Sinn Fein Minister to cut pay of classroom assistants

by jonny brady Fri Jun 22, 2007 01:17

Lucky us in the 26 that Sinn Fein were sent packing here. They would have us all working for peanuts so they can drive in their new Jags.

by Jonah Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:10

Couple of points.

Firstly, this is a dispute that dates back as far as 1994. It is one that the current Minister inherited. The author deliberately omitted this fact to portray Ruane as initiating a paycut for no apparent reason.

Secondly, the dispute is not between the Minister and the Unions, but between the Education & Library Boards and the unions. (This isn't an effort to duck it, it'll become clearer). But again, the author chose to ignore this part of the story because it doesn't fit into the the story he's trying to tell of Sinn Féin cutting wages of workers.

The Boards went to the Minister and told her they could put a package on the table they thought that the unions might accept but that they needed more money to put the package together.

Sinn Féin obtained another £30 million from the Finance Department for the Boards to go into the deal and gave the Boards authorisation to make an offer. It's up to the unions to decide whether to accept or reject and for what it's worth I think they've made the right decision in rejecting it.

Considering their opposition and the cross-party support for their cause within the Assembly, I hope we can get a better deal for classroom assistants.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Jun 22, 2007 13:18

The £30million was announced before the details of the proposal to be sent to the unions was outlined. This was in order to give the impression that the Dept of Education were improving the pay of classroom assistants and save Ruane from embarrassment.

Since then the unions have seen the proposals which include a pay cut for thousands of classrooms assistants. This is the reason the unions are now taking industrial action.

Yes the dispute goews back to 1994 and what is the first act of Catriona Ruane as Minister - sanction approval for a proposal that reduces the pay of classroom assistants.

It is nonsense to suggest that this is a dispute between the Education and Library Boards and the Unions and that Ruane can wash her hands of it like Pontius Pilate. Ruane had to give sanction to the Boards to put the proposals to the Unions. She could have refused and told the Boards to come back with proposals that would increase the workers wages rather than cut them. Problem for her was that in order to do that she would have to get more money from the British Government. And of course that would upset the current arrangement in the North. When you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.

This dispute is likely to mirror the dispute in 2000/2001 involving term-time workers when Martin McGuinness was Minister for Education. After a long running campaign the workers (members of NIPSA) succeeded in forcing McGuinness into an embarassing climb-down winning their dispute. (McGuinness had actually signed a petition in support of the term-time workers before his appointment as Minister, but this meant little when it came to rejecting the workers reasonable demands.

by M Fri Jun 22, 2007 13:31

Jonah.
I assume as you say the CA's were right to reject the offer you are on the side of a fair deal for the CA's. Just to correct you on one of your points, Caitriona didn't come up with extra money to finance the offer. This was old money already set aside when the board were worried they may have to offer a decent deal. (This current offer will cost nothing like £30 million)
You were quite right that Caitriona is coming in at the tail end of a dispute running back many years and therefore can't be held responsible for past failings. However this Tuesday in the assembly she did say "The motion calls on me to give approval to the education and library boards to put an equitable offer to the representitive trade unions. That I have already done."
So Jonah she can't have it both ways, The £30 million announcement sounded great, however she must also now take responsibility for the derisory pay cutting offer the first contributor talked about.

by Brian Booth - NIPSA Branch Secretary, Personal Capacity Fri Jun 22, 2007 13:33

In response to Jonah, I would state that this pay claim goes back to 1995, but the actual dispute situation goes back about 6 years on and off, due to the Boards failure to address the issues in any proper timescale.
1 June 2007 was the date that management actually made the first/final offer, after a protracted period, two years, seeking funding that was already promised from the Department of Finance and Personnel. The so-called "offer" is the most insulting for any group of staff that I have ever come across in my 10 years being a trade unionist within NIPSA.
Documents I have show that Management state that they are confident that no where near £30million is to be paid out based on what is on the table. Who is lying, Catriona or the Boards? SEELB Management state that their share, £6million, will not be used to pay Classroom Assistants!

Lets get one thing straight.
Catriona Ruane was not the first Minister to announce this money.
Angela Smith announced £24 Million some three years ago.
Maria Eagle less than a year ago announced £27 million.
Typical New Labour spin, that we hear the same money (with inflation) announced for a third time.
Your claim that Sinn Fein obtained another £30 million is flawed.

by Classroom - NIPSA Fri Jun 22, 2007 13:34

The issue of job evaluation for Classroom Assistants was discussed in the Stormont Assembly on June 19. The motion put to the Assembly and agreed to was

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to take immediate action to settle the issue of job evaluation for classroom assistants, by giving approval to the Education and Library Boards to put an equitable offer to the representative Trades’ Unions.

The official record of the discussion has been posted on Hansard http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/hansard.htm

Below is an excerpt from that record of the role of SF during the discussion.

SF MLA Mr Butler:

“The issues of remuneration and the correct grading of jobs are important. The Minister is operating within existing resources, and she has made a credible offer to resolve the dispute and has set aside £30 million to cover the costs of that settlement.”

SF MLA Mrs O’Neill:

“In her short term in office since devolution, the Minister has tried to address the matter within the narrow confines of the budget. The £30 million that she made available was a genuine attempt to alleviate the situation. I totally sympathise with the classroom assistants, but we need to deal with the matter in the framework that we have before us.”

SF Education Minister Ms Ruane:

“The boards remain of the view that £30 million is more than adequate to meet the costs of the agreed scheme. Lest there be any confusion, I, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel, gave approval to the employers to make a formal offer to trade unions, which reflected the negotiations to date.
The motion calls on me to give approval to the education and library boards to put an equitable offer to the representative trade unions. That I have already done. “

by patrique - nipsa Wed Jun 27, 2007 21:30

All unions should rally behind this cause, the right to an education is the basic human right, and must be maintained.

By the way, please do not use industrial disputes for party political purposes. The minister cannot do anything without the backing of the rest of the Government, so it is a government decision. The ministers party, not my favourite, is irrelevant.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:03

The actions of the minister are relevent. Catriona Ruane could have told the Education & Library Boards that she was not going to give approval for the final offer of a pay-cut for Classroom Assistants.

She could have stood up and said 'the classroom assistants are entitled to their full claim and I demand that the British Government provide the extra funding necessary to meet the claim or else I and my party will resign from the executive.'

What she did instead was support a pay cut. Damned right she should be criticised for it and the other parties are in the same position and should be criticised as well.

by patrique - nipsa Thu Jun 28, 2007 22:13

Thanks for agreeing.

by Hugh Leonard Thompson Murphy - Brown Bear Politics,Philosophy and Philantropy Society Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:49

If the so-called 'Socialist' Party were to stop using industrial disputes for political purposes,it would then be faced with the insuperable problem of finding some alternative point to its existence.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jun 30, 2007 13:12

are political.

If the classroom assistants are to win, Catriona Ruane and the Northern Assembly will have to be beaten. There is a political, social and economic motivation in every strike.

by Bored Sat Jun 30, 2007 17:44

[She could have stood up and said 'the classroom assistants are entitled to their full claim and I demand that the British Government provide the extra funding necessary to meet the claim or else I and my party will resign from the executive.']

