Public sector pay increase

SMASH IRISH WATER

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So.. 4 posts across 2 threads and your message is "I want everything for free and someone else should pay for it" ?

Interesting.

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

smash

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

Ah.... so it's pure jealousy that guides your posts. To be very blunt with you, your husband is a labourer. It's a job that requires very little education and one that almost anyone can do, but it's the career path he decided to take. You can't blame people for doing well in life just because they decided to stay in school or go to college. I know labourers who had brand new cars and multiple holidays during the boom too. But that bubble was bound to burst.

Quin_Dub

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

So, you are a communist?

You believe that everyone should earn the same regardless of qualifications or job type?

The architect gets the same pay as the labourer on the building site?

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

You are confusing effort with value here - No doubt that working in manual labour is physically harder than an office job.. But the value returned by the 2 things are not necessarily the same, hence the difference in earnings...

Galwayguy35

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

I suppose you think you pay for your water 3 times as well and believe in "peaceful protest".

SMASH IRISH WATER

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

It would be unfair to not pay those in the public service a salary which they deserve because of their qualifications, experience and expertise just because others are struggling.

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

You cannot use how difficult work is physically as an argument for one person getting paid more than someone else. The woman in the office is most likely well educated and working in a role that requires certain skills which she possesses. I bet you have no idea at all what she does or how difficult or stressful her job is.

Sleepy

I'm not against public sector pay increases in principle but the reality is that the vast majority of the "lower paid" public sector workers are already over-paid by market standards and the more senior workers (who it could be argued are under-paid when you look at the salaries of those in equivalent positions in the private sector) don't have to live up to the same standards of accountability as those whose salaries they'd be compared against.

I'd love to see those Public Servants who deserve one given a pay raise. I know quite a few who have been "acting up" to positions two grades above their own for the past few years, I know teachers, guards and nurses who should be paid fortunes but I also know plenty of PS workers who, were you to replace them with a potted plant, you'd improve the output of their colleagues. So, as long as we're forced to pay the latter the same rates as the former, there's no case to be made for one (or at least until such point that the competent come to the realisation that unionisation harms, rather than benefits them and leave in sufficient droves that the incompetent can be fired and the unions told to take a hike).

Jawgap

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

www.publicjobs.ie

.......fill yer boots

My family is from Dublin's inner city - I was the first to go to Uni (on a grant) but I worked hard and paid for my Masters and PhD from own resources - if you want more take some responsibility for yourself, go out and work for it, instead of trying to drag everyone else down.

KomradeBishop

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not against public sector pay increases in principle but the reality is that the vast majority of the "lower paid" public sector workers are already over-paid by market standards and the senior management (who it could be argued are under-paid when you look at the salaries of those in equivalent positions in the private sector) don't have to live up to the same standards of accountability as those whose salaries they'd be compared against.

I'd love to see those Public Servants who deserve one given a pay raise. I know quite a few who have been "acting up" to positions two grades above their own for the past few years, I know teachers, guards and nurses who should be paid fortunes but I also know plenty of PS workers who, were you to replace them with a potted plant, you'd improve the output of their colleagues. So, as long as we're forced to pay the latter the same rates as the former, there's no case to be made for one (or at least until such point that the competent come to the realisation that unionisation harms, rather than benefits them and leave in sufficient droves that the incompetent can be fired and the unions told to take a hike).

So you want collective punishment, withholding deserved pay increases from the good workers, because of the few bad eggs?

JillyQ

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Because we can not afford it and it will damage the wealth creating private sector by hurting the competitiveness of the country.

Couldnt argee more. It would be different if we had a public sector that was at least efficient.

Sleepy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you want collective punishment, withholding deserved pay increases from the good workers, because of the few bad eggs?

Not at all. I want those who deserve pay increases to get them, those who deserve decreases to get them and to see those who deserve to be sacked, replaced (if there's a need to do so).

The unions prevent this. They're the ones insisting on collective rewards/punishments.

BTW: you're also missing the point that a large number of public sector workers (typically those working in administrative roles) are already over-paid compared to their private sector equivalents.

Quin_Dub

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you want collective punishment, withholding deserved pay increases from the good workers, because of the few bad eggs?

No.. but the unions do...

Their utter refusal to countenance the introduction of true meritocracy is a huge barrier here...

Back in '08/'09 the cuts should have been targeted, there should have been specific redundancies etc..

The unions fought this tooth and nail and instead we got blanket pay cuts hitting the lower paid (or junior/new) PS staff the hardest.

