Haddington Road Agreement published

Godge

The new Haddington Road agreement has been published. Here is the link to it:


http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/05/20130523haddington.pdf



For reference purposes, here is the previous attempt at an agreement, the February proposals:


http://www.lrc.ie/documents/2013/LRC%20Proposals%20_FINAL.pdf


As I have previously pointed out, this document contains significant climb-downs by the Government in the face of the union rejection:

- restoration timetable agreed for pay cuts
- increments restored for those over 65k, albeit with short delays
- premium pay on Sundays unaffected
- sectoral conditions changed
- increases in working hours capped
- more permanent jobs for teachers


There is much more in the detail of the concessions. What do people think?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

In my position (civil servant on 40k) it could have been much, much worse if I'm being honest.

Nody

That the government (any flavour) should grow a bigger set of gonads but hey if it delivers the savings (or pseudo savings of "this should save money in the future maybe sort of" of the original deal) required to get Ireland back on the market it's acceptable (i.e. the over all goal is to get back on the market after all so if this gets the government there then that's at least an ok deal).

mariaalice

Godge wrote: »

The new Haddington Road agreement has been published. Here is the link to it:


http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/05/20130523haddington.pdf



For reference purposes, here is the previous attempt at an agreement, the February proposals:


http://www.lrc.ie/documents/2013/LRC%20Proposals%20_FINAL.pdf


As I have previously pointed out, this document contains significant climb-downs by the Government in the face of the union rejection:

- restoration timetable agreed for pay cuts
- increments restored for those over 65k, albeit with short delays
- premium pay on Sundays unaffected
- sectoral conditions changed
- increases in working hours capped
- more permanent jobs for teachers


There is much more in the detail of the concessions. What do people think?

One mans clime down is another mans negotiated resolution.:P

Godge

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Financial-Emergency-Measures-in-the-Public-Interest-Amendment-Bill-memo-2013.pdf


For those who are interested, above link is to the draft legislation to implement the pay-cuts.

Interestingly, there are quite severe cuts for some public service pensioners. The gold-plated pensions are losing their sheen.

ikarie

Looks like they recycled the old agreement and just put a new cover on it and changed the page numbers.
You are mad if ye accept it. You will never ever never get your conditions back, the pay legislation would be by far the better option or industrial action your Union heads should leave for pedaling this ****e
this is a BAD agreement trust me on this and the sunscreen.

Kristopherus

Godge wrote: »

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Financial-Emergency-Measures-in-the-Public-Interest-Amendment-Bill-memo-2013.pdf


For those who are interested, above link is to the draft legislation to implement the pay-cuts.

Interestingly, there are quite severe cuts for some public service pensioners. The gold-plated pensions are losing their sheen.

Those gold-plated pensions should have been halved. Who needs €150k to €200+k to live in their later years?:mad:

whiteandlight

Most of the "concessions" for teachers are things that any decent employer would have put in place in the first place, like the panel for fixed term teachers (which has been used at primary school level successfully for years). The expert group to be established should have been done years ago as the current system of tiny short term contracts is doing untold damage to our students never mind the insecurity for teachers. I picked up a Junior Cert maths class this year and I am their 5th teacher in 3 years and there are classes up and down the country where this is the case. This is terribly unsettling for students and parents.

There is also still no recognition of the fact that those of us who have been doing S and S for the pension benefits getting any recognition of it. The current proposal gives all teachers, including those who would have started S and S in September the same as those of us who have been doing it for years.

Delighted its been rejected by our unions. Cut away on the pay and leave our terms and conditions alone. And while your at it, sort out some of the problems that short term contracts are doing to students.

hmmm

Pension cuts have been slipped in quietly, I'm surprised the government hasn't made a bigger deal of this.

As for the main agreement, the important thing is that people in the PS on over 65 grand have been protected, and we can focus cuts on the privileged in society, like home help hours, social welfare cuts and raising private sector taxes such as pension levies.

ardmacha

As for the main agreement, the important thing is that people in the PS on over 65 grand have been protected,

In what way have they been protected when they are being cut at a time when pay generally in the economy is rising? The English language is the first casualty of this forum when people can shamelessly declare black to be white.

