Unions on the march..

murphaph

squod wrote: »

Frontline staff should be protected from cuts as far as possible IMO.

Why? If you're overpaid compared to other countries we compete with then you're overpaid, frontline or not.

The private sector will sort itself out and get wages down to levels in the rest of the Eurozone or go bust trying. The govt needs to get public sector pay down to the same levels, regardless of position.

MiniD

One thing which surprised me was how much the unions spent on advertising the march. There were ads on bus sides, full wraps on morning papers, press ads etc. That has to have cost a lot!

Was it really necessary to spend so much on advertising something which most people knew about anyway?

squod

murphaph wrote: »

Why? If you're overpaid compared to other countries we compete with then you're overpaid, frontline or not.

The private sector will sort itself out and get wages down to levels in the rest of the Eurozone or go bust trying. The govt needs to get public sector pay down to the same levels, regardless of position.

An interesting point. Everybody would like the same level of services (or better) to be available during this recession. By exclusively targeting the non-essential personnel in the public sector and shielding the front-line staff. We carry foward a better chance of keeping high quality people in these front-line positions.

Firetrap

Of course, there aren't any high quality people not in the frontline servies :rolleyes:

squod

squod wrote: »

.........keeping high quality people in these front-line positions.

What I said.

Firetrap wrote: »

Of course, there aren't any high quality people not in the frontline servies :rolleyes:

What you said.

irish_bob

squod wrote: »

Today's Sunday Indo published a poll showing only one-third of the public sector protesters attending were front-line staff. This highlights my beliefs that pen pushers (bureaucrats) are hiding behind the uniforms of nurses and guardai.


Frontline staff should be protected from cuts as far as possible IMO. Pen-pushers, on the other hand, should bear the burden like the rest of us.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/poll-private-sector-snubbed-the-protest-1937115.html

frontline workers should not be protected for several reasons , 1st of all , their can be no sacred cows and no one can or should be exempt from cuts , that would be real division , 2ndly , they are overpaid anyhow

irish_bob

squod wrote: »

An interesting point. Everybody would like the same level of services (or better) to be available during this recession. By exclusively targeting the non-essential personnel in the public sector and shielding the front-line staff. We carry foward a better chance of keeping high quality people in these front-line positions.

so you think if we cut nurse and garda pay , they would quit , yeah right , where on earth would they go

mikemac

irish_bob wrote: »

so you think if we cut nurse and garda pay , they would quit , yeah right , where on earth would they go

Dubai or Quatar from what I'm reading on boards.
Certainly not the UK where nurses are paid less (but a very, very fair wage)

Would your average garda or nurse be capable of earning 50k in the private sector?
If not, then maybe another round of benchmarking is due!
THe last rounds of benchmarking were always realistic so does benchmarking do downwards???

ParkRunner

irish_bob wrote: »

so you think if we cut nurse and garda pay , they would quit , yeah right , where on earth would they go

Apparently the Gardai are comparable to security personnel (e.g. bouncers, retail security persons) for wage comparison studies so they should easily be able to slot in there..what a waste of skills though.

Rantan

mikemac wrote: »

Dubai or Quatar from what I'm reading on boards.
Certainly not the UK where nurses are paid less (but a very, very fair wage)

Would your average garda or nurse be capable of earning 50k in the private sector?
If not, then maybe another round of benchmarking is due!
THe last rounds of benchmarking were always realistic so does benchmarking do downwards???

yeah funny that, they clamoured so loudly to be benchmarked against private sector pay rates, got more in the end and now unions wont give up a cent, kind of hypocritical??

TCP/IP_King

Rantan wrote: »

.... and now unions wont give up a cent ....

And why would they do that?
I suspect membership of a union that recommended wage cuts would fall sharply.

Stark

Lads, lads. Nurses, teachers and gardaí should all be paid in the form of blank cheques. They are "frontline" after all.

Lemming

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

And why would they do that?
I suspect membership of a union that recommended wage cuts would fall sharply.

Would that be short-term-gain over long-term loss then? It always perplexes me that a union would ultimately take short-term monetary gain at the cost of their jobs further down the line.

I suspect membership of any union that recommended the above would drop away sharply also, albeit in far more spectacular (in all the worst ways possible) fashion ...

Kensington

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

And why would they do that?
I suspect membership of a union that recommended wage cuts would fall sharply.

This is your ultimatum: Pay cuts or job losses.

Now which union recommendation would you sign up to?

Rantan

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

And why would they do that?
I suspect membership of a union that recommended wage cuts would fall sharply.

well if you believe that the government deficit is as huge as reported, still growing and with no sign of recovery, then, unless something drastic is done quickly we wont have any money left to pay them. That would really feck up membership:)

TCP/IP_King

Kensington wrote: »

...Pay cuts or job losses...

