Madam, – I wish to express my outrage at the comments expressed on Tuesday night by Peter McLoone (Impact) in his role as chairperson of Ictu’s public services committee.
Mr McLoone insisted that he had received a mandate from the quarter of a million public sector workers on strike on Tuesday to go back into talks with the Government – talks where he intended discussing cuts in the public sector pay bill!
Indeed, on the Impact website on Wednesday he states, “It would be necessary to agree some temporary measures to cut payroll costs in 2010 because reforms were unlikely to deliver the necessary savings before 2011”.
I did not hear one person on Tuesday give Mr McLoone and his committee a mandate to go back to the Government to discuss cuts in the public sector pay bill. Most talked about wanting equity and stated that this could be achieved through the taxation system. Indeed, this proposal was very publicly advocated by David Begg (General Secretary Ictu) after the last huge protest by both public and private sector workers earlier this year in Dublin. This proposal seems to have conveniently slipped off the round table.
The public sector workers on strike on Tuesday very clearly told Mr McLoone and the trade union movement that the love affair with this, and past governments, conducted through illicit “partnership” is over. Mr McLoone watched over events at Fás which cost taxpayers a fortune. It is time for him to step down, stand aside or be pushed! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – So far this year, 818 civil and 167 public servants have taken advantage of the early retirement scheme (Home News, November 24th). The rush has been most evident among staff in the Revenue Commissioners who accounted for 322 of the 818 civil servants.
This looks like a case of “insider trading” civil service style, with those in the revenue best placed to know what will happen with the taxation of pension lump sums in the forthcoming budget. I suspect many of these people will be re-employed in the same roles on a contract basis within a few weeks of retirement. The net effect of this charade is that the one of the McCarthy report recommendations of reductions in civil/public service numbers is achieved, but in reality there will be little savings as many of the same public servants carry on working, having received a bumper pay-off. Is it any wonder the anger against the civil/public service is growing as 400,000 unemployed people struggle to survive? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Your Editorial of (“Strikes no answer to crisis”, November 25th), was commendable. It should be required reading for every public sector employee and every trade union member. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I refer to your acerbic commentary on this week’s public sector strike. Aside from the emotive tone of your Editorial (November 25th), your assertion that the public sector represents a “privileged group of workers” is divisive. While the terms and conditions of public sector employees are enviable in the present economic climate, it is important not to forget that to work in the public sector is not a birthright: what you deem to be special advantages, granted to a particular group, were – up until the recent moratorium – available to all. People, like me, had a choice to work in the public sector but chose not to – it’s time to grow up and accept the fact. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It amazes me that such a great deal is made of the increase in shoppers in Newry on a day when the public service is on strike. Every school in the State was closed. Students in third-level institutions had the day off. Vast amounts of parents had taken time off their private sector jobs to mind their children. It’s the run-up to Christmas. Indeed, the manager of the Quays Shopping Centre, Cathal Austin, commented, “It’s unusual for a Tuesday but nothing we wouldn’t see on a public or school holiday in the south.” It was a quote which a lot of reports “forgot” to include. Anyone would think that some people have an agenda against the public service? – Yours, etc,