to follow suit). But if they did move to cut wages, and especially if they did so without any effort to avoid it, I can guarantee there would be action taken by the union. It would happen in every heavily unionised company. The public sector is no different in that regard.

Hillel

NewDubliner wrote: »

Last-in-first-out is also a custom and practice in the some parts of private sector. Likewise, the unfair dismissals act also applies there and not just in the public sector.

What's your point?

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

What's your point?

That you're constantly exaggerating the benefits of public service workers compared to private sector by picking worst-case private sector and comparing it to best-case public sector.

pete

ixoy wrote: »

I was looking at the pay grades for the CS awhile back, in an effort to try and inform myself, and noticed that for grades such as EO and HEO, there were two pay scales. Was the "higher" pay scale there for those who joined post '95 and who are paying their PRSI and pension contributions?

nesf wrote: »

Yes, they get higher compensation so that they're at (close to?) take-home parity with pre-95 colleagues. It's the same in the Universities.

Actually the Higher Scales are nothing to do with pre / post 95 - the pay rates for those are listed separately. The Higher Scale rates are merit based, with each department having a small number of staff in those grades in 'higher scale' posts.

Apart from it paying a bit better, the big difference is there are no long service increments (on the standard scale you have to wait 3 years for each of the last two increments), so you reach the max of the scale quicker.

Again, it's a small number of posts and it's merit based (but is not a promotion).

Firetrap

Where I worked, there were two payscales running side by side for each grade. One for the people who were paying PRSI, the other for those who weren't. The one with the PRSI was higher for obvious reasons; everyone's take-home would be the same after tax.

K-9

Firetrap wrote: »

Where I worked, there were two payscales running side by side for each grade. One for the people who were paying PRSI, the other for those who weren't. The one with the PRSI was higher for obvious reasons; everyone's take-home would be the same after tax.

So basically no difference in take home pay?

P. Breathnach

pete wrote: »

Actually the Higher Scales are nothing to do with pre / post 95 - the pay rates for those are listed separately. The Higher Scale rates are merit based, with each department having a small number of staff in those grades in 'higher scale' posts.

Apart from it paying a bit better, the big difference is there are no long service increments (on the standard scale you have to wait 3 years for each of the last two increments), so you reach the max of the scale quicker.

Again, it's a small number of posts and it's merit based (but is not a promotion).

You're confusing two things, and getting it wrong.

There are two scales for, to take an example, Assistant Principal -- one for those appointed pre-1995 and one for those appointed later. The difference is calculated to cover the change in pension arrangements brought in in 1995, and to ensure that people on the same grade get the same pay.

You are writing about what used to be known as the Department of Finance grades, where many grades were paid a better rate than in other departments on the argument that the work in Finance was more challenging (it appears there was truth in that at one time). That higher scale is now applied to some positions in other departments and is similarly attached to jobs that are rated as being more challenging. It is not a merit pay or bonus system: it is the rate for more difficult work. It's a rate for the job, not for the person doing it.

pete

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You're confusing two things, and getting it wrong.

There are two scales for, to take an example, Assistant Principal -- one for those appointed pre-1995 and one for those appointed later. The difference is calculated to cover the change in pension arrangements brought in in 1995, and to ensure that people on the same grade get the same pay.

You are writing about what used to be known as the Department of Finance grades, where many grades were paid a better rate than in other departments on the argument that the work in Finance was more challenging (it appears there was truth in that at one time). That higher scale is now applied to some positions in other departments and is similarly attached to jobs that are rated as being more challenging. It is not a merit pay or bonus system: it is the rate for more difficult work. It's a rate for the job, not for the person doing it.

Speaking as a serving Civil Servant on a Higher Scale, you're wrong.

I'm not disputing that what you describe may once have been the case, or that it's where the Higher Scale originated, but that's not now it operates now (at least not in my department or any others I'm aware of).

There are also separate "AP Higher" and "PO Higher" posts, which might also be what you're thinking of.

edit: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=610181

Hillel

Hillel wrote: »

I did say earlier:

I believe that state employees, recruited post 1995, can't be made compulsorily redundant, because of:
1) Custom and Practice in the Public Service, see earlier posts, and
2) Unfair dismissals legislation, see my post above.
I also believe that contract staff, with over 4 years continuous service, are in exactly the same position.
If anyone has hard information to the contrary, e.g. recent legal opinion in this area, I will readily give way to it.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Last-in-first-out is also a custom and practice in the some parts of private sector. Likewise, the unfair dismissals act also applies there and not just in the public sector.

Hillel wrote: »

What's your point?

NewDubliner wrote: »

That you're constantly exaggerating the benefits of public service workers compared to private sector by picking worst-case private sector and comparing it to best-case public sector.

I certainly did not pick worst-case private sector and compare it to best-case public sector. Where's your evidence for such a ludicrous assertion? :):)

Now, back to the business at hand.....
We were discussing a specific point, namely "Jobs for Life", in the Public Sector.
(Just to remind everyone, the start of this discussion is shown below.)