And that is exactly what's going to happen in the run up to the budget.
The unions won't tolerate a basic wage cut, but what they will do is to agree job losses under the guise of "government reform".

Did I read recently that there have been effective job losses of over 3,000 in government departments this year so far due to early retirement incentives, extended leave etc?

Kensington

TCP/IP_King wrote: »

And that is exactly what's going to happen in the run up to the budget.
The unions won't tolerate a basic wage cut, but what they will do is to agree job losses under the guise of "government reform".

Did I read recently that there have been effective job losses of over 3,000 in government departments this year so far due to early retirement incentives, extended leave etc?

I'm talking about job losses in terms of redundancy. "Hello Mr TCP/IP_King, hello Kensington, you are now excess to requirement and no longer required, here is your statuatory redundancy package, finish out your week, goodbye".

Because this is what will happen - the government HAVE to save money. If they can't cut effective pay, then they will achieve their savings through laying people off - both voluntary or otherwise.

I know which union I'd follow...

Firetrap

I suspect there's a bit of softening up going on. If people think their jobs are under threat, a pay cut will seem like a walk in the park.

The Volt

Rantan wrote: »

what a bunch of heroes and martyrs!! only concerned bout holding on to their own high standard of living while the rest of the country goes down the tubes

Tax those who can afford to pay more, JOC and Begg have no problem being taxed much more. Far too much union bashers on here for my liking, guess the majority of people on the other side of the debate are too busy out working long shifts

thebman

Voltwad wrote: »

Tax those who can afford to pay more, JOC and Begg have no problem being taxed much more. Far too much union bashers on here for my liking, guess the majority of people on the other side of the debate are too busy out working long shifts

Have heard the expression you can't tax your way out of a recession?

Public sector reform is needed anyway in some areas so might as well get it down now and get something positive out of this whole mess.

NewDubliner

thebman wrote: »

Public sector reform is needed anyway in some areas so might as well get it down now and get something positive out of this whole mess.

Last time I heard the term 'Public sector reform' it was used as a cover for moving large chunks of the civil service into their respective minister's constituencies at a cost of 300m, with a considerable loss of knowledge and experience and the hiring of extra people to staff the new offices.

thebman

NewDubliner wrote: »

Last time I heard the term 'Public sector reform' it was used as a cover for moving large chunks of the civil service into their respective minister's constituencies at a cost of 300m, with a considerable loss of knowledge and experience and the hiring of extra people to staff the new offices.

Well I'm not talking about that kind of reform

Sizzler

Good article from Shane Ross, pretty much sums up O'Connor & McLoone and how they have played the system to their (financial) advantage :rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/shane-ross/shane-ross-jacks-attack-on-trophy-houses-1937058.html

wrote:

THE bearded brethren are coming out to play. And they seem to be amateurs at the media game.

First, our old friend 'Union' Jack O'Connor got an outing on Marian Finucane's radio programme on Saturday morning. Then on Monday night, Jack took to the airwaves on Pat Kenny's new Frontline programme. The whiskered one is quite a media star.

Ireland's public service comrades, intent on leading us into the arms of the IMF, are attempting a spinning offensive. Good thinking, because in the coming months they are hell-bent on wrecking the economy.

Union Jack scored a spectacular own goal when he took a gratuitous swipe at RTE's Kenny .

Jack is peddling all sorts of canards this weather, but there is a vague consistency about his demands: he wants to tax anyone who has ever earned an honest buck. Except members of his Siptu trade union, of course.

On Monday night the latest targets of Jack's scattergun approach to taxation were the owners of what he branded "trophy houses".

A puzzled Pat Kenny challenged him: "What's a trophy house?"

And in a gratuitous remark that shattered the nation Jack replied: "A house like yours probably ... "

Pat Kenny: "Okay, if you want to talk personal -- but I built my house in 1988. Like, why is that a trophy house?"

Jack: "No, well, I ... "

Pat Kenny (pointing his finger at O'Connor): "I don't want that kind of crap coming out of people."

Jack: "Well I think that the kind of house that would be a large, high-, high-profile type of house and I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to give offence at all, but the thing about it is, is that it's reasonable ... "

I doubt if Jack has ever been a guest at Kenny's house. Nor is he likely to be, after his outburst, followed by his craven retreat, on Monday. He probably knows little more about the Kenny home than the details revealed in the tabloid press during our top broadcaster's celebrated court battle last year.

