Quick Question re: Croke Park Agreement

mel.b

I work for the HSE and am not part of any union. I was overseas when the Croke Park Agreement was made so wasn't paying too much attention to it.

Today at work I got an email that said that people who are not part of the union (IMPACT) are not covered by the agreement - can someone tell me if this is true or not? If it is (which I didn't know), what are the possible implications of this - for example, could further pay cuts be imposed on people who are not in the union but not for members of IMPACT?

**I don't want to turn this into a debate about the agreement, goverment etc, just want to know if it is true and possible impact **

Thanks,
Mel.b

nursextreme

Cant see that being Valid, did the email specifically say that the Croke Park Agreement was only for IMPACT members or all union members?

mel.b

It was an informal email (ie. not one from IMPACT, but from a representative for my profession) and says IMPACT are appealling for all to join...non-members are not covered by the CPA and thus are not protected from redundancy.

Vizzy

I certainly wouldn't think that it would be feasible to impose paycuts on non union employees of the Public Sector and not on others.
However the CPA covers much more than just pay ( e.g relocation to another hospital etc)and the union would not be stepping in to "fight the corner" for non union members.

Of course Impact will probably just allow everyone to join up if they wish and thus swell their coffers at the same time.

Sarn

Looking at the Public Service Agreement 2010 - 2014, the text refers to 'the Parties to this Agreement'. Which I take to mean the Unions, but it could be interpreted as public servants as a whole (no definition is provided). However, all public servants are subject to the reforms that the Agreement sets out, whether they are in a union or not, so it would be difficult to separate them out when they are also contributing to improvements.

nursextreme

mel.b wrote: »

It was an informal email (ie. not one from IMPACT, but from a representative for my profession) and says IMPACT are appealling for all to join...non-members are not covered by the CPA and thus are not protected from redundancy.

Are they suggesting that all union member would be treated equally? Wonder then if they will reimburse you the 10% pay cut applied to new entrants to the Public Service as well as their "Protection"

RichardAnd

OP, I would advise you to join the union. If cuts ever do happen in the public service, you'd probably be safer in a union than outside it.

headmaster

I can assure you that this is NOT TRUE. You work for the HSE, you are bound by whatever is decided by goverment, your employers.

nursextreme

RichardAnd wrote: »

OP, I would advise you to join the union. If cuts ever do happen in the public service, you'd probably be safer in a union than outside it.

Safer to be in a union, but no guarantee that if the cuts come that it wont be last in first out. Your union is not going to look out for you in this instance.

Delancey

Sounds like little more than a scare tactic to get you to hand over your money to IMPACT.
Union membership fees are a total waste of money - don't fall for this.

thebman

It isn't officially from the union but I imagine it is someone in the union trying to bump up union member numbers as people are feeling the pinch, some have probably dropped out of the union due to the cost and they want to attract new members to replace the missing members payments.

femur61

mel.b wrote: »

I work for the HSE and am not part of any union. I was overseas when the Croke Park Agreement was made so wasn't paying too much attention to it.

Today at work I got an email that said that people who are not part of the union (IMPACT) are not covered by the agreement - can someone tell me if this is true or not? If it is (which I didn't know), what are the possible implications of this - for example, could further pay cuts be imposed on people who are not in the union but not for members of IMPACT?

**I don't want to turn this into a debate about the agreement, goverment etc, just want to know if it is true and possible impact **

Thanks,
Mel.b

Not a PS fan at all and certainly a supporter of the CPA but with the falling members of TU mainly because people can't afford it, would this be scare momgering to get money to pay for the unions reps wages and their junkets. My husaband is from a huge family with most working in the PS and most have them have forefeited their union dues, mainly because they can't afford them. Also, they won't support the likes of Begg, O'Connors inflated wages.

headmaster

Will the person starting this post just listen to the answer to their question. You are working for the HSE. You being in a union, or not in a union. has nothing whatsoever to do with your employment. You have EXACTLY the same rights as every single one of your workmates and will be treated in exactly the same way. Joining the union is not nescessary, it's just a choice for you to make. If the workers get something, they get it, not being in the union makes no difference, you will also get it. Ok?

