Are the Unions traitors?

MaceFace

No, not to Ireland, but to the actual membership.
Looking at the latest proposal, they want between 10-14 days of unpaid leave brought in rather than pay cuts. This is completely unfair to a vast majority of their members as it disproportionally disadvantages the lower paid.
If they really wanted a fair outcome, what they would be doing is to accept that there are massive inefficiencies in the sector and eliminate them. They would also accept that pensions should also fall in line with those currently working and those on higher incomes accept a larger cut that those on lower incomes. Money saved from these areas could be offset against the savings they are currently promoting.
I really feel they are selling out their members to keep those in higher pay and pensions on the great salaries they earn.

gurramok

Civil war within the public sector?

I always wondered if the real lower paid public sector workers would keep helping their higher paid colleagues. Case to mind is the temp teachers losing out to the 60k average paid permo colleagues and yet striking for the cause.

ei.sdraob

yeh as we seen the other day in a thread here

the people that got shafted were the ones who had to work extra on the strike day

all this strike business only pays the people at top, Begg and co, them and their 6 digit salaries, if there was no Union these people might have to shave and get a real job

Long Onion

Well, it looks like one of the teachers unions is having a press release today accusing the unions of acting against the mandate of the members. They are stating that the public sector workers went on strike against the notion of pay cuts and that the inposition of compulsory unpaid leave amounts to just that.

The fact remains that many public sector workers are not willing to accept any measure which will reduce either their pensions or their take home pay. The unions meanwhile will follow their own agenda and pursue the measures which they belive are in the best interests of their members, regardless of the members wishes.

My own opinion at this stage is to hell with them all, to hell with the staff and to hell with the unions - let them strike all they want. It won't last, they will have to return to work pretty soon once they cash flow is impacted. We have been promised efficiency improvements for years and do not have it. The secor is unsustainable in it's current guise and needs a short sharp shock, no some more wolly promises of cahnge to be gradually implemented over the next 5-10 years.

If the government play hardball, it will also give the unions a reality check and may force them to return to the real world. Outdated and outmoded Marxist thinking will not get us out of the current hole in which we find ourselves. I can't belive that the unions who fiercely fought for increases based on the private sector and high inflation are now refusing to reduce terms in line with private sector cuts and deflation.

I'm sick to the back teeth of all the posturing going on, this unpaid leave idea is just another way of not dealing with the structural deficit, it will result in even poorer sevice in critical care areas, not touch on the pension cost, the headcount, the allowances or take account of the huge perk that is security of tenure.

The lot of them, workers and unions alike should STFU and take it on the chin - just like the rest of us.

TGPS

Clearly not......

Article 39
Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.

Long Onion

TGPS wrote: »

Clearly not......

Article 39
Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.

I belive he asked if the Unions were 'traitors' as opposed to commiting treason.

traitor



• noun a person who betrays their country, a cause, etc.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] traitorous [SIZE=-1]adjective[/SIZE]. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] Old French traitour, from Latin tradere ‘hand over’.

I see your google and raise you one.

mfays

I have only joined but have to agree with you.I definitely feel they are selling out their members to protect those on the "big money"

TGPS

Long Onion wrote: »

I belive he asked if the Unions were 'traitors' as opposed to commiting treason.

traitor



• noun a person who betrays their country, a cause, etc.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] traitorous [SIZE=-1]adjective[/SIZE]. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] Old French traitour, from Latin tradere ‘hand over’.

I see your google and raise you one.

Actually, I was relying on a law degree I did a loooooooonnnnnng time ago!!!

If memory serves, there are two kinds of treason - what the unions are guilty of is petty treason (high treason, being treason against the sovereign or state!) - I think the traditional punishment for petty treason is having your tongue cut out and burned and forfeiture of property to the person against whom the treason was committed.

Unfortunately, the Constitution rules that out, but if we could just have referendum to repeal that Article and go back to the old Treason Act from the 14th C...........:)

John_Mc

I don't really care how they treat their members, its up to the members to worry about that.

I'll be absolutely furious if the government accept this unpaid leave solution as proposed by the unions. As already said, it does nothing to resolve the underlying problems and we'll have to deal with the same problem again in another year.