Rightwing

I'm delighted with this new agreeement, that name croke park was so yesterday. The new name sounds better, as for the detail, I don't give a fcuk,,,,the country is too bust :mad:

Mr Cumulonimbus

How is this new deal going to be implemented this time? Will unions who vote yes have it applied to their members and those who vote no being subject to government legislation to force through cuts?

Or will all unions be bound by ICTU's college voting system whichever way it goes, with the government then acting on the result of this decision?

ardmacha

You have to wonder if this legislation is constitutional as every shred of contract law is abolished. TCD has existed for over 400 years, the Mater Hospital for over 150 years, yet every since agreement or contract they've made, whether spending public money or not, can be altered at the whim of the Minister, a singularly unprincipled individual. Yet so called "right wingers" welcome this overthrow of law in favour of political expediency, so long as it directed at public servants. No doubt this will be directed at others in the future, although I imagine the Fingletons of this world will remain untouchable.

whiteandlight

ardmacha wrote: »

You have to wonder if this legislation is constitutional as every shred of contract law is abolished. TCD has existed for over 400 years, the Mater Hospital for over 150 years, yet every since agreement or contract they've made, whether spending public money or not, can be altered at the whim of the Minister, a singularly unprincipled individual. Yet so called "right wingers" welcome this overthrow of law in favour of political expediency, so long as it directed at public servants. No doubt this will be directed at others in the future, although I imagine the Fingletons of this world will remain untouchable.

2.2.3 does not seem like it is legal. I read that as meaning the contracts are worthless as they can be changed at the whim of the minister?

creedp

hmmm wrote: »

As for the main agreement, the important thing is that people in the PS on over 65 grand have been protected, and we can focus cuts on the privileged in society, like home help hours, social welfare cuts and raising private sector taxes such as pension levies.

Interesting that when a PS gets a pay cut it is described as 'being protected' This is from someone who is totally unaffected by the cut and if a worker probably protected from a tax increase. Some objectivity there!

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

In what way have they been protected when they are being cut at a time when pay generally in the economy is rising? The English language is the first casualty of this forum when people can shamelessly declare black to be white.

No, statistics is the first casualty of this forum. Sadly the same rudimentary analysis of statistics gets passed off as fact time and time again.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How is this new deal going to be implemented this time? Will unions who vote yes have it applied to their members and those who vote no being subject to government legislation to force through cuts?

Or will all unions be bound by ICTU's college voting system whichever way it goes, with the government then acting on the result of this decision?

Looks like every union for itself this time. No ICTU binding decision over all unions. From an Irish Times article today:

...........The biggest structural change in the revised blueprint is that it is, in effect, a series of bilateral plans agreed in principle with unions representing staff in different parts of the public service.
This means that, on this occasion, each individual union will have to decide for itself whether to accept or reject the proposals. There will be no overall decision made by the public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions based on an aggregate outcome of individual union ballots............

Godge

You have to wonder if this deal is going to get any further than the last one:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0524/452312-haddington-road-agreement/


ASTI have rejected it


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-reject-new-pay-deal-29292502.html

As have the TUI, and they will not ballot.

But... SIPTU and IMPACT have recommended it to their members.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/strike-fears-grow-as-teachers-reject-pay-proposals-1.1404858

"Employment law and industrial relations specialists last night said the unions could potentially face legal action from members if they were not allowed to vote on the new proposals and their terms and conditions were then worsened."

Who are these employment law and industrial relations specialists? I would be interested in reading this legal advice.

Going Forward

Idiotic titles for these agreements.

Can they not be called the May 2013 agreement etc instead of dragging a placename into it?

Vizzy

Going Forward wrote: »

Idiotic titles for these agreements.

Can they not be called the May 2013 agreement etc instead of dragging a placename into it?

It hasn't been agreed yet so it might have to be renamed as the June 2013 agreement.

sean200

creedp wrote: »

Interesting that when a PS gets a pay cut it is described as 'being protected' This is from someone who is totally unaffected by the cut and if a worker probably protected from a tax increase. Some objectivity there!

what happens in the public sector will happen in the private sector but the one billion cuts in the public sector will cause approx 10000 job to go in private sector so in real terms it is a lose lose for the private sector

sean200

Godge wrote: »

You have to wonder if this deal is going to get any further than the last one:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0524/452312-haddington-road-agreement/


ASTI have rejected it


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-reject-new-pay-deal-29292502.html

As have the TUI, and they will not ballot.

