Nurses Strike

**Clifford** · 10/05/2007, 10:44 PM

That's all well and good Pete, but there won't be nurses left to negotiate if it keeps up. They are already leaving the new maternity ward in the super hospital at CUMH, the patients are suffering as a result and there is nothing being done about it. Until numbers are increased it will get worse, until conditions become humane it will get worse.

It's not this issue that has made the nurses so vehement I keep saying.

**Erstwhile B�z** · 11/05/2007, 8:35 AM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Benchmarking was a scam alright. Public servants have been ripped off royally by it. Its great for the higher grades but the ordinary schmoes get nothing out of it.

Hear, hear, brother Partisan. I mentioned my weekly wage in the course of a conversation a while ago and I was accused of lying. I'm a clerical officer, like. People presume that civil service = megabucks.

**Calcio Jack** · 11/05/2007, 9:25 AM

Originally Posted by Erstwhile B�z

Hear, hear, brother Partisan. I mentioned my weekly wage in the course of a conversation a while ago and I was accused of lying. I'm a clerical officer, like. People presume that civil service = megabucks.

Not sure if I am bothered on one level asking you to respond as I suspect we are both "dug in " on our respective positions, anyway lets call them observations

(1) I find it difficult to take seriousely a your view that Public Servants should be entitled to enter into FCB, the reason being that I believe for any group of workers or employers to be allowed operate on that basis then "free market" rules need to apply e.g for a Public Servant market forces such as supply and demand, risk of losing ones job, inability to pay just don't exist.

(2) You mention that benchmarking was better for hose on higher grades than for yourself... well guess what in the private sector senior mangers , directors etc get paid more than those on lower grades, so hopefully as your career progresses so will your salary.

(3) The elephant in the room (1) lack of trasparancy re the whole benchmarking process and thus no indication as to what "weighting" was allowed for the by and large hugely more benefical pension schemes available in terms of both them being mainly defined benefit and indexed post retirement .The fact that many P/servants pay a much lower rate of PRSI on the basis that they can't be made redundant. The fact that P/servants have much better perks in terms of actually getting to avail of career breaks, maternity leave etc. Iknow many of the latter are by statute supposed to be available to all in the private sector.... actually getting to avail of them is oten a much different matter.

As I say IMO I find it very tiresome that whenever Public Servants talk about this subject they seem to want to dine a la carte of the best of what's on offer in terms of perks etc from both the private sector and the public sector.

I recognise do need public servants to run the services of the country and I've no problem with them been paid fairly... the problem is when the private sector is in efect being asked to stump up the cost but not allowed to have any sight of how the cost (benchmarking) was arrived at.

**BohsPartisan** · 11/05/2007, 9:35 AM

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

Not sure if I am bothered on one level asking you to respond as I suspect we are both "dug in " on our respective positions, anyway lets call them observations

(1) I find it difficult to take seriousely a your view that Public Servants should be entitled to enter into FCB, the reason being that I believe for any group of workers or employers to be allowed operate on that basis then "free market" rules need to apply e.g for a Public Servant market forces such as supply and demand, risk of losing ones job, inability to pay just don't exist.

It was the case before so its not that outlandish. People have a right to bargain for better pay and conditions. CO money is rubbish, EO is not fantastic either at least with the cost of living. This is my main concern.

(2) You mention that benchmarking was better for hose on higher grades than for yourself... well guess what in the private sector senior mangers , directors etc get paid more than those on lower grades, so hopefully as your career progresses so will your salary.

The way the pay rises under benchmarking were worked out i.e. percentage increases mean that if you are lower paid your pay increase means less and less. 3% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.

As I say IMO I find it very tiresome that whenever Public Servants talk about this subject they seem to want to dine a la carte of the best of what's on offer in terms of perks etc from both the private sector and the public sector.

And I find it tiresome when people start talking about perks which simply don't exist. Decent pay and conditions are not perks.

the problem is when the private sector is in efect being asked to stump up the cost but not allowed to have any sight of how the cost (benchmarking) was arrived at.

The Private Sector V Public sector thing is a red herring. Workers in both sectors get screwed in general (while I recognise some people are doing very nicely for themselves) in one way or another.

**Dodge** · 11/05/2007, 9:47 AM

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

(2) You mention that benchmarking was better for hose on higher grades than for yourself... well guess what in the private sector senior mangers , directors etc get paid more than those on lower grades, so hopefully as your career progresses so will your salary.

Think the point he was making was that higher grades got increases that were totally at odds that lower grades got. Where lower grades got about 6-10% (over the course of the agreement), Higher grades got 15-20%. I don't actually know the figures but it was significantly different

(3) The fact that many P/servants pay a much lower rate of PRSI on the basis that they can't be made redundant.

All public servants recruited after April 1995 pay full PRSI. No idea what percentage of total staff that is but within a few years it will be the vast majority

As I say IMO I find it very tiresome that whenever Public Servants talk about this subject they seem to want to dine a la carte of the best of what's on offer in terms of perks etc from both the private sector and the public sector.

I don't see the problem with saying on th internet or in pubs what you'd like to get froma job. Sure you have the odd militant person but neither the unions nor the majority of workers actually think they should have everything. Its exactly the same situation with private sector workers, but they're not as easy to define, or complain about...

I recognise do need public servants to run the services of the country and I've no problem with them been paid fairly... the problem is when the private sector is in efect being asked to stump up the cost but not allowed to have any sight of how the cost (benchmarking) was arrived at.

There's lots of civil servants who want the same answers. Like much of what happens in government we'll never know

**Erstwhile B�z** · 11/05/2007, 11:37 AM

I think you half-mixed me up with Bohs Partisan, there, Calcio Jack. I've no real problem with the rip-off as it currently stands, to be honest, as I'm not a greedy man; it just annoys me when people accuse us of earning the massive sums they discuss with their paranoid private sector colleagues, paid for out of their pocket.

**Calcio Jack** · 11/05/2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Erstwhile B�z

I think you half-mixed me up with Bohs Partisan, there, Calcio Jack. I've no real problem with the rip-off as it currently stands, to be honest, as I'm not a greedy man; it just annoys me when people accuse us of earning the massive sums they discuss with their paranoid private sector colleagues, paid for out of their pocket.

Which half ??