Public Sector Unions to Take Action

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

To clarify my second point: 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.

You're now being misleading. The situation is the same for private sector workers, due to the legal protection all employees have against unfair dismissal.

If you wanted to make your point clearly, you could simply have said that no permanent/established civil servant has been made compulsorily redundant.

This is no different from private sector companies who try their best to retain their expensively trained and recruited staff during slack periods.

Hillel

NewDubliner wrote: »

You're now being misleading.

It was not my intent to mislead. Rather, to bring clarity to an ongoing thread.
The thread went as follows:

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.

De facto, because of "custom and practice", established/permanent state employees cannot be made redundant. To the best of my knowledge, I have only
seen a small number of civil service contracts, there is no legal clause in contracts for established/permanent state employees stating that the
state employee has a job for life. Nevertheless, it is widely excepted by government and employees that this is the case.

NewDubliner wrote: »

You're now being misleading. The situation is the same for private sector workers, due to the legal protection all employees
have against unfair dismissal.

You are correct, all employees, public and private sector, have legal protection against unfair dismissal. But there is a fundamental difference between public and private sectors.....

In the private sector employees can be made redundant, if there is no work available for them. This happens all the time, and there is no legal protection for private sector workers, in this case. (There is limited legal protection to ensure that an employee is not unfairly selected for redundancy.)
In the public sector, due to long established "custom and practice", there appears to be legal protection for established/permanent state employees against compulsory redundancy. Whether that protection actually exists, or not, would be a matter for the courts to decide. However, to date, no Minister has chosen to try and force the issue.

If legal protection against redundancy does not exist in the public sector, as you appear to imply, this would open up compulsory redundancy options, in areas of the Public Service that are overstaffed. It is my informed opinion that the legal protection does exist. I also seriously doubt that the government hasn’t already taken updated legal advice in this area, given the current crisis. (If they haven’t, they are culpably negligent.)

NewDubliner wrote: »

This is no different from private sector companies who try their best to retain their expensively trained and recruited staff during slack periods.

The discussion was on the concept of "a job for life", in the public sector. Where does this fit in?

ixoy

My dad was telling me about how difficult it was to remove employees from a large telecoms provider that used to be state-owned. These employees would have originally been on contracts written up when said organisation was under the control of the government. Due to the manner in which the contracts are written, like with a lot of the CS/PS of old, they couldn't just dismiss them when they needed to downsize. Instead they'd transfer them to areas where they had next to nothing to do, or really tedious work and eventually wore them down and waited for them to resign...

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

The discussion was on the concept of "a job for life", in the public sector. Where does this fit in?

As you've just demonstrated, it does not actually exist, except as a notion in the head of critics of the public sector. It's a 'straw-man' argument.

After, all, until a few weeks ago, nobody believed that public sector wages could be cut arbitrarily.

Hillel

ixoy wrote: »

My dad was telling me about how difficult it was to remove employees from a large telecoms provider that used to be state-owned. These employees would have originally been on contracts written up when said organisation was under the control of the government. Due to the manner in which the contracts are written, like
with a lot of the CS/PS of old, they couldn't just dismiss them when they needed to downsize. Instead they'd transfer them to areas where they had next to nothing to do, or really tedious work and eventually wore them down and waited for them to resign...

Exactly!
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.

---

NewDubliner wrote: »

This is no different from private sector companies who try their best to retain their expensively trained and recruited staff during slack periods.

Hillel wrote: »

The discussion was on the concept of "a job for life", in the public sector. Where does this fit in?

In the current crisis private sector companies might want to "retain their expensively trained and recruited staff" but they simply don't have the funds to so. Instead staff are being let go, often with paltry redundancy terms. The public sector doesn't have the funds either. However, if they are to let staff go they are expected to have to offer attractive redundancy payments, far, far, in advance of the general private sector. This is NOT because all surplus staff are expensively trained and recruited. Rather it is because, due to prevailing "custom and practice", established/permanent state employees cannot be made redundant.

---

NewDubliner wrote: »

As you've just demonstrated, it does not actually exist, except as a notion in the head of critics of the public sector. It's a 'straw-man' argument.

