Slashing Public Sector Pay

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

The unions have no reason to strike. The CPA is the best thing for the unions, striking only puts that in jepardy. They know that their members have nothing to gain by striking at the moment. It's got nothing to do with being pussy cats, and everything to do with common sense.

I totally agree , as long as the CPA is deemed workable by all parties then no industrial action will be taken.

I was outlining the scenario should the Government renege on the Agreement.

Whereas I wouldn't rule out targeted , rolling strikes by frontline employees sustained by a contingency fund I believe that a sector wide work to rule would be the best option for the Unions.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

I totally agree , as long as the CPA is deemed workable by all parties then no industrial action will be taken.

I was outlining the scenario should the Government renege on the Agreement.

Whereas I wouldn't rule out targeted , rolling strikes by frontline employees sustained by a contingency fund I believe that a sector wide work to rule would be the best option for the Unions.

Technically they wouldn't be reneging on the agreement. They could actually chose to abandon it now and that would still be sticking with the CPA agreement. They are choosing to continue with at their own discretion in the hope that it achieves the necessary savings without the need for industrial action.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

As someone who works in the ps, most people knew that they were going to face some cuts last time round. So it was largely tolerated.

But people now are feeling the pinch alot more and all the talk is of no way are they willing to take more cuts. There will definitely be strikes and industrial action if the CPA is broken.

What if the government chose involuntary redundancies over pay cuts, do you still think there would be industrial action?

sollar

sarumite wrote: »

Technically they wouldn't be reneging on the agreement. They could actually chose to abandon it now and that would still be sticking with the CPA agreement. They are choosing to continue with at their own discretion in the hope that it achieves the necessary savings without the need for industrial action.

I don't think this would make a difference to the end result. If pay is cut again industrial action will ensue.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

I don't think this would make a difference to the end result. If pay is cut again industrial action will ensue.

What do you mean by "difference ot the end result"?

sollar

sarumite wrote: »

What if the government chose involuntary redundancies over pay cuts, do you still think there would be industrial action?

I can't see that happening. Not before they run another vol redundancy package first. Not even a mention of that yet though.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

I can't see that happening. Not before they run another vol redundancy package first. Not even a mention of that yet though.

Hypothetically then? Would you still vote in favour of strikes?

sollar

sarumite wrote: »

What do you mean by "difference ot the end result"?

It wouldn't matter the particular reason CPA is ended, technicality or just broken. What matters is if they cut pay again. The will govern whether strikes happen or not.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

It wouldn't matter the particular reason CPA is ended, technicality or just broken. What matters is if they cut pay again. The will govern whether strikes happen or not.

At this stage the CPA can't be broken by government since the terms of it now give the government the option to walk away. The government has chosen to continue with it at its own discretion. As such the burden of the CPA is now on the PS managment and unions.

20Cent

Head The Wall wrote: »

Lazy, unwilling to reform and selfish pussy cats at that

The unions have done everything asked of them, signed up and bringing in reform, taken paycuts, changes in working conditions etc. The Gov, the electorate even the IMF/ECB agree. So don't know what more you could want.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

The unions have done everything asked of them, signed up and bringing in reform, taken paycuts, changes in working conditions etc. The Gov, the electorate even the IMF/ECB agree. So don't know what more you could want.

I have some sympathy for your position but you do not tell the full truth.

Civil Service management proposed the abolition of privilege days - they were converted into annual leave instead.

Local authority management proposed the standardisation of working hours and annual leave - hasn't happened, resisted by the unions who have passed the buck to the Implementation Body in an attempt to delay it.

So while there has been some change - education sector has changed working conditions to give a better service though without much savings - not enough has happened quickly enough and that is the real problem for the public service.

sollar

Godge wrote: »

Civil Service management proposed the abolition of privilege days - they were converted into annual leave instead.

Local authority management proposed the standardisation of working hours and annual leave - hasn't happened, resisted by the unions who have passed the buck to the Implementation Body in an attempt to delay it.

Holidays and pay are always going to be hard to get off people. But working harder and changing how they work and what they do is happening. I'm willing to change these but not give up annual leave or pay.

Head The Wall

Implementation Body Outputs

Here's a list of claimed achievements which to me sees people moved around, some locations and offices closed and reduced on call/overtime payments and longer opening hours


1 - Moving people around doesn't save on pay and pensions.

2 - The govt is probably still paying leases on offices/buildings it is not using now, I could be wrong but this is a govt that signed 25 year storage leases for not fit for purpose voting machines

3 - Savings will be made by reducing overtime and on call hours although the employees are being compensated for the said loss of earnings (More PS craziness). Longer opening hours are probably facilitated by changing shift patterns.


