Public Sector Unions

gracehopper

Why do we even have public sector unions?

They might have been required in order to protect people in the time of Connolly or Larkin but they are not much use to anyone now. you work for the government, then the government ARE your union. you get paid what the government say and if you don't like it, go work in the private sector.
I don't mean to sound like Maggie thatcher here but i'm trying to understand why we are paying increments when the government is attempting to cut services for people with disabilities. Take the Croke park agreement, rip it up and deal with the consequences. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT, STAND UP AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS.

i feel so let down by the current spineless shower in Leinster house and part of me wishes the troika would just come in and sack half of the civil service. A big red pen through all the budgets. you can have 2/3's of your wages or off you go.

by the way, a parent and a sibling of mine work in the civil service, i'm not attacking the individuals, just the system.

Mr Benevolent

This thread looks promising. Perhaps the intervals can be sponsored by Trent?

DaveNoCheese

Cool story brah!

donalg1

Really another one, isnt there a bizillion of these already.

Feeona

Having worked in both the private and public sectors, I'll give you my opinion on why public sector unions exist. In my opinion they exist because if you're dealing with a faceless bureaucracy such as a government, you've no go to person if you find your rights have been infringed. When I worked in a bank, I always had the opportunity to go to my manager (who was on the same floor as me) to discuss any issues I had with any decisions he had made that affected me.

Try doing that in a bureaucracy and you'll be passed from Billy to Jack, as anyone (private or public) who has ever had any dealings with the government can ascertain.

EDIT : A friend of mine works for a private sector company, and they have a union so it's not only public sector which has unions.

joolsveer

If trades unions are abolished we would go back to a time when bosses decided everything about the pay and conditions of the worker - payment in tokens etc. It would be an invitation to unscrupulous employers to really expoit their employees.

OnlyWayIsUp

gracehopper wrote: »

Why do we even have public sector unions?

They might have been required in order to protect people in the time of Connolly or Larkin but they are not much use to anyone now. you work for the government, then the government ARE your union. you get paid what the government say and if you don't like it, go work in the private sector.
I don't mean to sound like Maggie thatcher here but i'm trying to understand why we are paying increments when the government is attempting to cut services for people with disabilities. Take the Croke park agreement, rip it up and deal with the consequences. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT, STAND UP AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS.

i feel so let down by the current spineless shower in Leinster house and part of me wishes the troika would just come in and sack half of the civil service. A big red pen through all the budgets. you can have 2/3's of your wages or off you go.

by the way, a parent and a sibling of mine work in the civil service, i'm not attacking the individuals, just the system.

Clearly a rant by someone who has no notion of what they're talking about.

ejmaztec

The main union dealing with the private sector is "The Chocolate Fireguard Union"

Mr Benevolent

joolsveer wrote: »

If trades unions are abolished we would go back to a time when bosses decided everything about the pay and conditions of the worker - payment in tokens etc. It would be an invitation to unscrupulous employers to really expoit their employees.

But we'd be able to fire unproductive PS workers. Win.

speedboatchase

I'm sure they originally had noble goals in the face of the legislature of the time but they have since outlived their usefulness to anyone not working in the public sector, that's for sure.

Their objective is to maintain the status quo at any cost and as such, they obviously put their members ahead of the country's interest - that's their job. And they're far more prevelant in the public than private sector because people are trying really, really hard to maintain that status quo.

I've said it numerous times here but I'd do what Reagan did and enact a law saying that it's illegal for the public sector to strike. Never going to happen but a nice thought for me when I'm daydreaming.

Chips Lovell

speedboatchase wrote: »

...but they have since outlived their usefulness to anyone not working in the public sector, that's for sure.

Huh? There's plenty of unionised workplaces in the private sector.

donalg1

Confab wrote: »

But we'd be able to fire unproductive PS workers. Win.

They can be fired anyway, any PS worker can be fired they are permanent but can still be fired, if the situation arises, the Unions are there to make sure it is done correctly as in relevant warnings etc

granturismo

gracehopper wrote: »

Why do we even have public sector unions?

