Sustained Response over Public Sector pay cuts: The unions are going to war

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

Why not, if the reforms make sense they make sense.

If the unions proposed some good ideas for reform then the government should now move to implement these reforms, right?

What doesn't make sense is you dismissed the union proposed reforms, but also want to implement the union proposed reforms. which is it? Do you trust the unions or don't you?

I wasn't actually addressing the unions there, more a direct question to you, why do you personally feel entitled to something in return for doing your job a bit differently, not even likely to be any harder? It's the absolute norm outside the public sector to change and adapt as required.

I'm not a union member, but I find your example pretty odd. The idea that public sector/union workers expect to never have to change how they work because of their union membership without a return of some sort, doesn't seem to stack up.

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

What doesn't make sense is you dismissed the union proposed reforms, but also want to implement the union proposed reforms. which is it? Do you trust the unions or don't you?

I don't trust the unions but I'm not so arrogant that I would suggest every suggestion was stupid, so if any of their reform suggestions made sense, they should be implemented forthwith. I never dismissed the union proposals for reform as I haven't seen any of them. Do you agree that the government should now look at the union proposals (and come up with some of their own) for reform and increased efficiency in the public sector and implement it without undue delay?

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm not a union member, but I find your example pretty odd. The idea that public sector/union workers expect to never have to change how they work because of their union membership without a return of some sort, doesn't seem to stack up.

It appears to me as an outsider that change must be first negotiated with the unions in a longwinded process that invariably sees the union 'getting something' in return for simply changing work practices to a more efficient model.

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

I don't trust the unions but I'm not so arrogant that I would suggest every suggestion was stupid, so if any of their reform suggestions made sense, they should be implemented forthwith. I never dismissed the union proposals for reform as I haven't seen any of them. Do you agree that the government should now look at the union proposals (and come up with some of their own) for reform and increased efficiency in the public sector and implement it without undue delay?

I think union proposed reform that the government rejected should be implemented, of course, and never said otherwise. I can only think you are creating a strawman or did not read my original post if you didn't already know that. On the off chance that neither of these are the case, I will state that I've never suggested that the public sector should not be reformed and welcome the unions initiative.

It appears to me as an outsider that change must be first negotiated with the unions in a longwinded process that invariably sees the union 'getting something' in return for simply changing work practices to a more efficient model.

Define more efficient?

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

I think union proposed reform that the government rejected should be implemented, of course, and never said otherwise. I can only think you are creating a strawman or did not read my original post if you didn't already know that. On the off chance that neither of these are the case, I will state that I've never suggested that the public sector should not be reformed and welcome the unions initiative.

What proposals for reform have the union proposed? I'd be interested to see.

brianthebard wrote: »

Define more efficient?

I suppose it could be as somebody in Revenue simply using a new IT system which is linked to the Dept. of Social Welfare etc. for example.

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

What proposals for reform have the union proposed? I'd be interested to see.

You can begin reading about it here and here. Its worth noting that the articles gives an actual outline of how the unpaid leave plan would have worked, instead of the scaremongering and lies that were put about elsewhere.

I suppose it could be as somebody in Revenue simply using a new IT system which is linked to the Dept. of Social Welfare etc. for example.

Have unions rejected this? The problem with most efficiencies is that they involve sacking workers, which is clearly something unions will oppose. However the idea that they oppose all attempts at improving efficiencies, even in this case where the change would improve the working conditions of the people in these departments, is unrealistic.

FlutterinBantam

Brian, have you ever read the story of "The Boy Who cried Wolf"

I suggest you do, as John Q Taxpayer quite quickly realised that this 12 days mullarkey was just as they thought it was....... mullarkey.


Benchmarking was introduced to bring reform to the PS in return for wage hikes.

They got the wage hikes but little or no reform.


Thae general public saw through that one from day one...... not deliverable Brian.... not deliverable.

imme

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Brian, have you ever read the story of "The Boy Who cried Wolf"

I suggest you do, as John Q Taxpayer quite quickly realised that this 12 days mullarkey was just as they thought it was....... mullarkey.


Benchmarking was introduced to bring reform to the PS in return for wage hikes.

They got the wage hikes but little or no reform.


Thae general public saw through that one from day one...... not deliverable Brian.... not deliverable.

so the union were offering that PS workers would work for 12 days for free effectively.
Are you against this in the Private Sector too, it's being introduced into British Airways you know.

