Haddington Road Agreement published

Aidan1

average run of the mill public sector worker

No such thing. The Public Sector is a very diverse entity, and incorporates roles from people who jump out of airplanes carrying guns to people carrying out brain surgery. And, as you'd expect, the skills in demand by the private sector change over time. Right now, IT, compliance and regulatory affairs people are tough to keep hold of in the public sector (one of the consequences of increased recruitment of private sector people at middle and senior levels in the public service has been the flow the other way).

Long story short, the standard Sindo headline about the public service may have relevance in some areas, but in a great number of others, they're laughable. In a lot of bodies, numbers are down 25-30%, and succession planning is becoming a major problem. A clearly identifiable risk is emerging that, in 5-10 years, the next crop of senior managers simply won't be there (or worse, will be promoted from the ranks of those who couldn't get a job in the private sector).

creedp

Jawgap wrote: »

I think that's a fair assessment - IT and other technical skills are always going to be in demand.

To bring things a bit back on topic, this probably demonstrates how blunt and instrument Haddington Road is - or just how little imagination the government have - that they can't construct an agreement that rewards valuable skills and experience.

It also goes back to one of original points - way, way in the past:) - redundancies not wage cuts were he best way to trim the salary budget, especially in the context of a reform and re-organisation programme. Unfortunately that boat has now sailed.

Haddington Road or its predecessor were never about reform or performance management/improvement .. they were simply about headlines for the Troika and IBEC and Co re how tough negotiators the current regime are .. take no crap ..put people in their place .. €1bn in savings wow! Following on from the attempted reform of allowances nothing short of a € billion was acceptable to the our Labour hero.

Problem is they won't achieve a fraction of it and all they will do is p1ss the remaining PS to the extent that productivity will fall and the IBEC cheerleaders will really get what they continue to bleat on about .. a highly unproductive PS that draws its cheque!

Time to rename the Dept of Public Sector Reform (DPER) to something more appropriate .. I'll start with Dept of Public Sector Cuts (DPSC)

noodler

Godge wrote: »

That is exactly why I quit. Once the new paycuts take effect in July, I will be earning 40% more in the private sector than my previous post in the public sector.

Haha, yes the famous Godge argument.

Ringing a bit hollow at this stage.

Sure I used to work in the private sector but got fed up with the longer hours, crappy entitlements, extra work and lack of security so I went to the PS AND I got a pay rise.

That argument holds about as much weight around here as yours unfortunately.

Godge wrote: »

Yes, your opinion, but again, what is that worth against facts? Private sector employment up, public sector employment down, can only mean that the net flow is from the public sector to the private sector.

Not in the slightest.

3,000 PS workers take retirement and a couple of mothers take up part-time work in the private sector.

You are just making up a situation to support your weak argument. You can prove no flow.

Godge wrote: »

If all of the public sector exodus were retiring or emigrating, then unemployment would be coming down faster.

Umm, unless they are actually retiring?

gazzer

I would love if there was more IT opportunities in the Civil Service. Unfortunately my SQL skills (and Java skills that I obtained on my own time) are not required as we have contractors doing that work for €450 a day.

rash

Fizzical wrote: »

Did you read the legislation? No, didn't think so.

What exactly does the following mean as my understanding of "notwithstanding" is in question. Does it mean that the FEMPI cannot override specified conditions in your contract of employment? ie, hours.

This section has effect notwithstanding—
(a) any provision by or under—
(i) any other Act,
(ii) any statute or other document to like effect of a university or other third level institution,
(iii) any circular or instrument or other document,
(iv) any written agreement or contractual arrangement,
or
(b) any verbal agreement, arrangement or understanding or any expectation.

ardmacha

Does it mean that the FEMPI cannot override specified conditions in your contract of employment? ie, hours.

You are PS, you have no rights whatsoever, unlike other citizens.
Your hours can be determined at will, subject only yo complying with the EU directive on working time.

Jawgap

rash wrote: »

What exactly does the following mean as my understanding of "notwithstanding" is in question. Does it mean that the FEMPI cannot override specified conditions in your contract of employment? ie, hours.

This section has effect notwithstanding—
(a) any provision by or under—
(i) any other Act,
(ii) any statute or other document to like effect of a university or other third level institution,
(iii) any circular or instrument or other document,
(iv) any written agreement or contractual arrangement,
or
(b) any verbal agreement, arrangement or understanding or any expectation.

