LRC to intervene in public pay dispute

douglashyde · 24-01-2010 11:13PM #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0124/economy.html

Basically the Labour Relations Commission is stepping in on the strikes that where planned by our beloved public sector.

This is my opinion is a step in the right direction as it will make pay cuts in the future a lot more easy.

Maybe there is hope for this country after all.

deise blue · 25-01-2010 10:52AM

An extremely rosy view of the LRC intervention.
It appears that the HSE ( the biggest employer within the Public Sector ) asked the LRC to intervene as the work to rule will have a huge effect on their services.
It seems to me that the Unions have managed to manoeuvre all interested parties back to some sort of negotiating forum even before the work to rule took place

brianthebard · 25-01-2010 11:32AM

I think the LRC would be much more likely to side with the principles of honouring a pre-agreed contract than 'shure its a recession, you can't get paid or the sky will fall!' type rhetoric.

kmick · 25-01-2010 11:46AM

I cant see what the LRC can do here. In mediation both sides have to give something up to reach a mutually benefical place. The government cannot give back pay cuts and in fact more are coming or so they keep saying. In an era of 5% deflation I cant see what the unions can possibly hope to achieve. The LRC recomending they get back 2% of their pay cut? I cant see that happening.

Cowen may have to go nuclear (it will never happen!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

Flex · 25-01-2010 12:01PM

brianthebard wrote: »

I think the LRC would be much more likely to side with the principles of honouring a pre-agreed contract than 'shure its a recession, you can't get paid or the sky will fall!' type rhetoric.

They are being paid, its just that given the current economic climate Ireland may not be able to maintain the envious position of having the highest paid public sector on earth anymore.

But yea, I feel for the poor guys. Theyre so downtrodden they can publically state theyre going to be deliberately inefficient and unproductive and obstruct any attempts at reform unless they get more money and get to dictate economic policy to the government, without fear of losing their jobs.

FlutterinBantam · 25-01-2010 01:10PM

brianthebard wrote: »

I think the LRC would be much more likely to side with the principles of honouring a pre-agreed contract than 'shure its a recession, you can't get paid or the sky will fall!' type rhetoric.

I'd much prefer to see redundancies in the Public and health service rather than all this waste of hot air.

Check the tax intake see what it will support and get rid of the surplus.

That's how the private sector works.

All these people want is interminable discussions and debate when the answer is obvious.

Let go what we can't afford .

Pure hogwash this posturing of Unions who can't see reality.

brianthebard · 25-01-2010 01:16PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'd much prefer to see redundancies in the Public and health service rather than all this waste of hot air.

Check the tax intake see what it will support and get rid of the surplus.

That's how the private sector works.

All these people want is interminable discussions and debate when the answer is obvious.

Let go what we can't afford .

Pure hogwash this posturing of Unions who can't see reality.

Thanks for an excellent example of the mindless rhetoric I was talking about. This sort of thing is not going to be upheld in the face of legally binding contracts which the employers in question are not honouring.
Btw, you ignored deise blue's post which points out that it was the HSE that put this situation into motion. So I assume when you said posturing Unions you meant posturing employers.

galway2007 · 25-01-2010 02:03PM

This is a joke
They have said they want to find the reason for the disputes
I thing we all know the reason for the work to rule so what are they goign to do about it?

FlutterinBantam · 25-01-2010 02:20PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Thanks for an excellent example of the mindless rhetoric I was talking about. This sort of thing is not going to be upheld in the face of legally binding contracts which the employers in question are not honouring.
Btw, you ignored deise blue's post which points out that it was the HSE that put this situation into motion. So I assume when you said posturing Unions you meant posturing employers.

Thanks for the excellent example of mindless socialist rhetoric which has this country in the state it's in.

I suppose you as a business person taking in 100k per month could pay your workforce 130k per month just because there were contracts???

Prof Ed Walsh got it right on newstalk today, if i were you Brian I would take a listen to Eamon Keane today and suck in a large dose of reality.