... for acknowledging that Ruane doesn't actually have the power to ensure the funding is provided.

Your argument here is basically that SF should not be sitting in an Executive that has to enforce decisions such as these, decisions which are made by the British Government. That is a perfectly valid argument and one that even many SF supporters would agree with. But you can't just make that argument, can you? You have to dress it up in deliberately deceptive language designed to make the casual reader think that it was actually SF's decision to cut the funding. That is dishonest and deeply sectarian and, more importantly, undermines the legitimate point you could be making.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Jul 02, 2007 00:59

a proposal designed to cut the wages of classroom assistants. Catriona Ruane is a member of a political party that claims to be 'socialist'. Irrespective of who provides the funding any person who claims to be a socialist could not support a cut in wages for a large number of low paid workers.

Now if Sinn Fein and all the other parties agree to participate in a government institution and, as a result, faced with sanctioning such a measure, there are two choices (1) accept the situation, or (2) refuse to accept it and act accordingly.

Personally, I would/could never accept giving sanction for implementing a pay cut for workers.

To suggest that it is all the British Government's fault is to let the Northern political parties off the hook. They do not have to participate in this institution, they choose to do so and as such should be rightly criticised for implementing measures such as this.

by Sweetcorn Mon Jul 02, 2007 01:16

Sinn Féin are evil nationalistic culchies, and responsible for all that is wrong in the world- the weather, Joe Higgins losing his seat, the crap programming on RTÉ etc.

Wheras, the Socialist Party are responsible for all good things- The Simpsons, sunscreen, The CWI actually invented helicopters and DVD's. I know because I read it in the excellent newspaper that the SP produce and sell around the town. I never read anything else.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Jul 05, 2007 21:58

As part of the offer made with Catriona Ruane's Approval the E&LB propose to:

- withdraw a 'Special Needs Allowance' of £1108.

- increase the pay divisor from 32 1/2 hours per week to 36 hours per week, thereby cutting the hourly rate for Classroom Assistants and backdating this to 1995.

- refusing to recognise the NVQIII as a professional qualification thereby depriving the classroom assistants of the related allowance despite the fact that you need this qualification to actually get a job as a classroom assistant.

- allocate the classroom assistants to a particular pupil thereby eliminating protection of employment for the CA and facilitating a further reduction in wages reulting from a new contract with a new child (the exact opposite of the situation that the FF/PD government was forced to adopt by a campaign by Special Needs Assistants in the South two years ago).

- impact on the pension rights for CAs.

NIPSA is currently balloting Classroom Assistants for strike action that is expected to be overwhelmingly carried. Hundreds of Classroom assistants have attended meetings all over the North in the past two weeks voicing support for strike action.

by Geordie'The Truth' Washington - Veritas Pro Omnia Sat Jul 07, 2007 14:07

So, O Jolly Green Giant-you would never countenance a pay cut for any group of workers(post of 2 July above refers),eh?Why,then,does your political party advocate precisely that for a group of workers,ie some but not all officials,in your own and indeed other trade unions?An overwhelming miasma of hypocrisy abounds,we fear.Heaven help the classroom assistants with 'friends' of this calibre.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jul 07, 2007 19:47

Is the wage of the workers you represent not good enough for you?

by Dub Sat Jul 07, 2007 21:50

"Why,then,does your political party advocate precisely that for a group of workers [Union officers]"

One of the core demands that all socialists make is that of the average working wage for people that represent workers. Socialists always stand for high wages and a high social wage (ie free education, free health care, etc.) for working class people. The point about elected Union Officials is that they are meant to be representatives of working class people. They should come from the workforce and maintain the wages they had before being elected. This is done as one measure against a self-serving bureacracy being formed. Socialists generally also call for rotation of key jobs in a Union and for the ability of people to re-call their elected representatives. It's all about democracy.

Fair play to Joe Higgins for actually implementing the average workers' wage policy over 10 years. Sinn Féin say they also have this policy for their employees but Gerry Adams says it's ok to keep a personal income from his writings (ie books, articles, appearances). In truth this is not an average wage policy as he only gets these monies due to his position as MP, MLA and SF President. I can comfortably assume that any additional pay Joe Higgins received from such sources went into the movement.

by Dub Sat Jul 07, 2007 21:57

SP have a point here. If Ruane was genuine in supporting the Classroom Assistants then she would at least give rhetorical support and put in a fight at the Executive. This would be a bare minimum if she was genuinely opposed to pay cuts. But she is not genuinely opposed. The NI Exec will be playing off sectarian division and off the UK government when it comes to unpopular decisions like this. Why don't they fight the UK Government over Water rates and pay cuts. If these parties were genuine in their opposition to these polcies they would use the apparatus of Government and, more importantly, they would mobilise the people of the North to oppose the policies. If they were genuine in their opposition they could be a beacon of struggle within both Ireland and the United Kingdom.

But we all know they are not genuine. Ruane's politics are not class politics. For her it's all about getting into Government with its Merc and Perks. In any sell out she will do her best to pawn it off on London and/or Unionists. But she'll be quick to accept credit for any possible good stuff (you bet she will!).

by Geordie'The Truth'Washington - Veritas Pro Omnia Sat Jul 14, 2007 13:24

Well,well,well.So the Socialist Party now favours workers within trade unions retaining their previous wage before they got the job! Makes a change from previously stated policy of everyone being put on the average wage of workers' represented,whatever that's supposed to be(the Socialist Party could never tell us,for some reason).So-we have established that the SP believes in cutting workers' wages;does not believe in paying the rate for the job;does not support the right of independent trade unions to negotiate pay,terms and conditions on behalf of their members;supports the casualisation of the workforce(what employer these days would go with'instant recall',incidentally?);supports pay inequality(a highly paid man going into a union job would remain highly paid while a low paid woman entering a similar job at a similar grade would remain low paid,despite doing equal work of equal value);and advocates election of workers!

by knockadooma Sat Jul 14, 2007 13:33

theres a good biography of Eoghan Harris in answers.com.

by Felix - Green Cat Enterprises Sat Jul 14, 2007 13:41

You said it,'The Truth'-about all these people haven't called for yet is a return to slavery.Maybe that's what they really have in mind for the classroom assistants!No wonder they can't get anybody elected to anything politically.Most union officials I know in my own union,Nipsa,would gladly swap salaries with some of these doughty class warriors,mind-the richest elected representatives there are all well heeled Trots in highly paid management posts that they didn't need to stand for election to get.Seems that different rules apply....no question of cutting wages for these hypocrites.Even the job evaluation pay outs a couple of these jokers got(huge,huge money)recently seems to have been quietly trousered.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jul 14, 2007 20:07

Looks like Republicans are clearly worried about the impact of this dispute on their 'radical' reputation.

The only thing they have come up with to counter-act this - is to make a spurious attack on Socialist Party proposals for the democratisation of the trade union movement.

by Irene Buxton Sat Jul 14, 2007 21:23

Geordie: "Well,well,well.So the Socialist Party now favours workers within trade unions retaining their previous wage before they got the job! Makes a change from previously stated policy of everyone being put on the average wage of workers' represented,whatever that's supposed to be(the Socialist Party could never tell us,for some reason)."

