Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

Is it? How much of an organisation like the HSE or UCD is made up of “bullshit jobs” and how much is the people actually delivering the service? I know that the figures for most of our universities are shocking.

I don't agree that it is right. I agree wages should match inflation but the current situation isn't normal.

Also, how don't i have the "cojones"? I can afford this winter with or without any pay increase. I'm very lucky but i am not going to go on strike on principle when I don't think getting a better deal is realistic.

If the union recommends i accept the deal, i will. If they recommend i strike, I'll vote to strike. They are the experts and know if getting more is realistic or not.

If you reject the deal, people will be in a worse off position. Nothing will be done before the mega bills kick in.

I'll follow the guidance of the unions, is that not a sensible position to take? It's also not my responsibility to consider the effect it has on other people. At the end of the day, i only really care about my own pocket.

I am part of a union because they represent me and there is strength in numbers. When deciding on whether to accept a deal, I consider my own position. There would be exceptions but not in this instances.

Can you explain how I don't have the cojones?

The BS jobs, under David Graeber's definition, are those that could disappear and it would make no difference to anyone. I suggest you read his book on the subject. They are, of course, not limited to the public sector. Far from it. And one needn't look far to find lots of examples.

The putting in place of performance management systems most certainly does require a special cadre of administrators to run it. And that is but one of many auditing--generally defined--programmes. And the general point I'm making is: large parts of the public sector are overmanaged, not undermanaged. And overmanagement makes them less efficient, not more. But I'm guessing you are a manager of some sort... What's the line about the impossibility of making someone understand something when his pay packet depends on not understanding it?

As for the universities, they tend to keep this information close to the chest, but in 2010, in response to an Oireachtas query, the HEA put out figures showing, for example, that at UCD, 58% of staff were non-academic; at TCD it was 61%, at UCC 59%, etc. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the non-academic numbers have exploded while academic numbers (and ratios of academics to students) have declined in the years since. To be fair, this is a documented phenomenon throughout the West (see: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Faculty-Benjamin-Ginsberg/dp/0199975434/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2KL1IU29MTKKA&keywords=the+all-administrative+university&qid=1661703037&sprefix=the+all-administrative+university%2Caps%2C50&sr=8-1).

So what offer would you be willing to accept?

I do not think it is a low ball offer and i dont think we should get more. There's no point in playing hard ball if you're not going to win.

I don't understand you and you don't understand me but I'm not going to insult you.

My best guess is an offer of 4% this year and another 2.5% next year. I just don't see how they'll go any higher and yes I know it amounts to a pay cut.

This would have been so much easier to sort out months ago when inflation was lower.

If you don't accept the deal, low income workers will suffer more but we should not accept anything less than 10% (inflation). Your own position contradicts itself.

5% helps people. Striking on principle and getting 0% helps nobody.

We don't know what the deal is, we dont know what the unions will suggest, we are both speculating.