Vizzy

So there is no point in being in a union or indeed in unions existing,as everyone(in the HSE in this case) will all get the same benefits and protections.?
Or is your point that the OP shouldn't bother to join the union as there are already enough mugggs paying union fees and they can carry the cost ?

thebman

Vizzy wrote: »

So there is no point in being in a union or indeed in unions existing,as everyone(in the HSE in this case) will all get the same benefits and protections.?
Or is your point that the OP shouldn't bother to join the union as there are already enough mugggs paying union fees and they can carry the cost ?

Why does it matter which it is? The point is, the OP does not need to join the union to be protected by the CPA and the email that was sent is most likely nonsense.

One could just as easily ask, do you support the sending of nonsense emails to try to con people into paying union fees because there aren't enough muggs paying union fees to carry the cost?

Godge

In terms of pay cuts and redundancy, it makes no difference whether you are a member of the union or not. Being a member of a union will not protect you from pay cuts, not being a member will not either.

The usefulness of union membership in your situation depends on whether you see yourself needing individual attention from the union. Are you likely to be the subject of disciplinary action? Are you the most junior employee and likely to be last-in first-out for any redeployment? Have you any ill-health, parental leave, carer's leave issues that you might need your union rep to raise with HR? If you answer yes to any of those questions, being in a union might be helpful, it also might make no difference.

not yet

headmaster wrote: »

Will the person starting this post just listen to the answer to their question. You are working for the HSE. You being in a union, or not in a union. has nothing whatsoever to do with your employment. You have EXACTLY the same rights as every single one of your workmates and will be treated in exactly the same way. Joining the union is not nescessary, it's just a choice for you to make. If the workers get something, they get it, not being in the union makes no difference, you will also get it. Ok?

Easy there tiger............

I'm sure the OP gets it no need to come across like a dick.

n97 mini

Union membership or not will not affect you and the CPA.

There is a bit of scaremongering going on to get more members. To me this appears to be a money-making exercise on behalf of the unions.

therecklessone

A union (IMAPCT in this case) has negotiating rights for your grade. They are entitled to agree provisions that will apply to your grade whether you are a member or not. However, non-membership of a union does not strip you of your legal rights under various forms of employment legislation.

If the union had rejected the CPA you would also also be bound by the implications of that, regardless of membership or not.

muddled1

I too work in the HSE and I left IMPACT a few years ago, as I found them unhelpful and being a member pointless; and there is no union rep where I work.

Last week notices went up around the building that there was a meeting of IMPACT coming up with a reminder to non-union staff that they (we) are not covered under the Croke Park Agreement (in relation to distance of redeployment, etc.) I think this was pure scare mongering, meant to get people to join the union, as I'm guessing only around half of the people employed in my location are union members. When it comes down to redeployment, etc. if there are no volunteers, I think it is unlikely the HSE can start asking people whether or not not they are a member of the union before they apply the last in, first out method. Reading the agreement, as another post pointed out it mentions the parties to the agreement.

Other than writing to a TD, any suggestions on how to get full clarification about this?

jimmycrackcorm

A lot of fixed contract and temporary workers in the hse have been let to over the last few years; being a union member has not made any difference.

You cannot be discriminated against for not being a union member and it may end up being an advantage should anything happen.

The_Thing

Delancey wrote: »

Union membership fees are a total waste of money - don't fall for this.

If thats the case why do we hear of the unions holding the Government to ransom?

As far as I'm concerned the few euro I pay to SIPTU each week has been well worth it over the last few years.

woodoo

If there were no unions in the PS then the government would have butchered the public service over the last few years. To pay for the sins of the developers, the bankers and their own incompetence for inflating the boom and collecting the wrong taxes.

RichieO

It is possible the unions can negotiate a better deal for members threatened with redundancies than any individual could but beyond that, I do not recall a single instance of the unions preventing or deterring any job losses in any aspect of the public or private sectors in the long term...

woodoo

RichieO wrote: »

It is possible the unions can negotiate a better deal for members threatened with redundancies than any individual could but beyond that, I do not recall a single instance of the unions preventing or deterring any job losses in any aspect of the public or private sectors in the long term...

Do you not think that if there were no unions the government would be sacking people now.

Jaysoose

woodoo wrote: »

If there were no unions in the PS then the government would have butchered the public service over the last few years. To pay for the sins of the developers, the bankers and their own incompetence for inflating the boom and collecting the wrong taxes.

And by this you mean the public service itself wouldnt have been bloated to the size it is now and the payscales would be at a realistic level.

femur61

woodoo wrote: »

If there were no unions in the PS then the government would have butchered the public service over the last few years. To pay for the sins of the developers, the bankers and their own incompetence for inflating the boom and collecting the wrong taxes.