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

You can begin reading about it here and here. Its worth noting that the articles gives an actual outline of how the unpaid leave plan would have worked, instead of the scaremongering and lies that were put about elsewhere.

What's 12 days unpaid leave got to do with introducing reforms to the PS that would make it more efficient?

McCloone's words sound fine to me here:

The proposed deal included explicit agreement on the redeployment of civil and public servants, within and between organisations, to ensure better services as budgets and staffing declined.

Long-sought changes like the extended working day, which would deliver more flexibility and longer health service opening hours, were there for the taking. So were increases in day care, community health services, outpatient and diagnostic capacity.

The deal would have seen the introduction of shared services in areas like finance, procurement, human resources and payroll across health services, local authorities, education and the Civil Service. Competitive and merit-based promotions would have been extended to the last remaining areas of the public service, new procedures for redeploying surplus teachers would have been introduced, supervision and substitution arrangements would have been improved.

Staff co-operation with the restructuring and rationalisation of VECs and State agencies would have been guaranteed, better management and standardisation of annual and sick leave would have happened, and better Civil Service opening and closing times would have been introduced.

So why not implement these things anyway, if they are for the betterment of the Public service, as McCloone contends (and I believe he is right here). We should absolutely push ahead with these measures. Should have been delivered years ago but better late than never.

However, if following the efficiency imporovements, roles are found to be redundant, then the holder of those roles should be made redundant unless a genuine need for that person exists in another department and they are capable of doing the job. Agreed?

FlutterinBantam

imme wrote: »

so the union were offering that PS workers would work for 12 days for free effectively.
Are you against this in the Private Sector too, it's being introduced into British Airways you know.

Don't know quite how you arrive at that conclusion, I'm tanking up on Stella here, can you explain that further?

Thanks.

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

What's 12 days unpaid leave got to do with introducing reforms to the PS that would make it more efficient?

Sorry that was just an example of how union proposals have been twisted in the media and the information blurred or buried, as Flutt proved above.

So why not implement these things anyway, if they are for the betterment of the Public service, as McCloone contends (and I believe he is right here). We should absolutely push ahead with these measures. Should have been delivered years ago but better late than never.

However, if following the efficiency improvements, roles are found to be redundant, then the holder of those roles should be made redundant unless a genuine need for that person exists in another department and they are capable of doing the job. Agreed?

They haven't been implemented because the unions in good faith put together a set of proposals, and the government rejected them outright because the 12 days unpaid leave plan did not add up to 1.3bn, even though this had not been a factor in previous talks. In fact the government decided they would reject whatever the unions proposed before the talks had even concluded; here.

To any reasonable person on boards the reason for union anger should begin to become clear soon. The government committed itself to deflationary plans and wage cuts to the detriment of public sector reform. I feel like shouting that right now when I see so many threads bashing the unions and calling for reform, while praising Lenihan's 'tough but fair' budget.

Flex

brianthebard wrote: »

Sorry that was just an example of how union proposals have been twisted in the media and the information blurred or buried, as Flutt proved above.




They haven't been implemented because the unions in good faith put together a set of proposals, and the government rejected them outright because the 12 days unpaid leave plan did not add up to 1.3bn, even though this had not been a factor in previous talks. In fact the government decided they would reject whatever the unions proposed before the talks had even concluded; here.

To any reasonable person on boards the reason for union anger should begin to become clear soon. The government committed itself to deflationary plans and wage cuts to the detriment of public sector reform. I feel like shouting that right now when I see so many threads bashing the unions and calling for reform, while praising Lenihan's 'tough but fair' budget.

So if the government decided to implement those reforms suggested by the union, they'd have the public sector and unions support?

brianthebard

Flex wrote: »

So if the government decided to implement those reforms suggested by the union, they'd have the public sector and unions support?

Not after the pay cuts, there would have to be another round of negotiations. You have to realise these union proposals were to be an alternative to cuts, but the government pulled the rug from under them. If these proposals were to be put through now, after cutting public sector pay there would have to be concessions to the unions/public sector.

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

Not after the pay cuts, there would have to be another round of negotiations. You have to realise these union proposals were to be an alternative to cuts, but the government pulled the rug from under them. If these proposals were to be put through now, after cutting public sector pay there would have to be concessions to the unions/public sector.

Why Brian? Why not just do it for the betterment of the Public Service?

