Union leader decides not to accept substantial pay rise

THE LEADER of the public sector union Impact, Peter McLoone, has decided not to accept a substantial pay rise he was entitled…

THE LEADER of the public sector union Impact, Peter McLoone, has decided not to accept a substantial pay rise he was entitled to in 2007.

Salaries at Impact are linked to public sector pay rates. Mr McLoone chose not to take a substantial increase announced as part of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in September 2007. He made the decision at the time of the announcement, when the proposed increase would have been worth over €15,000.

In the event, much of the recommended pay rises for higher civil servants were halted by the Government, but a 5 per cent increase did go ahead. Mr McLoone did not take this pay increase. Last week, a spokesman for the union told The Irish Times that Mr McLoone’s salary was €171,313, the equivalent of the Cork county manager. However, he has since corrected that and said Mr McLoone’s salary is €163,155. This is the pre-2007 manager’s rate.

Mr McLoone said last night his decision to forgo the increase had nothing to do with the crisis in the public finances.

READ MORE

“It was a personal decision taken before the crisis and talk of pay cuts,” he said. “I didn’t do it as any initiative to give the lead on pay reductions in any organisation.”

He said he did not advertise it within the union. “I indicated I didn’t want applied.” Asked why, he said: “I just decided to leave the salary I am on at the level it is at.”

Mr McLoone was speaking after talks at Government Buildings where the public sector unions are arguing that the Government should not seek to save over €1 billion from the public service pay bill through pay cuts, but should look at other options.

He said the unions were seeking to convince the Government to agree on its ambition for the restructuring of the public service in the period to 2013 and to position any changes for next year within that context.

If the Government decided on a plan to have substantially fewer staff in the public service by 2013, then it would have to decide on how it would “reconfigure” the provision of services in such a context. “Then we could talk about the 2010 problem in terms of the overall provision for the next four years,” he said.

Last week, seven trade union leaders and the leader of employers’ body Ibec declined to disclose their pay, but some details on their unions’ finances were ascertained from the Registrar of Friendly Societies.