The true cost of Increments in PS??

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

I agree with you but the formulation of the benchmarking body( whether their agenda was driven either as employers or in their role as the government ) was driven by FF - the other partners as you correctly say were the other social partners including the unions & IBEC .

Practically speaking, the government (acting as the 'government' and not 'employer') were the only people who could formulate the benchmarking body, though looking at the make-up of the body both union and employers clearly had some input. However that deosn't negate that the benchmarking body was setup on the back of an agreement that the unions were active participants in formulating.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

Practically speaking, the government (acting as the 'government' and not 'employer') were the only people who could formulate the benchmarking body, though looking at the make-up of the body both union and employers clearly had some input. However that deosn't negate that the benchmarking body was setup on the back of an agreement that the unions were active participants in formulating.

None of which negates the fact that although the unions were part of the social partnership they were only one of parties from whom the Government sought input when it came to setting up the PSBB - indeed this was reflected in the fact that of the original benchmarking body only 2 of the 7 members had union ties.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

None of which negates the fact that although the unions were part of the social partnership they were only one of parties from whom the Government sought input when it came to setting up the PSBB - indeed this was reflected in the fact that of the original benchmarking body only 2 of the 6 members had union ties.

I never argued that fact, I actually made reference to that in a previous post. You have been trying to portray the unions as some backseat passenger in the whole process which blatantly is not the case.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

I never argued that fact, I actually made reference to that in a previous post. You have been trying to portray the unions as some backseat passenger in the whole process which blatantly is not the case.

The unions were indeed consulted as were all the other social partners however the drivers of the PSBB bus were Fianna Fail & their destination was clearly marked - National Wage Agreement 2002 - everyone else were willing travellers along for the ride but in essence were simply passengers.

It's amazing to think that IBEC who are currently numbered amongst the vocal critics of benchmarking were part of the original process.

antoobrien

deise blue wrote: »

It's amazing to think that IBEC who are currently numbered amongst the vocal critics of benchmarking were part of the original process.

Yes but they are not critical of the agreement, rather than how it was implemented. From the 2002 Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body:

The parties to the PPF specifically recognised that ‘‘the traditional approach to pay reviews in the public service, based on analogues and relativities, has given rise to serious difficulties in the past.’’ They committed themselves to ‘‘an alternative approach which will be grounded in a coherent and broadly-based comparison with jobs and pay rates across the economy’’ involving comparison of public service rewards with those in the private sector.

To IBEC and indeed the general public, this has not happened

deise blue

antoobrien wrote: »

Yes but they are not critical of the agreement, rather than how it was implemented. From the 2002 Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body:



To IBEC and indeed the general public, this has not happened

The quote you referenced simply reflected the situation that pertained prior to the Advent of the benchmarking body & subsequent reports .

IBEC were represented on the PSBB & never dissented from that body's findings nor expressed any misgivings on the pay increases suggested

antoobrien

deise blue wrote: »

IBEC were represented on the PSBB & never dissented from that body's findings nor expressed any misgivings on the pay increases suggested

True, but they have expressed misgivings about what has not been done that was agreed with originally.