But instead of spelling out the size, value or acreage of the type of houses which he had in mind for his "trophy house" tax, O'Connor trivialised his own proposal by invoking irrelevant images of Kenny's court case.

Of course, Jack offered no projections on how much revenue could be raised, nor any definition of which houses would be caught in his new tax net. He took refuge in a cheap soundbite and a jibe at Kenny.

Just like another current favourite slogan of the brethren: "Soak the rich". The vanishing "rich" are a soft target of the bearded ones. Unfortunately there very few rich people left. Just a middle class struggling to survive.

Admittedly there are lashings of old peoples' savings stuffed in Ireland's banks, which Jack could raid if he wished. Otherwise, he pretends to believe that all the money paid to landowners by property developers is still out there swelling the pockets of the sellers, ready to bridge the budget deficit.

Not so: much of that money has already been taxed at 20 per cent.

Not so: much of that money was reinvested in now worthless property.

Not so: much of that money was sunk into pulverised bank shares.

The pot of gold is gone. There are few rich figures still standing. Siptu wants to tax ghosts.

There are one or two people with high salaries -- like Jack himself (on €125,000 a year from Siptu) and his colleague in industrial warfare, Peter McLoone, the leader of public service union Impact.

Peter is a rich guy. Peter not only earns €155,000 as head of Impact, but he has just resigned from his €24,000-a-year job as chairman of the troubled Fas. He held this gig as a juicy perk that comes with being a comrade from the social partnership stable.

Sympathise with poor Peter in his loss at Fas, but he will not starve. The departed Fas leader, who is urging his Impact members to strike, mercifully, has a second little cushion to comfort him. Peter is one of those lucky directors of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). For this, Peter is paid €12,000 a year. Another little partnership perk.

Peter has done well out of social partnership. He has earned over €100,000 part-time from Fas and over €60,000 from the LRC over the last five years. Quite a comfortable perch from which to urge industrial action and sacrifices from his less-fortunate flock.

Peter and Jack are now set to lead the nation down the road to bankruptcy. Their futile day of protest last Friday is fraught with future danger.

International markets are watching the antics of Jack and Peter. After Friday's protests, the threat of stronger industrial action could push us over an economic precipice.

Last week, yet another global agency -- Fitch -- downgraded Ireland's credit rating. It cut us by two levels, from AA+ to AA-.

The reasons were ominous, namely the widening budget deficit and the increasing cost of rescuing our banks.

Fitch even commended Brian Lenihan's actions as finance minister, calling his responses in some instances "impressive".

They are right. Brian Lenihan recognises the urgency of the crisis. He may be wrong about Nama, but he is determined not to let the bearded brethren lead the nation into penury.

Jack and Peter have what they grandly dub an "alternative strategy": they want to put the crisis on the long finger; they want to extend the time required to reduce the budget deficit by four years; they want public spending increases to stimulate the economy; they want no wage cuts and a series of taxes to hit the middle classes. Welcome to the economics of the anaesthetists.

So in their mission to postpone the pain they are arranging more mad days of action.

If they are successful in their insanity, we will face national bankruptcy.

If the Government adopts the union agenda of postponing the problem, our credit rating will plunge further. The cost of borrowing will soar.

Indeed, we may find that no one will any longer lend to us. The word would travel around global markets that the comrades had taken to the streets and challenged the Government. And that the Government had blinked first.

It would only be weeks before the loans dried up. The Government would run out of cash; there would be no money to pay Jack and Peter's members.

Enter the International Monetary Fund, riding to the rescue. The problem could be solved pretty quickly -- but pretty brutally.

The IMF would provide the funds to keep the country functioning. They would inject cash into government coffers. Public servants and social welfare recipients would be paid. Sadly for them, they would suffer savage reductions.

The IMF is immune to political pressures, it has no human emotions. It would not tolerate the play-acting of O'Connor and McLoone. It lends money on draconian terms. It would coldly look at Ireland's budget deficit and draw its own conclusions: public service pay and welfare benefits would be slashed.

No doubt Jack and the other trade union plutocrats would then take to the airwaves, insisting that all would have been well -- if only the Government had taxed the "trophy houses".

dermymc

The country is clearly in a fix. We are paying the price for electing and re-electing a populist government. The results of this are all around us and all members of the population suffer. As a consequence, working members of the population are asked to carry more of the burden. However, the irony of the current crisis between union and Government is that in the long run, the majority of Union member themselves suffer through overly aggressive Union Policy.