I think you will find socialists and other left activists in the Trade Union movement advocate a workers' wage policy for UNION OFFICIALS that have power to make decisions. They are not talking about people that work in the union office answering calls or doing clerical work! The point about the workers' wage policy is that the Official should not live a lifestyle above that of the people that s/he represents. It's slitting hairs if that is the wage they held before election or the average. The point is they don't live a lifestyle seperate to the membership. Given that most workers make financial decisions on the basis of their income I think it reasonable that a Union official's wages may be slighty above the average if it is the case a person can show proven financial committments made previously - but never higher than their previous wage. Again, point is about not living a different lifestyle.

Geordie: "So-we have established that the SP believes in cutting workers' wages;does not believe in paying the rate for the job"

NO. Clearly not the case. Socialists stand for UNION OFFICIALS to be on the workers' wage. That is the rate for the job. That is not cutting workers' wages as these people are meant to be representing their fellow workers. Why should a Union official be on wages higher than the people they represent? Give one justification for it. (I doubt you will)

Geordie: "[Left activists do]... not support the right of independent trade unions to negotiate pay,terms and conditions on behalf of their members"

NO. Where was this ever written in this thread or by any left activists?

Geordie: "[Left activists]...supports the casualisation of the workforce(what employer these days would go with'instant recall',incidentally?)"

NO. It's instant re-call for UNION OFFICIALS. Why should Union Officials going against the wishes of their membership be tolerated? If you are not doing what the membership want then leave and return to the shop floor (or indeed office, etc.)

Geordie: "[Left activists]...support pay inequality(a highly paid man going into a union job would remain highly paid while a low paid woman entering a similar job at a similar grade would remain low paid,despite doing equal work of equal value);

NO. Read comment above. If an Official had particular proven financial committments based on their previous workers' wage then they should not be out of pocket for taking office. In saying this their pay should be benchmarked off the average wage of their membership (say, no more than 15% of average!). Point is that they do not live a lifestyle above that of the people they represent.

Geordie: "[Left activists] ...advocates election of workers"

NO. They advocate the election of Union Officers that have decision making powers within a Union. Too right! Why should Union officers make decisions in a Union without having an elected mandate? Please give one reason for this. (I doubt you will)

PS: I have strong suspicion that "Felix" and "Geordie 'the Truth' Washington" is the same person. That person is an opponent of left wingers in NIPSA and is a defender of privilege for Union Officers to be a class above the membership. Pathetic and disgusting in my book.

by . - NIPSA Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:54

I thought that this may be of interest to the people on this thread!

SF Press Release February 23,

Classroom Assistants continue to be undervalued

Sinn Féin Newry and Armagh MP Conor Murphy has said that many classroom assistants feel that if there is no change in their status that they will continue to be undervalued in what is an often demanding and responsible job.

Mr Murphy said:

"Classroom assistants play an important role in our schools. Yet, many classroom assistants feel that if there is no change in their status that they in schools will continue to be undervalued in what is an often demanding and responsible job.

"Recent studies have shown that Classroom assistants felt they undertook complex welfare and care tasks without additional pay and often felt moral obligation or tacit pressure from the school to undertake these tasks.

"One study revealed that virtually all the classroom assistants from the secondary and special schools focus groups work with pupils with identifiable Additional Support for Learning (ASL) needs where they reported that their work falls within three areas:

Care and welfare (responding to complex care and nursing needs)

Providing behavioural control (working with the most disruptive pupils on a one-to-one basis or with small groups allowing the class teacher to focus on teaching the rest of the class)

Providing support for learning and teaching (involves delivering set work and using own initiative in delivering tasks to support pupil learning)

Speaking after a special meeting arranged by Sinn Féin Newry and Mourne Councillor Brendan Curran, who is also a member of the Southern Education and Library Board, with representatives of Classroom Assistants in the area Mr Murphy added:

"At a time when schools are facing increased responsibilities to meet the requirements of special needs in particular, the number of classroom assistants is being slashed.
"A majority of teachers and Head Teachers acknowledge the importance of Classroom Assistants, but many of the assistants were now totally frustrated at the lack of action taken to value their role. They Education Department need to develop strategies to ensure proper recognition for Classroom assistants, in particular through remuneration and career development opportunities."

ENDS

by Eileen - None(ex-classroom assistant) Thu Jul 19, 2007 19:11

I do not know who any of the above people are but I have to say that I am still scratching my head at the comments of Irene Buxton.The rate for any job is commensurate with the weight of the job,which is why brain surgeons,for instance,are paid more than classroom assistants.Independent trade unions exist to maximise pay and conditions for their members,not meekly accept fantastic nonsense based more it seems to me on blind prejudice rather than any appreciation of the difficulties and responsibilities faced by these and other workers trying to earn a living.It's a fair point too that you don't see any of these 'left' representatives practising what they preach-when did any of them ever turn down a promotion or return salary over and above the average wage(which is what,by the way-tell me!)to their employer or to their union?The pay 'policy' called for here would unleash a torrent of tribunals if ever adopted.I'm glad I'm not a classroom assistant any more,I'm a civil servant now,but I think the NI Executive might sort something out with the unions,maybe based on the deal we almost had a cople of years ago.Hope so,anyway!

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Jul 19, 2007 20:01

That Conor Murphy MLA is so concerned with the plight of classroom assistants when he sits on the same Executive with his party collegue Catriona Ruane who sanction the proposal to cut the pay of classroom assistants.

In response to Eileen -

All full-time trade union officials should be elected by the membership of the trade union that they represent. Why? Because it is the only way that the membership can have control over the people who represent their interests. There are numerous examples of trade union officials abusing their position for personal gain, and in the process selling their own members down the swanee. Former CWU general secretary, Con Scanlon, is a prime example. A major mover in getting the CWU to accept the privatisation of Eircom. He was made a member of the board of Eircom by virtue of his position as chairman of the employees share company ESOT. During his time on the board of Ericom he sanctioned, and got the union to accept thousands of job losses. As a result of using his position to on the Eircom board to push through the sale of Eircom to Tony O'Reilly and its subsequent re-flotation he made millions in lump-sum and bonus payments, share options and large and ongoing pension payments. Coupled with this he also received money from his position in ESOT. When the other full-time officials found out they couldn't get their hand in the trough Scanlon resigned as general secretary, but to this day still remains head of ESOT and the union representative on the Eircom Board. If there was ever a case for the election of all officials, subject to re-call, this is it (and it is not the only one).

There is a difference between accepting a promotion or a salary increase as part of normal job situations and earning three or four times the salary of the workers you represent as a union official. Many left-wing officials have refused pay increases within unions when elected to higher ranking positions. One example I can think of is that of SP member, John McCreadie, was elected first as Deputy General Secretary and subsequently Gerneral Secretary of the CPSA in Britain. In both situation John McCreadie refused to accept the increased wages that went with the positions and remained on the wage he received prior to his election to these positions.

There is also a very concrete reason why trade union officers should remain on the wages of the workers they represent - if they earned the same as the rank-and-file of the union they would work an awful lot harder at securing pay increases for their members. And if they were removed for not doing the job they were elected to they would not suffer a dramatic drop in earnings.