As the cuts were universal, then the restoration should also be universal (although I'm not convinced that just now is the right time).

But, fundamentally the unions need to wake up to the real world and accept Meritocracy in the future as we'll never solve the funding and pay issues without it..

Jawgap

JillyQ wrote: »

Couldnt argee more. It would be different if we had a public sector that was at least efficient.

Define efficiency

Sleepy wrote: »

Not at all. I want those who deserve pay increases to get them, those who deserve decreases to get them and to see those who deserve to be sacked, replaced (if there's a need to do so).

The unions prevent this. They're the ones insisting on collective rewards/punishments.

Who decides who is deserving?

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Quin_Dub

Jawgap wrote: »

Define efficiency



Who decides who is deserving?

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Nobody is saying it's easy , but there has to be a mechanism whereby the best get rewarded more than the others...and that those that under-perform get more training or get shown the door.

I have no doubt that if you asked staff in a hospital to identify the "best" nurse/doctor/whatever they'd be able to do it..

Just because it'll be hard to do , doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do it...

JillyQ

Jawgap wrote: »

Define efficiency



Who decides who is deserving?

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Try running there departments within budget. If it dosent make the necessary cutbacks but encourage productivity & also for individuals to be held accountable for any mess ups they make. In other words run them like a private company.

Jawgap

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Nobody is saying it's easy , but there has to be a mechanism whereby the best get rewarded more than the others...and that those that under-perform get more training or get shown the door.

I have no doubt that if you asked staff in a hospital to identify the "best" nurse/doctor/whatever they'd be able to do it..

Just because it'll be hard to do , doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do it...

It does get tried and what you find is as soon as a system goes in it skews performance - no one wants to engage in any activity that is outside the performance indicator system.

In the place where I worked a PI was brought in that covered case clearance - immediately anything remotely difficult was long fingered and people looked for any excuse to dump a complicated case on someone else or reject it. So an 'index' was developed whereby cases were scored and you acquired 'points' for each case and people spent more time arguing over the score given to any given case - also no one wanted to work on tasks that weren't case related, so the time management system was altered to include a value - travel time was scored the lowest so guess what? No one wanted to travel meaning you couldn't get anyone to take a case on outside the M50 and on and on it went.....

Jawgap

JillyQ wrote: »

Try running there departments within budget. If it dosent make the necessary cutbacks but encourage productivity & also for individuals to be held accountable for any mess ups they make. In other words run them like a private company.

Again, how? If you're the Guards and the stations or squads are your cost centres what happens if there is a series of murders, a major incident, a significant public order event - do you get the bodies on deck, or protect the overtime budget?

If a bridge is damaged by s weather event do you leave it until the following year's budget is available or fix it - do you just fix it during sociable hours or aim to have fixed as quickly as possible by working around the clock?

etc

etc

JillyQ

JillyQ wrote: »

Try running there departments within budget. If it dosent make the necessary cutbacks but encourage productivity & also for individuals to be held accountable for any mess ups they make. In other words run them like a private company.

You simply cant run many public service areas like a private company, its just not the way it works and it would be a very very dangerous road to go down.

Jawgap

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

You simply cant run many public service areas like a private company, its just not the way it works and it would be a very very dangerous road to go down.

The services that are comparable with commercial activity should be put out to be run, on a franchise or contractual basis, by commercial bodies - likewise certain business processes such as payroll, accounts payable and receivable etc.

But a lot of services - health, policing, firefighting, defence, regulatory and permissioning services, SW eligibility etc are not amenable to being done by the private sector

Sleepy

Jawgap wrote: »

Who decides who is deserving?

Their managers, who are in turn are judged by their managers, who in turn are judged by theirs, all the way up to the Minister with responsibility for that Department who are judged by the cabinet formed by (not necessarily of) representatives returned by the electorate.

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Honestly? I'd be going for the former. I don't want tea and sympathy from the health system, I want them to effectively diagnose and treat me.

Of course some cases will require more interaction between practitioner and patient than others so the metric of patients seen per hour is meaningless but you gave a rather specific example and "comforting" is not something I see as an effective use of resources. Of course, I'd expect the nurse to be as considerate as possible but I'd also expect him/her to realise their time is better spent healing than empathising.

JillyQ

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

You simply cant run many public service areas like a private company, its just not the way it works and it would be a very very dangerous road to go down.

Sorry should have clarified it i was talking more about the administrative side of things. Obviously there are things that cant be.