What you want is to bankrupt the State to pay your socialist drones their nice little earner.

Thank God Brian, some of us can see through that crud.

brianthebard · 25-01-2010 03:08PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thanks for the excellent example of mindless socialist rhetoric which has this country in the state it's in.

Where was the socialism in my post? the idea of honouring contracts? Pointing out the facts of the matter which you ignored? That was probably one of my most neutral posts ever, but of course that doesn't matter if you're more interested in mudslinging.

Permabear · 25-01-2010 03:29PM

This post has been deleted.

The_Honeybadger · 25-01-2010 03:54PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agree with you but he has a point, the labour court may not see it that way. They will not be under any obligation to take the economic climate into consideration.

brianthebard · 25-01-2010 04:16PM

mickeyk wrote: »

Agree with you but he has a point, the labour court may not see it that way. They will not be under any obligation to take the economic climate into consideration.

Precisely. I don't know how so many people could miss this simple fact.

ixoy · 25-01-2010 04:19PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Precisely. I don't know how so many people could miss this simple fact.

How could there not be an inability to pay clause in these contracts? I've never known anyone in the private sector who has an "upwards only" pay element to their contract. It doesn't make sense.

brianthebard · 25-01-2010 04:26PM

ixoy wrote: »

How could there not be an inability to pay clause in these contracts? I've never known anyone in the private sector who has an "upwards only" pay element to their contract. It doesn't make sense.

I'm not going to claim I know the ins and outs of this, but I think if there was such a clause then it would've already been implemented long ago? Obviously public sector pay has been negotiated through the social partnership for the past few decades and that seems to be the reason for this fairly unique situation. I think we'll just have to wait til the LRC has their way with the whole thing.

changes · 25-01-2010 04:46PM

Its hard to see where this industrial action will end up. But sending Mary Coughlan out to threaten more cuts can only serve to harden attitudes in the public service.

I think a third cut to public servants income in 2 years could lead to uproar.

Flex · 25-01-2010 04:55PM

changes wrote: »

Its hard to see where this industrial action will end up. But sending Mary Coughlan out to threaten more cuts can only serve to harden attitudes in the public service.

I think a third cut to public servants income in 2 years could lead to uproar.

Id say the chances of having the paycut reversed are very very slim. Fianna Fáil have had their popularity rating jump up 2% over the last couple of months. This will most likely be attributed to the fact they "took the tough decisions" and "fought down the unions" etc. to put through the tough budget that was necessary.

I doubt theyll be willing to go back on that and would actually rather maintain and play up the hardline (lol) approach theyve taken with the PS unions.

The_Honeybadger · 25-01-2010 04:57PM

changes wrote: »

Its hard to see where this industrial action will end up. But sending Mary Coughlan out to threaten more cuts can only serve to harden attitudes in the public service.

I think a third cut to public servants income in 2 years could lead to uproar.

I agree, however I read somewhere recently that the paycut for lower paid PS will be wiped out within a year as they get their increments paid. Is there any truth in this does anybody know? Surely the first thing the gov should have done when we went into recession and negative inflation was to freeze these increments indefinately? Seems crazy to be cutting pay and still paying these.

On the other hand I am well able to give the PS a kicking but I must say if I had 3 paycuts within 2 years I'd be on strike too, regardless of how well paid I was to begin with. Don't know why she was stoking the fire at this stage when unions are already getting ready for war, perhaps they see the confrontation as unavoidable and perhaps dare I say it, necessary.

FlutterinBantam · 25-01-2010 05:02PM

On strike for what??

What kind of 56bn out and 36bn in can't you people understand.

Sleepy · 25-01-2010 05:25PM

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

ParkRunner · 25-01-2010 05:41PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

There is always the option to slightly raise income tax so has not to disproportionately hit one section of the workforce for the third time in two years. I know people go on about diminishing returns from tax increases but similarly less income tax and vat revenue is being taken in following the latest paycuts.

An independent third party is probably exactly what the latest industrial action needs with the collapse of partnership. At least negotiations can be had in some confidence if a binding agreement can be reached this time.

