Public Sector Strike

tootyflutty

Effluo wrote: »

That's great if it's true. I don't know what tootyflutty saw, but i'm sure we can all agree that abusing somebody because they have a different opinion than you is wrong(unless they are just plain morally wrong). And anyone who would do something like that would be imo, a "sado".

I wouldn't exactly call it abuse...actually I wouldn't call it anywhere near that! Though the guy looked embarressed and quickened his pace as he talked on the phone,but in no way did it seem malicious nor anything more than the group sharing their veiws... with the intent of him hearing

jrd_old

Whats the story with this new strike on the 3rd of December? And if the budget is going to be as harsh as we all think it will be, then will there be more strikes after?

Thinking of my students, and the exam papers that I submit last week... I'll have to do some serious chopping and changing of my lecture notes to make sure that I have everything on the exam paper covered.

PrivateEye

Saw some guy getting shouted/chanted at by the Labour group and lecturers as he walked through old campus gates..

I spent most of my time on the FEE (and some individual students...) picket at the North Campus, but we marched up there with Labour Youth at the start and met up with them again at the end.

I very much doubt they abused anyone today, they were all great well mannered student activists, and I was really really impressed by their showing today.

They've good heads on them, I would think it was either a close friend of one of them getting a bit of stick, or nothing at all.

edit: Ah, I see tootyfluttys post now. nice one!

Effluo

tootyflutty wrote: »

I wouldn't exactly call it abuse...
Though the guy looked embarrassed and quickened his pace as he talked on the phone

I bet he was "fake talking" on the phone, so he wouldn't have to chat lol.

I'm not here to say they were wrong or right, but i don't think they should have singled him out though for "crossing the line"...
It's not gonna get him on their side anyway

Rozabeez

What was with the huge crowd of protesters outside Manor mills? That's not even the campus O_o

sovietpop

PrivateEye wrote: »

For what its worth, as somebody completely behind the ICTU day of action, I'm actually quite annoyed reading about the attitude to contract staff on campus from the two unions. I imagine I'm not alone on here in saying I've every intention of some day working in a University, so I find that very worrying to read.

I'm on a contract at Maynooth, I'm a researcher and also a member of IFUT. I have a friend who is doing his PhD and also is a temporary lecturer and is a member of SIPTU. In my previous job I was also a contractor and a member of SIPTU. So I'm not sure if the reports of anti-contract attitude are up to date, certainly it was true a couple of years ago, not anymore. Which makes sense, as people have said, the reality of work in the universities is that more and more people are being hired on contracts.

PrivateEye

What was with the huge crowd of protesters outside Manor mills? That's not even the campus O_o

Its a great meeting point. Met up at Manor Mills (Labour Youth, FEE/SSN, Shinners, individual students....) and then we all went down to the North Campus entrance together, before dividing ourselves up among the different picket lines for a while.

Looked great heading down to the North Campus entrance, did my heart good!

Rozabeez

You lot scared the crap out of me, was heading into Manor Mills in the car with my mam and thought for a split second people were picketing where I work =[

PrivateEye

Can I remind people that this is a public sector strike? Not necessarily a student one- although if you are for it, then well done

Job losses on campus (Which there will be) can only be bad for students. There is a direct link between attacks on NUIM staffs working conditions, and the quality of services on offer to students. Tutorials for example are just one area at risk. Look at the French Department situation with the loss of a secretary there (I understand she's been taken on again on a part-time basis?)

Its weak of the Student Union not to support strike action like todays, because they're missing the very obvious link between whats going on in the TRADE Unions on campus and whats concerning students at the minute.

There's no way a "neutral stance" was possible on this one to be honest. Union banners weren't made to sit in boxes until the next time somebody threatens US with fees.

Pay cuts are part of a wider package of measures that will progressively reduce the resourcing and the quality of the education provided to students in our schools and universities. The return to charging students tuition fees forms part of the same political agenda. Students and staff have a common interest in the protection of our education system against the kind of destructive changes with which it is currently threatened.

-From the letter put together by some Trade Unionists on campus.

Ostrom

sovietpop wrote: »

I'm on a contract at Maynooth, I'm a researcher and also a member of IFUT. I have a friend who is doing his PhD and also is a temporary lecturer and is a member of SIPTU. In my previous job I was also a contractor and a member of SIPTU. So I'm not sure if the reports of anti-contract attitude are up to date, certainly it was true a couple of years ago, not anymore. Which makes sense, as people have said, the reality of work in the universities is that more and more people are being hired on contracts.

We must talk. I'm in the same situation going on two years. Colleagues in the department who make up over 20% of the teaching staff have been refused by IFUT consistently over the past four years.