You are not correct.

It is NOT "a notion in the head of critics of the public sector."
1. It is an implied right, backed up by legal opinion.
2. It also carries forward to a small number of former state employees in the private sector.

Interestingly, the rights of those private sector employees, see ixoy's post above, is a derived
right; based on current conditions prevaling in the state sector. The relevant section of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, see here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1983/en/act/pub/0024/sec0045.html, is illuminating. It states, inter alia:

45.-(4) The conditions in regard to tenure of office which are granted by either company in relation to a member of staff so transferred shall not, while he is in the service of the company, be less favorable to him than those prevailing for the time being in the civil service; any alteration in the conditions in regard to tenure of office of any such member shall not be less favorable to him than the prevailing conditions in the civil service at the time of such alteration, save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned. If a dispute arises between either company and any such member as to conditions, prevailing in the civil service, the matter shall be determined by the Minister for the Public Service after consultation with the Minister.

Employees of that company have often been offered extremely generous redundancy packages because due to "custom and practice", de facto established/permanent state employees cannot be made redundant. This has cost the private company in question many millions. Some "notion in the head".

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

1. It is an implied right, backed up by legal opinion.

The only thing that is a 'right' is something defined in the constitution.

The basis of your argument is that civil servants cannot be made compulsorily redundant, but so far all you have proven is that they have not, so far been made compulsorily redundant. As you know, there have been redundancies in the public sector.

Hillel wrote: »

The public sector doesn't have the funds either.

Because the money is being used to bail out property speculators?

eoinbn

NewDubliner wrote: »

Because the money is being used to bail out property speculators?

Could you please go educate yourself? The money is been used to bail out the BANKS, who are in DEEP **** because they LENT to the speculators.

NewDubliner

eoinbn wrote: »

Could you please go educate yourself? The money is been used to bail out the BANKS, who are in DEEP **** because they LENT to the speculators.

So allowing the banks to forgive the debts of the speculators? (Not to mention that the banks themselves profited from property speculation...)

ixoy

NewDubliner wrote: »

(Not to mention that the banks themselves profited from property speculation...)

And not to mention the PS/CS did due to increased tax takes and stamp duty...

NewDubliner

ixoy wrote: »

And not to mention the PS/CS did due to increased tax takes and stamp duty...

Nope: they had to pass the money they collected into into the exchequer. It was then used to give tax breaks to developers and speculators (section23 etc) and to fund the 'decentralisation' project, designed to benefit providers of office buildings and housing schemes in the provinces. Some of the money was used to give everyone lower tax rates.

Hillel

NewDubliner wrote: »

The only thing that is a 'right' is something defined in the constitution.

You are right. Legal rights, inferred or otherwise, are not unfettered. They are subsidiary to the Constitution and any EU laws which dictate policy in a given area. An example is the “Working Times Directive” which supersedes some terms and conditions in state employee contracts.

NewDubliner wrote: »

The basis of your argument is that civil servants cannot be made compulsorily redundant, but so far all you have proven is that they have not, so far been made compulsorily redundant.

You are right. There is no such thing as an absolute position. The constitution could be changed, employment leglislation could be amended, etc.

ixoy wrote: »

And not to mention the PS/CS did due to increased tax takes and stamp duty...

+1

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

You are right. There is no such thing as an absolute position. The constitution could be changed, employment leglislation could be amended, etc. +1

Be careful what you wish for.

truthflyer

Don't fret, the IMF will be along soon enough.

B****ing about a 7% levy.....LOL

Public Servants, 50% imposed pay cuts AND 70K to go

NewDubliner

truthflyer wrote: »

Don't fret, the IMF will be along soon enough.

Which of course, you based on this statement (Feb 13, 2009) by the IMF?

QUESTIONER: You saw yesterday that the Irish government recapitalized the banks. Do you have anything for us on that? And I just want to ask directly, is the IMF in talks with Ireland at the moment?

MR. HAWLEY: I've got nothing for you specifically on the banking developments that occurred yesterday. But, on Ireland more generally, I would say that Ireland faces a difficult economic situation and will need to take steps to manage the financial sector and fiscal risks. However, we do not envisage that IMF financing will be needed to deal with these problems.