Flex · 25-01-2010 05:41PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

On strike for what??

What kind of 56bn out and 36bn in can't you people understand.

Ah nah, youve just been brainwashed by the media and all those fats cats (who are cukkin the buks, dont ya know???). Lets just keep borrowing and leave things as they are and then vote Fianna Fáil out in 2012. Problem solved.

Flex · 25-01-2010 05:45PM

EF wrote: »

There is always the option to slightly raise income tax so has not to disproportionately hit one section of the workforce for the third time in two years. I know people go on about diminishing returns from tax increases but similarly less income tax and vat revenue is being taken in following the latest paycuts.

But the Public Sectors pay originates from the government in the first place. Tax income from the public sector isnt really 'revenue' for the government, its just a reduction in the governments expenses.

Having said that, I dont mind paying more taxes, no objections. Of course Id rather it was spent on something worthwhile, but if it was the best course for helping the economy recovery Id be happy to pay it.

FlutterinBantam · 25-01-2010 05:49PM

Flex wrote: »

Ah nah, youve just been brainwashed by the media and all those fats cats (who are cukkin the buks, dont ya know???). Lets just keep borrowing and leave things as they are and then vote Fianna Fáil out in 2012. Problem solved.

heh heh Well I suppose it doesn't bother poor Brian, whose idea seems to be to that no matter what the fiscal situation, you keep a bloated and overpaid PS intact and drive the economy into the mire.

the fact that only 36bn is coming in and 56bn is going out doesn't seem to figure in his sums.

Obviously gearing up for a job in the state sector as I couldn't see that branch of 'economics' getting too far in the private sector.;)

dear oh dear!!

The_Honeybadger · 25-01-2010 07:49PM

Flex wrote: »

But the Public Sectors pay originates from the government in the first place. Tax income from the public sector isnt really 'revenue' for the government, its just a reduction in the governments expenses.

Having said that, I dont mind paying more taxes, no objections. Of course Id rather it was spent on something worthwhile, but if it was the best course for helping the economy recovery Id be happy to pay it.

+1 I am also happy to pay more tax as long as we see worthwhile reform in the public service (health & education in particular), better value for money elsewhere, and generally the gov showing a bit of cop on in how our tax money is spent. Looks like we will be paying a water tax and property rates shortly and I don't mind that as long as we get decent services in return.

The_Honeybadger · 25-01-2010 07:53PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

Agree 100% increments do not give employees an incentive to be efficient or hardworking, they serve no purpose whatsoever IMO. Any rise should be based on performance on the job.

changes · 25-01-2010 08:11PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the next move will be an attempt to end increments. No sane person could argue with it.

They would need to harmonise pay at each grade before they could end increments or else you could have people doing the exact same job on different incomes indefinitely.

e.g. a 28yr old nurse on 32K and a 38yr old nurse on 40K, if you suddenly ended increments both nurses would carry on till retirement with one earning 8K more than the other.

galway2007 · 25-01-2010 08:53PM

kmick wrote: »

I cant see what the LRC can do here. In mediation both sides have to give something up to reach a mutually benefical place. The government cannot give back pay cuts and in fact more are coming or so they keep saying. In an era of 5% deflation I cant see what the unions can possibly hope to achieve. The LRC recomending they get back 2% of their pay cut? I cant see that happening.

Cowen may have to go nuclear (it will never happen!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

the chairman of the LRC has said that he would be looking to the future and would like to see an agreement that public sector pay would be restored maybe in 2012 if agreement can be reached on reform.
That would infact be a 3 to 4 year pay freeze and reform at no extra cost

theghost · 25-01-2010 11:16PM

Flex wrote: »

They are being paid, its just that given the current economic climate Ireland may not be able to maintain the envious position of having the highest paid public sector on earth anymore.

But yea, I feel for the poor guys. Theyre so downtrodden they can publically state theyre going to be deliberately inefficient and unproductive and obstruct any attempts at reform unless they get more money and get to dictate economic policy to the government, without fear of losing their jobs.

