• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Croke Park II - What will the govt. do next?


mickmick

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
262
IMPACT have told their members that the govt. has three options.
1 Give up on the savings and leave things as they are until the existing Croke Park agreement expires next March;
2 Seek to clarify, or even amend, the rejected proposals — perhaps with the assistance of an external facilitator such as the Labour Relations Commission;
3 Move to impose the cuts — or a worse package — without agreement

In my view the first option is highly unlikely because the govt. needs the savings now. I also think the second is unlikely because I don't think they can amend CPII in such a way to appease enough unions to back the deal.
The third view is more likely. I don't think they'd have the bottle to impose a worse package, unless they're really looking for a showdown, but they might try to legislate for the main parts of the rejected deal and hope the union anger blows over, perhaps with some concession thrown in to try and placate some unions.

Are there any other options open to them? A mini-budget to raise tax, cuts to services, amend their timetable with the Troika, etc.

Please try and keep this discussion on what the govt. might do now and not the rights or wrongs of the PS or the deal

Mickmick
 


dancl2000

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
517
IMPACT have told their members that the govt. has three options.
1 Give up on the savings and leave things as they are until the existing Croke Park agreement expires next March;
2 Seek to clarify, or even amend, the rejected proposals — perhaps with the assistance of an external facilitator such as the Labour Relations Commission;
3 Move to impose the cuts — or a worse package — without agreement

In my view the first option is highly unlikely because the govt. needs the savings now. I also think the second is unlikely because I don't think they can amend CPII in such a way to appease enough unions to back the deal.
The third view is more likely. I don't think they'd have the bottle to impose a worse package, unless they're really looking for a showdown, but they might try to legislate for the main parts of the rejected deal and hope the union anger blows over, perhaps with some concession thrown in to try and placate some unions.

Are there any other options open to them? A mini-budget to raise tax, cuts to services, amend their timetable with the Troika, etc.

Please try and keep this discussion on what the govt. might do now and not the rights or wrongs of the PS or the deal

Mickmick
what's the legality of imposing cuts ? the original croke park agreement said there would be no further cuts in pay until 2014.. the current govt may feel the previous govt negotiated a bad / insufficient agreement but i presume they're bound by it

so whatever the rights and wrongs of it, unless there is a legal basis to unilaterally alter the original croke park agreement i would expect the govt is prevented from making pay reducations before 2014

On the otherhand, maybe the reductions introduced when the current agreement epxires can make future savings to claw back the eur300m the govt it failed to save in 2013
 

mickmick

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
262
what's the legality of imposing cuts ? the original croke park agreement said there would be no further cuts in pay until 2014.. the current govt may feel the previous govt negotiated a bad / insufficient agreement but i presume they're bound by it

so whatever the rights and wrongs of it, unless there is a legal basis to unilaterally alter the original croke park agreement i would expect the govt is prevented from making pay reducations before 2014
Don't forget that the govt. can change the law. That's how the original PS pay cuts were introduced. They pre-dated Croke Park I
 

iball123

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,421
Don't forget that the govt. can change the law. That's how the original PS pay cuts were introduced. They pre-dated Croke Park I
There was also a caveat to the this agreement that if the growth invisaged did not happen and the crisis worsens which it has that cuts could be imposed
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
1,223
what's the legality of imposing cuts ? the original croke park agreement said there would be no further cuts in pay until 2014.. the current govt may feel the previous govt negotiated a bad / insufficient agreement but i presume they're bound by it

so whatever the rights and wrongs of it, unless there is a legal basis to unilaterally alter the original croke park agreement i would expect the govt is prevented from making pay reducations before 2014

On the otherhand, maybe the reductions introduced when the current agreement epxires can make future savings to claw back the eur300m the govt it failed to save in 2013
The thing is though, the Croke Park Agreement is not actually an agreement, per se, more of an understanding. It has no legal or contractual basis. The government can pretty much do what they like with it, e.g.rip it up, as they've shown.
 