Jawgap

Sleepy wrote: »

Their managers, who are in turn are judged by their managers, who in turn are judged by theirs, all the way up to the Minister with responsibility for that Department who are judged by the cabinet formed by (not necessarily of) representatives returned by the electorate.


Honestly? I'd be going for the former. I don't want tea and sympathy from the health system, I want them to effectively diagnose and treat me.

Of course some cases will require more interaction between practitioner and patient than others so the metric of patients seen per hour is meaningless but you gave a rather specific example and "comforting" is not something I see as an effective use of resources. Of course, I'd expect the nurse to be as considerate as possible but I'd also expect him/her to realise their time is better spent healing than empathising.

It's only when you're really sick, or a loved one is really sick that you appreciate the value of a really good, compassionate nurse.

......so if someone is beyond treating, turf them? Give the bed to someone who can be cured?

BTW, what about a child, a dementia sufferer, an unconscious person how are they going to be 'effectively' investigated and diagnosed? It's easy to take a medical history from an articulate adult - bit more of a challenge to take one from a dementia sufferer.

Sleepy

Jawgap wrote: »

It's only when you're really sick, or a loved one is really sick that you appreciate the value of a really good, compassionate nurse.

......so if someone is beyond treating, turf them? Give the bed to someone who can be cured?

BTW, what about a child, a dementia sufferer, an unconscious person how are they going to be 'effectively' investigated and diagnosed? It's easy to take a medical history from an articulate adult - bit more of a challenge to take one from a dementia sufferer.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that a nurse shouldn't be compassionate or that anyone should have treatment with-held. I said I'd be leaning towards the nurse who saw more people as being the "better" nurse as there are few cases that need a full 12 hour shift of a medical practitioners attention and I'd imagine a nurse doing that to be inefficiently using her time (understandably so, it'd be nice to be able to afford a public health system where every in-patient could receive that kind of care and molly-coddling but the reality is that we'll never be able to afford that unless we find oil under Leitrim!

As Quin_Dub pointed out:

Quin_Dub wrote:

I have no doubt that if you asked staff in a hospital to identify the "best" nurse/doctor/whatever they'd be able to do it..

And I'd add to that by saying that I'd have no doubt that if you asked staff in the same hospital to identify the "worst" members of staff, they could do it too. Most staff are going to be in the middle but the low performers are protected by the rest. The nurse who rings in sick on a regular basis or, who no matter how much training he is given, can't seem to find a patient's vein on the first attempt etc.

scary

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

And what of the newly qualified nurse who gets a degree and has to start off on a pittance and yet kids can leave school and get a job in the private sector on more money. wheres the fairness in that? you're just bitter that your husband hasnt had it as good as others, what did he do during the boom when builders and tradesmen were screwing us all over, did he miss out on that aswell?

Santa Cruz

scary wrote: »

And what of the newly qualified nurse who gets a degree and has to start off on a pittance and yet kids can leave school and get a job in the private sector on more money. wheres the fairness in that? you're just bitter that your husband hasnt had it as good as others, what did he do during the boom when builders and tradesmen were screwing us all over, did he miss out on that aswell?

All those public sector jobs were advertised. If they are so great why didnt the builders and tradesmen apply for them

astrofool

All future PS deals should be linked to the performance of the economy and take into account projected tax returns. The PS should cut it's cloth to match the incoming taxes, we should not subject everyone to tax increases to give pay increases to the public sector. Benchmarking that goes down as well as up with the countries finances.

And this is not pay restoration. There was a paycut, this is a pay rise.

Otherwise we should "restore" their pay to 1997 levels.

Iwasfrozen

astrofool wrote: »

All future PS deals should be linked to the performance of the economy and take into account projected tax returns. The PS should cut it's cloth to match the incoming taxes, we should not subject everyone to tax increases to give pay increases to the public sector. Benchmarking that goes down as well as up with the countries finances.

And this is not pay restoration. There was a paycut, this is a pay rise.

Otherwise we should "restore" their pay to 1997 levels.

Also no increases under any circumstances while the budget is still in deficit.

lakesider

Public service is a joke....truth be told its jobs for the boys gotten through politics for those who generally wouldnt cut it in the private sector....the majority of PS employees in Ireland are just wasters imo..:)..I actually know of a few who are full time PS workers and chronic alcoholics at the same time..go figure

Dozen Wicked Words

lakesider wrote: »

Public service is a joke....truth be told its jobs for the boys gotten through politics for those who generally wouldnt cut it in the private sector....the majority of PS employees in Ireland are just wasters imo..:)..I actually know of a few who are full time PS workers and chronic alcoholics at the same time..go figure

Nothing like tarring us all with the same brush.