How are they being inefficient? They are working to rule - in other words, they are doing what they paid to do and what their contracts state that they should do, nothing more and nothing less. If working to rule leads to inefficiency that is the fault of the employers who issued the contracts, not the fault of the employees who signed them.

FlutterinBantam · 25-01-2010 11:23PM

Totally untrue.

If you think that an employer can cover every conceivable work situation with a contract, well you are not in the real world my friend.

Nobody could get anything done using that kind of warped philosophy.

ixoy · 25-01-2010 11:39PM

changes wrote: »

They would need to harmonise pay at each grade before they could end increments or else you could have people doing the exact same job on different incomes indefinitely

Yeah but that happens in many places. There's also the assumption that your skill is commensurate with your team served - not at all often the case from my experience. This has a lot to do with how poorly it's judged.

Besides which it would be a temporary freeze and not a permanent one. It's very difficult to work out how much would be saved, but it would - if nothing else - stop those scenarios where some people overcome the pay cut in a year (new entrants at the bottom of their scale) whereas others will not for a good bit longer (those with 6+ years I believe).

The_Honeybadger · 25-01-2010 11:54PM

changes wrote: »

They would need to harmonise pay at each grade before they could end increments or else you could have people doing the exact same job on different incomes indefinitely.

e.g. a 28yr old nurse on 32K and a 38yr old nurse on 40K, if you suddenly ended increments both nurses would carry on till retirement with one earning 8K more than the other.

Why not move to a sysyem where performance rather than tenure is rewarded? That way the good staff who are committed and motivated will get the rewards they deserve. I dont think anybody would object to an excellent public servant being paid what they are worth. Well actually some people probably still would but at least the system would be fairer, with those who are not pulling their weight being paid a bit less. This should also ensure that the system becomes more efficient over time.

twowheelsonly · 26-01-2010 12:04AM

mickeyk wrote: »

Why not move to a sysyem where performance rather than tenure is rewarded? That way the good staff who are committed and motivated will get the rewards they deserve. I dont think anybody would object to an excellent public servant being paid what they are worth. Well actually some people probably still would but at least the system would be fairer, with those who are not pulling their weight being paid a bit less. This should also ensure that the system becomes more efficient over time.

....or causes more bitterness. That system attracts a lot of grief.

You may be a great worker but don't see eye to eye with your supervisor/manager. And he decides whether you get paid more or not.
You're 15 years in your Private sector job, doing a fine job, and your bosses son comes in and is earning more than you after 6 months because he's 'really good' at his job. Are you happy??

There's a couple of old sayings that we're all familiar with - "You can't buy experience" and "You can't put an old head on young shoulders".
Think of these when you think of many of our more prominent Public Service workers, Gardai, Nurses, Prison Officers and Firemen. Now tell them that they're going to be getting paid less than the new kid on the block that's at the same grade as them.

rashers10 · 26-01-2010 12:11AM

mickeyk wrote: »

Why not move to a sysyem where performance rather than tenure is rewarded? That way the good staff who are committed and motivated will get the rewards they deserve. I dont think anybody would object to an excellent public servant being paid what they are worth. Well actually some people probably still would but at least the system would be fairer, with those who are not pulling their weight being paid a bit less. This should also ensure that the system becomes more efficient over time.

Because it would end up like the 'performance' bonus system that the senior Public Servants get... i.e. Everyone get's the full bonus every year

ixoy · 26-01-2010 12:28AM

rashers10 wrote: »

Because it would end up like the 'performance' bonus system that the senior Public Servants get... i.e. Everyone get's the full bonus every year

It wouldn't have to. Most private sectors apply a bell-curve model to promotions. It's not ideal and can never cater for those situations where personalities clash, but it would at least push it towards rewarding ability rather than years. Years certainly does not always equate with ability from my experience and it shouldn't be treated as such.