In the current crisis think that we need laws against the spreading of false rumours. Just as in Asia some years ago?

grahamo

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.

[QUOTE=Hillel;59033859You are not correct.

It is NOT "a notion in the head of critics of the public sector."
1. It is an implied right, backed up by legal opinion.
2. It also carries forward to a small number of former state employees in the private sector.

Interestingly, the rights of those private sector employees, see ixoy's post above, is a derived
right; based on current conditions prevaling in the state sector. The relevant section of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, see here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1983/en/act/pub/0024/sec0045.html, is illuminating. It states, inter alia:

45.-(4) The conditions in regard to tenure of office which are granted by either company in relation to a member of staff so transferred shall not, while he is in the service of the company, be less favorable to him than those prevailing for the time being in the civil service; any alteration in the conditions in regard to tenure of office of any such member shall not be less favorable to him than the prevailing conditions in the civil service at the time of such alteration, save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned. If a dispute arises between either company and any such member as to conditions, prevailing in the civil service, the matter shall be determined by the Minister for the Public Service after consultation with the Minister.

Employees of that company have often been offered extremely generous redundancy packages because due to "custom and practice", de facto established/permanent state employees cannot be made redundant. This has cost the private company in question many millions. Some "notion in the head".[/QUOTE]

grahamo

truthflyer wrote: »

Don't fret, the IMF will be along soon enough.

B****ing about a 7% levy.....LOL

Public Servants, 50% imposed pay cuts AND 70K to go

Ja Vohl, Mein Fuhrer!

eoinbn

NewDubliner wrote: »

So allowing the banks to forgive the debts of the speculators? (Not to mention that the banks themselves profited from property speculation...)

They aren't forgiving the debt it's just the security that the debt is based on, probably the property itself, is now worth much less than what the bank lent to pay for it.
Now could you please tell me how this should be approached? How do you get the developers to give back the 10's of billions that they owe the bank when they themselves aren't worth anything near that figure.

Steviemak

Pensions, perks and payouts tax public purse

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/pensions-perks-and-payouts-tax--public-purse-1640516.html

老大

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..!

P. Breathnach

Steviemak wrote: »

Pensions, perks and payouts tax public purse

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/pensions-perks-and-payouts-tax--public-purse-1640516.html

Let me remind you where I stand: I am a public service pensioner who acknowledges that the pension scheme is a great package, and have irked some public servants here by saying that I think there is a good case for requiring higher employee contributions.

But the Indo of doing its thing of mixing fact with inaccuracy and continuing to bash the public service.

grahamo

Steviemak wrote: »

Pensions, perks and payouts tax public purse

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/pensions-perks-and-payouts-tax--public-purse-1640516.html

The examples in that article are for the higher paid public sector workers.

"And for anyone who thinks the pension benefits of the public service couldn't get any more generous, they do, at least for those employees who joined the civil service prior to April 5, 1995. Under the existing rules, these fortunate individuals are entitled to receive their public service pensions on top of their State pensions."

This bit is TOTALLY INACCURATE. Those workers are not entitled to state pensions.

ixoy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But the Indo of doing its thing of mxing fact with inaccuracy and continuing to bash the public service.

Out of curiosity, what's inaccurate there? Admittedly, it's a very biased piece and mentions mostly PO grades and up (of which most of the CS is never going to be), but other than that, where are actual falsehoods?

P. Breathnach

ixoy wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what's inaccurate there? Admittedly, it's a very biased piece and mentions mostly PO grades and up (of which most of the CS is never going to be), but other than that, where are actual falsehoods?

1. Pensions are not "index-linked"; they are traditionally linked to the rates currently applying to the grade at which a person retires.

2. The figures given for POs have to be wrong (probably the lump sum is understated).

3. Pre-1995 appointees do not "receive their public service pensions on top of their State pensions."

4. I think (but I'm too lazy to check) that the treatment of lump sums on retirement is the same for the public and private sectors.