The reality of the situation is that most full-time trade union officials are there for life on set wages. The only officers who will retain the wage of rank-and-file members are committed and principled left-wing activists who will refuse such wages when elected. It will take a thorough clearing out of the old-guard bureaucracy before the trade union structures are democratised and properly represent the union members.

Incidentally - full time officials in BATU (Brickies Union) are actually paid less than the members they represent!

by Irene Buxton Fri Jul 20, 2007 13:37

I wish to make a few points to Eileen and in responce to a few points she made.

Eileen: The rate for any job is commensurate with the weight of the job,which is why brain surgeons,for instance,are paid more than classroom assistants.

True. I'm not saying all workers should be on an average wage. I'm saying that Union Officers should be on the workers' wage. This is NOT saying workers should accept lower pay. Again - Union Officers that have decision making powers within the Union should not get higher pay then their membership and should not have a seperate lifestyle to their membership.

Eileen: Independent trade unions exist to maximise pay and conditions for their members,not meekly accept fantastic nonsense based more it seems to me on blind prejudice rather than any appreciation of the difficulties and responsibilities faced by these and other workers trying to earn a living.

I agree. But I'm not into 'fantastic nonsense'. As said above - Union Officials with decision making powers should be elected and on a workers' wage. Unions should fight for increases in pay and conditions. This should be how Union Officials get their pay increases!!

Eileen: It's a fair point too that you don't see any of these 'left' representatives practising what they preach-when did any of them ever turn down a promotion or return salary over and above the average wage(which is what,by the way-tell me!)to their employer or to their union?

No, it's not a fair point. Why shouldn't workers accept higher pay and take on additional responsibilities in the workplace! Left activists have NO PROBLEM with increasing workers pay! Where did you get this idea? As said a few times above Union Officials should have pay benchmarked off the Union membership. Unions are there to fight for higher wages and defend working & living conditions. How is it wrong of a worker to get higher pay or promotions?

Eileen: The pay 'policy' called for here would unleash a torrent of tribunals if ever adopted....

Again, left wing activists call for Union Officials to be on pay linked to the workers they represent. This is NOT decreasing workers' pay! This is keeping Union Officers in touch with the membership. Do you want your Trade Union turning into some kind of cash-cow? If you have a Union as a cash-cow then all sorts of careerists and chancers will milk, milk, milk! If Union officers are on the pay of their members then they are more likely to be linked to the lifestyle of their members and be more sincere about fighting for pay increases.

by Wag Fri Jul 20, 2007 14:06

I just read the Press release by Conor Murphy MP of February 23rd.

The Member for Newry and Armagh wants a United Ireland.... but he can't even get a United Party as he claims he's against the policies of his own Party colleague in the Northern Ireland Executive! I think we can all see through his press statements.

Now that Sinn Féin is in the Executive will they take their seats in the House of Commons? Unlike the NI Executive being a member of this body does not imply an acceptance of "British Rule", so why are they still helping out New Labour bring through right-wing anti-worker policies. If SF attended Westminster then Blair would have lost votes on Tuition Fees. Thanks a lot Sinn Féin!

by stroppy Fri Jul 20, 2007 22:37

Have to laugh at the Socialist Party position on Union Officials not having a separate lifestyle from the members they represent. Most officials in NIPSA would love to be able to emulate the lifestyle of the SP golden couple in NIPSA . It appears that the one half of the couple who swallowed her pride and took up a non-elected seconded union position is immune from criticism despite the fact that her lifestyle is far removed from that of her lowest paid members.
A union is a workplace for those who chose to work in a full time capacity and in the case of NIPSA salary levels are benchmarked against Civil Service rates of pay. The SP have led the charge to have officials in NIPSA elected but have refused to clarify what they define as a working wage and to confirm that any salary earned above that by an elected official would be put back into union funds for the benefit of members rather than given direct to the Socialist Party.
The notion that all non-elected union officials are self serving is insulting to those who have worked hard to represent the interests of their members. What could be more self serving than an elected union official who is a member of the Socialist Party and obliged to represent the diktats of their political party irrespective of whether or not this coincides with the wishes of the members?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jul 21, 2007 01:25

Well stroppy...

For you information - Where the situation has arisen SP members have actually put the extra money from full-time union positions back into union funds.

Secondly - Not one single member of the SP who is elected to a union position operates on the basis of diktats from any political party. SP members standing for elected position within a trade union always clearly state their political affiliation and the policy platform they will strive to implement if elected (unlike most others). And of course the advantage of having union positions elected is that if the SP members did not operate in the best interest of the members they would be removed, unlike the situation now where full-time officals have to be carried out in a box irrespective of whether they represent their members interests or not.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jul 21, 2007 01:30

Back on topic -

Catriona Ruane is at it again.

Today NIPSA issued a statement criticising the refusal of Catriona Ruane to rule out compulsory redundancies under the Review of Public Administration, in relation to proposed changes in the Education and Library Sector.

by stroppy Sat Jul 21, 2007 13:36

JRG states that in some instances SP members have put money back into union funds. A situation has now arisen in NIPSA where SP members have taken up full time secondments which in one case puts a very senior SP member well into the pay range of the second highest non-elected NIPSA official/bureaucrat. In the spirit of John McCready that person should now donate their NIPSA allowance and the part of their salary above the working wage to NIPSA funds. Interestingly no one in the SP has been willing to clarify what they see as a working wage probably because almost all of their senior members in NIPSA would find themselves embarrassed.
JRG is correct that SP members declare their political affiliation when standing for election but interestingly do not do so when speaking at NIPSA Conference in support of political funds. They also pledge to work towards a democratic union but at the same time support caucuses within NIPSA and the CWU which are sub-committees of the Socialist Party (not separate entities) which should work under the guidance of the National Executive Committee. Most other people standing for election in NIPSA do not declare any political affiliation because they dont have one. They stand to represent the interests of the members not to implement the diktats of the SP NEC. It is also the case that the SPs task in relation to unions over the next period is primarily to recuit new members to the party. While I have no problems with any political party trying to broaden its membership base those who take an active part in NIPSA and other unions to serve members interests might find the primary interestof the SP to be somewhat self serving.
I appreciate is expecting a lot of the SP to actually answer a question but a lot of people would be interested to know precisely how the SP would identify under performance in elected officials and what process they would put in place to remove them.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jul 21, 2007 15:49

Not being from the North - I don't know all the ins and outs of what happens in NIPSA. My understanding is that activists on secondment are receiving their normal wages and not an increased salary.

As regards this:

'I appreciate is expecting a lot of the SP to actually answer a question but a lot of people would be interested to know precisely how the SP would identify under performance in elected officials and what process they would put in place to remove them.'

Under performance, as you put it, would not be identified by the SP but by the membership. If full-time officials were elected and subject to recall - then the membership would decide who would be elected and whether they would keep that position (just like an ordinary shop steward).

