Did union’s sell out on the public sector talks??

uncle tom

Thanks Anto

nice_guy80

teachers have lost their first day of certified sick leave or bereavement leave

so no sub cover will be provided to teach their class for the first day if they are ill or a family member dies.

how is that fair?

FixdePitchmark

nice_guy80 wrote: »

teachers have lost their first day of certified sick leave or bereavement leave

so no sub cover will be provided to teach their class for the first day if they are ill or a family member dies.

how is that fair?

Is it not casual ? That would be fair.

Also - bereavement leave depends on rules related to it. You would need to know finer details.

Mossess

The pension is terrible in the public sector. Terrible. And the odds are that it will be reduced further in the years to come. Sure a tiny percentage will live on great pensions, and they will be used as examples of public service pensions, but for the other 98% they are far from great. I, personally, do not look forward to having to rely on a public sector pension. But that’s a different issue.

Working in the public sector is not something I would advise anyone to enter into. (Not that anyone really can at the moment anyway). The reasons are as follows.
1) Your employers, the government, are trying to make it as toxic a place to work in as possible.
2) The money is much lower than in the private sector (If you’re working in a qualified professional area that is, I agree that if you enter with no qualifications then you will earn more than working in a supermarket or fast food outlet for example)
3) Job security is great, but do you really want to work in the same job for the rest of your life? Renaming ‘Dead End Job’ to ‘Job Security’ doesn't make it any more exciting.
4) Bonuses. There are none.
5) Rewards for a job well done. There are none.
6) Recognition for a job well done. There are none.
7) Pat on the back for a job well done. Maybe if you have long arms.
8) Healthcare insurance. There is none.
9) The people you will work with are in the same boat as you, sailing slowly into depression. Enjoy the trip.

amacca

dont suppose anyone could point me to a link of the full official text of this new croke park amendment deal that the unions will ballot their members on?


Are the LRC draft proposals all that are available to read at the moment? - they seem a bit sketchy and it looks as if some of them are not being adopted (have been changed due to negotiations)

Anchises

LRC Proposals:

http://www.impact.ie/files/crokepark/talks2013/LRCProposalsFINAL.pdf

Re Pensioners: There are additional provisions relating to reductions . No official release that I can find. See Irish Times and Irish Examiner articles today.

Meanwhile, the Government has confirmed that public service pensions are to be reduced by 2% for those over €32,500 rising to 5% for those over €90,000 — which would include former taoisigh, among them Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen.

A.

Godge

uncle tom wrote: »

Does anyone know if marking of summer examaninations will be included when calculatin earnings?It is not core salary,is not pensionable and is cotractable year by year.I earn 64,000 in my teaching salary and approximately 4,000 each summer marking exams(it varies depending on how many papers you get each summer)will that additiona work put me above the threshold of 65,000?Any answers appreciated:)

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd say probably yes:

I would say definitely no.

You are talking about leaving and junior cert examinations. They are not allowances in the nature of pay. They are jobwork payments - payment per script.

Tea drinker

Mossess wrote: »

Working in the public sector is not something I would advise anyone to enter into. (Not that anyone really can at the moment anyway). The reasons are as follows.
1) Your employers, the government, are trying to make it as toxic a place to work in as possible.
2) The money is much lower than in the private sector (If you’re working in a qualified professional area that is, I agree that if you enter with no qualifications then you will earn more than working in a supermarket or fast food outlet for example)
3) Job security is great, but do you really want to work in the same job for the rest of your life? Renaming ‘Dead End Job’ to ‘Job Security’ doesn't make it any more exciting.
4) Bonuses. There are none.
5) Rewards for a job well done. There are none.
6) Recognition for a job well done. There are none.
7) Pat on the back for a job well done. Maybe if you have long arms.
8) Healthcare insurance. There is none.
9) The people you will work with are in the same boat as you, sailing slowly into depression. Enjoy the trip.

I don't agree the money is less, haven't we seen many many reports at odds with this?
Also for 3,4,5,6 and 7 isn't this exactly the type of approach that the Unions want, and the Unions are your paid representative.
It's disnigenous now to say the services haven't been getting what they asked for. Compulsory redundancy seems off the table, so again some lad could be up to all sorts of shenanigans bar thievery and sexual misconduct and he still gets paid increments. How does that fit with 3,4,5,6 and 7 above? Yer gettin what ye asked for lads.

ardmacha

Compulsory redundancy seems off the table, so again some lad could be up to all sorts of shenanigans bar thievery and sexual misconduct and he still gets paid increments.