SkepticOne

brianthebard wrote: »

The government committed itself to deflationary plans and wage cuts to the detriment of public sector reform.

What is the alternative to measures that will be deflationary?

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

Why Brian? Why not just do it for the betterment of the Public Service?

Take pay cuts and unpaid leave? Why murph, why not just implement the proposals to begin with instead of being conniving FF'ers, for the betterment of the Public Service?

SkepticOne wrote: »

What is the alternative to measures that will be deflationary?

Stimulus? I'm sorry but I don't really understand your question. There are many conceivable alternatives to present government policy, but just with NAMA the government really really wants you to believe TINA.

SkepticOne

brianthebard wrote: »

Stimulus? I'm sorry but I don't really understand your question. There are many conceivable alternatives to present government policy, but just with NAMA the government really really wants you to believe TINA.

I'm not making a statement here but asking a question. If there are alternatives to the problem at hand that is not deflationary I'm interested in hearing them.

If you are saying stimulus is the alternative, where would the money come from? How would the EU's rules on deficit spending be got around?

Flex

brianthebard wrote: »

Take pay cuts and unpaid leave? Why murph, why not just implement the proposals to begin with instead of being conniving FF'ers, for the betterment of the Public Service?



Stimulus? I'm sorry but I don't really understand your question. There are many conceivable alternatives to present government policy, but just with NAMA the government really really wants you to believe TINA.

Why must there be something given in return for imrpoving the standard of work in the public sector? The company I work for is undergoing a business transformationat the moment resulting in plenty of overtime being worked, but since I dont get paid for overtime its basically my free time.

I cant think of another group of workers anywhere in the country that would refuse attempts and obstruct attempts to improve efficiency and productivity because their employer couldnt afford to pay their wages who wouldnt be sacked.

gerry28

Flex wrote: »

So if the government decided to implement those reforms suggested by the union, they'd have the public sector and unions support?

I think the unions and quite a few PS workers feel a little shafted by the chest beating Brian Lenihan.

Offering up all the reforms after having the rug pulled from under you doesn't sit very well.

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

Take pay cuts and unpaid leave?

No. I said implement the reforms, not the 12 days business. The Public Sector has had it's pay cut directly and that's enough for now.

I'm just talking about implementing the reforms suggested by McLoone in that piece. Would you not agree that these reforms should be implemented?

brianthebard

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not making a statement here but asking a question. If there are alternatives to the problem at hand that is not deflationary I'm interested in hearing them.

If you are saying stimulus is the alternative, where would the money come from? How would the EU's rules on deficit spending be got around?

You're asking for my plans to address the deficit? sorry but I haven't drawn them up yet. However I know there was a thread here about SF's budgetary proposals, and I'm sure FG and Labour had their own suggestions too before the budget came out, as did the Unions (see; here )

murphaph wrote: »

No. I said implement the reforms, not the 12 days business. The Public Sector has had it's pay cut directly and that's enough for now.

I'm just talking about implementing the reforms suggested by McLoone in that piece. Would you not agree that these reforms should be implemented?

Should have been implemented. You don't seem to understand that the Government created a serious breach of trust by preparing pay cut plans behind the unions back and then asking for their initiatives, just so they could shoot them down in the media. That's not the way to reach a solution, and I have no idea why you would expect the public sector or the unions to willingly implement these plans now after they were previously ignored and ridiculed.

PLIIM

mikemac wrote: »

Like nobody else wasn't hit in the last budget in 2008...... That levy on my private sector payslip must be imagined so. But I'll pay it and so be it. Just don't claim the public service are on their own.

Are you saying the Public service should stage such incredible demonstrations that the government will be afraid to impose cuts on them again? A bit like the pensioners did already?

You think we got hit with that tiny levy? That was like a mild itch.
Wait for next year :eek:

PLIIM

killbillvol2 wrote: »

You obviously don't understand what a "work to rule" is. It means carrying out your job to the letter and nothing extra.

There's nowhere near the appetite for industrial action that the union leaders would have people believe. A lot of public servants (including me) are pissed off at being hit in the pocket again. But a lot of us can see that the country is deep in ****e so we'll take the pain this time.

There will also be considerable unrest with the leadership within the unions when they go back to the members. They sought a mandate for strike action and then chickened out. Not only that but they went into negotiations on a pay cut (called it unpaid leave) and changes to conditions of service without any mandate from the rank and file. When people calm down in the next couple of weeks they'll realise that they're being very poorly represented.