JillyQ

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also no increases under any circumstances while the budget is still in deficit.

Our union friends would throw an absolute hissy fit at that. You are absolutely correct in saying no increases until the deficit is sorted.

Iwasfrozen

JillyQ wrote: »

Our union friends would throw an absolute hissy fit at that. You are absolutely correct in saying no increases until the deficit is sorted.

Then the public sector should be de-unionized. If I ran a company I wouldn't allow unions, why should the government?

Kelly06

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then the public sector should be de-unionized. If I ran a company I wouldn't allow unions, why should the government?

It's a little thing called the constitution. An individual's right to free association is enshrined in it. ! Article 40.6

Iwasfrozen

Kelly06 wrote: »

It's a little thing called the constitution. An individual's right to free association is enshrined in it. !

The right of the public sector to unionize is not protected under free association, don't be silly.

JillyQ

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then the public sector should be de-unionized. If I ran a company I wouldn't allow unions, why should the government?

Exactly the way it should be. The vast majority a majority of private sector businesses are non union. Including my own.

lakesider

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Nothing like tarring us all with the same brush.

No just calling it like it is..I notice you didnt try to contradict what I posted because its true, this country is in an awful mess due to having seriously poor politicians, corruption in government at all levels and cronyism..

The public service in this country is overburdened by freeloaders through politics/cronyism..I mean were only the size of a city in the UK yet we have enough PS workers and TDs to run the UK:eek: ask yourself why!!!

There are thousands of people lining up for dole at the local office where I live, I see them driving by..yet when a job came up as a caretaker/janitor in that facility it was handed to an ex garda sergeant retiring on a fat pension at 55 years of age..so he got two incomes from the state and the queue stayed the same length:rolleyes::rolleyes:..Ireland is rotten to the core!!!!!

smash

lakesider wrote: »

The public service in this country is overburdened by freeloaders through politics/cronyism..

A PS job in Ireland was always considered a job for life, guaranteed pay rises, guaranteed mortgage approval, guaranteed pension... what comes with all that is a guaranteed sense of self entitlement.

Kelly06

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The right of the public sector to unionize is not protected under free association, don't be silly.

Why don't you google it before you call me silly ? Article 40.6 iii


6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –


iii The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.

Specialun

4 working days in a row ive gone to a certain public sector institute to get a copy of old results. Only one woman out of the 3 in the office "looks after" it

1) she finished early at 2.30 ( usually finishes at 4)
2) was on break ( 1 time i waited over 45 mins, it was 11am)
3) rang in sick


Must go again 2moro for 5th time

#justsaying

Uncle Ben

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then the public sector should be de-unionized. If I ran a company I wouldn't allow unions, why should the government?

Your post gives far too much credit to the unions. Yes, they have been looking for restoration of pay and return of past conditions, however the reality to a lot of people within the PS is that to date they have produced very little.
If the govt stated that there would be no increase, do you honestly believe that the unions would ballot and furthermore actually secure a result for industrial action from such a ballot? I really doubt they would.
The fact that PS unions to date have stood over pay cuts,pensions levies, reduction in t&c and increases in hours etc.is testament to the unions inadequacy. Nursing and some teaching unions excepted.
The reasons for this proposed pay increase is more to do with the fact that an election is imminent. With the LP in single figures the PS unions which are affiliated to the same party will try and persuade their members that a vote for the party is in their own self interest.

The LP & FG will provide the pay increases for a sector of workers that are a relevant voting block. The unions are just the conduit.

Kelly06

Specialun wrote: »

4 working days in a row ive gone to a certain public sector institute to get a copy of old results. Only one woman out of the 3 in the office "looks after" it

1) she finished early at 2.30 ( usually finishes at 4)
2) was on break ( 1 time i waited over 45 mins, it was 11am)
3) rang in sick


Must go again 2moro for 5th time

#justsaying

This must be very frustrating. I work in the public service and seeing this kind of thing makes me angry. I would say contact him or her in advance of your next visit to arrange a time and I would let them know how many attempts you've made at sourcing the information you need.

Iwasfrozen

Kelly06 wrote: »

Why don't you google it before you call me silly ? Article 40.6 iii


6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –


iii The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.

De-unionizing the public sector would not infringe on these rights. The public have a right to form unions. They don't have a right to employer co-operation.

Kelly06

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

De-unionizing the public sector would not infringe on these rights. The public have a right to form unions. They don't have a right to employer co-operation.