This has nothing to do with redundancy, this is being sacked and has nothing to do with the agreement.

Godge

Tea drinker wrote: »

I don't agree the money is less, haven't we seen many many reports at odds with this?.

It depends on what you do and what you are qualified to do. The poster was making the point that if you were a qualified professional you were probably paid less in the public sector than in the private sector. He has a point.

Tea drinker wrote: »

Also for 3,4,5,6 and 7 isn't this exactly the type of approach that the Unions want, and the Unions are your paid representative.
It's disnigenous now to say the services haven't been getting what they asked for. Compulsory redundancy seems off the table, so again some lad could be up to all sorts of shenanigans bar thievery and sexual misconduct and he still gets paid increments. How does that fit with 3,4,5,6 and 7 above? Yer gettin what ye asked for lads.

Don't confuse compulsory redundancy and dismissal for disciplinary reasons.

Private sector organisations sometimes use compulsory redundancy and a pay-off to avoid having to go through a disciplinary process to fire someone. In reality the two should be very distinct.

In the case of the public service, people are let go for disciplinary reasons all the time.

Tea drinker

ardmacha wrote: »

This has nothing to do with redundancy, this is being sacked and has nothing to do with the agreement.

You are right, but my point is that the agreement changed nothing in this regard (workplace behaviour).

Godge wrote: »

It depends on what you do and what you are qualified to do. The poster was making the point that if you were a qualified professional you were probably paid less in the public sector than in the private sector. He has a point.

No, in general according to many reports he is wrong. He did not mention specific areas, but anecdotally I believe people in financial areas will do better outside. Still doesn't change his general statement as being generally incorrect

Godge

Tea drinker wrote: »

No, in general according to many reports he is wrong. He did not mention specific areas, but anecdotally I believe people in financial areas will do better outside. Still doesn't change his general statement as being generally incorrect

Unfortunately, the evidence is not as clear-cut as you say.

Comparing private sector jobs and public sector jobs is not as easy.

I saw a study that attempted to show that accountants were better paid in the public sector than the private sector. However, it was seriously flawed because it excluded own-practice accountants and partners, both of whom would generally be much better paid than an accountant working for a normal company.

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

No that is a bad understanding of maths. What you are paying now will not represent what you will be earning in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Its a stupid comparison

What are you on about head the wall?

I pay 9% of my income on pensions. What do you pay? Will you be coming back to Ireland an old man and expecting us to look after you.

Rightwing

No I don't think the unions sold out on it's members.

The real problem is, they got too much from 2000 onwards. It's easy for foolish governments to give benefits out, much harder to get them back. I have sympathy for people who bought houses etc on the back of unsustainable pay and benefits.

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

What are you on about head the wall?

I pay 9% of my income on pensions. What do you pay? Will you be coming back to Ireland an old man and expecting us to look after you.

If you don't like it then do something about it. I decided I wasn't paying taxes so they could be wasted in Ireland and I'm glad I did. Do you not like the fact that i don't contribute towards your overpaid clerical job?

Rightwing

Head The Wall wrote: »

If you don't like it then do something about it. I decided I wasn't paying taxes so they could be wasted in Ireland and I'm glad I did. Do you not like the fact that i don't contribute towards your overpaid clerical job?

Did you decide to emigrate for a better standard of living ?

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

If you don't like it then do something about it. I decided I wasn't paying taxes so they could be wasted in Ireland and I'm glad I did. Do you not like the fact that i don't contribute towards your overpaid clerical job?

What clerical job find any post i have made that says what i work at?

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

Did you decide to emigrate for a better standard of living ?

Better salary, better standard of living, free NHS, lower costs including cars, insurance, clothing, motor tax, so yeah, I would say he did.

Rightwing

kceire wrote: »

Better salary, better standard of living, free NHS, lower costs including cars, insurance, clothing, motor tax, so yeah, I would say he did.

Did he say that? Rent could be a lot higher. Certainly motoring and free NHS etc are big ones.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

Did he say that? Rent could be a lot higher. Certainly motoring and free NHS etc are big ones.

Yes, he said it in posts over the last year or two. Some of us are around here a while he left a low paying non skilled job outside Galway IIRC.