Leave them strike, I really couldn't care less. Neither my friends, family or I were affected by the strike last week so it really is no problem, its actually saving us money

Count Dooku

John_Mc wrote: »

I'll be absolutely furious if the government accept this unpaid leave solution as proposed by the unions.

Cut services, but not rates
Pensions for retired civil servants cannot be touched

diverdriver

Unpaid leave is a pay cut. It's a pay cut all at once not spread over the year. Yes the unions are betraying their members. They led them to believe that there was another way than pay cuts. Calling it unpaid leave is not the way.

But what has characterised the whole PS debate is the pure lack of realism among far too many of the PS. I've been saying it everytime I posted something. The money isn't there anymore. Something has to be cut. They allowed themselves to be fooled into believing themselves persecuted victims and that the unions actually had a realistic alternative.

The unions by proposing unpaid leave have admitted as much. I think it's worst possible option. Imagine losing a month's pay, just like that. Sitting at home with bills to pay and no money unless you have savings. It's stupid and entirely typical of the unimaginative dolts who run the unions.

Riskymove

diverdriver wrote: »

Sitting at home with bills to pay and no money unless you have savings. It's stupid and entirely typical of the unimaginative dolts who run the unions.

has anyone said it has to be in a block of a month?

douglashyde

Imagine having a broken water pipe and instead of fixing it you just turned it off for some of the day.

That’s right, the unions don't want to fix the water pipe, they just want to turn it off for a little while.

If the government decide to use unpaid leave as any sort of substitute to pay cuts, then they are pushing this country a little bit more over the edge and when we get to that edge and fall, it's going to be a big fall and a very sore landing.

diverdriver

Riskymove wrote: »

has anyone said it has to be in a block of a month?

It amounts to a month whatever you cut it. You can spread over a few months. But in that case it looks perilously like a pay cut.

It amounts to be the equivalent of being laid off for certain weeks of the year. Something common to many jobs including me. I'm off for the month of December unpaid. I will struggle.

Riskymove

diverdriver wrote: »

It amounts to a month whatever you cut it. You can spread over a few months. But in that case it looks perilously like a pay cut.

of course its a paycut....but its an alternative to a straight cut in pay..as you mention its quite common at the moment in some private firms, noticeably manufacturing

Its supposed to be a "bridging measure" for next year or two while more specific plans to reduce numbers and change practices are put in place

given an option between the two I think most people would choose the unpaid leave

for example if you can take it as a day a month or whatever...would not have the same effect as being off for 12 days straight

If the government decide to use unpaid leave as any sort of substitute to pay cuts, then they are pushing this country a little bit more over the edge

if it results in the same savings then whats the issue?

kippy

MaceFace wrote: »

No, not to Ireland, but to the actual membership.
Looking at the latest proposal, they want between 10-14 days of unpaid leave brought in rather than pay cuts. This is completely unfair to a vast majority of their members as it disproportionally disadvantages the lower paid.
If they really wanted a fair outcome, what they would be doing is to accept that there are massive inefficiencies in the sector and eliminate them. They would also accept that pensions should also fall in line with those currently working and those on higher incomes accept a larger cut that those on lower incomes. Money saved from these areas could be offset against the savings they are currently promoting.
I really feel they are selling out their members to keep those in higher pay and pensions on the great salaries they earn.

I have feck all time for the unions but heres where it is at.

We need to cut signicent sums off the public pay bill FAST. We dont have the time to dilly dally about looking for inefficiencies and reform. This was all SUPPOSED to have come in under benchmarking, but quiet the opposite effect was achieved.
We need to reform and cut the inefficiences etc AS WELL as reduce the pay bill.
I would have been a very big advocate of reform and reducing costs, but to be honest I've been on about it for the last year and NOT MUCH has changed from what I can see.

There may be a "Scaled" unpaid leave for the various grades, less unpaid leave for those at the lower ends, more for those at the top, that would be somewhat of a "fairer" deal.

The unions have been told that pay cuts are definetly happening, and they can dress it up however they hell they like. Personally, I dont think this proposal is as bad as many that could have gone ahead of it and as a first step in cutting the costs its not a bad one.

diverdriver

for example if you can take it as a day a month or whatever...would not have the same effect as being off for 12 days straight

Yes but that's a pay cut. Government says. 'I'm going to cut your pay by the equivalent of 12 days a year'. Unions say: 'No pay cuts, we march at dawn'.