The_Honeybadger · 26-01-2010 12:32AM

twowheelsonly wrote: »

....or causes more bitterness. That system attracts a lot of grief.

You may be a great worker but don't see eye to eye with your supervisor/manager. And he decides whether you get paid more or not.
You're 15 years in your Private sector job, doing a fine job, and your bosses son comes in and is earning more than you after 6 months because he's 'really good' at his job. Are you happy??

There's a couple of old sayings that we're all familiar with - "You can't buy experience" and "You can't put an old head on young shoulders".
Think of these when you think of many of our more prominent Public Service workers, Gardai, Nurses, Prison Officers and Firemen. Now tell them that they're going to be getting paid less than the new kid on the block that's at the same grade as them.

Sorry but thats a pretty weak argument against it. Those that are there longer would still be getting more as they'd have more reviews under their belt and more opportunities to increase their pay. Leaving a clearly inefficient system in place because somebody might not get on with their boss is just daft. That sort of thing will go on no matter what system is in place.

changes · 26-01-2010 12:33AM

rashers10 wrote: »

Because it would end up like the 'performance' bonus system that the senior Public Servants get... i.e. Everyone get's the full bonus every year

Yeah thats what would prob happen. Supervisors and managers would not want to refuse increments or bonuses to staff who they know are almost unsackable and would be stuck with for years.

That staff member could become very awkward and not genuinely fear getting the sack.

Can you imagine the change in the PS/CS if people were disiplined or sacked for incompetence, slacking, non attendance or otherwise neglecting their duties. Then would performance related pay might work.

Idbatterim · 26-01-2010 12:38AM

Brianthebeard can I ask what area you work in? I have a feeling I already know the anwser!

twowheelsonly · 26-01-2010 12:46AM

mickeyk wrote: »

Sorry but thats a pretty weak argument against it. Those that are there longer would still be getting more as they'd have more reviews under their belt and more opportunities to increase their pay. Leaving a clearly inefficient system in place because somebody might not get on with their boss is just daft. That sort of thing will go on no matter what system is in place.

Regarding the 'Clearly inefficient' increments system that is currently in place, I find that 95%+ of the Public Servants that I come across do their job to the best of their ability with regard to their experience. Of course a few will slip through the net, as they will with any system.
In fact, the PMDS (Performance related pay/increment system) has been rolled out across most of the Public Service by now and is generally seen as a complete and utter waste of time, money and effort. If your direct supervisor denies you your increment are you seriously going to accept that when you have 2 lines of appeal open to you before you take it to the High Court? Chances are that you'll win it and that just serves to undermine your supervisor leading to more bitterness. Don't tell me that it doesn't happen, because it does.

The_Honeybadger · 26-01-2010 09:25AM

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Regarding the 'Clearly inefficient' increments system that is currently in place, I find that 95%+ of the Public Servants that I come across do their job to the best of their ability with regard to their experience. Of course a few will slip through the net, as they will with any system.
In fact, the PMDS (Performance related pay/increment system) has been rolled out across most of the Public Service by now and is generally seen as a complete and utter waste of time, money and effort. If your direct supervisor denies you your increment are you seriously going to accept that when you have 2 lines of appeal open to you before you take it to the High Court? Chances are that you'll win it and that just serves to undermine your supervisor leading to more bitterness. Don't tell me that it doesn't happen, because it does.

If that is whats happening then it is a waste of time. I have worked in jobs where performance review was taken seriously and your score actually mattered and that is where I'm coming from, the high court was not an option, if you disagreed with your score you get on with it and try to improve next time. Performance appraisal is a basic HR function in any successful company, but no, of course it couldn't possible work in our public service, god forbid it might highlight somebody that isn't pulling their weight, I guess this further highlights the difference between public and private workers, public can do what they like as they can't be sacked and have their unions behind them. You are probably one of the only people I know that regards our public service as efficient, even jack o connor concedes that there is room for major improvement and a "transformation" of the public service could save billions over time, do you know something he doesn't.

theghost · 26-01-2010 10:24PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Totally untrue.