But... SIPTU and IMPACT have recommended it to their members.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/strike-fears-grow-as-teachers-reject-pay-proposals-1.1404858

"Employment law and industrial relations specialists last night said the unions could potentially face legal action from members if they were not allowed to vote on the new proposals and their terms and conditions were then worsened."

Who are these employment law and industrial relations specialists? I would be interested in reading this legal advice.

what happens if you are a teacher but not in the TUI or the ASTI ???

Jawgap

It still doesn't address the fundamental problem in the PS - which is too many staff doing the wrong work in some areas while other areas of genuine demand are starved of resources to facilitate these "legacy" activities and the staff retained to deliver them.

maryishere

sean200 wrote: »

but the one billion cuts in the public sector will cause approx 10000 job to go in private sector so in real terms it is a lose lose for the private sector

The taxes the private sector pay go to support the public sector. The public sector is overpaid and over-pensioned and works statistically shorter hours and takes more sickies than the private sector, so if public sector pay is reduced back a bit to more realistic levels it can only be good for the private sector in the long term. The country simply cannot afford a highly paid and pensioned public sector. International competiveness is important.

Dannyboy83

ardmacha wrote: »

You have to wonder if this legislation is constitutional as every shred of contract law is abolished.
TCD has existed for over 400 years, the Mater Hospital for over 150 years, yet every since agreement or contract they've made, whether spending public money or not, can be altered at the whim of the Minister, a singularly unprincipled individual.
Yet so called "right wingers" welcome this overthrow of law in favour of political expediency, so long as it directed at public servants. No doubt this will be directed at others in the future, although I imagine the Fingletons of this world will remain untouchable.

Put it in an American context; rushing the patriot act through in a time of national emergency and people can see the issue.

For some reason, we do not seem to be able to look inward and apply the same criticism...

Yes, the budget emergency is crucial, but solving it by giving a government unlimited authority is no more a solution than shooting yourself in the brain to beat cancer.

whiteandlight

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Put it in an American context; rushing the patriot act through in a time of national emergency and people can see the issue.

For some reason, we do not seem to be able to look inward and apply the same criticism...

Yes, the budget emergency is crucial, but solving it by giving a government unlimited authority is no more a solution than shooting yourself in the brain to beat cancer.

I have emailed every labour to ask about this. I'm waiting for my pay cut, it's better than the alternative and I know the countries in a mess. However this legislation essentially gives the minister carte Blanche to change terms and conditions of contracts at whim. That's madness!

carpejugulum

Too soft. It's time to break the unions.

Jawgap

carpejugulum wrote: »

Too soft. It's time to break the unions.

.....and just how would you do that?

It's a bit like Capone in the Untouchables, everyone knows how to do it, it's who wants to cross them to do it!

Kristopherus

Jawgap wrote: »

It still doesn't address the fundamental problem in the PS - which is too many staff doing the wrong work in some areas while other areas of genuine demand are starved of resources to facilitate these "legacy" activities and the staff retained to deliver them.

How do you know that? Have you assessed the PS thoroughly??????

Jawgap

Kristopherus wrote: »

How do you know that? Have you assessed the PS thoroughly??????

Not thoroughly, but I work in the PS and work regularly and on an ongoing basis with a number of staff-heavy departments and agencies and my experience is that very few are fit for purpose.

They are not over resourced per se, but their staffing and resourcing is not configured to meet service demand. I've described it as 'lumpy' - the wrong people in the wrong places doing the wrong work.

It's also very monolithic - name one agency that is genuinely multi-departmental? Or any non-constitutional body or executive agency that is accountable (there's a laugh!!) to the Oireachtas instead of the minister?

Instead of having agencies and projects directed to meet and address problems, they are configured to suit the parent department and the minister. That leads to duplication, overlap and redundancy (not the good kind).