Shortie

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
24
The thing is though, the Croke Park Agreement is not actually an agreement, per se, more of an understanding. It has no legal or contractual basis. The government can pretty much do what they like with it, e.g.rip it up, as they've shown.
When is an agreement not an agreement? What's the point in public sector workers re-negotiating if it's not worth the paper it's written on. They should see the existing agreement out.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
1,223
When is an agreement not an agreement? What's the point in public sector workers re-negotiating if it's not worth the paper it's written on. They should see the existing agreement out.
Of course we should. It would gain the government some major goodwill if they did too. My point is that the CPA is not legally binding. FWIW, Towards 2016 was breached by the government side too.
 

dancl2000

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
517
The thing is though, the Croke Park Agreement is not actually an agreement, per se, more of an understanding. It has no legal or contractual basis. The government can pretty much do what they like with it, e.g.rip it up, as they've shown.
that explains a lot

personally I think teh govt should legislate now for cuts that take effect after the croke park agreement expires. we're talking about less than a year which is not that long a time. The missing eur300m can be clawed back somehow

to do otherwise will send a signal that public sector labour relations agreement arent worth the paper they're written on and future govts will have a difficult time getting buy-in when there's a need to re-structuring, change working practices, whatever
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,210
1) Freeze increments across the board save for those who perform exceptionally well.
2) Sack incompetent/corrupt/indiscipline/non-punctual employees;
3) Let go of any employee on long term sick leave especially back pain and stress on grounds of capacity.
4) Replace quango employees with contractual staff.
5) Reduce the pay scale for all new employees by 25%.
6) A new higher tax band for those earning over €100,000 whether public or private.
7) Hire accountants/lawyers on a commission basis to conduct filtering revenue audits and social welfare fraud investigations.
8) Aim to ensure that the effective corporation tax is closer to the nominal tax rate.
9) Implement the rest of the McCarthy making any employee of abolished positions redundant (unless there is a need elsewhere).
10) Get on with it.

ie Reform the public sector in a specific way rather than collective punishment of those with existing contracts.
 

Shortie

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
24
Of course we should. It would gain the government some major goodwill if they did too. My point is that the CPA is not legally binding. FWIW, Towards 2016 was breached by the government side too.
I agree with you. My concern is that the PS don't trust this Govt and especially Howlin. For any agreement to take place there has to be trust.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,355
They have a commitment to the Troika to make the 300m savings in payroll costs. If they fail to meet that commitment, the Troika will withold the next installment of funds. At that stage, the govt. starts to run out of cash and their cheques start to bounce.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
1,223
1) Freeze increments across the board save for those who perform exceptionally well.
2) Sack incompetent/corrupt/indiscipline/non-punctual employees;
3) Let go of any employee on long term sick leave especially back pain and stress on grounds of capacity.
4) Replace quango employees with contractual staff.
5) Reduce the pay scale for all new employees by 25%.
6) A new higher tax band for those earning over €100,000 whether public or private.
7) Hire accountants/lawyers on a commission basis to conduct filtering revenue audits and social welfare fraud investigations.
8) Aim to ensure that the effective corporation tax is closer to the nominal tax rate.
9) Implement the rest of the McCarthy making any employee of abolished positions redundant (unless there is a need elsewhere).
10) Get on with it.

ie Reform the public sector in a specific way rather than collective punishment of those with existing contracts.
A lot of interesting stuff there, a chara. I think most PS workers would engage positively with you on all those points, with the exception of freezing increments. I certainly would, anyway.

The thing in all this is, that the vast, vast majority at the frontline in the PS would welcome genuine reform, but the whole testosterone-fuelled "Bring It On", "Put The Boot Into Them" Friedman School nonsense will get nowhere - fast.

If the government engage positively at the frontline (ie, ignoring decrepit union bosses and inept middle management), they wwould be hugely surprised by the savings and reform that would follow.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,210
They have a commitment to the Troika to make the 300m savings in payroll costs. If they fail to meet that commitment, the Troika will withold the next installment of funds. At that stage, the govt. starts to run out of cash and their cheques start to bounce.
Please provide sources for these bizarre claims (and please reference the National Treasury agency funding requirements secured to date, the cost of borrowing on the markets v Troika cash, why the €300 needs to come from payroll of PS v savings on pharmaceutical spending/corporation tax).

