LRC to intervene in public pay dispute

douglashyde

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0124/economy.html

Basically the Labour Relations Commission is stepping in on the strikes that where planned by our beloved public sector.

This is my opinion is a step in the right direction as it will make pay cuts in the future a lot more easy.

Maybe there is hope for this country after all.

deise blue

An extremely rosy view of the LRC intervention.
It appears that the HSE ( the biggest employer within the Public Sector ) asked the LRC to intervene as the work to rule will have a huge effect on their services.
It seems to me that the Unions have managed to manoeuvre all interested parties back to some sort of negotiating forum even before the work to rule took place

brianthebard

I think the LRC would be much more likely to side with the principles of honouring a pre-agreed contract than 'shure its a recession, you can't get paid or the sky will fall!' type rhetoric.

kmick

I cant see what the LRC can do here. In mediation both sides have to give something up to reach a mutually benefical place. The government cannot give back pay cuts and in fact more are coming or so they keep saying. In an era of 5% deflation I cant see what the unions can possibly hope to achieve. The LRC recomending they get back 2% of their pay cut? I cant see that happening.

Cowen may have to go nuclear (it will never happen!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

Flex

brianthebard wrote: »

I think the LRC would be much more likely to side with the principles of honouring a pre-agreed contract than 'shure its a recession, you can't get paid or the sky will fall!' type rhetoric.

They are being paid, its just that given the current economic climate Ireland may not be able to maintain the envious position of having the highest paid public sector on earth anymore.

But yea, I feel for the poor guys. Theyre so downtrodden they can publically state theyre going to be deliberately inefficient and unproductive and obstruct any attempts at reform unless they get more money and get to dictate economic policy to the government, without fear of losing their jobs.

FlutterinBantam

brianthebard wrote: »

I think the LRC would be much more likely to side with the principles of honouring a pre-agreed contract than 'shure its a recession, you can't get paid or the sky will fall!' type rhetoric.

I'd much prefer to see redundancies in the Public and health service rather than all this waste of hot air.

Check the tax intake see what it will support and get rid of the surplus.

That's how the private sector works.

All these people want is interminable discussions and debate when the answer is obvious.

Let go what we can't afford .


Pure hogwash this posturing of Unions who can't see reality.

brianthebard

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'd much prefer to see redundancies in the Public and health service rather than all this waste of hot air.

Check the tax intake see what it will support and get rid of the surplus.

That's how the private sector works.

All these people want is interminable discussions and debate when the answer is obvious.

Let go what we can't afford .


Pure hogwash this posturing of Unions who can't see reality.

Thanks for an excellent example of the mindless rhetoric I was talking about. This sort of thing is not going to be upheld in the face of legally binding contracts which the employers in question are not honouring.
Btw, you ignored deise blue's post which points out that it was the HSE that put this situation into motion. So I assume when you said posturing Unions you meant posturing employers.

galway2007

This is a joke
They have said they want to find the reason for the disputes
I thing we all know the reason for the work to rule so what are they goign to do about it?

FlutterinBantam

brianthebard wrote: »

Thanks for an excellent example of the mindless rhetoric I was talking about. This sort of thing is not going to be upheld in the face of legally binding contracts which the employers in question are not honouring.
Btw, you ignored deise blue's post which points out that it was the HSE that put this situation into motion. So I assume when you said posturing Unions you meant posturing employers.

Thanks for the excellent example of mindless socialist rhetoric which has this country in the state it's in.

I suppose you as a business person taking in 100k per month could pay your workforce 130k per month just because there were contracts???

Prof Ed Walsh got it right on newstalk today, if i were you Brian I would take a listen to Eamon Keane today and suck in a large dose of reality.

What you want is to bankrupt the State to pay your socialist drones their nice little earner.

Thank God Brian, some of us can see through that crud.

brianthebard

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thanks for the excellent example of mindless socialist rhetoric which has this country in the state it's in.