Rightwing

kceire wrote: »

Yes, he said it in posts over the last year or two. Some of us are around here a while he left a low paying non skilled job outside Galway IIRC.

Well fair play to him, glad it's working out. Many families have chosen to go abroad and really easy to see why.

woodoo

woodoo wrote: »

What are you on about head the wall?

I pay 9% of my income on pensions. What do you pay? Will you be coming back to Ireland an old man and expecting us to look after you.

Head The Wall wrote: »

If you don't like it then do something about it. I decided I wasn't paying taxes so they could be wasted in Ireland and I'm glad I did. Do you not like the fact that i don't contribute towards your overpaid clerical job?

Give it a rest please

Figerty

uncle tom wrote: »

Does anyone know if marking of summer examaninations will be included when calculatin earnings?It is not core salary,is not pensionable and is cotractable year by year.I earn 64,000 in my teaching salary and approximately 4,000 each summer marking exams(it varies depending on how many papers you get each summer)will that additiona work put me above the threshold of 65,000?Any answers appreciated:)

I don't know, but I am in the same boat as you..I do a load of extra work, some paid and most unpaid. IF this 5.5% cut comes in then it means that I will be working for nothing. It will take me over 65K and then the 5.5% cut will take it back.

In other words I won't be doing the extra work next year.. night classes I run won't happen as no one else will do the grunt work without the pay and so 40 or so students won't have a class to go to...That's the reality

Always number 1

nice_guy80 wrote: »

teachers have lost their first day of certified sick leave or bereavement leave

so no sub cover will be provided to teach their class for the first day if they are ill or a family member dies.

how is that fair?

How exactly does the no sub cover affect them?

General Operatives in the public service lose the first 3 days of each ad every period of certified sick leave they take. Thats hardly fair either is it?

astrofool

Figerty wrote: »

I don't know, but I am in the same boat as you..I do a load of extra work, some paid and most unpaid. IF this 5.5% cut comes in then it means that I will be working for nothing. It will take me over 65K and then the 5.5% cut will take it back.

In other words I won't be doing the extra work next year.. night classes I run won't happen as no one else will do the grunt work without the pay and so 40 or so students won't have a class to go to...That's the reality

I'd imagine the reality is that someone on a lesser salary will fill that gap in the market over time.

Figerty

astrofool wrote: »

I'd imagine the reality is that someone on a lesser salary will fill that gap in the market over time.

Unfortunately not, there is too much unpaid work involved. I would gladly give it to someone starting out if they wanted it.

Sand

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, the evidence is not as clear-cut as you say.

Comparing private sector jobs and public sector jobs is not as easy.

I saw a study that attempted to show that accountants were better paid in the public sector than the private sector. However, it was seriously flawed because it excluded own-practice accountants and partners, both of whom would generally be much better paid than an accountant working for a normal company.

Why would that be seriously flawed? Accountants working in the public sector are most directly comparable with accountants working in a private sector company in terms of their duties and responsibilities.

Jimh

Three things - Pre 95 Entrants get 1/19 less salary because they don't pay PRSI so post 95 could be at the same point on the incremental scale - 1 may be over €65k and the other may not - seems to be unbalanced completely
It is being done incrementally so I lose 1.5 of my 2 x 3 Year long service Increments (€3900) - I am also blocked from getting increments for 3 years as part of the deal so when do I get back to the top of my scale 3-6-or 9 years - who knows
If I choose to take unpaid leave for the next 3 years to bring me down to €64900 do I stay on my current increment and not take a paycut and then revert back when the agreement finishes?

creedp

Jimh wrote: »

Three things - Pre 95 Entrants get 1/19 less salary because they don't pay PRSI so post 95 could be at the same point on the incremental scale - 1 may be over €65k and the other may not - seems to be unbalanced completely
It is being done incrementally so I lose 1.5 of my 2 x 3 Year long service Increments (€3900) - I am also blocked from getting increments for 3 years as part of the deal so when do I get back to the top of my scale 3-6-or 9 years - who knows
If I choose to take unpaid leave for the next 3 years to bring me down to €64900 do I stay on my current increment and not take a paycut and then revert back when the agreement finishes?

Its irrelevant what you do as its your pay scale that's important not what you actually earn, e.g. if a worker's full time pay scale if €70k but they work part time and actually earn €50k they will be cut by the full 5.5% on €70k.