Now I have to say, it is interesting how certain individuals have been attempting to derail this thread which is actually about an attempt by the Northern Executive to cut the pay of classromm assistants (NIPSA members) into a rather spurious accusation that the SP is in favour of cutting the pay of workers by campaigning on the basis of elected trade union officials receiving the wage of the workers they represent and should be elected and subject to recall. As a final comment I would ask you to refer back to the post I made about former CWU gen. sec. Con Scanlon as an example of why this is necessary.

by stroppy Sat Jul 21, 2007 19:19

Come now JRG your previous posts confirm that you are very well briefed on the shameful way that classroom assistants who are members of NIPSA have been treated. Methinks your ignorance of all things NIPSA is a bit of a jolly red herring.
You still have not clarified the process whereby members identify shortcomings among elected officials and then make them subject to recall. Its not too difficult a question, how is this to be done, how many members does it take eg a simple majority ?
It appears that it is OK for seconded officers to receive their salary and an allowance which in the case of a senior SP member puts that person being paid very significantly more than the vast majority of members she represents. Can you at least confirm that if this person stands again for election to a senior official posting in NIPSA and is successful that any money above the working wage will go to NIPSA and not the Socialist Party. In the unlikely event that you actually answer this question could you go that wee bit further and tell us how much the working wage is .
As regards derailing the thread I only felt compelled to do more than read the posts when SP members started making a fetish out of only taking a working wage.
I appreciate that you might have to consult with the REC and NEC to get a line but answers would demonstrate that the SP have nothing to hide.

by Leane Sat Jul 21, 2007 20:57 leanne.md at gmail dot com

As someone who next year will be studying for the NVQ Level 3 as a classroom assistant, I find that any pay cut is unacceptable, especially when you consider that the same level classroom assistant in England can be earning over £1 per hour more than us (up to £9.87 per hour) and temping ones can earn up to £65 a day!

Why this has to be about the political parties I will never know, don't Catholic and Protestant kids both get classroom assistants? Unionist or Nationalist etc ?

Pay Cuts, in the education sector are not a good thing (unless you're talking the management, then it should be happening across the board, £160k a year for what exactly? Ball Scratching?)

When are we ever going to give our educators and health care providers etc the recognition and financial benefits they deserve!! Surely with all the schools that they're forcing to close they would have the money for the classroom assistants?

by Irene Buxton Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:47

From what I can see the Socialist Party and other left-activists have answered all the questions posed by "stroppy" and others. The Left Activists in trade unions always call for a workers wage and instant re-call & election of all decision makers in the Union movement. Bureaucrats that dominate the Full-time non-elected offices then throw back "you want pay cuts". Rubbish! These are not pay cuts as all Union officers should come from workplace and be linked to workplace pay and conditions.

Union bureaucrats also throw around red-scare tactics about membership of Parties. There is nothing wrong with having certain views, joining an organisation to further those views, and being honest about it. If elected Left activists will try to implement their programme. If a left-wing activist looses a vote on a particular aspect of programme they will accept it and move on! No left-activist I know in a Union has undemocratically gone against their membership - so why the red-scare? Right-wingers and conservatives in the Union movement are dishonest about their politics and regularly go against Union mandates and policy.

Another "question" that these Bureaucrats throw back is asking specifics about what exactly will be pay in this or that Union. The answer to that depends on the Union. I've not got pay figures for NIPSA members in front of me so I can't comment. It's only a matter of mathematics to find out an average wage. But also it's not unprincipled for Union Officers to continue on pay they had before. Point is they do not gain materially from the Union position. "Stroppy" makes a few snide remarks about one left-winger in a seconded position (by definition on their previous wage!). This person is not materially gaining from their position in the Union. "Stroppy" is just making anonymous snide remarks as "stroppy" can't and won't engage in an open and frank debate on policy differences with this person.

"Stroppy" is not interested in answers. All questions have been answered. All "stroppy" wants to do is muddy waters, send out slurs and in an attempt to hide their own rotten record from the membership.

"stroppy" (and the other names you're going by), if you really want to have a Union fighting for its membership what are you saying about the current proposals to cut pay of Classroom Assistants? What tactics are you putting forward? What are you doing?

by Carrie Anne Mon Jul 23, 2007 19:49

If you substitute women, black people or Catholics for trade union officials,maybe the would-be socialists here would realise what they come across as-rank bigots who want to discriminate against other workers and deny them equality.Shame on you all.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Jul 23, 2007 21:41

Carrie Ann - I can only hope that you are taking the piss. Being opposed to the existence of an unelected bureaucracy with material interests different to those of the trade union members they supposedly represent is not bigotry. It's a basic principle - officials should be actual representatives of members and not representatives of their own interests.

Stroppy - given that you are clearly a trade union bureaucrat yourself this thread is increasingly hilarious. You hate the Socialist Party because they want to take away your unelected privileges and instead insist that unions and union officials actually represent their members and not the interests of the bureaucracy itself. What's more they have consistently got support within NIPSA for those ideas which means that they aren't just your critics, they are a real threat to you.

You keep asking what a "workers wage" is as if there is some set figure, decided perhaps by a committee of boffins somewhere. In fact it is a statement of principle - that workers representatives whether in parliament or in the unions don't have an income and lifestyle wildly different from those of the people they claim to represent and that they don't materially benefit from being a representative. In general this will mean taking the average wage of the people you represent - so a TD or MP taking the average industrial wage, an elected union official taking the average pay of the workers in the union or in that section of the union. (Apart from the broader principle this has the handy side-effect of giving union officials a direct personal incentive to increase the pay of their members.)

Even this is flexible, within the broad outlines of the principle. For instance a firefighter, who supported Militant, was elected as a Labour MP in the 1980s. He had significant pre-existing financial commitments. He took the same wage he was on as a firefighter when he became an MP, which was a little above the average and a little above the wage taken by other MIlitant supporting MPs. What counts is the principle.

When it comes to union expenses and allowances, it's perfectly reasonable to take actual expenses. Where you are entitled to a set allowance, all of it bar actual expenses should go to labour movement causes. This is the approach which all Socialist Party members in unions take, regardless of your attempts to spread mud (amusingly enough your attempt to spread mud amounts to making false claims that some Socialist Party member is almost as bad as you yourself and your bureaucrat friends - some defence that is!)

But you are of course confusing the central point. For us, being a trade union official is not some cosy career path, where people can carve out comfortable well paid niches for themselves. It's about being a workers representative, subject to election and recall. You hate that conception of the role of officials because it threatens your cosy, comfortable lifestyle and your cosy, comfortable, employer-friendly approach to your job. You hate us, and that, in my view is a good thing. If the bureaucrats didn't hate and fear us we wouldn't be doing our job.

