It was to make it clear to the Government that the Public Service wasn't a handy piggy bank for them to come to every time they need money. Most of us looked on it as a strategic action which would hopefully make them think carefully about implementing cuts fairly not just in this, but in the next budget.
Newry Traffic Chaos
- Thread starter bamboozle
- Start date
It was to make it clear to the Government that the Public Service wasn't a handy piggy bank for them to come to every time they need money. Most of us looked on it as a strategic action which would hopefully make them think carefully about implementing cuts fairly not just in this, but in the next budget.
Fair enough. Thats all I wanted to know. Enjoy Newry!! (Joke.)
I would say most of my colleagues accept their are going to be more cuts but there has definitely been a change in their attitude since the Pension levy ballot. Most of the people in my section either voted against strike action or did not vote at all earlier in the year as it was felt it was reasonable for the government to make some savings in the pay bill and civil servants should not be immune. There is now a perception that the government got the money easy that time so have come back for more very quickly when there may be other options this time. For example, why cut PS pay again when 40% of people don't pay any tax at all?
When the pension levy was introduced I never thought that would be the only cut we would get over the course of the 5 year plan, but again there is a perception that if people take a cut this year without protest, it will be the same this time next year.
I don't know if the strike will make any difference myself, but I can understand why people are protesting.
That was how I took the majority of views. Yes there will be cuts, but to make the point that you won't be an easy target and to force their hand into a more sustainable means of achieving cuts rather than just dipping into pay everytime they get the economy wrong.
I couldn't agree more with this stance, I'd feel the same.
I don't think that was the message the union leaders were giving in the build up and so this got lost on the majority of people. Look at the ICTU plans and other statements, it was all about not touching pay or numbers and taxing the "well off". It may have been a bluff and all huff and puff, but that's what was being put into the mainstream media.
I agree.
I agree. The PR wasn't the best. Or maybe it was the old thing of 'we'll ask for €10 and maybe we'll get €5.' But nobody I know went on strike in the belief that this would mean no cuts. It was about ensuring we wouldn't be seen as a passive, easy touch in every budget between now and God knows when.
`
I aggree. I think the union leaders have reverted back to their old style 'we won't give an inch' and then secretly know they are only minimising the damage. I aksed one of my colleagues who is involved in the union have the government given any indication of how the cuts are going to be made i.e. core pay, allowances etc , and he said they have repeatedly asked for a breakdown and they have been given nothing. It sounds like both sides have gone back to a 'them and us' approach. So much for social partnership.
The frustating part is, if the government had put together some sort for plan at the start for cuts in pay and numbers over 3-5 years, once there was nothing too severe a majority of PS workers may have signed up for it. I'm sure this would have given a positive signal to the ECB and possibly had a good reaction for our credit rating.
I may be wrong, but doesn't such a plan have to either be announced as part of the budget or at least through the Dail process first? I'm not entirely sure the government was in a position to give any plan so far in advance of the budget.
Brendan quick - do something, there seems to be a bizarre glitch in the site.
Not sure of the procedure but they have come up with pay agreements in the past phased in over two years. They could have come up with something similar for pay cuts. For example 12%, broken down to a 4% cut 3 years in a row. Similarly, they could put together a 5 year plan to reduce number and set a target of 10-15% or something like that.
I think somthing structured like that may work.