As a minimum there should be proper redeployment and redundancy programmes in place, otherwise we'll continue to try and bang square pegs into round holes.

creedp

Jawgap wrote: »

It's also very monolithic - name one agency that is genuinelymulti-departmental? Or any non-constitutional body or executive agency that is accountable (there's a laugh!!) to the Oireachtas instead of the minister?

Instead of having agencies and projects directed to meet and address problems, they are configured to suit the parent department and the minister. That leads to duplication, overlap and redundancy (not the good kind).

The highlighted text above shows why we have real problems with reform in the public sector - no Minister will allow reform which impinge on his patch. Who do you think sets up these quangoes? Who do you think decides on the senior people to staff these quangoes? Who do you think decides on getting rid of these quangoes? Very easy of course to blame one quarter all the time ..

Godge

sean200 wrote: »

what happens if you are a teacher but not in the TUI or the ASTI ???

A good question and not one that anyone has the answer to.

Chris_5339762

I really want to know what happens if you are not in a union. I've disagreed from the start with the unions running this.... if things go to a vote why cant all workers vote?

antoobrien

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I really want to know what happens if you are not in a union.

There's no mention in the text of the sectoral agreements being with specific unions, so it's not unreasonable to assume that everyone in a given sector will be getting the same deal.

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I've disagreed from the start with the unions running this.... if things go to a vote why cant all workers vote?

Who else should be running the negotiations? If the unions have a coverage of 2/3 or more of the employee base it is hardly unreasonable to expect that they would be in a position to represent the views of a majority of employees.

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

Who else should be running the negotiations? If the unions have a coverage of 2/3 or more of the employee base it is hardly unreasonable to expect that they would be in a position to represent the views of a majority of employees.

tbh I heard little protest from non-union members about getting pay increases negotiated by unions

antoobrien

Riskymove wrote: »

tbh I heard little protest from non-union members about getting pay increases negotiated by unions

Indeed. I was working in a few factories as a temp and we were treated the same way as the fully paid up union members (down to the union reps telling us what was a "reasonable request" from management).

notharrypotter

antoobrien wrote: »

a "reasonable request" from management

I believe there is an EU law that enshrines the concept of equal pay for equal work.

Employee status is not a factor.

everyone in a given sector will be getting the same deal

Equal pay for equal work would apply.

woodoo

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I really want to know what happens if you are not in a union. I've disagreed from the start with the unions running this.... if things go to a vote why cant all workers vote?

I'd say if the deal carries for the bulk of unions then it will be deemed to apply to all. So only those in anti unions will fight it and be treated differently.

antoobrien

notharrypotter wrote: »

I believe there is an EU law that enshrines the concept of equal pay for equal work.

Employee status is not a factor.



Equal pay for equal work would apply.

EU law also allows for differences based on seniority etc. Status all else being equal is not an issue that would allow a pay differential.

However the piece you quoted has nothing to do with pay rather what work was done on the floor. The unions regularly overrode management in attempts to force a requirement for overtime. We could easily have produced more product quicker with a couple of minor tweaks to how we worked, but the unions did a paisley on it.

markpb

notharrypotter wrote: »

I believe there is an EU law that enshrines the concept of equal pay for equal work.

Not all employees work equally well but, in the public service, all employees at the same level are paid equally.

ardmacha

I believe there is an EU law that enshrines the concept of equal pay for equal work.

There may well be, but any protection from the enabling legislation is being removed from public servants, although of course the private sector continue to enjoy it. I suppose someone could take a case on the matter.

Count Dooku

ardmacha wrote: »

There may well be, but any protection from the enabling legislation is being removed from public servants, although of course the private sector continue to enjoy it. I suppose someone could take a case on the matter.

Public sector don't need legislation, because they have power over politicians

Jawgap

Count Dooku wrote: »

Public sector don't need legislation, because they have power over politicians

It's true, we do......

creedp

Count Dooku wrote: »

Public sector don't need legislation, because they have power over politicians

You do realise that the 2009 and 2010 PS pay cuts were imposed by legislation and you also do realise that it is the PS that prepared the legislation as instructed by the politicians.

ardmacha

Public sector don't need legislation, because they have power over politicians

Votes have power over politicians, most of these are in the private sector or the welfare sector.
The crap politicians we get are because of voters.

creedp

creedp wrote: »

The highlighted text above shows why we have real problems with reform in the public sector - no Minister will allow reform which impinge on his patch. Who do you think sets up these quangoes? Who do you think decides on the senior people to staff these quangoes? Who do you think decides on getting rid of these quangoes? Very easy of course to blame one quarter all the time ..