Because we dont live in Syria, the USSR, China, 1970s Chile, El Salvador, Argentina etc where union membership wasnt available or maybe you were taken for a trip in a helicopter and dropped in the ocean

Red_Wake

joolsveer wrote: »

If trades unions are abolished we would go back to a time when bosses decided everything about the pay and conditions of the worker - payment in tokens etc. It would be an invitation to unscrupulous employers to really expoit their employees.

I'm not a member of a trade union. Nobody at my workplace is AFAIK.

I'd say Unions became obsolete when employment rights were brought in by the government.

preddy

Sounds like another:

"Oh NO I chose the private sector job with great xmas bonuses, better wages and the actual chance of a promotion and times arnt so good anymore

Now I want that job like those guys that's secure."

Unions simply there to represent the thousands of workers in an organised fashion, biggest employer in the country u know this "government"

Chips Lovell

Red_Wake wrote: »

I'm not a member of a trade union. Nobody at my workplace is AFAIK.

I'd say Unions became obsolete when employment rights were brought in by the government.

Just because employment rights exist doesn't mean employers automatically heed them. A union is useful for representing you in these circumstances.

donalg1

Unions are there to protect the rights of workers its as simple as that.

For instance say you sign a contract outlining your duties which involve working on a computer all day, and then one morning you turn up for work and the boss says "here you, get in there and clean them toilets or get out and wash my car for me". Obviously you arent going to do this as its not part of your job description to wash your bosses car, so you tell the boss no its not happening and you get fired. The union is there to make sure sh1t like that doesnt happen.

gracehopper

preddy wrote: »

Sounds like another:

"Oh NO I chose the private sector job with great xmas bonuses, better wages and the actual chance of a promotion and times arnt so good anymore

Now I want that job like those guys that's secure."

Unions simply there to represent the thousands of workers in an organised fashion, biggest employer in the country u know this "government"

Nah, my job is fine, i work fairly hard, am on decent wages still get the odd bonus if i'm lucky. I reckon there is more opportunity in the private sector. there is more flexibility too as an employee and as an employer.

As a manager and fledgling business owner, if i asked a junior engineer to go and clean mugs or tidy up after a meeting. i'd expect them to do it. Him/her saying its not part of my job description would be unheard of where i work anyway. Attitude is everything, you have the wrong attitude, you get turfed out fairly quickly.

i'm not sure how the deficit gets fixed without addressing the current overspending. Obviously the banks and global downturn are the main problems. We now need some adjustment and the unions have far too much power to the point where there is complete inertia and resistance to any kind change, even changes to process. i do think trying to minimise the spending now may help reduce the inevitable job losses when the Croke park agreement runs out.

then again, i could be wrong, we could start building a load of gaffs again or find oil out in the Atlantic and sure it'll be grand

donalg1

gracehopper wrote: »

Nah, my job is fine, i work fairly hard, am on decent wages still get the odd bonus if i'm lucky. I reckon there is more opportunity in the private sector. there is more flexibility too as an employee and as an employer.

As a manager and fledgling business owner, if i asked a junior engineer to go and clean mugs or tidy up after a meeting. i'd expect them to do it. Him/her saying its not part of my job description would be unheard of where i work anyway. Attitude is everything, you have the wrong attitude, you get turfed out fairly quickly.

i'm not sure how the deficit gets fixed without addressing the current overspending. Obviously the banks and global downturn are the main problems. We now need some adjustment and the unions have far too much power to the point where there is complete inertia and resistance to any kind change, even changes to process. i do think trying to minimise the spending now may help reduce the inevitable job losses when the Croke park agreement runs out.

then again, i could be wrong, we could start building a load of gaffs again or find oil out in the Atlantic and sure it'll be grand

If you were my boss and told me to do that and then expected me to do it, I would be pretty quick about looking elsewhere for a job. Fine if you asked me to do you a favour and clean up after a meeting that I was in then maybe I would do this, but if you came to me at my desk and said get in there and clean up after this, I think I probably would have to say no chance.

Definitely wouldnt be cleaning other peoples mugs either, if they were friends and I decided to do this as a favour then fair enough but wouldnt do it because i was told to anyway. Unless of course it was in my job description in the contract I signed, then I would have no argument.