Fair Dues?! It should be noted that the Salaries of Senior Union Officials are very high. Worse than this, Union Membership dues actually represent an unnecessary tax on the working population. This is because all employees in Ireland are protected by law regardless of union membership or not and the advice and support that Unions offer is available free of charge from various sources: e.g. Citizens Information Centres, Dept of Ent, Trade and Employment, locally elected representatives etc.

Union advice is always tainted: Unions have a fundamental vested interested in stoking the flames of conflict between management and union members. Union policy seems to promote a paranoia in members to distrust Management and all its activities. Without paranoia and the ensuing "conflict", there is no reason for the Union to exist, no need for Union fees and no high union salaries. Union policies often do little to bridge the gulf between between Management and staff making real and open engagement difficult.

Firms without "wrecking ball" unions often work better: It is little coincidence that world class companies who lead the way in electronics, pharmaceuticals, engineering etc dont have Unions who threaten the wrecking ball. Successful companies are built on innovation, dedication, and a "can do" attitude among management and staff. Truthfully employees in good companies need little or no Union involvement (although remember, they always have the law to protect them irregardless). Progressive and ambitious employers attract, retain, train and promote the best staff.

Union Policies ignore Free-Market principles: Global trade and free market principles reward centres of production where productivity is high vis a vis costs. Like it or not, this is the system that exists and it is difficult for Ireland to opt out of this. Advocating higher wages in Ireland when wages and terms and conditions are already on a par or above the global average simply puts Irish jobs at risk. The Free Market dictates that wages will rise and fall as demand changes however protection exist for the employee in terms of minimum wage, statutory entitlements etc. Unfortunately Union Leaders only ever seek pay and condition equality with those employees (nationally or internationally) that are better off than Irish worker. Without getting realistic about the global challenges Unions will only push Ireland further and further into uncompetitiveness. For example: Union Policy typically ignores changes in international industry norms (low cost airline carriers versus the dead duck Aer Lingus). If change doesnt occur in organisations, the organisation dies.

Union Leader Inflexibility costs all hard working Public Sector Workers: Union policies and inflexibility as regards, hiring, firing, inefficiency improvements and real wage benchmarking restrict necessary reform of wasteful Public Sector positions and Departments. Therefore, instead of working to erradicate overstaffing, over remuneration and inefficiency in wasteful Public Sector positions and departments, Unions prevent this (often by threatening all out strike across the board). Therefore the Government hand is forced: as an alternative to reform, they look to inflict broad wage decreases across the board to reduce overall costs. This affects all Public Sector workers, not just those whose positions are not viable.

Inefficiency in Civil Service, actively ignored by Union Leaders, costs ALL workers more in higher taxes to fund the inefficiency. Despite gross and wanton waste, Union Leaders are doing nothing to encourage an environment of open, honest debate in public sector reform. All workers and union members suffer high tax rates to fund an inefficient public service. If the public sector was efficient Ireland would have an entirely different fiscal situation now. We all know that administration in the Public Service is over-staffed, stop pretending it doesnt exist.

Unions Cry Wolf! The General Public often find it hard to believe Union Leaders - they've been crying wolf for years. They only ever look for wage increases, they never admit or proactively engage to reduce inefficiencies or employee levels, any reform or change in work practise is fought tooth and nail.


It's all ME ME ME! Union philosophy is shortsighted at present. They ignore the needs of employers yet without a successful employer, the prospects for staff are poor. Unions really need to encourage employees to work and engage closely with Management. Unions are in an influential position to help stakeholders to develop engaging work environments, to implement policies that reward initiative, to suggest policies that save money and increase the long term viability of jobs and prospects. To date Unions havent been brave enough to operate in this way, instead playing the blame game when things go wrong and companies fail.

Historic Causes for Union Existence: many of the issues that built the Unions in the first instance no longer exist. Employees are afforded good protection in work and social welfare protection out of work.

Proof of the Pudding: Unions maintain that the "bossman", the "fat-cat" and the capitalist have benefited at the cost of the worker, while arguing that Union policies would benefit both firm and employee. Therefore it stands to sense that with the combined intellect and shrewd abilities of the likes of ICTU and SIPTU, they could easily take on the challenge of running real businesses - the profit they would undoubtedly make could be reinvested for Union member or paid to Union members in dividends.

No Union Involvement Guarantee's a win win situation for the public: Despite the fact that some profitable companies fail to reward employees with increased terms and conditions the public never looses. This is because heavily profitable companies are taxed heavily thus filling the Government coffers. Even the fat cats and directors who take large lump sum bonuses are in fact taxed at over 50% in real terms. (And of course, companies who fail to recognise the inherrent value of their employees never last long, their employees are attracted elsewhere and the company contracts.)