Unions say: 'Take 12 days unpaid leave'. Government says: 'Sure what's the difference.'

Other than the day off, there is no difference. The day off might sell it to the members. You know, they can go shopping.......well you know:rolleyes:.

Riskymove

diverdriver wrote: »

Yes but that's a pay cut. Government says. 'I'm going to cut your pay by the equivalent of 12 days a year'. Unions say: 'No pay cuts, we march at dawn'.

Unions say: 'Take 12 days unpaid leave'. Government says: 'Sure what's the difference.'

Other than the day off, there is no difference. The day off might sell it to the members. You know, they can go shopping.......well you know:rolleyes:.

the main benefit in going the unpaid leave route as oppossed to a pay cut is indeed that its more sellable to public servants

Count Dooku

I have impression that real right-wingers in Ireland are union leaders
It is actually first step to redundancies in public sector
If PS workers will accept this proposal(they will accept, because 66% is relatively well paid), then next year country will have public services reduced by 5%.
Because next year it will be no improvement, government will have the same problem with budget deficit again.
But because everyday 5% of PS workers will do nothing, it will be logical solution to fire 5% of staff and nobody will see a difference. What we learned today is that high paid workers and retired public servants must not be affected. It means that low paid workers will have to take another hit and will be fired in order to minimize redundancy payments.

Sounds like a plan

Sizzler

If this half baked proposal goes ahead perhaps the last laugh will be on the unions when the IMF come in next year and say ENOUGH.

Will O'Connor & Begg get a chance to negotiate with the unions? Will they fcuk.

Long Onion

There is actually a significant difference between unpaid leave and a pay cut, the latter has an effect on pensions, the former doesn't - this is the reason for the unions to push for the unpaid leave.

Personally, I think that the pension cost foe the Public Service is the greater cost, I would fully push for a DC scheme to be put in place instead of the current benchmarked DB scheme. I would be interested to hear from some public service employees on this, would you opt for pension changes over pay changes?

Something tells me that the majority will oppose both in equal measures - if this is the case - tough. You have to take a hit somewhere and yes, it will be unfair on some, it will cause some hardship to some and someothers will not be hit in any meaningful way - but, you know what, this is life.

We do not inhabit black and white locales, many of us live in the grey areas around the fringes. If the public sector had been managed in a productive and streamlined fashion in the past, we wouldn't be facing the cuts being talked of here.

So if you want to vent your anger, do it at your management who have failed to increase productivity sufficiently, do it at the government who fudged the issue for the past 20 odd years, do it at the unions who pushed for pay increases and failed to deliver on the other side. But don't take it out on the general public who are in the same position as yourselves.

amen

Quote:
If the government decide to use unpaid leave as any sort of substitute to pay cuts, then they are pushing this country a little bit more over the edge
if it results in the same savings then whats the issue?

its an issue. Basic salary does not change if you take unpaid leave.
Say a salary of 52,000 (just to make it easy).

Take 2 weeks unpaid leave you get paid 50,000 a year in the year 2010.
Come 2011 your salary is still 52,000. You also got all of your pension entitlements based on the salary fo 52,000.

If you take a pay cut of 5% (2,600) salary fo 2010 is 49,400 and starting salary for 2011 is 49,400.

If unpaid leave is to be implemented what happens to teachers? They can't take leave in the middle of the school year?

What about emergency services ? Hospital cover etc?

Riskymove

amen wrote: »

If unpaid leave is to be implemented what happens to teachers? They can't take leave in the middle of the school year?

perhaps they will just be unoaid for a couple of the summer weeks or something pro-rata

What about emergency services ? Hospital cover etc?

all these people can have holidays, get sick etc and its managed so this would be too

westtip

Beggs pay is linked to senior civil service rates - you don't honestly think he is going to cut his own pay - all these tossers have done is buy even more holiday entitlements

14 days unpaid leave at 50% tax rate actually means 7 days pay lost. The government will claim it is the return to consensus, they will live with that.

Its a FUDGE of the highest order.

When are they goiing to realise Ahern and co managed to bankrupt this company and they think they can fudge a way out.

Tossers.

Scofflaw

The original idea was a different question, but this has rapidly become yet another thread on the PS generally. Surplus.

moderately,
Scofflaw