Chips Lovell

gracehopper wrote: »

We now need some adjustment and the unions have far too much power to the point where there is complete inertia and resistance to any kind change, even changes to process.

Saying unions have far too much power is analogous to saying workers have far to much power. Your rights as a union member are no different than if you chose to negotiate with your employer as an individual.

Gurgle

gracehopper wrote: »

if i asked a junior engineer to go and clean mugs or tidy up after a meeting. i'd expect them to do it.

A junior engineer would generally just go and do it. Its the unskilled factory operative who would get all uppity about job descriptions.

Every employment contract should have 'or whatever the boss tells ya so long as it's not dangerous or illegal' tagged onto the end of the job description.

I think we do need unions, public and private. But for any hope of a stable economy they need to have strict limits on their involvement.

They should ensure a fair deal for their members, and ensure the deal is stuck to.

But what they actually do is somewhat different. Hold companies to ransom, demand ridiculous pay for unskilled labour, protect the jobs of lazy useless employees, force extra hiring to cover partial jobs, exclude non union members from employment.

gracehopper

donalg1 wrote: »

if you came to me at my desk and said get in there and clean up after this

i'd never speak to anyone like that, employee or not. what i'm trying to get across is in our place we need to do all manner of things to maintain the place and keep the company going. to be honest, its usually me who cleans up after a meeting not any of the lads.

Dockington

gracehopper wrote: »

As a manager and fledgling business owner, if i asked a junior engineer to go and clean mugs or tidy up after a meeting. i'd expect them to do it. Him/her saying its not part of my job description would be unheard of where i work anyway. Attitude is everything, you have the wrong attitude, you get turfed out fairly quickly.

[/U]

I foresee you having dealings with the labour relations court in the future.

Wanderer2010

gracehopper wrote: »

Nah, my job is fine, i work fairly hard, am on decent wages still get the odd bonus if i'm lucky. I reckon there is more opportunity in the private sector. there is more flexibility too as an employee and as an employer.

As a manager and fledgling business owner, if i asked a junior engineer to go and clean mugs or tidy up after a meeting. i'd expect them to do it. Him/her saying its not part of my job description would be unheard of where i work anyway. Attitude is everything, you have the wrong attitude, you get turfed out fairly quickly.

Wow, you sound a nice guy, asking junior staff to clean up rubbish, would you ask any other staff to do that? Your attitude sounds really bad, picking on younger staff members. Cowardly. Plus I sense from your post that you think private sector jobs are better without unions. Im in the private sector and the union is a huge help and have helped us with better conditions, pay rise, disputes etc. Not all workplaces are like yours. If you spoke to anyone here like that you would be reeling.

tomtherobot

OP I agree with you're sentiment but i see nothing wrong with having public sector unions per se. The problem is our spineless government not tackling them. I'm pretty sure everyone outside the public sector can see that the Croke park agreement needs to be scrapped. Fianna fail signed up for it to try and retain the little support they could, knowing full well they were on their way out of government.

Talking about scrapping public sector unions is just playing in to the hands of the public sector as there is a broad support for the concepts of unionization. Talk about scrapping Croke park and make it specific and you'll get a lot more support.

gracehopper

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Saying unions have far too much power is analogous to saying workers have far to much power. Your rights as a union member are no different than if you chose to negotiate with your employer as an individual.

Workers should have power to protect themselves against employers attempts to breach employment laws or act unlawfully. They shouldn't have power that can stop their employer from running the business in a financially sound way. If you have to balance the books you have to balance the books. Private or Public sector, this doesn't matter.

Chips Lovell

gracehopper wrote: »

They shouldn't have power that can stop their employer from running the business in a financially sound way.

What power is that?

monkeypants

gracehopper wrote: »

sack half of the civil service.

gracehopper wrote: »

you can have 2/3's of your wages or off you go.

gracehopper wrote: »

a parent and a sibling of mine work in the civil service

Nice. So you'll be starting with them then?

gracehopper

Dockington wrote: »

I foresee you having dealings with the labour relations court in the future.

maybe so its likely i suppose if I'm in a hiring type position or running a business. I hope i don't though.