(You may of course have been sarcastic in which apologies for not getting it but there are a lot of party hack on this site who repeat spin without bringing any independent thought to their scaremongering and may have confused you with them)
 

sauntersplash

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
3,464
IMPACT have told their members that the govt. has three options.
1 Give up on the savings and leave things as they are until the existing Croke Park agreement expires next March;
2 Seek to clarify, or even amend, the rejected proposals — perhaps with the assistance of an external facilitator such as the Labour Relations Commission;
3 Move to impose the cuts — or a worse package — without agreement

In my view the first option is highly unlikely because the govt. needs the savings now. I also think the second is unlikely because I don't think they can amend CPII in such a way to appease enough unions to back the deal.
The third view is more likely. I don't think they'd have the bottle to impose a worse package, unless they're really looking for a showdown, but they might try to legislate for the main parts of the rejected deal and hope the union anger blows over, perhaps with some concession thrown in to try and placate some unions.

Are there any other options open to them? A mini-budget to raise tax, cuts to services, amend their timetable with the Troika, etc.

Please try and keep this discussion on what the govt. might do now and not the rights or wrongs of the PS or the deal

Mickmick
Reallistically, it'll be close enough to next March before anything's implemented anyway.
 

Shortie

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
24
They have a commitment to the Troika to make the 300m savings in payroll costs. If they fail to meet that commitment, the Troika will withold the next installment of funds. At that stage, the govt. starts to run out of cash and their cheques start to bounce.
There are options available to the Govt that wouldn't involve more hardship for low income PS staff. One would be to get rid of a large proportion of the consultants working in the PS (especially HSE, DSP and Revenue). These people earn substantially more than PS workers. Why do we need them?
 

Macy

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
772
what's the legality of imposing cuts ? the original croke park agreement said there would be no further cuts in pay until 2014.. the current govt may feel the previous govt negotiated a bad / insufficient agreement but i presume they're bound by it
It was never a registered agreement, so not withstanding the fact that Government can legislate for changes anyway (the FF/ Green Government broke a national agreement imposing the two previous pay cuts), Croke Park 1 has no legal standing.

Personally, I think they won't move too quick and will try and find out if there are specific reasons it fell that can be addressed. I'm not convinced there are, but the right approach is to try and find out. They could up the cuts on the higher scales and reduce the changes to lower paid and there may be the votes to get it over the line.

If they move too quick, they'll lose the benefits of Croke Park 1, which for all the criticism it does give Government/ Management a lot of power to implement change. And where they have redeployed (for example), it has gone pretty smoothly. Any lack of progress/ slow reform isn't down to the unions anyway (down to Management, which is ultimately down to the line Ministers to whom the managers report).
 

wishywashy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
2,616
1) Freeze increments across the board save for those who perform exceptionally well.
2) Sack incompetent/corrupt/indiscipline/non-punctual employees;
3) Let go of any employee on long term sick leave especially back pain and stress on grounds of capacity.
4) Replace quango employees with contractual staff.
5) Reduce the pay scale for all new employees by 25%.
6) A new higher tax band for those earning over €100,000 whether public or private.
7) Hire accountants/lawyers on a commission basis to conduct filtering revenue audits and social welfare fraud investigations.
8) Aim to ensure that the effective corporation tax is closer to the nominal tax rate.
9) Implement the rest of the McCarthy making any employee of abolished positions redundant (unless there is a need elsewhere).
10) Get on with it.

ie Reform the public sector in a specific way rather than collective punishment of those with existing contracts.


7) Hire accountants/lawyers. The 300m the government is trying to save is gone straight away. Do you know how much these vultures and hyenas charge?
 

davoid

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
9,711
If the government engage positively at the frontline (ie, ignoring decrepit union bosses and inept middle management), they wwould be hugely surprised by the savings and reform that would follow.
I think you may be a tad optimistic here. Firstthe unions will never ever surrender their broker in the middle bit. I tried it in the private sector and they would sooner see every employee on the dole than give up this role.

And as for PS management - spare me.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top