You said you wouldn't allow unions in your workplace and that the government shouldn't. I'm merely pointing out to you that it is a constitutional right to be a member of a union and the government can't be seen to be denying the constitutional rights of their employees. I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs I'm pointing out that the right is enshrined in the constitution. You called me silly for suggesting it but I've shown it to be true !

smash

Kelly06 wrote: »

You said you wouldn't allow unions in your workplace and that the government shouldn't. I'm merely pointing out to you that it is a constitutional right to be a member of a union and the government can't be seen to be denying the constitutional rights of their employees. I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs I'm pointing out that the right is enshrined in the constitution. You called me silly for suggesting it but I've shown it to be true !

The constitution also says that women shouldn't have to work because it would interfere with their duties in the home. I think it's time for an overhaul to be honest.

Kelly06

smash wrote: »

The constitution also says that women shouldn't have to work because it would interfere with their duties in the home. I think it's time for an overhaul to be honest.

It does indeed say that! And then turns around and penalises those same women at the time of drawing down their pensions for not having enough "stamps" for those years!

Iwasfrozen

Kelly06 wrote: »

You said you wouldn't allow unions in your workplace and that the government shouldn't. I'm merely pointing out to you that it is a constitutional right to be a member of a union and the government can't be seen to be denying the constitutional rights of their employees. I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs I'm pointing out that the right is enshrined in the constitution. You called me silly for suggesting it but I've shown it to be true !

You haven't disproven anything I said the constitution allows membership of a union but it doesn't mandate employer co-operation.

smash

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You haven't disproven anything I said the constitution allows membership of a union but it doesn't mandate employer co-operation.

Employers in Ireland are not legally obliged to recognise unions. They could be scrapped in the morning!

Uncle Ben

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You haven't disproven anything I said the constitution allows membership of a union but it doesn't mandate employer co-operation.

Every branch of the PS is involved in unions apart from the Tds. From the street cleaner in SIPTU up to the Sec Gen of Dept. of Finance In the AHPS to the Gardai in Association of Garda Sgt and Inspectors etc etc. You're right the employer doesn't have to recognise the unions. The phrase is called Voluntarism. However in relation to the PS they will.
It suits all sides.

Kelly06

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You haven't disproven anything I said the constitution allows membership of a union but it doesn't mandate employer co-operation.

The government as an employer could not refuse to recognise a union. Personally I'm not mad on unions. I didn't even join one when I started in the PS. I only joined because on the day of the national strikes years ago my boss at the time ( non union) was insisting that all non union staff would have to pass the Picket of face the consequences . They would not allow leave to be taken and I would not pass a picket so I felt I had to join. I don't feel I've been represented well by my union but I won't go into my own personal circumstances on the Internet.

Years ago before I joined the public service I remember getting pay rises in the private sector inline with the partnership agreements. Even though I wasn't in a union my employer gave me pay rises that had been won by the unions. This was late 90's and early 2000's. They did serve a purpose to me then. Do public servants deserve a pay increase across the board- probably not. I think people don't realise how many deductions come from your wage in the public service. My current boss was promoted temporarily into their position recently. He will had to work for three months for no extra pay what so ever and a massive increase in workload effectively doing his old job and also the responsibilities of the new role. When the three months was up and the pay rise was paid 60 was gone in deductions out of the 100. Imagine! I think I would just let them have their job back!

smash

Kelly06 wrote: »

The government as an employer could not refuse to recognise a union.

The could, but they wont because they're part of a union too. And their union is in with the other unions. Solidarity and all that crap :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Every branch of the PS is involved in unions apart from the Tds. From the street cleaner in SIPTU up to the Sec Gen of Dept. of Finance In the AHPS to the Gardai in Association of Garda Sgt and Inspectors etc etc. You're right the employer doesn't have to recognise the unions. The phrase is called Voluntarism. However in relation to the PS they will.
It suits all sides.

My point is they shouldn't and de-unionizng the sector would allow for much greater flexibility to the benefit of the nation as a whole.

Kelly06 wrote: »

The government as an employer could not refuse to recognise a union.

Of course they could, why couldn't they?

mikemac1

scary wrote: »

And what of the newly qualified nurse who gets a degree and has to start off on a pittance

Isn't the salary for a graduate nurse 22k?

Its not a lot but lots of graduates start around that rate. A business grad entering an accountancy practice may start on less. Hotel junior duty managers work savage hours and they have 4 years of study same as nurses.

Nurses can lobby for more than 22k but its not a huge difference to other graduates. You may say they worked during placements but other degree courses have placements too