I gave our guys rises at the last review, they were less than 10 but more than 5%. not really much but we made some money last year. Everyone works hard and gets paid a decent wage. if we don't work hard we wouldnt have a company.

monkeypants

gracehopper wrote: »

running the business in a financially sound way.

You mean like paying junior engineers to do the cleaning?

gracehopper

tomtherobot wrote: »

OP I agree with you're sentiment but i see nothing wrong with having public sector unions per se. The problem is our spineless government not tackling them. I'm pretty sure everyone outside the public sector can see that the Croke park agreement needs to be scrapped. Fianna fail signed up for it to try and retain the little support they could, knowing full well they were on their way out of government.

Talking about scrapping public sector unions is just playing in to the hands of the public sector as there is a broad support for the concepts of unionization. Talk about scrapping Croke park and make it specific and you'll get a lot more support.

I take your point. Maybe your right, get rid of the Croke Park agreement and tackle the unions head on. There'll be disputes either way i suppose.

Chips Lovell

gracehopper wrote: »

I take your point. Maybe your right, get rid of the Croke Park agreement and tackle the unions head on. There'll be disputes either way i suppose.

What would you do?

jmayo

gracehopper wrote: »

Why do we even have public sector unions?

Just read the posts below.
We would return to a time where public sector workers would be in serfdom and they would have no protection.
The government would of course dismiss all the employment laws and all the EU discrimination laws much like all those private sector companies that have no unions manage to do.
(please switch on sarcasm detector)

gracehopper wrote: »

They might have been required in order to protect people in the time of Connolly or Larkin but they are not much use to anyone now. you work for the government, then the government ARE your union. you get paid what the government say and if you don't like it, go work in the private sector.
I don't mean to sound like Maggie thatcher here but i'm trying to understand why we are paying increments when the government is attempting to cut services for people with disabilities.

BTW public sector workers have to get their increments because they are entitled to them.
The customers of the public sector are entitled to cuts so that the aforementioned public sector workers do not suffer the loss of their entitlements.

That is particularly the way it works with education and health where over 70% of the budgets go on staff.

gracehopper wrote: »

Take the Croke park agreement, rip it up and deal with the consequences. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT, STAND UP AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS.

i feel so let down by the current spineless shower in Leinster house and part of me wishes the troika would just come in and sack half of the civil service. A big red pen through all the budgets. you can have 2/3's of your wages or off you go.

by the way, a parent and a sibling of mine work in the civil service, i'm not attacking the individuals, just the system.

The problem with expecting the government to do anything is that it is made up of politicans who are for the most part going to be seeking reelection and the public sector unions are very powerful.
For a start anyone that was to threaten the public sector would probably lose two votes in your family plus possibly their spouses etc.

Also some politicans are embedded in the unions.
Oh and they themselves are public servants who should also suffer massive cuts. :mad:

BTW could anyone tell the public health sector admin staff, nurses, doctors, consultants, etc who complain about cuts affecting bed numbers, cuts to patient care budgets, etc to STFU unless they agree to paycuts.

Likewise with teachers, lecturers complaining about class sizes, decrepit school buildings or cuts to temporary support staff.

The reason there are these cuts is that their salaries are not been touched.

Feeona

jmayo wrote: »

The reason there are these cuts is that their salaries are not been touched.

Salaries have been cut, along with jobs unless I'm seriously imagining things!

jmayo

Feeona wrote: »

Salaries have been cut, along with jobs unless I'm seriously imagining things!

Would these cuts be actually the increased taxes like social charge, etc which BTW everyone, public and private, is subject to and the fact that public sector workers were asked to contribute towards pensions ?

Or has someone gone into a public sector place of employment and told the workers they are getting a straight 5% to 10% pay cut or told them they are going on a three day week ?
Because that is what is meant by a paycut in the real world.

Oh and would these job cuts actually be the non renewal of contract and temporary staff and non replacement of staff who leave, in particular ones that leave clutching a huge tax free lump sum and nice pension ?