Now the PS may see all this as great leaps but this will have been done in a lot of private sector companies 3-4 years ago and to me looks like feck all real savings. What are the projected savings by the end of this year for the CPA bearing in mind that the pay bill is 1/3 of the govt spend so it should in theory account for 1/3 of the reduction of the deficit this year.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

Holidays and pay are always going to be hard to get off people. But working harder and changing how they work and what they do is happening. I'm willing to change these but not give up annual leave or pay.

What if instead of annual leave and pay, the government cut numbers through involuntary redundancies? Would you still vote for strike action?

Head The Wall

sollar wrote: »

Holidays and pay are always going to be hard to get off people. But working harder and changing how they work and what they do is happening. I'm willing to change these but not give up annual leave or pay.

How much do you reckon will be saved by staff "working" harder out of the 18Billion deficit?

sollar

Head The Wall wrote: »

How much do you reckon will be saved by staff "working" harder out of the 18Billion deficit?

I have no idea, but as it is thousands of staff are doing the work of retired staff and that is set to continue. So they will save the costs of up to 30,000 staff.

Head The Wall

There will be no savings from retired staff for 3 years due to paying out 1.5 years lump sum and 50% salary to those retiring on full pension, less for those not on full service.

So working harder will save bugger all and retiring staff will do nothing to reduce the deficit for 3 years. Tell me again how this CPA is working out and is supposed to be a good deal for the country

P. Breathnach

Head The Wall wrote: »

There will be no savings from retired staff for 3 years due to paying out 1.5 years lump sum and 50% salary to those retiring on full pension, less for those not on full service....

People retiring were going to get that anyway,so it's not an additional cost: it was always in the mix, and needed to be budgeted for.

What is different now is that (with a few unavoidable exceptions) people retiring are not being replaced and their work is being undertaken by existing staff.

Head The Wall

And I understand that fully but they are putting it out there like it will save billions which in reality it won't, it will save very little now when we have the biggest problems.

P. Breathnach

Head The Wall wrote: »

And I understand that fully but they are putting it out there like it will save billions which in reality it won't, it will save very little now when we have the biggest problems.

The government plans to reduce public service numbers by 18-21,000 by 2014, and another 4,000 in 2015. That's big.

n97 mini

sollar wrote: »

Holidays and pay are always going to be hard to get off people. But working harder and changing how they work and what they do is happening. I'm willing to change these but not give up annual leave or pay.

Would you be willing to match your working week to that of the private sector, i.e. 39 hours, without flexitime?

When I was in the PS I had a 34 hour week, and by just working what I had been used to in the private sector I was entitled to an extra 2 days off a month due to the flexitime system. This gave me 51 days off a year, excluding bank holidays. This compares to between 20 and 25 days in the private sector. In effect it meant that in the PS I worked 5 to 6 weeks a year less than I did in the private sector.

sarumite

n97 mini wrote: »

Would you be willing to match your working week to that of the private sector, i.e. 39 hours, without flexitime?

When I was in the PS I had a 34 hour week, and by just working what I had been used to in the private sector I was entitled to an extra 2 days off a month due to the flexitime system. This gave me 51 days off a year, excluding bank holidays. This compares to between 20 and 25 days in the private sector. In effect it meant that in the PS I worked 5 to 6 weeks a year less than I did in the private sector.

I also wonder wether they would be willing to work in excess of 39hrs a week without pay. Before I lost my job I was regularly putting in over 10 hours a week unpaid overtime.

gazzer

n97 mini wrote: »

Would you be willing to match your working week to that of the private sector, i.e. 39 hours, without flexitime?

When I was in the PS I had a 34 hour week, and by just working what I had been used to in the private sector I was entitled to an extra 2 days off a month due to the flexitime system. This gave me 51 days off a year, excluding bank holidays. This compares to between 20 and 25 days in the private sector. In effect it meant that in the PS I worked 5 to 6 weeks a year less than I did in the private sector.

Plenty of people in the civil service work over and above their contracted hours and cant take flexi days they worked up due to the staff shortages in their section.

nursextreme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People retiring were going to get that anyway,so it's not an additional cost: it was always in the mix, and needed to be budgeted for.

What is different now is that (with a few unavoidable exceptions) people retiring are not being replaced and their work is being undertaken by existing staff.