And that is why you'll take the pain again, and again. Because its not really pain if you arent up in arms over it.

lmimmfn

so if the PS/CS got a 2% increase last May and stand to get another next year, am i missing something or are the cuts starting at 1% for the lower paid and not the 5% cut we're all hearing, so the point of striking is over completely neglible and temporary cuts is?

funnyname

The unions can't be trusted!

Did they deliver this as part of the benchmarking exercise, did they *@#$!

6.4 Modernisation and Change
The challenges facing the social and economic development of Ireland in the medium to longterm
underpin the need for continually progressing the modernisation of the public service. The
Body notes the reference in the PPF to the link between public service pay awards and the
delivery of the modernisation programme in the public service. The Body strongly recommends
that implementation of the pay awards should be made conditional (apart from the one-quarter
of any award to be implemented with effect from 1 December of 2001 as agreed between the
parties) upon agreement on relevant modernisation and change issues at the appropriate local
bargaining levels. It will be a matter, in each case, for managements and unions/associations to
determine the agenda for this local bargaining, but it is the firm expectation of the Body that real
outputs will be delivered. The establishment of an appropriate validation process is recommended
to ensure that agreements on issues such as adaptability, change, flexibility and modernisation are
implemented.

astrofool

We're just under a year away from the next budget, the unions are going to have to reform now to show that the €4/3bn in savings next year can be done without cuts to their pay.

They could have been pushing these reforms through for the last 18 months, and shown the government that the required money could be saved, instead they sat on their hands, and went shopping in Newry.

Riskymove

lmimmfn wrote: »

so if the PS/CS got a 2% increase last May and stand to get another next year, am i missing something or are the cuts starting at 1% for the lower paid and not the 5% cut we're all hearing, so the point of striking is over completely neglible and temporary cuts is?

yeah..:rolleyes:

sure if you take what their pay was 10 years ago, the 5% cut is actually a raise!! yayyyy!!:rolleyes:

The unions can't be trusted!

Did they deliver this as part of the benchmarking exercise, did they *@#$!

Actually you'll find they did in a lot of cases, its not just their fault that the management side could not come up with any real reform ideas.

I'm just talking about implementing the reforms suggested by McLoone in that piece. Would you not agree that these reforms should be implemented?

yes they should, and others (note the move on pensions for new entrants) but the reality is that any goodwill between the parties to having an agreed approach has been lost.

In the long run this may be regretted

Duiske

Have not heard any PS workers mention this, but this 5% pay cut does not mean a 5% cut in take home pay. Less pay means less tax and levies, and it brings the real cut in take home pay down to a little under 4%, marginally less than the 4.1% cut in SW.

They were very quick to call the levy payments a "pay cut", so let them be honest here and call this 5% reduction exactly what it is... a 3.9% cut in take home pay.

Riskymove

Duiske wrote: »

Have not heard any PS workers mention this, but this 5% pay cut does not mean a 5% cut in take home pay.

and when they talk about "take-home pay" they get jumped on by others here saying we should only talk about Gross

funnyname

Riskymove wrote: »

Actually you'll find they did in a lot of cases, its not just their fault that the management side could not come up with any real reform ideas.

Management are also in the union, so that's just a silly counter point.

pah

Duiske wrote: »

Have not heard any PS workers mention this, but this 5% pay cut does not mean a 5% cut in take home pay. Less pay means less tax and levies, and it brings the real cut in take home pay down to a little under 4%, marginally less than the 4.1% cut in SW.

They were very quick to call the levy payments a "pay cut", so let them be honest here and call this 5% reduction exactly what it is... a 3.9% cut in take home pay.

Thats 5% on the first 30k. Everything should be dicussed as Gross. When people talk about take home pay it's because what they see right in front of them is NET out of the pocket. Most people talk about take home pay being reduced by €xxxx but overall talk about pay being reduced by a %.

http://www.taxcalculator.ie/

Will show the GROSS reduction on any salary.

P. Breathnach

Duiske wrote: »

Have not heard any PS workers mention this, but this 5% pay cut does not mean a 5% cut in take home pay. Less pay means less tax and levies, and it brings the real cut in take home pay down to a little under 4%, marginally less than the 4.1% cut in SW.