Just as a follow on to the above ... while the current Govt are preaching PS reform to achieve greater efficiencies by reducing pay and terms and conditions for others its nice to know that they don't forget whose No.1. They have voted today to take next week off .. just like that .. meaning that all work provisionally done in response to the agenda for next weeks Dail sittings will now be thrown in the bin and will all have to be done all over again for the week they return .. there efficiency for you! Leading by example!!

robp

Jawgap wrote: »

Not thoroughly, but I work in the PS and work regularly and on an ongoing basis with a number of staff-heavy departments and agencies and my experience is that very few are fit for purpose.

They are not over resourced per se, but their staffing and resourcing is not configured to meet service demand. I've described it as 'lumpy' - the wrong people in the wrong places doing the wrong work.

It's also very monolithic - name one agency that is genuinely multi-departmental? Or any non-constitutional body or executive agency that is accountable (there's a laugh!!) to the Oireachtas instead of the minister?

Instead of having agencies and projects directed to meet and address problems, they are configured to suit the parent department and the minister. That leads to duplication, overlap and redundancy (not the good kind).

As a minimum there should be proper redeployment and redundancy programmes in place, otherwise we'll continue to try and bang square pegs into round holes.

Is this an example of this working else where? I am really struggling to be convinced that in 2013 there are still sizeable public sector pockets which are overstaffed, as there are simply so many areas which are developing understaffing. In 2008 Ireland's public sector was at the OCED average and by 2011 the proportion of public sector compared to the total population was below 2001 levels. I am sure the staff shortages are highly variable and some less important in their work then others, even some insignificant but it is very widespread.

Jawgap

robp wrote: »

Is this an example of this working else where? I am really struggling to be convinced that in 2013 there are still sizeable public sector pockets which are overstaffed, as there are simply so many areas which are developing understaffing. In 2008 Ireland's public sector was at the OCED average and by 2011 the proportion of public sector compared to the total population was below 2001 levels. I am sure the staff shortages are highly variable and some less important in their work then others, even some insignificant but it is very widespread.

DAFM - because of the move to single farm payments,several hundred, if not over a thousand staff with little or nothing to do.

HSE - when the health boards were merged there were no redundancies and there are still admin pockets and officers with chronic over-staffing problems.

Local Authorities - there are about 32 LAs in the country for a population of 4 million or so - that's 32 county managers and countless directors of services and so on - the Birmingham metro area in the UK has a slightly smaller population and they get by with just 8 LAs. Scotland also has 32 LAs for a population of 5 million and its worth noting that LAs provide more and better services than do LAs in Ireland.

And that's even before you get to talking about which services should be contracted out or mutualised.

OECD figures show that compared to other countries we have low numbers in the public sector, but the comparisons consistently fail to compensate for the fact that the countries we are compared with (mostly the Nordic ones and Belgium) are members of NATO and spend (as a % of GDP) 4 to 5 times what we do on defence. The comparisons also fail to take account of the fact that we have single tier policing in Ireland.

Jawgap

Kieran Allen's take on the HRA:

Column: The Haddington Road deal is just the same as the last, with a few tweaks

"WHAT IS IT about democracy in Ireland? When people vote and give the wrong answer, they are asked to vote again. The government did it with the Lisbon Treaty referendum and now the union leaders are doing the same with the Croke Park proposals.

Some ‘tweaks’ have been made on the last version. Clever people with calculators have worked out how many concessions need to be given to particular groups to ‘get it over the line’.

But the overall equation remains the same. The government is tearing up an existing agreement to take another €1 billion from the pay and pensions of public sector workers. The original Croke Park 1 was not due to run out until mid 2014."

tiredofthis

The PSEU have written to members saying that they have signed the Haddington Road Agreement and registered it with the Labour Relations Commission. Does anyone know if there is a public register of union/employer agreements? I've asked the LRC but no reply so far.

notharrypotter

The Labour court has a search facility if it helps.

http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations

What is

single tier policing

?