My area Psychiatric Nursing must be one of those exceptions where gaps left due to retirement are filled by the use of Agency Staff or Overtime. This gap accounts for about 25% of the total hours worked, the unavoidable part is questionable. The number of WTE posts have reduced dramatically in recent years which looks good on paper, however significant savings have not been achieved.

galwaynative

why would you want to opt out of buying a lottery ticket when you were guaranteed a lottery prize ? A golden pension, with a tax free tip equivalent to almost 2 fine brand new apartments, is arguably much better than membership of a sports + social club.

sorry, too busy at work to surf the net so only just seeing this now.
Just put my details into a PS pension calculator. I will have a max total service of 26 years & 252 days. This (at current pay scales and top of my current scale, and with moratoriums etc I see no movement in the next 10 years or so and am realistic enough to realise that by the time promotions of a permanent nature happen I will probably be considered too old!) gives me a lump sum of 35k and a pension of 4500k per year on top of the normal old age pension. As I am currently paying over 60euro a week pension contribution + pension levy I would be delighted to opt out of the pension and use the money elsewhere.

galwaynative

Would you be willing to match your working week to that of the private sector, i.e. 39 hours, without flexitime?

Personally I do at least 40 hrs anyway so would have no issue. We don't have flexitime and hours in lieu never get taken as by the time you get less busy enough to take them it seems petty taking back hours from a month ago! Trying to keep a family afloat as the sole breadwinner at the moment I am open to anything that doesn't reduce takehome (as I expect that to reduce through taxes anyway so could not take additional). The only thing that would irk me is holidays, my 25 days are precious and in a job with no bonus/health cover/company cars or other perks I would try an hold onto them! In all my working years I never had less than 24 days so would be gutted!

WalterMitty

Gov should pass a law limiting retired public servants pensions to 30k. No one retired needs more than that to live on.
I beleive the numbers in public sector could actually be increased if real pay cuts were enforced. Think about it , cut public sector pay so that the average drops to 37k rather than the 50k peak average public service pay, that is a 26% drop in gross average pay but increase numbers employed in public service by 1000,000 in areas that need more people ( non permanent,no pensionable contracts in areas like cleansing departments,labour intensive public works,teaching assistants,physiotherapists,care elederly,beach cleaning,road maintenence,after school clubs, youth clubs,psychological services,respite care etc etc) that would cut unemployment significantly and make the job of existing public servants easier as more people would be availble to do work in all areas.it reduces amount paid in welfare, increases numbers spending in economy and would have an overall stumlatory effect. More creative and productive than cutting 20,000 public servants and eventually having public sector pay cut 40% by IMF/EU. We dont actually have too many public servants per se but the ones we have are paid far too much by a)international and domestic comparison and b) by our long term ability to sustain such pay levels.

sollar

Head The Wall wrote: »

There will be no savings from retired staff for 3 years due to paying out 1.5 years lump sum and 50% salary to those retiring on full pension, less for those not on full service.

So working harder will save bugger all and retiring staff will do nothing to reduce the deficit for 3 years. Tell me again how this CPA is working out and is supposed to be a good deal for the country

You really are grappling for any old tripe to aid your anti ps stance. If the existing staff were not going to do this extra work they would have needed to hire new staff to do the work so they are still saving the costs of hiring 30,000 staff. Those retiring staff were going to get that lump sum anyway whether it was this year, next year or 20 years.

The markets are concerned about our prospects for the medium to long term not the next three years.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

You really are grappling for any old tripe to aid your anti ps stance. If the existing staff were not going to do this extra work they would have needed to hire new staff to do the work so they are still saving the costs of hiring 30,000 staff. Those retiring staff were going to get that lump sum anyway whether it was this year, next year or 20 years.

The markets are concerned about our prospects for the medium to long term not the next three years.

Does this help us reduce the deficit? If so, by how much? That is all that matters. Savings based on hypothetical hiring of staff doesn't.

ardmacha

The markets are concerned about our prospects for the medium to long term not the next three years.

This is the point.

Does this help us reduce the deficit? If so, by how much? That is all that matters. Savings based on hypothetical hiring of staff doesn't.

If you have less staff, you spend less. Surely that must be obvious to even the most anti-PS and obtuse posters here.

sollar

sarumite wrote: »

Does this help us reduce the deficit? If so, by how much? That is all that matters. Savings based on hypothetical hiring of staff doesn't.

I don't think you understand. There is nothing hypothetical about it. Under the reforms we are doing that work. That means the ps does not need to hire new staff. So they make that a saving. If we did not agree to do that work they would need to hire staff.

AdrianII

n97 mini wrote: »

Would you be willing to match your working week to that of the private sector, i.e. 39 hours, without flexitime?

When I was in the PS I had a 34 hour week, and by just working what I had been used to in the private sector I was entitled to an extra 2 days off a month due to the flexitime system. This gave me 51 days off a year, excluding bank holidays. This compares to between 20 and 25 days in the private sector. In effect it meant that in the PS I worked 5 to 6 weeks a year less than I did in the private sector.

why did you leave so?

only in ireland would people be as begrudged to there fellow people.

most PS work more than 39 hours aweek without pay. No overtime no nothing,if that means they get a day off instead whats the big deal.

sollar

n97 mini wrote: »

Would you be willing to match your working week to that of the private sector, i.e. 39 hours, without flexitime

No, i'm happy with my current conditions. BTW france has a 35-hour workweek by law, and similar working times exist in other countries such as Germany through collective bargaining.