by stroppy Mon Jul 23, 2007 23:49

Ah the big guns are now out poor old JRG has been silenced in case he makes a mistake and actually answers a question. I am not a bureaucrat just a NIPSA member sickened by the hypocrisy of the Socialist Party regarding the representation of members.
It is noticeable that no one from the SP has disputed that your primary task is to recruit new members to your political party. Maybe you will admit this to members the next time your party members stand for election. Clearly the old SP smokescreen of getting someone else to answer questions that were not actually put is alive and well, but this does not hide the fact that your party has refused to answer questions.
At least we now know that if the SP stand their leading female candidate for NIPSA General Secretary she will if successful keep her very substantiial salary. Working wage my arse!
You have also now confirmed that the SP members in NIPSA who receive a seconded allowance do not and will not pay this back into NIPSA funds. Hopefully you will now be honest enough to admit that the Socialist Party will be the only financial beneficiary of the bureaucrats being swept from their overpaid comfy jobs to be replaced by automatons directed by the Socialist Party NEC.
I do not fear you or any of your bullying little thugs but more importantly the Management Side have no fear of the Socialist Party standing outside the tent pissing in.
If at any stage you or whoever is next in line to obfuscate on behalf of the party is willing to clarify the process of identifying officials shortcomings and the process of recall then I will be happy to re-engage.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Jul 24, 2007 01:20

Stroppy, I have no interest in whether or not some anonymous bureaucrat or right wing hack "re-engages" with me. Judging by your dismal and dishonest comments on this thread so far, I wouldn't expect any re-engagement to have much merit. About the only thing I've seen from you that was worth the seconds it took to read it was your hilarious remark about me being a Socialist Party "big gun". That at least gave me, and will give anyone else in the Socialist Party who bothers to read your comment, a cheap laugh.

For all your persistent attempts to cloud the issues, to raise red herrings, to repeat questions so as to give the impression that they haven't already been answered, the issues remain very clear. The trade union movement is controlled by a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy consists of largely unelected officials, who earn vastly more than the members they claim to represent and who, particularly at the very top of the unions have a lifestyle which has more in common with the employers and managers they cut their deals with than with those same members. This bureaucracy, quite naturally, has very different material interests to those of the members at large.

The Socialist Party, and left activists in general, are opposed to this state of affairs. We want the unions to actually fight for their members. We want the unions to be democratic from top to bottom. We want workers representatives to be just that, workers representatives, not bureaucrats with well paid cosy little niches, far removed from the members. And when the left in general, and in the Irish unions that means the Socialist Party in particular, manage to get support for those ideas then the bureaucracy and its allies react with fury. Smears, dirty tricks, lies, the foulest accusations are used to attack those who threaten the security of their privileges.

There is no confusion about what the Socialist Party stands for. Democratically elected union officials, on the same wages as those they represent and subject to replacement in further democratic elections if and when their members are dissatisfied with them. Officials who don't personally benefit from their position and who view the job as an opportunity to fight for their fellow workers and not as a comfortable career path. The bureaucrats don't like that - and we don't care if they do.

As far as set allowances go, I've already explained that Socialist Party members do not personally benefit from these. Genuine expenses are fine, but any excess must be given to labour movement causes just as the excess in the salaries of Joe Higgins or the Militant MPs above a workers wage went to labour movement causes. The point of this isn't to save a union, still less a government, money. The point is that our members will never personally benefit from any position they are elected to. They will not settle comfortably down into a lifestyle far divorced from those of the members they represent. They will not be bought off like the bureaucrats we want rid of. This practice, by the way, is not limited to our members alone. To give two examples both the General Secretary and the President of the PCS, one of NIPSA's counterpart unions in Britain, both take a workers wage although only one of them is a Socialist Party members.

I am reluctant to waste any more of my time responding to questions which have already been answered and which you only raise in the first place in a desperate attempt to cloud the issues, but in case anyone is confused: The Socialist Party calls for democratically elected officials. This means that each official would be elected by the members they represent and those members could, if they want to, elect someone else in their place whenever they wanted to. The people identifying "shortcomings" would be the workers concerned in a standard electoral process.

by Jacqui L - unison member Tue Jul 24, 2007 19:25

I agree with Carrie Ann above.I have never seen such shocking stereotyping and dehumanising of any group of workers in my life as ive seen on this thred on trade unionists from the socialist party.Who on earth are these people,why do they hate trade unionists so much?I believe in defending and strengthening workers rights not shredding them and imposing a low wage sack happy culture.Even the tories werent as mad and vicious as these people.

by Eileen - Ex-classroom assistant Tue Jul 24, 2007 19:47

I have to say that some of the caricaturing of trade union officials by Mark and others is offensive in the extreme.I have been a member of Unison and now Nipsa,one of my best friends worked for the RCN in England and all of the officials I have met from these unions have been exceptionally dedicated,hard working decent people who have worked their way up the ranks and proved themselves over a long period of time.The Nipsa officials appear to be particularly poorly paid due I understand to a formal link between their pay and that of the Civil Service, it is often said that some of the lay representatives on their ruling body especially some Socialist Party people are a great deal wealthier than virtually all of them and if this is true these people should be ashamed of themselves.We should value our trade union workers,they do gruelling and fairly thankless jobs for not a lot of money and precious little in the way of promotion opportunities.The last thing they deserve is the level of childish abuse and hate-mongering they have been subjected to here.

by Irene Buxton Tue Jul 24, 2007 21:01

Clearly an attempt to spin the argument again by making arguments about workers rights and 'dehumanising' officials.

AGAIN: left wingers in the Trade Union movement want to have Union Officers elected and subject to re-call. If you oppose this you are making the argument for unelected officers that are unaccountable for their actions. This is NOT a question of looking for pay decreases for workers. Union officers should come from the workplace and be on a wage linked to the workplace. The work of a Trade Union officer is very important, and yes, it's difficult and testing. That's why we should have them on a workers wage and accountable. It would be very easy for unelected and unaccountable officers to cut corners and not implement the policies demanded by the members.

AGAIN: this has nothing whatsoever about the private finances of any regular worker. If a left-winger gets a pay rise or gets extra responsibilities why the hell should they not take it!!! You say that you oppose sniping at workers' pay... but you do it yourself to private non-elected members of the Union!

WHY DO YOU OPPOSE RE-CALL OF OFFICERS?
WHY DO YOU OPPOSE THE WORKERS' WAGE?
I see no logic in your argument other then the protection of privilege

by stroppy Tue Jul 24, 2007 21:08

MarkP I have to say it pains me about your lack of interest in my re-engagement. In your vitriolic haste to raise yet another smokescreen you miss a vital point::- most of those at the top of the Socialist Party in NIPSA have salaries more in common with senior managers than the members they claim to represent.
We already know the Socialist Party has different material interests from the members at large and the vast majority of their representatives. Your primary focus in unions is to recruit more members to your political party and bad mouthing hard working representatives is part of your stock in trade to achieve this lofty aim.
You can rant all you want about dirty tricks and lies but a cursory glance at this thread will show that the Socialist Party will never be found wanting in the smear department.
In the meantime the NIPSA 'socialists' continue to pocket their allowances . Good job you did not decide to call yourselves the Principled Party. But on a point of principle are any of your people willing to accept a pay that does not exceed the maximum point of the NICS AO grade, if elected to an officials post? The reason I ask is because if you don't and if your people get elected and keep their existing pay many will end up earning more than the bureaucrats they have ousted. Come on answer a question you know it makes sense.

by Irene Buxton Tue Jul 24, 2007 21:27

that last post by "stroppy" shows how bitter and twisted the right-wing argument in the Union movement is.