Where was the socialism in my post? the idea of honouring contracts? Pointing out the facts of the matter which you ignored? That was probably one of my most neutral posts ever, but of course that doesn't matter if you're more interested in mudslinging.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The_Honeybadger

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agree with you but he has a point, the labour court may not see it that way. They will not be under any obligation to take the economic climate into consideration.

brianthebard

mickeyk wrote: »

Agree with you but he has a point, the labour court may not see it that way. They will not be under any obligation to take the economic climate into consideration.

Precisely. I don't know how so many people could miss this simple fact.

ixoy

brianthebard wrote: »

Precisely. I don't know how so many people could miss this simple fact.

How could there not be an inability to pay clause in these contracts? I've never known anyone in the private sector who has an "upwards only" pay element to their contract. It doesn't make sense.

brianthebard

ixoy wrote: »

How could there not be an inability to pay clause in these contracts? I've never known anyone in the private sector who has an "upwards only" pay element to their contract. It doesn't make sense.

I'm not going to claim I know the ins and outs of this, but I think if there was such a clause then it would've already been implemented long ago? Obviously public sector pay has been negotiated through the social partnership for the past few decades and that seems to be the reason for this fairly unique situation. I think we'll just have to wait til the LRC has their way with the whole thing.

changes

Its hard to see where this industrial action will end up. But sending Mary Coughlan out to threaten more cuts can only serve to harden attitudes in the public service.

I think a third cut to public servants income in 2 years could lead to uproar.

Flex

changes wrote: »

Its hard to see where this industrial action will end up. But sending Mary Coughlan out to threaten more cuts can only serve to harden attitudes in the public service.

I think a third cut to public servants income in 2 years could lead to uproar.

Id say the chances of having the paycut reversed are very very slim. Fianna Fáil have had their popularity rating jump up 2% over the last couple of months. This will most likely be attributed to the fact they "took the tough decisions" and "fought down the unions" etc. to put through the tough budget that was necessary.

I doubt theyll be willing to go back on that and would actually rather maintain and play up the hardline (lol) approach theyve taken with the PS unions.

The_Honeybadger

changes wrote: »

Its hard to see where this industrial action will end up. But sending Mary Coughlan out to threaten more cuts can only serve to harden attitudes in the public service.

I think a third cut to public servants income in 2 years could lead to uproar.

I agree, however I read somewhere recently that the paycut for lower paid PS will be wiped out within a year as they get their increments paid. Is there any truth in this does anybody know? Surely the first thing the gov should have done when we went into recession and negative inflation was to freeze these increments indefinately? Seems crazy to be cutting pay and still paying these.

On the other hand I am well able to give the PS a kicking but I must say if I had 3 paycuts within 2 years I'd be on strike too, regardless of how well paid I was to begin with. Don't know why she was stoking the fire at this stage when unions are already getting ready for war, perhaps they see the confrontation as unavoidable and perhaps dare I say it, necessary.

FlutterinBantam

On strike for what??

What kind of 56bn out and 36bn in can't you people understand.

Sleepy

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

ParkRunner

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

There is always the option to slightly raise income tax so has not to disproportionately hit one section of the workforce for the third time in two years. I know people go on about diminishing returns from tax increases but similarly less income tax and vat revenue is being taken in following the latest paycuts.

An independent third party is probably exactly what the latest industrial action needs with the collapse of partnership. At least negotiations can be had in some confidence if a binding agreement can be reached this time.

Flex

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

On strike for what??

What kind of 56bn out and 36bn in can't you people understand.

Ah nah, youve just been brainwashed by the media and all those fats cats (who are cukkin the buks, dont ya know???). Lets just keep borrowing and leave things as they are and then vote Fianna Fáil out in 2012. Problem solved.

Flex

EF wrote: »

There is always the option to slightly raise income tax so has not to disproportionately hit one section of the workforce for the third time in two years. I know people go on about diminishing returns from tax increases but similarly less income tax and vat revenue is being taken in following the latest paycuts.

But the Public Sectors pay originates from the government in the first place. Tax income from the public sector isnt really 'revenue' for the government, its just a reduction in the governments expenses.