The trend in europe is a decreasing working week.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

I don't think you understand. There is nothing hypothetical about it. Under the reforms we are doing that work. That means the ps does not need to hire new staff. So they make that a saving. If we did not agree to do that work they would need to hire staff.

I understand. These are saving had we continued down the unsustainable road of inefficiency etc. My question wasn't whether its a saving, but how much it will help reduce the deficit by?

n97 mini

AdrianII wrote:

why did you leave so?

I felt I was wasting my life and my potential working in the PS, so I put my money where my mouth was and left to pursue my dream of running my own business.

sollar wrote: »

No, i'm happy with my current conditions.

Just so we're straight, you wouldn't be willing to give up a concessionary working week with flexitime, and just work a standard 39 hour week?

These are the kind of change to work practices that are needed to secure cost reductions.

If public servants agreed to working a standard 39 hour week the extra productivity would allow head count to be significantly reduced.

n97 mini

gazzer wrote: »

Plenty of people in the civil service work over and above their contracted hours and cant take flexi days they worked up due to the staff shortages in their section.

I can't say I have any experience of this. From my own experience every hour over 34 I gave was either paid (at time and a half or double time) or given back in time in lieu.

P. Breathnach

n97 mini wrote: »

I can't say I have any experience of this. From my own experience every hour over 34 I gave was either paid (at time and a half or double time) or given back in time in lieu.

It depends on a number of things. In some positions (especially senior grades) there is no provision to pay overtime. Further, there are (or at least were, until relatively recently) many civil servants who did not take all of their holidays because of the demands of their work.

I used to refer to my holiday entitlement as permission to defer work. Nobody covered my work allocation, and I would return to find a large stack of mail and messages awaiting my attention.


I have the impression that attitudes have changed in the last couple of years, and people are less likely to sacrifice their holidays. That is in reaction to a number of things including
- the introduction of the pension levy and the pay cut,
- the performance of politicians in scapegoating the civil service for their poor decisions, and
- the general campaign of vilification of public servants conducted in the media.

n97 mini

P. Breathnach wrote: »

there are (or at least were, until relatively recently) many civil servants who did not take all of their holidays because of the demands of their work.

In my experience that would have been caught by the clock and next thing the line manager would be preaching the working time act. I did witness people being forced to take a months holidays to catch up. In the organisation I worked in these people were generally too disorganised to take holidays. I can't say anyone was too busy (except maybe one guy, I dunno what was his problem).

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I used to refer to my holiday entitlement as permission to defer work. Nobody covered my work allocation, and I would return to find a large stack of mail and messages awaiting my attention.

Welcome to the real world! If you returned to find all your work done that'd be an indication you're surplus to requirements!

sollar

AdrianII wrote: »

only in ireland would people be as begrudged to there fellow people.

Its peculiar alright... was there any significant protest organised by the ordinary irish citizen over this country being shafted by the EU/IMF/Bankers/Politicians? I don't think there was. Just like the times of british rule we turned on each other instead.

n97 mini

sollar wrote: »

. Just like the times of british rule we turned on each other instead.

Contrary to what unions are preaching, there is little to no unity between the public and private sector workers. This is because most private sector workers (me included) feel they are paying the salaries of public sector workers through their taxes. And sometimes we feel we're not getting the level of service we're paying for. You said yourself you're not willing to work a 39 hour week without flexitime.

sollar

n97 mini wrote: »

And sometimes we feel we're not getting the level of service we're paying for.

Its the same service now (if not better) and for less money than 5 years ago. I didn't see half the talk about the PS back then.

People were too busy choosing their new car, fancy kitchen, decking or sunning themselves in the canaries to be bothered by it

sarumite

deleted

P. Breathnach

n97 mini wrote: »

In my experience that would have been caught by the clock and next thing the line manager would be preaching the working time act. I did witness people being forced to take a months holidays to catch up. In the organisation I worked in these people were generally too disorganised to take holidays. I can't say anyone was too busy (except maybe one guy, I dunno what was his problem).

I don't know where you worked, but I suggest that you don't treat your experience as representative of the entire public service. Neither do I think it fair to say that people who have heavy workloads are too disorganised to take holidays. I know that I certainly had enough work to keep me busy.

Welcome to the real world! If you returned to find all your work done that'd be an indication you're surplus to requirements!

In the real world, a well-organised and well-resourced workplace would have some capacity to cover for people on holidays (not 100% cover in all cases, because some tasks are not readily transferable to other staff).