We are where we were left!

I’m tired of clichés being trotted out as a glass ceiling to box in disenchantment. We are where we are ranks as one of the worst offenders! In fact we are where we were left or more likely abandoned. While most of us face in to a windy or wet Easter spare a thought for Sean Fitzpatrick who has a pad in Marbela that he can get away to free gratis courtesy of a FF appointment to the board of Aer Lingus, who this week announced a record loss of €80M.
If that doesn’t move you then think of how David Drumm feels as he cowers behind his front door as Charlie Bird gapes in his letter box innocently asking him “Why are you ducking down?” Fair play to Charlie, I know his time is almost up as Washington correspondent but thanks for the priceless 90 second clip where he tracked down Drumm to his New England trophy home. Drumm owes his former employer Anglo Irish Bank over €8M (and it seems I and other tax payers are now liable for over €6m) and he is where he is and I’m where he left me!

Make no mistake about international opinion. Just because the international movers and shakers in the financial world approve of the overall figures coming out of Merrion St doesn’t mean there’s another way of arriving at the same figures. All the international lenders want from us is money, where it comes from they’re not bothered. So lets not worry too much about the FF and Green line that international confidence is being restored in the economy. What really matters is the confidence of the ordinary person to spend. There’s little indication that the spending will resume and the reason is that wage cuts and unemployment mean that there is very little spare money.
That’s why the agreement reached between the government and the public service unions will fail. It did nothing about restoring wage cuts.
Indeed the suggestion that less workers will do more work and in return pay cuts will be held back till 2014 shows a lack of understanding of how badly hit many particularly low paid public sector workers are. I’m not hugely surprised, last year I met a woman who worked in Social welfare who said that she’d be better off claiming rather than administering unemployment payments. Here's where the 2 threads plait together. Many public sector workers are fed up seeeing there wages cut by a government that has no problem finding as much money as will be needed to bail out the bankers
In my own case, to propose that teachers work an extra hour is a kite being flown. The suggestion that schools would open for another hour is wide of the mark. Given synchronisation of school year and contracts for school buses what it really means is an extra class contact hour in the week for each teacher. That would mean less time to do the preparatory work for practicals, less time for my post of responsibility but more importantly less jobs for teachers.

The likely alternative to accepting this deal is another pay cut at the end of the year. The follow on response will likely be non co-operation with inspection or Whole School Evaluation and a retaliatory further pay cut by Cowen and Gormley. What happens in my area will happen in others. Its very depressing for those of us who work in the public sector. To be fair to Cowen and Lenihan they’re doing what you’d expect them to do so where is the leadership from the union side? We need a vision to oppose the right wing orthodoxy of "There is no alternative" or "We are where we are" school of economics. I'm pleased my union executive have given this deal a thumbs down, I understand that each union is autonomous in accepting or rejecting. Its not enough to sit back and allow the government agenda to go unchallenged.
If that happens the net outcome of the Celtic Tiger will be a race to the bottom in every sector and the starting gun has been fired in the sack race.

FF & Greens threat on union subs is illegal

Those the gods destroy they first make mad. I’m reminded of this wisdom this week when I hear Minister Dempsey responding to the air traffic controllers dispute with a suggestion to ban strike action in essential services. The cabinet’s union bashing continues with suggestions that they will refuse to pass on union deductions from their employees in an attempt to break opposition to pay cuts. This threat should be ignored by public service workers. I say; Bring it on, Let me explain; It’s my view that any such attempt is illegal under data protection law.
It seems that they have learnt nothing in all their years in power other than bullying their workers. About 9 years ago my own union ASTI were locked in a bitter pay dispute with the government, a dispute that we lost and one that I believe our union has yet to fully recover from. Part of our action was to work to rule and not to supervise for absent colleagues. As a result school boards of management closed schools on health and safety grounds although staff were in situ and willing to work. The government moved quickly to withhold 5 days pay from teachers over the Christmas holidays. .