Having said that, I dont mind paying more taxes, no objections. Of course Id rather it was spent on something worthwhile, but if it was the best course for helping the economy recovery Id be happy to pay it.

FlutterinBantam

Flex wrote: »

Ah nah, youve just been brainwashed by the media and all those fats cats (who are cukkin the buks, dont ya know???). Lets just keep borrowing and leave things as they are and then vote Fianna Fáil out in 2012. Problem solved.

heh heh Well I suppose it doesn't bother poor Brian, whose idea seems to be to that no matter what the fiscal situation, you keep a bloated and overpaid PS intact and drive the economy into the mire.

the fact that only 36bn is coming in and 56bn is going out doesn't seem to figure in his sums.

Obviously gearing up for a job in the state sector as I couldn't see that branch of 'economics' getting too far in the private sector.;)

dear oh dear!!

The_Honeybadger

Flex wrote: »

But the Public Sectors pay originates from the government in the first place. Tax income from the public sector isnt really 'revenue' for the government, its just a reduction in the governments expenses.

Having said that, I dont mind paying more taxes, no objections. Of course Id rather it was spent on something worthwhile, but if it was the best course for helping the economy recovery Id be happy to pay it.

+1 I am also happy to pay more tax as long as we see worthwhile reform in the public service (health & education in particular), better value for money elsewhere, and generally the gov showing a bit of cop on in how our tax money is spent. Looks like we will be paying a water tax and property rates shortly and I don't mind that as long as we get decent services in return.

The_Honeybadger

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

Agree 100% increments do not give employees an incentive to be efficient or hardworking, they serve no purpose whatsoever IMO. Any rise should be based on performance on the job.

changes

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

They would need to harmonise pay at each grade before they could end increments or else you could have people doing the exact same job on different incomes indefinitely.

e.g. a 28yr old nurse on 32K and a 38yr old nurse on 40K, if you suddenly ended increments both nurses would carry on till retirement with one earning 8K more than the other.

galway2007

kmick wrote: »

I cant see what the LRC can do here. In mediation both sides have to give something up to reach a mutually benefical place. The government cannot give back pay cuts and in fact more are coming or so they keep saying. In an era of 5% deflation I cant see what the unions can possibly hope to achieve. The LRC recomending they get back 2% of their pay cut? I cant see that happening.

Cowen may have to go nuclear (it will never happen!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

the chairman of the LRC has said that he would be looking to the future and would like to see an agreement that public sector pay would be restored maybe in 2012 if agreement can be reached on reform.
That would infact be a 3 to 4 year pay freeze and reform at no extra cost

theghost

Flex wrote: »

They are being paid, its just that given the current economic climate Ireland may not be able to maintain the envious position of having the highest paid public sector on earth anymore.

But yea, I feel for the poor guys. Theyre so downtrodden they can publically state theyre going to be deliberately inefficient and unproductive and obstruct any attempts at reform unless they get more money and get to dictate economic policy to the government, without fear of losing their jobs.

How are they being inefficient? They are working to rule - in other words, they are doing what they paid to do and what their contracts state that they should do, nothing more and nothing less. If working to rule leads to inefficiency that is the fault of the employers who issued the contracts, not the fault of the employees who signed them.

FlutterinBantam

Totally untrue.

If you think that an employer can cover every conceivable work situation with a contract, well you are not in the real world my friend.

Nobody could get anything done using that kind of warped philosophy.

ixoy

changes wrote: »

They would need to harmonise pay at each grade before they could end increments or else you could have people doing the exact same job on different incomes indefinitely

Yeah but that happens in many places. There's also the assumption that your skill is commensurate with your team served - not at all often the case from my experience. This has a lot to do with how poorly it's judged.

Besides which it would be a temporary freeze and not a permanent one. It's very difficult to work out how much would be saved, but it would - if nothing else - stop those scenarios where some people overcome the pay cut in a year (new entrants at the bottom of their scale) whereas others will not for a good bit longer (those with 6+ years I believe).