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

gandalf

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.

Oh I understand what it is but there will be those who will carry on their standard daily work of doing nothing. Remove those if that is the way they act. Work to rule might actually get a decent days work out of the dead wood if they think that they will be dealt with for not carrying out their prescribed duties.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

who_ru

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you have heard of bank recapitalisation to the tune of billions i presume and that other thing cost 54 billion, what's its again, oh yeah NAMA!

not to mention the scandalous waste all across Govt Depts. Decentralisation etc - no point in trying to tackle that i suppose lets just cut the dole and a straight cut in child benefit and not a targeted one so that the less well off keep theirs but the people who never should of got it in the first place take a cut. ah well lets cut that welfare coz Anglo & AIB are going to require billions in 2010 from................you've gussed it US the Taxpayer and that's a fact but of course Brian Sledgehammer Lenihan failed to mention that in his budget speech.

and he blatantly lied when he said all Govt ministers were taking a 15% cut when in fact it is only a 5% cut. yeah it's some country alright.

Bandit12

Fair play to the unions.I hope there is wide spread stoppages next month and the goverment back down on their disgraceful budget.

FlutterinBantam

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.

Work to rule works both ways, or didn't you know:cool:

FlutterinBantam

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely, time to see some sense now and stop listening to whinging and crying of well paid and well pensioned practically unsackable people who are led by people who don't seem to give jack Schidt about the countries situation as long as their members continue to be paid inflated wages and conditions, while the pvt. sector has to pay it's way of lose their jobs.

At long last we seem to have seen through these jerks.

imme

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Look, the Unions know that the public won't wear sustained ind. action.

John Q taxpayer now holds the whip hand and won't tolerate already fully sinecured, well paid and well pensioned,well conditioned workers going on strike.

Just won't happen.

Only threat I see on the Ind front is that one Noonan from the Teachers Union, tough piece of gristle that one, and obviously well sandbagged herself against any job losses and loss of income.

What raises a cynical smirk on the Flutt's beak is the thought that Bartholemew Ahearn, who more than most orchestrated this debacle,instead of sitting in the Dáil hanging his head in shame, was flogging his book down in Kerry, while the most important budget in the country's history was debated.

Union members should note this as the people on the top try to lead the country into ruin, your ruin my friends, not their's;)Don't be sucked in.

Stay loose people, see through the rhetoric if the misguided.:cool:

"tough piece of gristle", is there a need for namecalling, talking about the personality of the union leader?
I have heard Sheila Nunan (it's Nunan, not Noonan btw) a few times on TV/radio. She comes across as sincere and direct.

FlutterinBantam

We will have to disagree on the personality issue, please lets not get too po faced about my description as that's what it is, not name calling.

Thanks for the correction on the name, appreciate that.

I like to get things right.

brianthebard

gandalf wrote: »

hmmm I have a feeling the government want the unions to strike as the backlash of public opinion against the unions will give them carte blanch ability to push through wide ranging and long overdue reforms of the PS.

Reform proposals were put forward by the Union representatives before the budget and were rejected by the government.

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

Reform proposals were put forward by the Union representatives before the budget and were rejected by the government.

Brian, too many years of promising reform means nobody believes the unions it will be delivered in a real and meaningful way. We don't trust your unions and the reforms should be delivered regardless. Why must you always look for something in return for reforms (changes and streamlining in work practices are taken for granted in the private sector. If you don't cooperate with more efficient practices you'll be sacked for misconduct).

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

Brian, too many years of promising reform means nobody believes the unions it will be delivered in a real and meaningful way. We don't trust your unions and the reforms should be delivered regardless. Why must you always look for something in return for reforms (changes and streamlining in work practices are taken for granted in the private sector. If you don't cooperate with more efficient practices you'll be sacked for misconduct).

The reforms should be delivered regardless of whether the unions suggest them or not? That doesn't make sense. The government also promises many reforms and hasn't delivered, do you also apply the above logic to them? If so then what? Plans were put on the table from the unions and were ready to be implemented before the government rejected them, it is not the unoins that blocked reform here. It is not the unions but the government that is looking to renege on contractual obligations at the minute.

Why do unions look for something in return? Because their purpose is to work on behalf of their members to maintain and improve their working conditions, I don't know why I even have to say that. I think most of the people who complain about unions here are non unionised and thus subconsciously (or perhaps consciously) jealous of the protection ensured by trade unions.

Sleepy

To follow the war analogy I'd like to quote Napolean Bonaparte:

March without the people and you march into the night.

If the union leaders call a strike without further balloting of their members they'll find themselves standing alone, micturating against the prevailing movements of air.

Dannyboy83

Sleepy wrote: »

To follow the war analogy I'd like to quote Napolean Bonaparte:

I'll quote a more modern Frenchman, Sarkozy:

"The Street aren't elected to govern the country, it is the government who are elected to govern the country"

killbillvol2

Sleepy wrote: »

To follow the war analogy I'd like to quote Napolean Bonaparte:



If the union leaders call a strike without further balloting of their members they'll find themselves standing alone, micturating against the prevailing movements of air.

Nice word!

funnyname

Do the unions not have to put it to a vote for strike action? If they did surely they wouldn't get enough of a mandate for a strike as I think the majority of the PS workers although are unhappy to receive a pay cut, they understand that it was necessary.

RedPlanet

Is there any transparency for when they do ballot their members?

bobbyjoe

RedPlanet wrote: »

Is there any transparency for when they do ballot their members?

Its usually done by an outside accountancy firm.

imme

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I like to get things right.

good for you;)

imme

RedPlanet wrote: »

Is there any transparency for when they do ballot their members?

are you saying they'd rig a ballot?

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

The reforms should be delivered regardless of whether the unions suggest them or not? That doesn't make sense.

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

brianthebard wrote: »

The government also promises many reforms and hasn't delivered, do you also apply the above logic to them? If so then what?

The government can be removed by the people and most probably will be.

brianthebard wrote: »

Plans were put on the table from the unions and were ready to be implemented before the government rejected them, it is not the unoins that blocked reform here. It is not the unions but the government that is looking to renege on contractual obligations at the minute.

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

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do unions look for something in return? Because their purpose is to work on behalf of their members to maintain and improve their working conditions, I don't know why I even have to say that. I think most of the people who complain about unions here are non unionised and thus subconsciously (or perhaps consciously) jealous of the protection ensured by trade unions.

I wasn't actually adressing 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.

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.