Why don't people in the PS work abroad for awhile and you'll know what exactly work is. I've worked in the private abroad and here and believe me even the private sector only work a fraction of what is expexted in the UK. Worked in London for a 6 years years. My hours were 9-5 on rare occasions left before 6 in the evening. One of the reasons I returned home was I wanted to have a family and not be shackeled to my job with no life.

bobbysands81

Delancey wrote: »

Sounds like little more than a scare tactic to get you to hand over your money to IMPACT.
Union membership fees are a total waste of money - don't fall for this.

mel.b,

I would actually agree with the first sentence above but not the second one... which makes the poster sound like an IBEC poster child.

In the example you give the chances of the HSE singling you out for special treatment as a result of not being in a Union are very very slim. However, it can happen. Currently you have the same rights as every other worker, no more or no less (whether you are in a Union or not). However, as a Union has hundreds/thousands of people standing together on issues then it's harder for the HSE/Govt to railroad or bully them into doing something that is not good for the public service or for the general public.

bobbysands81

femur61 wrote: »

Why don't people in the PS work abroad for awhile and you'll know what exactly work is.

femur61 wrote: »

My hours were 9-5 on rare occasions left before 6 in the evening.

Why the hell would you want people to be taken advantage of and made a fool of the way you were?

A huge % of senior ranking public servants put in obscene hours for a fraction of the pay that they'd receive in the private sector.

Jaysoose

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why the hell would you want people to be taken advantage of and made a fool of the way you were?

A huge % of senior ranking public servants put in obscene hours for a fraction of the pay that they'd receive in the private sector.

You might see it as being taken advantage of while most other people would see it as an employee wanting to do a good job and going above and beyond the bare minimum. Obviously this is an alien concept to you.

Have you any figures to back the statement in bold up?

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

If there were no unions in the PS then the government would have butchered the public service over the last few years. To pay for the sins of the developers, the bankers and their own incompetence for inflating the boom and collecting the wrong taxes.

I will tackle you on this our debt is twice what the bankers did because of the difference between what we pay out and take in..The last figures were that we are 149 billion in the hole...about 50 billion because of the bankers but the other 99 billion yes 99 billion because of the ridiculous amount of money our gov deem prudent to spend on ps wage pensions and the social welfare...and last figure I seen is that we are paying an effective rate of 59% in tax when USC, VAT and other stealth taxes are imposed...The PS should have been butchered to what this small country with a decreasing pool of tax payers can afford.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

I will tackle you on this our debt is twice what the bankers did because of the difference between what we pay out and take in..The last figures were that we are 149 billion in the hole...about 50 billion because of the bankers but the other 99 billion yes 99 billion because of the ridiculous amount of money our gov deem prudent to spend on ps wage pensions and the social welfare...and last figure I seen is that we are paying an effective rate of 59% in tax when USC, VAT and other stealth taxes are imposed...The PS should have been butchered to what this small country with a decreasing pool of tax payers can afford.

where did you pull those figures from.................

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

where did you pull those figures from.................

Messrs Guardiev on Vinny B had the stats

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Messrs Guardiev on Vinny B had the stats

any concrete link to the figures?

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

any concrete link to the figures?

Well this thread would suggest the ratio I am talking about

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=151295

Kinda dispells the big myth that the banks were the people who took us over the Precipice when infact they were just the final straw on the camels back...Benchmarking 1 and 2 have a lot to answer for as have annual increments going on in PS not to mention how much social welfare has gone up by..These figures justify my constant that ps pay/perks and pensions need to be cut and cut hard as does social welfare

RichieO

woodoo wrote: »

Do you not think that if there were no unions the government would be sacking people now.

What I am saying is, the unions are powerless to prevent redundancy, the powers that be, always get their way in the end, union or not...

fliball123

RichieO wrote: »

What I am saying is, the unions are powerless to prevent redundancy, the powers that be, always get their way in the end, union or not...

But they threaten strikes Richie, scare mongering the gov that they will bring the country to a stand still if cuts are made to either numbers or wages in the PS...look at my previous post for the cost of our bailout and where this deficit has come from..these union Cnuts have a lot to answer for

[MOD]Oh, look - an anagram! I wonder what it can possibly say?[/MOD]

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

these union Cnuts have a lot to answer for

They answer to those who pay their union subs.