They were very quick to call the levy payments a "pay cut", so let them be honest here and call this 5% reduction exactly what it is... a 3.9% cut in take home pay.

Sauce for the goose. I have not heard any private sector worker describe his or her pay cut in terms of net pay, either. And I have seen posts here objecting (in my opinion, fairly) to some public sector workers writing about their net pay rather than the gross.

Riskymove

funnyname wrote: »

Management are also in the union, so that's just a silly counter point.

some are, some are not depending on the organisation

I include politicians as being on the management side

funnyname

Riskymove wrote: »

some are, some are not depending on the organisation

I include politicians as being on the management side

Yeah keep blaming the government, good argument!

Sleepy

Lets face facts:

Any meaningful reform of the public sector will result in redundancies.

The union can't give into redundancies without a fight as that's what they're seen to be there for.

Now, to my mind, this is where the union fail the majority of their members. Any hard-working member of the public service shouldn't fall foul of the redundancies unless their job or department is duplicating work being carried out by another, better functioning department in which case the best workers from both departments should be merged into the new function and since our hard-working member is just that, his or her job should be safe.

Done to the proper extent, reform could actually provide more frontline staff and, shock horror, even allow for raises where staff are identified as being worth more than their current remuneration package!

I honestly believe that if given an organisational map of each department, quango and public sector body I'd find most of the means to make the necessary savings to achieve this in about a week.

Riskymove

funnyname wrote: »

Yeah keep blaming the government, good argument!

do you not think the people that run the public sector should have some responsibility for how it operates?

seangal

Sleepy wrote: »

Lets face facts:

Any meaningful reform of the public sector will result in redundancies.

The union can't give into redundancies without a fight as that's what they're seen to be there for.

Now, to my mind, this is where the union fail the majority of their members. Any hard-working member of the public service shouldn't fall foul of the redundancies unless their job or department is duplicating work being carried out by another, better functioning department in which case the best workers from both departments should be merged into the new function and since our hard-working member is just that, his or her job should be safe.

Done to the proper extent, reform could actually provide more frontline staff and, shock horror, even allow for raises where staff are identified as being worth more than their current remuneration package!

I honestly believe that if given an organisational map of each department, quango and public sector body I'd find most of the means to make the necessary savings to achieve this in about a week.

I think this will be done overtime
There will be no redundancies bar the IMF come in.
The reform will be that there will be no new staff in the public sector and the existing staff will have to take over the work that is done by staff that is retiring. About 4000 staff retired in 2009 and that will increase in 2010. In the budget they did not pass on the cut to the pensions of people that retire in 2010 and he has left it open that he can extend this to 2011 if need be.
There is nothing to be gained by making younger staff redundant as it will lead to an older PS workforce and I can tell you what every about getting the younger PS to reform they have no chance in getting an older PS workforce to reform

Sleepy

The thing is, we don't really have the time to wait and furthermore, natural attrition is a very poor tool for targeting waste - it just leads to some areas running desperately short of staff and others still being over-staffed.

Our public sector is akin to a cancer patient. We need very liberal use of a scalpel to cut the malignant cells. Amputating a limb with some malignant cells will not cure the patient if there are cancerous cells present elsewhere too.

seangal

Sleepy wrote: »

The thing is, we don't really have the time to wait and furthermore, natural attrition is a very poor tool for targeting waste - it just leads to some areas running desperately short of staff and others still being over-staffed.

Our public sector is akin to a cancer patient. We need very liberal use of a scalpel to cut the malignant cells. Amputating a limb with some malignant cells will not cure the patient if there are cancerous cells present elsewhere too.

well by not replaing staff in 2009 we saved 500 million so
if same amount leave in 2010 that will be aother 500 million or i billion in total and a pay cut of 1.3 billion so if that dose not start to work we can give up.
The reform will be redployment which will ensure there will be no staff shortages

lmimmfn

Riskymove wrote: »

yeah..:rolleyes:

sure if you take what their pay was 10 years ago, the 5% cut is actually a raise!! yayyyy!!:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: so the country is ****ed and we're paying per yearly increases in the PS/CS and will do so throughout this recession and thats completely grand and fine? and its also grand to go out on strike based on the budget cuts even though it completely nullifies the cuts over the next few years?, yayyyy, glad we have a solution :rolleyes:

be nice if we all got this 2% per year guaranteed increase, couldnt give a toss about the cuts ive had this year if that was the case.