Originally Posted by hmmm

I'd like to know what Larkin and Connolly would say about unions who agree to pay cuts for new employees while retaining the benefits for existing and probably overpaid employees. It's a war on young people by the middle aged and older workers.

As an active Trade unionist, locally within the CPSU, I'm horrified by it... We're far from overpaid by the way...

Originally Posted by Silvio Dante

As an active Trade unionist, locally within the CPSU, I'm horrified by it... We're far from overpaid by the way...

Genuine question - do your colleagues feel a sense of shame & how do they justify it - has it become "every man for himself and screw the newbies"?

I feel the unions of Larkin's day who really did strive to improve the lot of all workers became hijacked at some point to end up as little more than guilds designed to entrench the benefits of those in their membership.

Originally Posted by hmmm

Genuine question - do your colleagues feel a sense of shame & how do they justify it - has it become "every man for himself and screw the newbies"?

I feel the unions of Larkin's day who really did strive to improve the lot of all workers became hijacked at some point to end up as little more than guilds designed to entrench the benefits of those in their membership.

We, on the ground have had no say in it...

we get none of these allowances anyway but new entrant Clerical Officers will come in on a worse pension deal...

Originally Posted by hmmm

I'd like to know what Larkin and Connolly would say about unions who agree to pay cuts for new employees while retaining the benefits for existing and probably overpaid employees. It's a war on young people by the middle aged and older workers.

Your concern for the feelings of Larkin and Connolly are indeed admirable, but rest assured that neither would have fallen for the deceitful spin of the government and media, and they would have known that trade unions did not 'agree' to paycuts for new employees.

The government made a decision to implement the cuts. There was no consultation with its employees or the unions they have elected to represent them.

It's a deceitful campaign of divide and conquer, with the enemies of the PS pretending to be outraged by the treatment of the newly recruited workers. This is an attack on all PS employees, and will be treated as such.

So save us the faux outrage and concern.

Originally Posted by uriah

The government made a decision to implement the cuts. There was no consultation with its employees or the unions they have elected to represent them.

Is this really the best you can do? The big government people forced the unions to agree to this?

Originally Posted by uriah

Your concern for the feelings of Larkin and Connolly are indeed admirable, but rest assured that neither would have fallen for the deceitful spin of the government and media, and they would have known that trade unions did not 'agree' to paycuts for new employees.

The government made a decision to implement the cuts. There was no consultation with its employees or the unions they have elected to represent them.

It's a deceitful campaign of divide and conquer, with the enemies of the PS pretending to be outraged by the treatment of the newly recruited workers. This is an attack on all PS employees, and will be treated as such.

So save us the faux outrage and concern.

ICTU has sat on its hands while the Govt has sucessfully made new entrants second class citizens to their colleagues. Just look at the teachers. What have the teacher uninos done aobut it? Not a thing...

Originally Posted by hmmm

Is this really the best you can do? The big government people forced the unions to agree to this?

Under CPA they have forfeited the right to strike. If teachers' unions had threatened to strike, one can only imagine the reaction here....."Teachers complaining about only being paid 27K?....My aunt's private sector dog only earns 15K and considers it a fortune...let the greedy teachers go on strike...etc"

What those crying crocodile tears for the plight of new entrants, really mean is "Cut everyone's pay"

And it could be argued that by holding the line on the pay of the already employed, the unions have some hope of eventually getting a better deal for new entrants. By collapsing everyone's pay, that would never happen..

Originally Posted by gatsbygirl20

And it could be argued that by holding the line on the pay of the already employed, the unions have some hope of eventually getting a better deal for new entrants. By collapsing everyone's pay, that would never happen..

You don't believe that...

Originally Posted by Silvio Dante

You don't believe that...

I am fed up with this faux outrage. Those who hate unions and the PS don't give a fekk about new teachers or new PS entrants, and know nothing about union negotiations except that they are a VERY BAD THING.

I know a lot of recently graduated teachers, yet, unbelievably, I do not know one who is on 27K, because either these young teachers cannot get work at all or they are teaching only a few hours in schools...that is all that is being offered

The crisis for the newly graduated is a crisis of unemployment, not a crisis of pay cuts..

The cohort most in trouble with paycuts are the young already-employed who are in their late 30s, early 40s, with boom-time mortgages, boom-time creche fees etc, and a drop in their take home pay of over 20%

It is not good that new teachers-- when one or two of them eventually get an actual job---, come in on lesser wage , but that "flexibility" and yellow-packing is exactly what those now whining about new entrants, have always demanded......such arrangements are common in the private sector...

This is just another stick to beat the PS with