"Jobs for Life" only applies to established/permanent state employees - I stated this explicitly in an earlier post, see below.
"Last-in-first-out" is simply not relevant, as, in the Public Sector, it applies to non-permanent/un-established employees, only.
Everyone is fully aware that the jobs of temporary Public Sector are not secure - just like in the private sector.
I also readily agree, that subjecting such staff, i.e. non-permanent/un-established Public Sector employees, to the Pension Levy is demonstrably unfair.
(On an aside, I hope you were watching Conor Linehan on Questions & Answers last night. He made a number of references to the "job security" of Public Sector employees.)

The start of this discussion:

Darragh29 wrote:

Likewise, the notion of a public sector job is a job for life also needs to be addressed.

NewDubliner wrote: »

You've mentioned this notion before, but failed to define it.

Hillel wrote: »

I agree. But, what you do have is so-called "custom and practice" in the public service, in this case a practice where no public

servant is dismissed for anything other than gross misconduct. De facto, custom and practice, forms part of employees terms and conditions of employment.

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's actually not accurate, but it is widely believed to be the case.

Hillel wrote: »

To clarify .......: You are correct, it is not accurate. I should have said that custom and practice in the public sector is that no
established/permanent state employee is dismissed for anything other than gross misconduct.

TRSJ

If I hear one more public servant ranting on about a small levy on their pension I am going to have a row with them.

I am sick and tired of my family and friends losing their jobs, their wages being cut by up to 20% or down to a 3 or 4 day week. The worst thing is that the little money we do have left that we then also pay in tax then goes to pay them in the public service!!!! Yet these people in the public service complain about a small less than 10% contribution towards THEIR OWN BLODDY pension. Take the pain like the rest of us.

They need to be hit harder. Its time for them to take a 10-20% pay cut like the rest of us or maybe start a clear out of jobs as the country can't afford to pay them anymore. DO THEY NOT GET IT?

If I am to have any confidence or respect in Brian Cowen ever again he needs to start cutting their jobs and their pay like is happening to the rest of us.

TRSJ

ixoy

TRSJ wrote: »

They need to be hit harder. Its time for them to take a 10-20% pay cut like the rest of us or maybe start a clear out of jobs as the country can't afford to pay them anymore. DO THEY NOT GET IT?

Cue: "We didn't cause this, the bankers did!" [true to a degree but also benefited from increased tax takes]

"Why are we being picked upon? Not all of the private sector has had pay cuts!" [eh because your employer is running low on funds, in the same way as those private sector employees who have had cuts]

"Why are we paying a levy, when we bailed out the banks and they're awarding pay increases!"

"We never saw the Celtic Tiger!"

... insert your own stock response.

Sconsey

I'm late to this thread but just throwing in my two cents.....


...let the public sector strike, they can freeze on the picket lines for all I care, maybe then they'll wake up to the reality of the situation. I've had 1%, 1% , 0% in pay rises over the last three years, I've had a pay cut this year, I have no intention of complaining because at least I still have a job.

I think the only people that will support a strike are the unions and probably about half/two thirds of the public servents themselves. And if the government were to give-in to them it would probably lead to the government folding and a general election being held....if such an election were to be held I'd be voting for the party that promises not to give in to the PS unions (I think a lot of others would too). So please public sector employees, cop the f**k on and maybe tell those idiots running the unions to do the same.

gandalf

Looks like another 121 jobs gone in Bulmers. 100% pay cuts for those workers.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/business/bulmers-to-lay-off-121-workers-in-co-tipperary-1645640.html

Not that the Public Sector care.

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

Looks like another 121 jobs gone in Bulmers. 100% pay cuts for those workers.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/business/bulmers-to-lay-off-121-workers-in-co-tipperary-1645640.html

Not that the Public Sector care.

Some bad decisions made by Management there. Similar to our Govt. really!

woodseb

ixoy wrote: »

Cue: "We didn't cause this, the bankers did!" [true to a degree but also benefited from increased tax takes]

"Why are we being picked upon? Not all of the private sector has had pay cuts!" [eh because your employer is running low on funds, in the same way as those private sector employees who have had cuts]

"Why are we paying a levy, when we bailed out the banks and they're awarding pay increases!"

"We never saw the Celtic Tiger!"

... insert your own stock response.

Has anybody in the public service suggested an alternative plan to save the country some money other than just blindly pointing the finger at the fat cat bankers? The head of the CPSU was on the radio today and couldn't answer the question at all, all he did was point to one bloke earning 1.5mln who will be replaced by someone with a salary cap.....it's really frustrating that they do not have any aim apart from protecting their wages in their safe jobs -they want to negotiate but can't accept that costs in the public sector need to be cut:mad:

tomcosgrave

This whole thread - and this whole debate, wherever I have heard it, shows that when those in power pit public workers against private workers, those in power win.

It's called divide and conquer - and it is used by those with power in order to retain that power.

Workers, be they private or public, should be coming together, not fighting.
We should be protesting against this government and this system because it doesn't work.

P. Breathnach

woodseb wrote: »

Has anybody in the public service suggested an alternative plan to save the country some money other than just blindly pointing the finger at the fat cat bankers?