Feeona

jmayo wrote: »

Would these cuts be actually the increased taxes like social charge, etc which BTW everyone, public and private, is subject to and the fact that public sector workers were asked to contribute towards pensions ?

Or has someone gone into a public sector place of employment and told the workers they are getting a straight 5% to 10% pay cut or told them they are going on a three day week ?
Because that is what is meant by a paycut in the real world.

Oh and would these job cuts actually be the non renewal of contract and temporary staff and non replacement of staff who leave, in particular ones that leave clutching a huge tax free lump sum and nice pension ?

I know for a fact new teachers wages have been cut to 27,000 per annum. Allowances are also going to be cut. And you would never get a 'person' coming into a staffroom to tell you you are getting a pay cut. You find out from the news, or the radio or from a general circular.

I have been cut too. I had a job, and then it was gone due to numbers going up. I know this because I have next to no money in my bank account, which is what most people in Ireland (private or public) have experience of. It's not a case of teachers (or any other public service workers) sitting around a staffroom laughing at how they weren't touched. It's just like any other workplace, with people worried about how they're going to pay their bills.

And this is why people argue in defence of the public sector, and not because we're having a great old laugh at the expense of the private sector.

EDIT : Bejaysus I sound awful serious. What I meant to say is 'I have no money, give me some' : )

Chips Lovell

jmayo wrote: »

Or has someone gone into a public sector place of employment and told the workers they are getting a straight 5% to 10% pay cut or told them they are going on a three day week ?

There was a public sector pay cut in 2010. This was separate to the pension levy.

Wage cuts (2010):

• 5% on the first €30,000
• 7.5% on the next €40,000
• 10% on the next €55,000.
• 8% on total salary €125,000 to €165,000
• 12% on total salaries €165,000 to €200,000
• 15% on total salaries above €200,000

On top of this, new entrants to the public sector had a further 10 per cent taken off.

Croke Park came after that. It was agreed that there'd be no further pay cuts until 2014 in exchange for a reduction of numbers and changes in working practices..

gracehopper

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What would you do?

Ok, for fun, i'll have a go,

I'm not an economist, but i'd start by trying to win the support and obtain eventual agreements with first line services. not a Croke Park agreement, but a Parnell park agreement. That's a lot of people i know, but the nurses, the doctors, the guards and Fire would need to be preserved and where deserved have their wages increased. They would have to agree on process changes though. I'd concentrate on the people that are needed. Sounds idealistic but that's the first thing i'd attempt to do.

Expenses - Shopping days at christmas, travel expenses and other un-vouched expenses would be taken away, that goes for all levels of government workers.

I'd scrutinise the other department forensically and reduce numbers where possible. Redundancies are inevitable in the coming years.

I'd run each facet as a business group. accountable on budgetary performance related targets. A manager fails, he/she gets demoted or let go. there needs to be proper accountability.

I'd sell Dublin bus, iaranrod eireann, Aer lingus and any other semi state that is not profitable.

HSE - (To be honest, i would have to think for a long while how to resolve this mess)

Regarding the teachers, i think generally, they earn too much in this country, salaries are much higher compared to salaries of their UK or our european counterparts but I would be loathe mess with education, our ability as a nation to do anything requires us to produce decent graduates. i just wish we could keep all the graduates we produce in the country and in jobs.

it'd be a start anyway

mikemac1

The OP would like to return to the days of newly married women being forced to resign and lose their pension rights

It wasn't that long ago and a good chance someone in your family was once affected

But grand to rid of them OP, no pesky staff taking paid maternity leave or getting schemes like term time

Should be working harder!

gracehopper

mikemac1 wrote: »

The OP would like to return to the days of newly married women being forced to resign and lose their pension rights

It wasn't that long ago and a good chance someone in your family was once affected

Thats a fantastic suggestion

Chips Lovell

gracehopper wrote: »

I'm not an economist, but i'd start by trying to win the support and obtain eventual agreements with first line services. not a Croke Park agreement, but a Parnell park agreement. That's a lot of people i know, but the nurses, the doctors, the guards and Fire would need to be preserved and where deserved have their wages increased. They would have to agree on process changes though. I'd concentrate on the people that are needed. Sounds idealistic but that's the first thing i'd attempt to do.