Union Policy can encourage a sense of helplessness within workers. We've heard of the Bus Eireann drivers who refuse to fill up their own diesel - this type of mind numbing inflexibility is outdated and serves no purposes. Union policies restrict advancement by progressive, enthusiastic workers who want to "get on with the job" but who are alienated by Union members of staff who want conflict.

Unions need to change: Its times Unions looked closely at their role in society and companies. I believe that much of Union activity as spelt out above is simply misdirected effort. At best Union energy is targetted at fire fighting. By working to create better companies, employees could benefit much more. There is a real role for Unions in participating in real mediation and negotiations with employers. In addition by working to provide additional pension schemes, investment vehicles, lending and credit facilties for their member, the Unions could offer real and beneficial services for their members. Its time Unions changed with the times. Unions need to work with employers to set up their income streams to reward Unions for advances in productivity, company profitability.

Sizzler

Not going to quote your entire post, but that was excellently written and I agree 100%.

If I can digress back to the day thats in it today

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1111/partnership.html

wrote:

Hundreds of frontline public sector workers have begun a march through Dublin city to protest over the impact of planned cuts on services and their pay.

The unions represented at the march include the Prison Officers' Association, the Garda Representative Association, the Irish Nurses Organisation and the Psychiatric Nurses Association, along with representatives of fire fighting and ambulance personnel.

Gardaí taking part in the march are wearing baseball caps with the garda insignia, because they are not allowed to march in uniform.

AdvertisementThe employees, who work 24/7 shifts, are objecting to Government plans to cut public sector pay.

The group says that its members would be disproportionately affected by cuts in allowances.

While no firm figure on the turnout is available, organisers believe it exceeds the 1,000 employees that they had forecast yesterday.

The march commenced at 2.30pm and was due to proceed down O'Connell Street, around College Green and along Nassau Street to Molesworth Street where the delegates will hand in a letter of protest.

The letter will outline why the alliance believes that it would be wrong to target frontline services as an easy option for dealing with the current economic crisis.

1,000'ish at the march, hardly a resounding success for Liam Doran & Co.

Whilst I have the utmost professional admiration for the nurses,doctors and paramedics at the end of the day if they took that vocation for financial reasons then they are best served looking for a different career as the unfortunate reality is the country is in unprecedented economic circumstances and cuts have to be made.

For as long as I can remember the Gardai have had sporadic issues with pay and benefits, this is nothing new. If they truly think they are getting rogered by the state then try and find another job, theres 450K on the dole who would love a 40k job for life with a fantastic pension at the end of it.

Pedalling the line that they have high mortgages / families to support / loans etc etc. is not good enough to bully the government into submission. 95% of the working population have these outlays and ultimately they were decisions made by the indvidual and its time to stop trying to get the government to make public sector worker's issues the issues of the government and the population at large.

Riskymove

Sizzler wrote: »

1,000'ish at the march, hardly a resounding success for Liam Doran & Co.

1,000 was what they were aiming for so then I'd gauge it a success

Sizzler

Riskymove wrote: »

1,000 was what they were aiming for so then I'd gauge it a success

Doran was on the radio yesterday stating thousands would turn out....so you can see the disconnect.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

1,000 was what they were aiming for so then I'd gauge it a success

But as discussed on another thread, on the average day of the week there are statistically over 10,000 public sector employees on sick leave ....so 1,000 is not many people...

Colm R

dermymc wrote: »

The country is clearly in a fix. We are paying the price for electing and re-electing a populist government.....

I'm not going to quote it all. But well well thought out and written. Would you go in to politics - you'd get my vote.

irish_bob

Sizzler wrote: »

Not going to quote your entire post, but that was excellently written and I agree 100%.

If I can digress back to the day thats in it today

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1111/partnership.html



1,000'ish at the march, hardly a resounding success for Liam Doran & Co.

Whilst I have the utmost professional admiration for the nurses,doctors and paramedics at the end of the day if they took that vocation for financial reasons then they are best served looking for a different career as the unfortunate reality is the country is in unprecedented economic circumstances and cuts have to be made.

For as long as I can remember the Gardai have had sporadic issues with pay and benefits, this is nothing new. If they truly think they are getting rogered by the state then try and find another job, theres 450K on the dole who would love a 40k job for life with a fantastic pension at the end of it.

Pedalling the line that they have high mortgages / families to support / loans etc etc. is not good enough to bully the government into submission. 95% of the working population have these outlays and ultimately they were decisions made by the indvidual and its time to stop trying to get the government to make public sector worker's issues the issues of the government and the population at large.

the vast majority of guards and nurses wouldnt have a hope of earning higher pay in the private sector and i include during the boom