As said before 'stroppy' is not interested in answers. There is nothing unprincipled with workers accepting higher pay when they get a promotion. It's probably well earned for long service and hard work. Fair play. It's also clear that getting a full-time officership in a Union should not be a promotion. It's a position that should not bring material benefit and should be strongly linked to the workplace (ie accountable, re-callable, mandatable, on workers' pay).

What is wrong with members of an organisation asking people to join their organisation if a person is in agreement with the organisation's objectives. The local stamp club go out to seek members, why shouldn't a party? It's all a reds-under-beds distraction. It's not as if people are brainwashed into joining any particular organisation!

Furthermore, throughout this thread there was not one personalised slurs or bad remark against any named Union official. How is it denegrating Union officials to say they should be elected and on a workers' wage?

All 'stroppy' has is personalised slurs & red scares. He's no longer addressing the reasons why he wants Union decision makers on higher pay then their memebrs and not subject to basic democracy like re-call, election and mandates.

by stroppy Tue Jul 24, 2007 21:47

Hardly a red scare as you put it. The stated position of the Socialist Party regarding involvement in unions in the near future is to recruit members to the party. That as I have already said is not in itself a problem but it becomes one when Socialist Party members lie and claim their primary interest is to represent members.
If the official party position is now that there is no set 'working wage ' but you continue to earn whatever you earned before being elected then an inescapable fact is that some of your leading members will earn more than the 'bureaucrats' they replace if elected.
I notice all the little 'socialists' have ignored the fact that any Socialist Party representatives elected will be following the diktat of the party National Executive Council.
And before there are any more ridiculous red scare stories read the report from last years Socialist Party Conference.
As I sign off from what has become an increasingly tiresome thread two questions remain:-
- will the Socialist Party ever answer a straight question? and
- will the Socialist Party ever tell the truth?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Jul 25, 2007 02:40

Well stroppy, your determination not to "reengage" didn't seem to last very long, did it? Unfortunately "reengagement" doesn't seem to involve anything more than repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I can't say that the site has been much improved by your hasty return.

I am however amused to see some other apparently new posters here backing you up. In fact your arguments seem to have made such an impression on them that they repeat them in your, unique, paragraph-free style. I can only wish that I had such an effect on other readers. Although I suppose I could equally be glad that I don't suffer from multiple personality disorder.

by patrique - nipsa Thu Jul 26, 2007 00:52

I have stumbled across this just now, and must say I am horrified at the outright lies and nonsense that appears here.

Seconded officers receive pay from their employer, not the union, so they remain on the same wages. So if a seconded officer is on £12,000 as a Civil Servant, that is what they get as a seconded officer, paid by the civil service.

There is an allowance paid by the union, something like £1,700 a year, which would hardly pay your phone bill, if you were attempting to do the job right.

I noticed a few classroom assistants posting here, NIPSA members. It is a pity you know absolutely nothing about the "NIPSA" campaign on this. The ruling body, a right wing dominated group, refused to discuss the issue. The left wing began a campaign to address this, and eventually, amazingly, won.This has freed up resources for the campaign. Before that happened, you would have had to be content with the statutory outraged letter from NIPSA. "Dear Ms Ruane, We are outraged. signed: NIPSA

But maybe that is all you wanted?

Now most of you know that I am not in the Socialist Party, so when I say that many of you have no idea what socialism is, you seem to confuse it with strict communism, or right wing scare monger "they are coming to take your money of you" communism, you will know that I have no SP agenda to push. You can be a multi billionaire and be a socialist. The most successful Socialist country under a socialist government for years was Sweden. They pay big wages in Sweden, lots of rich people, but still have a good society, which is what socialism is. Socialism means a better society, education and health provision for all, affordable housing, a penal system based on help and adjustment rather than punishment and revenge, that type of thing. You can have a country with loads of millionaires, but still be socialist if these services are available to the rest of the population.Capitalism is a country with loads of millionaires, without any services for the others.

Anyone in NIPSA with a slight interest in the union knows who does the real work, who starts the campaigns. The majority, with no interest, elect right wingers because they believe what the Sun, Rubert Murdoch, and Stroppy, tells them. The great unwashed, who just want to be led.

Now you know why society needs to change, for the better, the damage done by Thatcher has left a stigma, which needs to be addressed. Unions need to fight back.

by John - PCS Thu Jul 26, 2007 18:37

Mark P. states(24.07.07)that "both the General Secretary and the President of PCS,one of NIPSA's counterpart unions in Britain,both take a worker's wage although only one of them is a Socialist Party member." I am a member of PCS here in Northern Ireland,my wife is a member of NIPSA. I can confirm that Mark Serwotka,the PCS General Secretary,gives around £1000 a month back to the union(he is NOT a member of the Socialist Party); his salary then becomes £38,000p.a.,still well in excess of the average industrial wage(ask any Sinn Fein MLA what this is-they seem to be the only genuine socialists who actually take it),and more than double this worker's wage as well as more than treble my wife's wage,not to mention a huge profit from his previous job.The President,Janet Godrich,is a member of the SP but if she's in the same boat as the NIPSA President then that's not a paid job,just an honorary post that mostly involves chairing meetings.Her partner,also an SP member and PCS National Executive member,must be unique in that he has actually turned down promotions,presumably to empathise with the downtrodden masses(makes you wonder why he went for the Boards in the first place).I don't think this guy has an equivalent anywhere in Northern Ireland. So-called socialists here like to mouth off about "management" and "the bosses" and suchlike but when offered promotions invariably sprint for the ladder and pull it up behind them,pausing only to practise tugging their forelocks.NIPSA is particularly notorious for"socialists" of this ilk,famed for their bloated salaries,flash cars,expensive holidays,fancy houses and telephone number pay-outs than for anything they've ever done for the union. I don't blame them-I'd do the same if I cold get away with it-I just wish they'd be less hypocritical about it.

by Geordie 'The Truth' Washington - Veritas Pro Omnia Thu Jul 26, 2007 19:23

'The Truth' goes on holiday and in his absence all Hell breaks loose......excellent stuff! It's so gratifying to know that I've managed to stimulate a debate.Well,I'm back from my sojourns now,so get this: (1)All unions pay the rate for the job.They do not mess about with their structures and invite a raft of equal pay cases to appease confused Trotskyist fantasists nor would they cut anybody's pay or sack anybody('instant recall'-Jeez! That's the most grotesque Orwellian euphemism I've heard since the Yanks re-named kidnap and torture 'extraordinary rendition')at the behest of any clique of deranged fundamentalist bullies.Thankfully we have employment laws to ensure this. (2)It is up to officials,however they get their jobs(either on merit,or alternatively through the lottery of an election),to spend their money whatever way they want.If they want to give some back to the union,well and good-very commendable if you can afford it,as the likes of Jack O'Connor and Mark Serwotka clearly can.Likewise,they can choose to donate some to a charity,to a political party (as Sinn Feiners do) or even to some lunatic sect(the Scientologists,the Socialist Party,the Flat Earth Society,etc) if they so wish.The point is it's their money,so they can do what they like with it. So-less of the sanctomonious prolier-than-thou posturing,ye wee Trot dafties! Ye've lost every single argument on this thread so far.Why not quit while you're behind?

by Pravda Thu Jul 26, 2007 19:31

Geordie, I don't know what drugs you took to mangle your brain while on holiday, but you and your buddies have been torn apart on this thread. Every argument you come out with has been destroyed and you can do nothing more than repeat the same lies in a desperate bid to confuse people. You're a joke and you should certainly "quit while you're behind" - you're embarassing yourself

by Pravda Thu Jul 26, 2007 19:38

Jesus, reading back over your rant I really had to take this bit out and have a laugh at it -

"'instant recall'-Jeez! That's the most grotesque Orwellian euphemism I've heard since the Yanks re-named kidnap and torture 'extraordinary rendition')"

So you think it's outrageous that members of your union should have the right to remove an elected official from their post if they don't do a good job. It's outrageous that the members should have any say whatsoever in what their union does. Presumably we should appoint union officials for life then?