So you'd negotiate with frontline unions? Fair enough.

gracehopper wrote: »

Expenses - Shopping days at christmas, travel expenses and other un-vouched expenses would be taken away, that goes for all levels of government workers.

Is the Christmas shopping half day still in force? It was never a formalised privilege, but one that was at the discretion of local management. But travel expenses? For example, I know one public sector worker who has to regularly travel to meetings in Luxembourg. Are you suggesting that they be expected to pay for their flights and hotels? What about someone who works in the Dept of Agriculture and has to drive all over the country inspecting farms? Do you think they should have to pay for their petrol out of their own pocket?

gracehopper wrote: »

I'd scrutinise the other department forensically and reduce numbers where possible. Redundancies are inevitable in the coming years.

I'd run each facet as a business group. accountable on budgetary performance related targets. A manager fails, he/she gets demoted or let go. there needs to be proper accountability.

Numbers are reducing. Although there is an issue as to whether the right numbers are going, if you get what I mean. Running the public sector like a business is an admirable goal, but easier said than done, since it fundamentally isn't a business really. But getting public servants to agree to this, especially the demotion/firing for failing to meet targets means changes in contract of employment, which means negotiating with unions.

gracehopper wrote: »

I'd sell Dublin bus, iaranrod eireann, Aer lingus and any other semi state that is not profitable.

Aer Lingus is profitable. And it isn't a semi-state. It's a public company in which the state owns a shareholding. As for the public transport providers, there is an argument that there that the money lost is worth it, i.e. in terms of the service they provide. I'm not saying they aren't inefficient, but privatisation has its drawbacks. For example, privatise Dublin Bus and the new company may decide to scrap half the routes because their unprofitable. All of a sudden you've got gridlock as all those people start driving to work.

gracehopper wrote: »

HSE - (To be honest, i would have to think for a long while how to resolve this mess)

Me neither.

tomtherobot

I don't like that unions are put forward as the only option to ensure workers rights. We could have an independent publicly funded body to ensure compliance with employment law.

We could also have vigilante style death squads to deal with those that don't comply.

I'm just saying, there are options....

hiram

joolsveer wrote: »

If trades unions are abolished we would go back to a time when bosses decided everything about the pay and conditions of the worker - payment in tokens etc. It would be an invitation to unscrupulous employers to really expoit their employees.

Rubbish, with the new labour laws and the labour court. Unions are obsolete. Most private sector companies don't even entertain them. A union rep wasn't present at my job Interview, I negotiated my own contract. Feckin unions...ggggrrrrrrr

woodoo

Unions are there to protect the poor public servant from the big bad government.

Toby Take a Bow

hiram wrote: »

Rubbish, with the new labour laws and the labour court. Unions are obsolete. Most private sector companies don't even entertain them. A union rep wasn't present at my job Interview, I negotiated my own contract. Feckin unions...ggggrrrrrrr

Things have definitely improved with regards to labour laws and things like that (mainly due to the presence of unions, but there you go). In my time in the private sector, I made sure I was a member of a union, and encouraged others to do so. Didn't use them at all for most of my time in my job, but they sure did come in handy when mass redundancy hit us. Of course we would've got our statutory rights, but acting as a group, with the strength of the union behind us, made sure that we got what was standard in our industry. We wouldn't have otherwise.

kippy

Every sector of society is now at every other sectors throats over cuts and trying to reach the bottom of the barrel fastest.
Every sector that is, except the very guys who led us down this path.

I digress however and back on topic.

I don't particularly like the current model of unions in the public sector. I believe they assist in ensuring those who cannot and will not do a job are protected. Everyone is at an even keel and trying to get rid of someone who is not or will not do their job is exceptionally difficult because of unions.
Unions also don't seem to appreciate that work practices change, often for the better.
They do serve a purpose and could serve a far better purpose if operated differently.

