Public sector told 'strike and pay will be docked'

Amhran Nua

From the Independent:

THE Department of Finance has vowed to dock the wages of public sector workers who strike in protest over cutbacks imposed in December's Budget.

If even a fraction of the 320,000 public sector workforce went on strike, the Government could end up saving millions in pay costs.

The total bill for the public sector is currently €20bn per annum and is being scrutinised by the Government for further cutbacks following last year's pension levy.

When the 210 annual working days are divided into the €20bn bill, the daily pay costs amount to around €95m.

If even a fraction of public sector unions were to follow through on their threats to hold work-stoppages before and after the Budget, protesting workers would be hit in their pockets and the Government's coffers would be boosted by millions.

The Department of Finance sources said the Government would not be paying workers for work not completed if on strike. Workers' unions are highly unlikely to compensate them for the loss of earnings.

Many public sector unions are expected to strike but possibly not until after the budget in the event of pay cuts.

However, tens of thousands of public sector workers have threatened to strike before the budget- including 43,000 health workers at SIPTU who are balloting for industrial action over non-payment of a 3.5pc rise due under the national pay agreement since Sept 1. A further 20,000 local authority workers, who are also members of the union, are expected to follow.

The Civil, Public and Services Union (CPSU)- the only union to take strike action over the pension levy- has also forecast pre-emptive industrial action in the public sector ahead of the Budget.

So eh, its part of the budget balancing measures to get public sector workers out striking now is it?

P. Breathnach

What sort of story is that? The Department of Finance "vowing" to dock pay?

First, I doubt if there is a vow anywhere; it's just a word used by tabloid journalists.

Second, docking pay for strike days is normal. Furthermore, it eats into the associated pension entitlements.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What sort of story is that? The Department of Finance "vowing" to dock pay?

First, I doubt if there is a vow anywhere; it's just a word used by tabloid journalists.

Second, docking pay for strike days is normal. Furthermore, it eats into the associated pension entitlements.

I am glad to see something can eat in to "pension entitlements" !
Is it the only thing than can ? eg if a public servant strikes for two weeks, does he / she lose one thousanth of their pension ?

If everyone else only lost a thousanth of their "pension entitlements" over the last few years, things would not be as bad

Long Onion

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What sort of story is that? The Department of Finance "vowing" to dock pay?

First, I doubt if there is a vow anywhere; it's just a word used by tabloid journalists.

Second, docking pay for strike days is normal. Furthermore, it eats into the associated pension entitlements.

True, it also renders invalid many claims under commonly sold insurance policies.

conorhal

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What sort of story is that? The Department of Finance "vowing" to dock pay?

Second, docking pay for strike days is normal. Furthermore, it eats into the associated pension entitlements.

Well you would think it's normal, but as with most things in the inverted world of the public sector, it's not as normal as you might believe.
The government rarely docks pay in scenario's of industrial despute, and when they do. guess what the first item is on the agenda is when talks with the public sector unions start to 'resolve' the strike?
If you said that it is "we want back all the pay you docked us for not doing any work while out on strike, you know, as opposed to us not doing any work as par for the course during our working day", well then you would have guessed right.
Unions, having your cake and eating it at the taxpayers expense.

dvpower

This is a complete non story. If you go on strike, you don't get paid. That's pretty straightforward; we don't need the indo to tell us that.

But it got me wondering; is strike pay taxable? I expect it is. I wonder if anyone has ever declared their strike pay to Revenue. Could be a big revenue earner next year.

mikemac

This is normal, if you walk out and go on strike you don't get paid

That's what strike pay is for.
Though different unions have different rules, I believe it's common that you have to be on the picket line for three consecutive days to qualify for strike pay. I read that here once.

The unions have large reserves worth tens of millons, looks like they may need them!

cyclopath2001

conorhal wrote: »

in the inverted world of the public sector, it's not as normal as you might believe. The government rarely docks pay in scenario's of industrial despute,

Link please?

BroomBurner

Typical Indo rubbish.

If you strike, you don't get paid. Can you imagine the amount of strikes there would be in Ireland (in all sectors) if everyone knew they wouldn't be losing out on their pay?!

ardmacha

Anyway a work to rule is better than a strike, if the form isn't filled in properly then send it back.

eoinbn

conorhal has it right. Usually one of the demands in the talks is that the workers receive back pay and other benifits- holidays for days worked etc.

cyclopath2001

eoinbn wrote: »

conorhal has it right. Usually one of the demands in the talks is that the workers receive back pay and other benifits- holidays for days worked etc.

Link please?

eoinbn

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Link please?

A link to what? An unwritten rule?

cyclopath2001

eoinbn wrote: »

A link to what? An unwritten rule?

Thought as much...you've made it up.