After a fashion, yes. ICTU has published a ten-point plan, and the public service unions subscribe to that. You can find it at http://www.ictu.ie/publications/fulllist/there_is_a_better_fairer_waydoc/ .

P. Breathnach

tomcosgrave wrote: »

This whole thread - and this whole debate, wherever I have heard it, shows that when those in power pit public workers against private workers, those in power win.

They don't need to pit them against one another: both groups of workers are winding themselves up for a scrap.

nhughes100

woodseb wrote: »

Has anybody in the public service suggested an alternative plan to save the country some money other than just blindly pointing the finger at the fat cat bankers? The head of the CPSU was on the radio today and couldn't answer the question at all, all he did was point to one bloke earning 1.5mln who will be replaced by someone with a salary cap.....it's really frustrating that they do not have any aim apart from protecting their wages in their safe jobs -they want to negotiate but can't accept that costs in the public sector need to be cut:mad:

http://www.ictu.ie/publications/fulllist/there_is_a_better_fairer_waydoc/

eoinbn

nhughes100 wrote: »

http://www.ictu.ie/publications/fulllist/there_is_a_better_fairer_waydoc/

1: Nice heading, a pity the detail is fluf. "unemployed workers are guaranteed incomes of 80 percent of salary for two years". That could be another ~€5B a year. So now we have a €21.5B hole to plug- a good start.

2: Can't argue with some of those points, but all the good ones have been made before.

3: Competitiveness. Yes it's a problem and yes wages ARE a large part of the problem. The weakness of sterling has nothing to with the lack of competitiveness with other euro-country(which is stated). Total contradiction.

4: The fact that they thing it should go ahead really speaks volume.

5: Tax agreed.

6: Maybe we should pay off some of our massive PERSONAL debt instead of borrowing more?

7: It's a small cut- 4-5% for most people, stop crying. Maybe redesign it to avoid the tax relief anomaly.

8: More spending? Really? :rolleyes:

9: Different issues, so i will ignore.

10: Interesting idea, would like to see more on it.

Little to no 'pain' in there. Without it there is no way out.

SkepticOne

There have been a number of suggestions on this thread and others for workers, whether private or public sector, to unite against the powers that be.

The only problem with this is that striking in the competitive private sector does not generally get you a pay rise or your job back if you lose it. Striking and other forms of industrial action for the most part merely weaken your company and make pay cuts and job losses more likely.

The private sector worker sees these demands being made by the public sector and realises that most of the burden for these demands will be placed on him. It is all very well calling for those on 100K or more to pay more taxes but there aren't an unlimited supply of those. The bulk of the burden will be on the diminished capacity of the ordinary private sector worker.

What both sides need to remember is that the economy overall is shrinking. The country as a whole is earning less than it used to. The immediate impact of this is felt in the private sector which contracts in response, lays off staff or cuts pay.

The secondary effect is that there is less money to pay for pay, pensions and other entitlements in the public sector and so these have to be reduced.

I can't see how striking by either side can help in any of this. It won't change the reality of a shrinking pool of money out of which to pay for services.

*Honey*

I don't believe any public sector worker thinks, at this stage, that the pension levy will be reversed. I believe we accept it will happen, whatever we do. BUT we do have the right to say what we think and we believe this Government has sold us ALL down the river... private and public sector worker!!!

All of us should be marching to tell the Government exactly what we think of them... they need telling, they need to be ousted and put someone in that can actually do something... because, God knows, we NEED help and we're not achieving anything by this divide between workers across the country.

Harolds+

let us focus on the issue.

The media and Govt are happy to play private vs public sector while the real crooks like SIR Tony O'Reilly (please bow before him) and secret gold circled scum enjoy morbid lifestyles financed by PAYE workers while we have to march for not only a decent wage but our dignity.

we can't accept the above and I urge people to get up and march on Saturday (hangover or not, people!)

*Honey*

Everyone should be marching - worker shoulder to shoulder with worker... it's about telling the Government we are NOT happy with them. They are supposed to act for us, we vote them in .... people power have immense force.

Stop with this divide, we are all in this one together.

Harolds+

the Govt can ignore us all they want. I can wait no problem until June for the euro elections and 2012 for the GE when they will be out of a job.

BTW Dont vote for FG. They support senior civil servants. You would be better throwing your vote at the Lesbian Party (Green Party) than FG.

Email your FF TD's. I have done it and remind them about the consequences which they face.

No harm bringing your kids too. We need to show the Irish nation that we have a human face and human needs and we can't and won't finance millionaire scum who ;

• HIDE money
• SAVED (while we spent everyday and kept the economy ticking and people in employment)
• Invested and gambled recklessly
• demand public servants to suffer for thir greed

Lemming

*Honey* wrote: »

Stop with this divide, we are all in this one together.

Funny that that really doesn't seem to be the message that the public sector unions are putting out. Funny that "we" seems to translate as "Ok, you go in front and we'll be ... somewhere behind you ... but we're with you in spirit!!".