LeixlipRed

The neutral stance of the SU is nothing but laughable and adds credence to most people's belief that the SU in Maynooth is not only alligned with the centre right cretins in power, but that it's also a political non-entity.

banquo

I was at the South Campus gates with Labour all day today. I can say that nobody was harassed or intimidated. Protesters were civil and respectful as expected and as they should be.

Ostrom

banquo wrote: »

I was at the South Campus gates with Labour all day today. I can say that nobody was harassed or intimidated. Protesters were civil and respectful as expected and as they should be.

They were still outside Trinity an hour ago

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The neutral stance of the SU is nothing but laughable and adds credence to most people's belief that the SU in Maynooth is not only alligned with the centre right cretins in power, but that it's also a political non-entity.

Shameful petty politics every year. I haven't seen any worth a shi*e in over five years, and never at NUIM.

Beau

PrivateEye wrote: »

-From the letter put together by some Trade Unionists on campus.

I don't buy into this at all, anytime public sector pay is debated teachers/lecturers try and spin it that this is all about the students, this strike is purely about peoples pay and it being cut. The SU haven't got this one completely wrong in my opinion (apart from trying and failing to come across neutral).

LeixlipRed

Yes and the majority of those striking get paid an average wage and should not be being taxed to the hilt. Let the wealthy shoulder the burden of filling the budget deficit. The richest 1% of people in this country are worth 100 billion euro. A figure that excludes residential property. The budget deficit is predicted to be 12bn next year. Hey presto a tiny tax on those 1% and we have our balanced budget.

Ostrom

PrivateEye wrote: »

There's no way a "neutral stance" was possible on this one to be honest. Union banners weren't made to sit in boxes until the next time somebody threatens US with fees

Is there any consultation process over issues such as this? As LR said the problems are systemic before considering the tiny mandate and student apathy, but could/should they have consulted via. class reps over what position to take? I find it hard to stomach that three execs can take as cowardly a position in the interest of a student body of thousands.

Teabag!

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The neutral stance of the SU is nothing but laughable and adds credence to most people's belief that the SU in Maynooth is not only alligned with the centre right cretins in power, but that it's also a political non-entity.

The problem with the SU (in my opinion) is its a social club.

Leadership isnt supposed to be a popularity contest its supposed to be about 'leadership' which involves making decisions, and the SU seems lacking in this dept.

And as long as the SU Pres and his ilk are elected because of his or her mates, then its not gonna change.

PrivateEye

Its really positive though that so many students came out today to support the staff DESPITE a few 'all student emails' (including the SUs contribution!) that essentially encouraged students to come to the University and ignore the issue completely.

Also, we can't even guesstimate (great term) how many students stayed home who would have availed of the University facilities today in any other circumstances.

this strike is purely about peoples pay and it being cut

They don't just make up the bucks via 'pay cuts' (and even if they did it wouldn't be acceptable), but job losses are a very real scenario. Its the clear link between job losses and student services that the Student Union completely missed today.

---

Two pictures from today:



My raincoat.

(banner:
'Student Workers Say:
FIGHT BACK
NUIM FEE')


South Campus Massive (robbed from facespace, spot yer boardsies)

PrivateEye

Is there any consultation process over issues such as this?

This should have, in my opinion, been brought up at the last Union Council by the Exec. I snuck a mention of it into AOB (in terms of encouraging people to attend pickets) but I really think everyone thought the Student Union supporting the strike was a given. Nobody seen it coming to be honest.

It was not run past Union Council at all, first I knew of their position was the email correspondence.

The richest 1% of people in this country are worth 100 billion euro

Amen. Tell that to the media.

'Get us a shop assistant, and a nurse, and we'll put them in the ring and watch them fight each other' :rolleyes:

Beau

PrivateEye wrote: »

.They don't just make up the bucks via 'pay cuts' (and even if they did it wouldn't be acceptable), but job losses are a very real scenario. Its the clear link between job losses and student services that the Student Union completely missed today.

This is where I find it hard to understand the logic behind anti fee protesters, what did you expect! If the money isn't there this is what happens.

I'm not sure where I stand on this pay issue, while I sympatise with the fiscal mess the government has got itself in and the need to cut the shit out of spending, I also understand the people side of this. Having your pay cut so dramatically is a huge pill to expect anyone to swallow, especially with such negative equity on peoples mortgages. I am probably reluctantly on the side of some sort of pay cuts though to be honest, in whatever is the fairest way possible. More people have to pay income tax too (widening of tax bands?). Ahhhhhh!

PrivateEye

This is where I find it hard to understand the logic behind anti fee protesters, what did you expect! If the money isn't there this is what happens.

I can only speak for FEE.....

End the €80 million/year subsidy of private second level education by the government.

Fund education through central progressive taxation on the rich

Which kind of brings us back to the 'The richest 1% of people in this country are worth 100 billion euro' business.