P. Breathnach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Thought as much...you've made it up.

There is an archaic provision in many areas of public service employment where a "break in service" can send people back to square one for various purposes, such as eligibility for promotion. The unions normally seek to have breaks in service disregarded, and this needs to be done explicitly and formally.

BroomBurner

eoinbn wrote: »

conorhal has it right. Usually one of the demands in the talks is that the workers receive back pay and other benifits- holidays for days worked etc.

Have you seen proof of this happening, or is this just your own idea of what goes on in the world?

cyclopath2001

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is an archaic provision in many areas of public service employment where a "break in service" can send people back to square one for various purposes, such as eligibility for promotion. The unions normally seek to have breaks in service disregarded, and this needs to be done explicitly and formally.

This is a completely different matter to what was being alleged by the learned eoinbn

eoinbn wrote:

conorhal has it right. Usually one of the demands in the talks is that the workers receive back pay and other benifits- holidays for days worked etc.

eoinbn

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Thought as much...you've made it up.

I can go write it in a random Wikipedia page- will that make it true? As I said it's an unwritten rule, so it varies. Workers don't always get it, and sometimes there can be a work around- for example I remember(at least I think I do) we lost a summer holiday day when the teachers striked during the year so they worked an extra day at the end of the year to make up for it.

BroomBurner

eoinbn wrote: »

I can go write it in a random Wikipedia page- will that make it true? As I said it's an unwritten rule, so it varies. Workers don't always get it, and sometimes there can be a work around- for example I remember(at least I think I do) we lost a summer holiday day when the teachers striked during the year so they worked an extra day at the end of the year to make up for it.

Calling something an "unwritten rule" doesn't actually back up what you're saying as fact.

I was in 6th year when the teachers all went out on strike for numerous days. They all lost their pay for those days (at least ours did, anyway). They didn't work any extra days to make up for it. What days were there to work up anyway? Public servants aren't actually able to add days on to the 365/366 that already exist (though I'd like to be able to, just to clear my workload!).

miju

like we don't know already our wages will be "docked". it was the same during the last 1 day stoppage so obviously will be same next time around :rolleyes:

miju

ardmacha wrote: »

Anyway a work to rule is better than a strike,

exactly. public servants can easily cause alot of cahos by simply working to rule. services get hit severely and we still get paid.

it is i believe what the unions are planning to do and only have all out stoppages in certain depts such as welfare so the unions can still afford strike pay

eoinbn

BroomBurner wrote: »

Calling something an "unwritten rule" doesn't actually back up what you're saying as fact.

I was in 6th year when the teachers all went out on strike for numerous days. They all lost their pay for those days (at least ours did, anyway). They didn't work any extra days to make up for it. What days were there to work up anyway? Public servants aren't actually able to add days on to the 365/366 that already exist (though I'd like to be able to, just to clear my workload!).

Yawn. Secondary teachers in Ireland have to work, iirc, 167 days to get full pay.

cyclopath2001

eoinbn wrote: »

I can go write it in a random Wikipedia page- will that make it true? As I said it's an unwritten rule, so it varies.

You mean that you don't have a shred of evidence.

eoinbn wrote: »

for example I remember(at least I think I do) we lost a summer holiday day when the teachers striked during the year so they worked an extra day at the end of the year to make up for it.

So they got paid for exactly the number of days they worked? Shocking...shouldn't be allowed.

P. Breathnach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This is a completely different matter to what was being alleged by the learned eoinbn

I know that. I offered it as part of the free information service I sometimes operate here.

It could also be that some people conclude that making good a break in service was equivalent to paying people for a day that they had been on strike.

dresden8

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You mean that you don't have a shred of evidence.

Public service bashers don't need evidence, they know.

eoinbn

dresden8 wrote: »

Public service bashers don't need evidence, they know.

Can you point to where I bashed anyone in this thread?
I don't see what the fuss is about. All I said is that backpay, and other benifits, are often part of the negotiation.

Anyway, I am a bit tired of going around in circles with people that have a vested interest.

cyclopath2001

eoinbn wrote: »

All I said is that backpay, and other benifits, are often part of the negotiation.

Can you demonstrate that this is true?

dresden8

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that this is true?

He doesn't have to demonstrate it, he knows.

Now begone, your foolish circles tire him.

Lemming

dresden8 wrote: »

He doesn't have to demonstrate it, he knows.

The IMF knows what's good for you too desden8 ...

Don't be so quick to cast that stone.

dresden8

Lemming wrote: »

The IMF knows what's good for you too desden8 ...

Don't be so quick to cast that stone.

Quakes in fear. Vote yes to jobs, yes to economic recovery, yes to no IMF!!!!!!!!!!

cyclopath2001

Lemming wrote: »

The IMF knows what's good for you too desden8

Can you provide more details?