I was particularly annoyed by this move and was one of 42 teachers to take their case to the Data Protection Commissioner in January 2001. I pointed out that my membership of a union is a matter for me and the union concerned. The only reason I had notified the department of my ASTI membership was to facilitate me in paying my union dues, in exactly the same way that VHI, pension, AVC payments etc are processed. I pointed out that the salaries section had no other dealings with me and that if the department had an issue with me that they were obliged to write to me directly asking me if I had been party to a work to rule protest and then following a response taken the action they did


The commissioner investigated my case and found in my favour. The government was obliged to return the deducted pay, not just to me but to every teacher. This 2001 decision is highly relevant to the government’s latest plan.
The Data Commissioner satisfied himself that data relating to my ASTI membership “was obtained by the Department for the sole purpose of deducting ASTI subscription from salary and remitting such deductions to the ASTI and for no other purpose. Using the data for another purpose contravenes section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1988.” Following this decision the Department of Education was warned not to repeat this action as a heavy fine would be imposed.

There are many similarities in what happened to me and what the government is now proposing to do to IMPACT, SIPTU, CPSU members. If what is reported happens, Brian Lenihan will direct officials to assess each employee record, cancel their subscription to the union and presumably return it to their pay packet without written notification from the employee whose money it is in the first place. If they don’t do that they will have to hold on to their employees money against the employees instruction provoking a Fr Ted situation where the money will be resting in their account!
The facility to deduct union membership from salaries was offered to the employee from the state, not from the union. The state pays the union at the direction of the states employee. They cannot unilaterally decide to withdraw that facility without entering into a discussion with its employees. They cannot, to quote the judgement, take information for the purpose of facilitating payment and use it for a political purpose of discommoding a union. Am I the only one who sees this as being a breach of an employee’s confidential data and rights? If you can try this one on with an employee’s union subvention what’s to stop a similar move to thwart payment to a health insurance provider if the government doesn’t like the cut of them too?


Since I started teaching how we were paid has changed enormously. We were told that it was all about the cashless society. The ATM (beloved of those of us who cast a sceptical eye in bench marking) replaced the cheque. But what we’re getting now is the amoral society. One where the Greens and FF will do, as they put it euphemistically, what has to be done to put this country back on its feet. There’s many a public servant who’ll be on their feet soon enough but not in the way that Cowen and company imagine.

Why is ESB a member of IBEC?

Much has been made in the media about the ESB decision to increase wages by 3% as a result of an agreement reached with the unions last summer. ESB management was attacked by government and IBEC for sticking to its agreement with workers. Attention has been drawn to the high cost of energy and that this increase adds to their bottom line and as a consequence makes costs higher to the consumer and IBEC members. We know this because Mr Turlough O’Sullivan of IBEC said so and much to his embarrassment he admitted his disappointment at the ESB as the ESB is a member of IBEC.
Yes you’ve read that right. The ESB a semi state utility company that provides a public service is a member of IBEC. I note from the IBEC website that IBEC works to shape policies and influence decision-making in a way that develops and protects members' interests and that We represent our members' interests to Government, state agencies, the trade unions, other national interest groups, and the general public.
This begs the question what is the ESB getting for the €150K per annum that they pay for membership of IBEC? The main shareholder in the ESB is the Minister for Energy, Eamon Ryan. Why does the ESB need to pay a third party to represent it to its shareholder whose office is a stones throw away from its HQ?
Moreover IBEC is committed to a competitiveness agenda that includes concerns such as regulation, infrastructures, energy, environment, transport, public sector costs and market liberalisation.
But does the ESB actually subscribe to any of this because there doesn’t seem to be any competition in providing power to the domestic market? The say on their own website that it is our commitment to being a successful, responsible and progressive company contributing to the economic and social life of Ireland . Nothing wrong in any of that but surely such an all embracing objective conflicts with what IBEC see as their narrow sectoral focus. The ESB is making good money off the back of its domestic customers who don’t have the luxury of many IBEC members who can source electricity from the free market. Out of respect to these customers surely its time the ESB withdrew from IBEC and spent our money more wisely. At a time when we are being told to tighten our belt and make cutbacks surely this is one cutback that can be made immediately?