If you think that an employer can cover every conceivable work situation with a contract, well you are not in the real world my friend.

Nobody could get anything done using that kind of warped philosophy.

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary. The vast majority of employees will perform functions which are not stipulated in their contract, or do unpaid overtime, as long as the employer keeps his side of the bargain and pays the agreed wage. If you cut the employees' wages - without negotiation at the end of a prolonged campaign vilifying those employees, whilst expecting them to continue doing other people's jobs as well as their own - what else can you expect but a work to rule?

FlutterinBantam · 27-01-2010 09:09AM

theghost wrote: »

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary.

Of course, normal procedure.

theghost wrote: »

The vast majority of employees will perform functions which are not stipulated in their contract, or do unpaid overtime, as long as the employer keeps his side of the bargain and pays the agreed wage.

Of course, normal procedure

theghost wrote: »

If you cut the employees' wages - without negotiation at the end of a prolonged campaign vilifying those employees, whilst expecting them to continue doing other people's jobs as well as their own - what else can you expect but a work to rule?

Here's where the spin comes in. If the concern is not earning enough money to comply with conditions, there are a number of options:

1.. Redundancy

2.. Cost reduction

3.. Higher productivity...reduced staff costs/pension/ conditions

4.. Increased taxes.

5.. Borrow at exorbitant rates

John Q Taxpayer cannot , I say again sustain current status of PS.

Soooo what do you want to do??

galway2007 · 27-01-2010 04:56PM

i think you know what thay are going to do
They will increase tax
They are going to put the PRSI and the income levy in to a new format
Then every worker will pay that on all of there income
Water charge will raise 1 billion so they will be able to reduce the money required for local goverement
property tax will raise another billion
and on and on they will go with tax

dvpower · 27-01-2010 06:52PM

theghost wrote: »

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary. The vast majority of employees will perform functions which are not stipulated in their contract, or do unpaid overtime, as long as the employer keeps his side of the bargain and pays the agreed wage. If you cut the employees' wages - without negotiation at the end of a prolonged campaign vilifying those employees, whilst expecting them to continue doing other people's jobs as well as their own - what else can you expect but a work to rule?

You could expect an employee to look at the reality of the situation and do whatever is in their best interest.
In many small and medium companies throughout the country, people are willingly taking pay cuts because they know that if their company's cost base is not reduced they run a real risk of being made redundant.

Ireland's deficit is currently runnning at about €20bn, so it is clear that something has to give on public sector pay. So, while public sector workers may be angry, they need to face reality. They have zero chance of winning this dispute and the longer they fight it and refuse to engage on reform, the greater the chance that further pay cuts will need to be imposed again next year.

ardmacha · 27-01-2010 07:08PM

You are probably one of the only people I know that regards our public service as efficient,

The concept of the "public service" as efficient or inefficient is of no great help. Just as saying that Irish business is uncompetitive is of limited use, some of it is and some of it isn't. Making aggregate statements only takes you so far, yet this forum seems to extend these over hundreds of posts.

The_Honeybadger · 27-01-2010 08:26PM

ardmacha wrote: »

The concept of the "public service" as efficient or inefficient is of no great help. Just as saying that Irish business is uncompetitive is of limited use, some of it is and some of it isn't. Making aggregate statements only takes you so far, yet this forum seems to extend these over hundreds of posts.

An awful lot of what is posted on these forums is of no great help TBH, and I didn't think it was meant to be. Its a discussion forum, where people put forward their views on certain issues. Not really sure what you are trying to say with that post.

hmmm · 27-01-2010 09:58PM

theghost wrote: »

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary.

I think most people find this concept of "work to rule" as patently ridiculous and it makes the unions and their members look equally ridiculous. Employment contracts by their nature do not specify trivialities such as whether or not the employee is supposed to use a phone, use a computer or remember to breath when doing their job. Working to rule is a dishonourable tactic that tries to have the best of both worlds - industrial action with no loss of pay.

LRC to intervene in public pay dispute

Comments