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

They answer to those who pay their union subs.

And those who pay their subs..who pays their wages why are they not answering to the tax payers??? We can no longer afford the wages that the ps are on its just that simple

deise blue

fliball123 wrote: »

And those who pay their subs..who pays their wages why are they not answering to the tax payers??? We can no longer afford the wages that the ps are on its just that simple

It's not that simple - the Government are hell bent on ensuring industrial stability & as such are determined to find savings via the Croke Park Agreement.

As you astutely point out the Unions representing Public Sector employees can , if mandated to do so by their members , bring the country to a standstill - the probability is that an all out strike would not be required as a " work to rule " scenario would provide the same result albeit over a longer period or indeed a scenario that would enable frontline employees to strike on a rolling basis without an appreciable loss of pay - the loss in pay being subvented by a strike fund funded by all PS employees & the Unions themselves.

As such the Government will , I believe , adhere to the Croke Park Agreement - indeed all the noises made by the Government to date would tend to support this belief.

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

And those who pay their subs..who pays their wages why are they not answering to the tax payers??? We can no longer afford the wages that the ps are on its just that simple

Public Servants don't answer to the taxpayer.

deise blue

woodoo wrote: »

Public Servants don't answer to the taxpayer.

It should also be borne in mind that the majority of union members are employed in the private sector.

n97 mini

deise blue wrote: »

It should also be borne in mind that the majority of union members are employed in the private sector.

Source?

It's my understanding that unionisation in the private sector is largely a thing of the past, whereas the majority of the 380,000 in the public sector are unionised.

mikemac

About 600,000 union members in Ireland and your figure of 380,000 union members in the public service is roughly correct

I think where the mixup comes from is the largest and most well known union SIPTU and Jack O'Connor has most of its members in the private sector

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

Source?

It's my understanding that unionisation in the private sector is largely a thing of the past, whereas the majority of the 380,000 in the public sector are unionised.

303,000 according to April 2011 reports, dont know how many of those are actual union members, although i know 1 for sure that isisnt

source

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

Public Servants don't answer to the taxpayer.

They dont answer to anyone thats the problem

ardmacha

I've answered you many's the time, but you just don't listen. :rolleyes:

fliball123

deise blue wrote: »

It's not that simple - the Government are hell bent on ensuring industrial stability & as such are determined to find savings via the Croke Park Agreement.

As you astutely point out the Unions representing Public Sector employees can , if mandated to do so by their members , bring the country to a standstill - the probability is that an all out strike would not be required as a " work to rule " scenario would provide the same result albeit over a longer period or indeed a scenario that would enable frontline employees to strike on a rolling basis without an appreciable loss of pay - the loss in pay being subvented by a strike fund funded by all PS employees & the Unions themselves.

As such the Government will , I believe , adhere to the Croke Park Agreement - indeed all the noises made by the Government to date would tend to support this belief.

I wouldnt take anything this gov says as a given ..they also said that social welfare and income tax will not be touched...how are they going to find the 3.5 odd billion needed to bring this deficit down to the rate agreed with the IMF

deise blue

kceire wrote: »

303,000 according to April 2011 reports, dont know how many of those are actual union members, although i know 1 for sure that isisnt

source

Figures on the levels of Trade Union membership and the further breakdown between sectoral membership are difficult to come by.

Best guesstimates put union membership at approx. 600,000 in the Republic with perhaps 280,000 members coming from the public sector and the balance from the private sector.

The latest CSO report puts Union density at 34% , this gives credence to the 600,000 membership figure referred to above.

Union density is increasing in recent years but this is unfortunately related to the dreadful unemployment figures , the Unions are hopeful that the promised legislation on mandatory trade union recognition will further increase the density percentage.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

I wouldnt take anything this gov says as a given ..they also said that social welfare and income tax will not be touched...how are they going to find the 3.5 odd billion needed to bring this deficit down to the rate agreed with the IMF

They found it, it was down the back of the Dail Pub's Sofa, where have you been the last few days?

deise blue

fliball123 wrote: »

I wouldnt take anything this gov says as a given ..they also said that social welfare and income tax will not be touched...how are they going to find the 3.5 odd billion needed to bring this deficit down to the rate agreed with the IMF

According to Michael Noonan the 3.5 billion will be mostly financed by a combination of spending cuts & taxes.

Enda's promised State of the Nation speech will be eagerly awaited.