Lecturing staff continue to suffer the indignity of being fed the Hunt Report third hand.
Perhaps it might occur to others (obviously not Ms O’Kelly, article from SINDO below) that those who are entrusted with the formation of our young population at all levels might be genuinely fearful for the ultimate implications of the Croke Park Deal for their students. IFUT after all has only voted for Industrial action once in its history and its “no vote” is clearly a warning bell of the serious damage being inflicted on standards in learning and indeed on critical thinking in our society generally.
‘Copper-fastened’ deal all comes down to the nuts and bolts The cracks are beginning to show already in the Croke Park agreement, writes Emer O’Kelly
“The anti-democratic charge, with its potential to scupper the agreement, has been led by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) and the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT). It’s hard to believe that the men and women entrusted with the educational formation of many of our citizens at second level, and all of our citizens at university level, can behave in such an unprincipled fashion. At least, it’s hard to believe of the IFUT; we’re used to the outrageously selfish impropriety of teachers at primary and secondary level. But how uneasy does it make you feel to envisage the intellectual elite of the country being taught ethics, philosophy, and particularly, politics, by people who refuse to abide by a democratic, if reluctant, vote? “ (more )
The agenda of the Hunt review is revealing itself. Redundancies and redeployment are in the air.. More important than ever to resist the imposition of the Croke park Deal
Some thoughts for the university sector on Academic workload.
via University Blog
The only sure event on the horizon is the publication of the Hunt report.
SIPTU President nominated Business Person of the Month by Business and Finance Magazine (via Kerry Public Service Workers’ Alliance)
“The Labour Court issued a “supplemental” recommendation this week to the HSE and IMPACT, over the status of the 2004 Framework Agreement in the health service if the Croke Park deal is ratified.
The supplemental recommendation asserts that following ratification of the Croke Park deal, the parties should re-engage at the LRC in order to revise the Framework Agreement.
Until this is completed, the provisions of the Framework Agreement will not “limit the application or effectiveness” of the Croke Park deal and the provisions of Croke Park “will take precedence” in the event of any “conflict or inconsistency”.”
On the 24th of May The Labour Court issued a supplemental recommendation (For Complete Labour Court Adjudication on Frame Work Agreement Click Here) in relation to the Framework Agreement under which staff were transferred from the employment of Health Boards to the HSE
Members of IMPACT were not informed by IMPACT Head Office until May 31
Huge numbers of IMPACT voted without this vital information
The supplemental recommendation by the Labour court has effectively abolished all the main protections for Staff in the Framework Agreement
The second supplemental recommendation of the Labour Court says referring to the Framework Agreement:
Clearly, any implication that the content of the Framework Agreement was “timeless” and would remain unchanged if the Croke Park Agreement were accepted was completely misleading.
There is an unanswerable case for the halting of the current IMPACT ballot and the holding of a new ballot in the context of the second or supplemental Labour Court recommendation.
The Section of the New Impact Vote No Leaflet (posted on this blog) dealing with HSE staff has been proved to be completely correct
It is, of course, true that The Croke Park Deal will over-ride contracts in the Local Authority Service, in the core Civil Service and elsewhere in the public service.
The Labour Court supplemental recommendation in relation to the HSE makes this explicit and definite.
It is regrettable that all IMPACT members were not in possession of this information when voting.
Public Service Union Leaders have Agreed to Outsourcing with scant protection for Public Service Employees
Claims by SIPTU and others to have made Progress on Outsourcing are False.
Public Service Union Leaders have Agreed to Outsourcing with scant protection for Public Service Employees.
Work can be outsourced to any company paying legally enforceable pay rates. Except in a minority of employments where special pay rates apply (eg Joint Labour Committee-JLC Rates), this means that the private sector employer is only required to pay the minimum wage
SIPTU and some other unions are claiming that the phrase “unit hourly pay rates of pay” will not determine the issue, protects public servants.
This is nonsense—READ ON!!!
Extract from “Delivery Service Options” Document
1. Work that may reasonably be considered as small in scale will be dealt with in accordance with normal procedures referred to above.
In the first instance, in respect of an existing service, both sides give a commitment to consult on the development of a service plan. This plan will evaluate the existing in-house service, the outsourcing option, and compare both. As part of the evaluation both parties will consult with a view to agreeing a plan to address the service changes necessary to retain the service in house. In evaluating any proposal to proceed with outsourcing, a number of factors will be taken into account, including overall cost, quality of service, effectiveness, and the public interest. All relevant costs will be included in the evaluation but it will not be determined by unit hourly rates of pay.
Where management decide to proceed with outsourcing, there will be regular consultation with the trade unions throughout the commissioning and procurement process.
Procurement will not result in a worsening of the pay rates, pension and employment conditions of employees remaining in the public service.
In line with the commitments in the public service agreement, there will be no compulsory redundancies in any outsourcing. Both sides will maximise redeployment opportunities.
“All relevant costs will be included in the evaluation but it will
not be determined by unit hourly rates of pay”. Is this good news?
Apparently much play is being made by SIPTU of this sentence as “proof” that employees are protected against the worst effects of outsourcing by this clause.
This is a total misrepresentation
Let us examine what this sentence actually means.
Since all relevant costs will be included in the evaluation for outsourcing, “unit hourly rates of pay” will be a factor, but not the sole determining factor.
No public service employer could operate on the basis that unit hourly rates of pay would be the only determining factor. As point 2 above states “overall cost, quality of service, effectiveness” will also be factors.
If a private sector employer was giving “poor quality of service”, lower hourly pay rates in private sector would be of little value to the public service employer.
On the other hand, the sentence also means that outsourcing can be justified even when unit pay rates in the private sector are higher than in the public sector
In its rejection statement TEEU have strongly made this point.
“Overall cost” includes the cost of continuing to employ permanent public servants though the task is “once off”. The employer would claim that such employees would be “underutilised” on a continuing basis.
Binding Arbitration The document provides for “consultation” but not for negotiation.
Any disagreement between unions and management will be resolved by binding arbitration at the Labour Court. The criteria for the adjudication will be the terms of the Croke Park Deal.
Redundancy “In line with the commitments in the public service agreement, there will be no compulsory redundancies in any outsourcing. Both sides will maximise redeployment opportunities.”
This clause is effectively the same as the “commitment” given in the General Agreement.
Outsourcing will not in itself cause “compulsory redundancy”. But an employee can be made compulsorily redundant if s/he does not agree to be redeployed as a result of outsourcing. In this agreement, Public Service unions have agreed for the first time that permanent public servants can be made compulsorily redundant in certain circumstances.
EARNINGS The commitment that “pay rates” will not be reduced by outsourcing does not protect against reduction of “incomes” or “earnings”. The take home pay of many public servants can be, and has been, drastically reduced while maintaining basic “Pay Rates”
Unions must consult with management with “a view to agreeing a plan to address the service changes necessary to retain the service in house. In the context of the recruitment ban, this can only result in a major increase in workload during the ordinary working day.
Outsourcing applies to all grades including professional grades
In the “clarification” issued by Mulvey/Foley it is stated that outsourcing applies to all parts of the public service– not just to manual and clerical services