The point about CS pensions for those appointed before 1995 is true, but it is presented in a specious manner. Civil Servants were paid 5% less than their grade equivalents in local government, who did have to pay 5% toward their pensions -- so you could say that pay was restricted to cover the imputed pension contribution. They also do pay the 1.5% towards the Spouses' and Children's scheme.

Carlow52

eoinbn wrote: »

They aren't forgiving the debt it's just the security that the debt is based on, probably the property itself, is now worth much less than what the bank lent to pay for it.
Now could you please tell me how this should be approached? How do you get the developers to give back the 10's of billions that they owe the bank when they themselves aren't worth anything near that figure.

The underlying asset values will not recover for years so the State should bankrupt the builders/developers: take the land banks and empty houses and use them both to address the dire homelessness issue.

I walked on Wednesday night from Molesworth Street to the RDS and counted 25 homeless people in doors/alleys/skips/dustbins.

ixoy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

1. Pensions are not "index-linked"; they are traditionally linked to the rates currently applying to the grade at which a person retires.

Okay, true. The pay at those grades though - has it been traditionally index linked (prior to bench marking)?

3. Pre-1995 appointees do not "receive their public service pensions on top of their State pensions."

This tallies then with posts elsewhere - I assume they don't get the State pension because they never really paid towards it with their lower-PRSI rates.

4. I think (but I'm too lazy to check) that the treatment of lump sums on retirement is the same for the public and private sectors.

I would have thought so, but it's probably the sheer size of the lump sum that can be so generous in the CS/PS relative to the private. Some actuarial person may know the figures on this.

Civil Servants were paid 5% less than their grade equivalents in local government, who did have to pay 5% toward their pensions -- so you could say that pay was restricted to cover the imputed pension contribution.

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

ixoy wrote: »

Was the "higher" pay scale there for those who joined post '95 and who are paying their PRSI and pension contributions?

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.

NewDubliner

eoinbn wrote: »

They aren't forgiving the debt it's just the security that the debt is based on, probably the property itself, is now worth much less than what the bank lent to pay for it.
Now could you please tell me how this should be approached? How do you get the developers to give back the 10's of billions that they owe the bank when they themselves aren't worth anything near that figure.

You'll find that each high-risk investment will have been wrapped up in separate limited companies, carefully created for this purpose and isolated from other assets under the control of the borrower.

The banks, compensated by the government (with your money) will have little appetite for pursing the developers beyond those investment vehicles, or for making them personally liable for their debts & forcing them to sell other assets to repay their loans. Under present law, this would require proof, in court, of reckless trading.

So, the solution is that just as public servants have had the terms of their employment changed by law to 'save the economy', the Companies Act needs to be changed so that the people who owe money to the banks (of which we are now owners/shareholders) pay their legal debts in full. Those who don't must be debarred from acting as directors & should certainly get bad credit reports.

Anything else would be very forgiving.

eoinbn

NewDubliner wrote: »

So, the solution is that just as public servants have had the terms of their employment changed by law to 'save the economy', the Companies Act needs to be changed so that the people who owe money to the banks (of which we are now owners/shareholders) pay their legal debts in full. Those who don't must be debarred from acting as directors & should certainly get bad credit reports.

Anything else would be very forgiving.

We are going around in circle. Some of these people owe BILLIONS to the banks. There is an old saying that if you owe the bank €100,000 the bank has you by the balls, but if you owe the bank €100m you have it by the balls- that applies here.
Anyway we are losing sight of the real point, which is that what is going on in the banks has very little to do with the current problems in our state finances. You seem to be suggesting that if we didn't have banking problem our budget problem wouldn't exist, or that we could use the pension fund to help reduce the defict.

NewDubliner

eoinbn wrote: »

Anyway we are losing sight of the real point, which is that what is going on in the banks has very little to do with the current problems in our state finances.

Yes, there's a drop in tax revenues, that's bad enough.

Are you suggesting that it's OK to use NPRF money to bail out bankers and but it's not OK to use it to bail out taxpayers?

321654

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..!

Get another job then. It makes me sick that people complain about their own job when its been in their power for years to better themselves and move to a better job. Now you are reaping the rewards of being lazy and unambitious over the last few years.

Anyway, im off on my 4th holiday this year early in the morning. Man, I love working in the private sector