There is billions of euro worth of wealth in this country the government have no interest in going after. One fine example is the fact bogey contracts signed by a certain convincted Ray Burke with foreign multinationals worth billions still stand valid.

I think funding free education and protecting jobs would not be huge task if the government went after those who so far are NOT hurting or contributing to the 'national recovery' (:rolleyes:)

Ostrom

Beau wrote: »

This is where I find it hard to understand the logic behind anti fee protesters, what did you expect! If the money isn't there this is what happens.

I'm not sure where I stand on this pay issue, while I sympatise with the fiscal mess the government has got itself in and the need to cut the shit out of spending, I also understand the people side of this. Having your pay cut so dramatically is a huge pill to expect anyone to swallow, especially with such negative equity on peoples mortgages. I am probably reluctantly on the side of some sort of pay cuts though to be honest, in whatever is the fairest way possible. More people have to pay income tax too (widening of tax bands?). Ahhhhhh!

I'm siding with Karl Whelan on this one, todays display was nothing more than pre-emptive muscle flexing, with debt servicing through hiring freezes the preferred option (shafting those coming up behind them/dependent on pink slip work for the next few years - which is unavoidable).

I would rather wait to see the proposed measure before committing to anything. Ironically, fees with a drastically overhauled grant admin system would be the ideal way to target the top earners, and I would imagine the 'semi-privatisation' approach would be an attractive alternative to pay cuts from a union perspective. I hope at the very least this has made public the diversity of education delivery. It is not a straightforward issue of 'all us union heads' on one side.

LeixlipRed

Widening of then bands is the worst thing they could do. Once you include the poorest in the tax system it's unlikely they'll ever be ommitted again. There are people earning 15k a year paying pension levies and income levies, why should these people pay direct tax on top of these indirect ones? Those people are barely earning enough to get by without have to pay PAYE as well. Tax the rich, the idea that these developers, bankers, etc, have lost heavily in this recession is a myth. They may not be as well off relative to what they were 5 years ago but relative to the average person they certainly are.

Beau

PrivateEye wrote: »

Which kind of brings us back to the 'The richest 1% of people in this country are worth 100 billion euro' business.

I honestly don't believe that there is a huge number of people not hurting at the moment, most people have suffered job loss, pay cuts or incomes reduced or turned to losses. And anyway I don't see why they should have to pay for everything and everybody else even if they did have all this money (that they have earned in their own right too!), where has this figure come from and how much are these people paying already?

Beau

efla wrote: »

I'm siding with Karl Whelan on this one,

I would rather wait to see the proposed measure before committing to anything.

Ditto

LeixlipRed wrote: »

There are people earning 15k a year paying pension levies and income levies, why should these people pay direct tax on top of these indirect ones?

15k is miserable, especially since the dole isn't to far from that either (another debate to be had there too!). Are there really public sector employees on 15k? I doubt it .

Ostrom

PrivateEye wrote: »

There is billions of euro worth of wealth in this country the government have no interest in going after. One fine example is the fact bogey contracts signed by a certain convincted Ray Burke with foreign multinationals worth billions still stand valid.

If only it were so simple. This line of thinking doesn't address the fact that Burke was elected after corruption allegations in the 70's, and that Lowry and Stroke Fahy still stand despite years of tribunal investigation. While I do agree with weighted tax banding, it is meaningless if this round of upheaval doesn't focus attention on a fundamentally broken system of accountability (and broder electoral issues - bailiwick backhanders etc, but I have no idea how you would begin to address this...)

Beau wrote: »

15k is miserable, especially since the dole isn't to far from that either . Is there really public sector employees on 15k? I doubt it.

Inequality within the public service is something this action should have been addressed from the start. Clearly there are those who can shoulder the kinds of proposed reductions, and have chosen otherwise through their inaction/voting against - dont forget that a significant proportion of union members voted against strike action. And yes, speaking from experience, there are those designated 'pink slip' workers, who dont formally enter into the remit of 'public servant', who earn in and around this.

PrivateEye

Just a few more pictures, these were Twittered over to the Workers Solidarity Movement page during the picket at NUI Maynooth today. From the North Campus entrance. Next time we should do the same, head in a big group to one picket and then split. Looked fantastic.

LeixlipRed

I was talking to that last chappy today. Is he a boardsie??

LeixlipRed

Also, Beau yes there are. Too lazy to find a link. Look for anything about pension levies last year and there should be info about pay scales. Street sweepers for local authorities start at the pay grade for example iirc.

Beau

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Look for anything about pension levies last year and there should be info about pay scales. Street sweepers for local authorities start at the pay grade for example iirc.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. Couldn't be a huge number though but at the same time obviously they shouldn't be touched and not just forgotten about. I wouldn't work for that much, especially with where the dole is at.