The biggest issues in the public service are the sheer levels of management that exist. Middle and upper management on massive salaries, doing what, I often don't know. There is simply no need for an awful lot of them.
That's right across the board as well, not just in one particular area.

There has been a pension levy, and there have been taxes that have hit everyone, which have reduced the pay bill in the public service, as well as a standard paycut for existing staff and a further cut to allowances and pay to new entrants. There will, no doubt, be headcount and perhaps further pay cuts in the sector once the CPA has lapsed and rightly so, until spending comes under control.

end of the road

the idea of unions is as relevant today as back in the time of (Connolly or Larkin) they may not always operate the way some who agree with having unions would like them to operate but at least their there. the consiquenses of tearing up agreements wouldn't be worth thinking about, the government are hardly going to sack thousands of workers for striking are they? maybe they would but i'd doubt it.

pragmatic1

Trade unions are needed to protect workers. However, something has got to give in relation to the public sector. It's getting ridiculous at this stage.

bobbysands81

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Trade unions are needed to protect workers. However, something has got to give in relation to the public sector. It's getting ridiculous at this stage.

Just let me get this straight... you think that something has got to give in relation to public sector unions who, during the biggest recession seen in this country, have overseen two large pay cuts for their members, tax increases, kept a lid on members even when there are daily incomprehensible hate-filled attacks on them, huge staff cuts, huge cuts in resources, greater accountability, 'doing more with less', the largest public sector cuts in any state, saved the economy BILLIONS etc... without any loss in services to the public and without ANY industrial unrest whatsoever, what's happening in this state is actually unprecedented... but you think 'something has to give?!'

God forbid what you'd think if Unions/Public Service were actually doing a bad job.

bluecode

Spin it any way you want. There has to be cuts both in jobs and pay in all the public service. Right now they are protected by the ridiculous Croke Park agreement. The very last atrocity committed by FF before the left office.

This is not about attacking the people who work in the PS but simply facing the reality that as a whole it's too big, too inefficient and too well paid.

So we have the ridiculous farce of this government completely unable to do anything about 80% of the HSE budget which goes on pay and are spending their time cutting all the services to the most vulnerable in society like the disabled. Sure they rowed back on one measure but the money will still be cut only more creatively.

I saw on the news, a new teacher complaining that his pay is now much lower than for a teacher hired a couple of years ago. The implication of course is that his pay should be increased. The reality is that into the future all teachers pay will have to be reduced. The alternative is further damaging cuts to the education system.

People will simply have to accept the reality that the money is no longer there. The only thing propping up the entire PS is money given to us by the IMF/EU. Eventually they will turn around and ask why our teachers, Doctors, Police etc continue to be some of the best paid in Europe!

Really it's time for the PS unions to face reality, same with the Labour party. The cuts are coming whether you like it or not. Stop hiding behind the Croke Park agreement. It cannot and will not produce the savings needed.

kippy

bluecode wrote: »

Spin it any way you want. There has to be cuts both in jobs and pay in all the public service. Right now they are protected by the ridiculous Croke Park agreement. The very last atrocity committed by FF before the left office.

This is not about attacking the people who work in the PS but simply facing the reality that as a whole it's too big, too inefficient and too well paid.

So we have the ridiculous farce of this government completely unable to do anything about 80% of the HSE budget which goes on pay and are spending their time cutting all the services to the most vulnerable in society like the disabled. Sure they rowed back on one measure but the money will still be cut only more creatively.

I saw on the news, a new teacher complaining that his pay is now much lower than for a teacher hired a couple of years ago. The implication of course is that his pay should be increased. The reality is that into the future all teachers pay will have to be reduced. The alternative is further damaging cuts to the education system.

People will simply have to accept the reality that the money is no longer there. The only thing propping up the entire PS is money given to us by the IMF/EU. Eventually they will turn around and ask why our teachers, Doctors, Police etc continue to be some of the best paid in Europe!

Really it's time for the PS unions to face reality, same with the Labour party. The cuts are coming whether you like it or not. Stop hiding behind the Croke Park agreement. It cannot and will not produce the savings needed.

So what is your answer? Some figures please?