No it means the section applies and you can't use anything from sub-sections (a) or (b) to say otherwise.

It's a nice way of saying we can use the paper on which your terms of employment were spelled out as bog roll - and you can't do anything about it when we hand it back smelly side first. You just have to hold your nose and take it........

woodoo

ardmacha wrote: »

You are PS, you have no rights whatsoever, unlike other citizens.
Your hours can be determined at will, subject only yo complying with the EU directive on working time.

Time to vote Fianna Fail i think. Bring back the soldiers of destiny.

rash

Jawgap wrote: »

No it means the section applies and you can't use anything from sub-sections (a) or (b) to say otherwise.

It's a nice way of saying we can use the paper on which your terms of employment were spelled out as bog roll - and you can't do anything about it when we hand it back smelly side first. You just have to hold your nose and take it........

Thanks for that. In the place I work, members of unions that voted for the HRA are working the additional hours, however non union members fall under the FEMPI but they are not required to work the additional hours .... confused???

Godge

rash wrote: »

Thanks for that. In the place I work, members of unions that voted for the HRA are working the additional hours, however non union members fall under the FEMPI but they are not required to work the additional hours .... confused???

Unions (and the employees they represent whether members of the union or not) signing up to HRA are limited to 2.25 extra hours.

Unions (and the same etc) not signing up to the HRA are subject to FEMPI which may be anything that the Minister decides, he just hasn't decided yet.

rash

Jawgap wrote: »

No it means the section applies and you can't use anything from sub-sections (a) or (b) to say otherwise.

It's a nice way of saying we can use the paper on which your terms of employment were spelled out as bog roll - and you can't do anything about it when we hand it back smelly side first. You just have to hold your nose and take it........

Thanks for that.

P.S. Some impressive Strava stats. Never knew about veloviewer, handy tool.

Jawgap

rash wrote: »

Thanks for that.

P.S. Some impressive Strava stats. Never knew about veloviewer, handy tool.

Tells you exactly how crap you are in relation to everyone else!!

rash

Godge wrote: »

Unions (and the employees they represent whether members of the union or not) signing up to HRA are limited to 2.25 extra hours.

Unions (and the same etc) not signing up to the HRA are subject to FEMPI which may be anything that the Minister decides, he just hasn't decided yet.

When are they back from their summer holidays?. You would think the statutory instruments or whatever would have been in place before the 1st July. Current situation is a joke.

Godge

rash wrote: »

When are they back from their summer holidays?. You would think the statutory instruments or whatever would have been in place before the 1st July. Current situation is a joke.

government are waiting to see if the last few unions will cave in, UNITE have done so already, TUI and ASTI are the two biggest outside and their members shout and cry a lot before voting yes.

sarumite

I would agree with Godge. The impression I get is that the government feel they have made enough concession to get agreement from most of the unions and would prefer to wait for everything to be official rather risk upsetting unions by making any preemptive actions.

amen

members of unions that voted for the HRA are working the additional hours, however non union members fall under the FEMPI but they are not required to work the additional hours

sorry I don't get this. It seems to me that depending on union membership (or not) employees are being treated differently.

Is this not illegal under irish law ?

ardmacha

sorry I don't get this. It seems to me that depending on union membership (or not) employees are being treated differently.
Is this not illegal under irish law ?

the union members agreed to work the extra hours, the others are simply working as per their contracts.

woodoo

ardmacha wrote: »

the union members agreed to work the extra hours, the others are simply working as per their contracts.

Thats not the way its working where i work. We are all doing the new hours. Union members and non union members.

Gumbo

woodoo wrote: »

Thats not the way its working where i work. We are all doing the new hours. Union members and non union members.

Same here.
I'm not in a union and I'm working the new increased hours.

Mr Cumulonimbus

kceire wrote: »

Same here.
I'm not in a union and I'm working the new increased hours.

There's an option to work the old hours and take an equivalent pay cut. Maybe thats whats happening?

ardmacha

I'm not in a union and I'm working the new increased hours.

If your contract states that you are governed by collective agreements, then it doesn't matter if you are in the union or not.

woodoo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

There's an option to work the old hours and take an equivalent pay cut. Maybe thats whats happening?

That was available to all of us too union or no union.