"t is up to officials,however they get their jobs(either on merit,or alternatively through the lottery of an election)"

That's even better! So when somebody is elected to a position in their union, that has nothing to do with "merit", no, it's a 'lottery'. WTF? Have you ever heard of 'democracy'? You know, the idea that people are allowed vote for those who hold positions of power, decide who they think is the best one to represent their interests? That's a "lottery" is it?

Sweet Jesus Geordie, it really would be better for you if you just slithered off and buried yourself in the sand somewhere and stopped talking about anything, ever. You're exposing yourself more comprehensively that any left activist ever could. You've admitted that you hate democracy and believe that the union is there to provide a career path for ambitious people, not to represent its members. Everything that the SP posters have said about the union bureaucracy is confirmed by your ramblings and I hope and NIPSA member reading this thread understands now how much you despise them and starts taking steps to kick you and your ilk off your perch.

by Irene Buxton Thu Jul 26, 2007 19:47

ask any Sinn Fein MLA what this is-they seem to be the only genuine socialists who actually take it

So John, the mask slips. We see that you are indeed a Sinn Féin supporter. You also continue the personalised mis-information and slurs about Socialists who are not here to clarify and/or defend themselves with your hearsay. So what makes you think Sinn Féin are socialists?
*Sinn Féin are indeed cutting the pay of classroom assistants.
*Sinn Féin are introducing water charges next Spring.
*Sinn Féin member and SIPTU Union official Ann Speed campaigned against solidarity work by students in the South for workers' rights in Colombia.
*In the South Sinn Féin have just giving Fianna Fáil a majority in the upper House of parliament this week.
*Sinn Féin in Monaghan voted for property developer lead planning and are now giving out the Green Minister is vetoing it all!
*Sinn Féin on South Dublin council voted for property developer lead planning of the Tallaght town centre's unsustainable high-rise slums.
*Sinn Féin also voted for the Bin Tax down in the South where they 'had to' and went to the jacks when the numbers stacked the other way (Dublin city).
*Just today Martin McGuinness was welcoming Brian Goggin the multi-millionaire CEO of the Bank of Ireland to the North. McGuinness was happy to shake his hand and he probably envied the €2,500,000 yearly salary he gets. Ironic that one bank robber meets another bank robber!
*The minimum wage is set to be reduced in the North under the latest plans from Westminster. The Northern Ireland Executive would not oppose this if business got a reduction in corporation tax!

PS
Sinn Féin's information bulletin on Trades Unions (which I read yesterday) says that one of its objectives in Union work is to recruit members. I've no problem with that... but Sinn Féin members on this thread think it a grave sin when socialists say this. So 'stroppy' have you got a problem with Sinn Fein having this as an objective? Or will you use another identity to argue it's ok now?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Paryt/CWI Thu Jul 26, 2007 20:18

John you stated:

'the average industrial wage(ask any Sinn Fein MLA what this is-they seem to be the only genuine socialists who actually take it)'

Actually John, this is not the case and SF members openly admit this is not the case. SF MLA's, TD's etc. draw the average industrial wage from SF. On top of this any MLA or TD who has a secondary income (like Gerry Adams) keeps his secondary income (and for Adams this is quite substantial). Furthermore, SF MLA's and TD's have access to all the expenses they draw down. This, for example, in the case of Martin Ferris TD was over €66,000 last year. Now SF members claim that Martin Ferris has to fund all his expenses relating to his work as a public representative from this money, but €66,000 is a substantial sum adn Martin Ferris is not required to keep receipts or publish accounts relating to these expenses, either to SF internally or to the public at large.

In contrast, when SP's Joe Higgins was a TD he lived on the average industrial wage and produced detailed accounts each year to prove that this was the case. All his expenses were receipted and any excess money (Joe Higgins received €23,000 in expenses in 2006 and had a lot left over) was donated to community campaigns etc.

by patrique - nipsa Thu Jul 26, 2007 20:53

Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but should the average, minimum, worker's wage not be £25,000, and should we not be united in fighting for that, instead of condemning some people who earn that?

£25k is not a big wage these days, when one union General Secretary earns £1.5 million a year. Probably deserves it.

So stop talking crap, and start doing something. We are supposed to be trying to increase workers' wages, not lower them.

by stroppy Thu Jul 26, 2007 22:11

Patrique you are not far off the mark arguing that the average working wage should be around £25k. You then deliberately miss the point about the hypocrisy of the Socialist Party on this issue.
Starting on 7th July JRG asked , " is the wages of the workers you represent not good enough for you"?
Next up "the core demand all socialists make is that of the average wage for people that represent workers". We then have " and the point is that the official should not live a lifestyle above that of the people that s/he represents".

These very honourable aspirations are unfortunately not lived up to by Socialist Partry members in NIPSA. As stated earlier leading members who took the unprincipled stand of taking non-elected seconded posts now have salaries and an allowance that far exceed this average wage. Indeed if you were to take 25k Euro as the average wage it would be an even wider margin. None of them have given their NIPSA allowance back to union funds never mind the thousands of pounds over the average wage that they earn. And dont even get me started about the plush lifestyle of the Socialist Party golden couple currently resident in the leafy suburbs with their fancy motors and holidays to far flung corners of the globe.

If the seconded ' socialists' had returned their allowances this money could have covered the costs of advertising meetings for the classroom assistants.

Irene I could'nt care less what Sinn Fein do as I am not a member of their party. However if they stated publicly that their primary role in unions was to represent union members but then told party members at their Conference that the real primary role was to gain new party members, then they would be guilty of gross hypocrisy.

The Socialist Party started the debate on the working wage and we now know that they dont intend to settle for £25k and, if elected , their leaders will bizarrely earn more than the bureaucrats they have castigated. So yes Patrique lets try and float all wage boats but watch out you dont get knocked down by the Vanguard of the Proletariat driving by in their lifestyle vehicle.

by patrique - nipsa Thu Jul 26, 2007 23:37

Stroppy, I am amazed that an educated man like yourself doesn't know how seconded officers are paid, especially as I explained it above. And I am also amazed at your seeming jealousy of other peoples' wages. When reps tell me that after each pay deal we should ask the Grade 7's "how much was your rise" I always respond that grade 7s are paid buttons, especially given the amount of time it normally takes to get that far. And if they are earning good money, well that is a tribute to the union. When discussing wages always start with Rio Ferdinand, a mediocre soccer player, basic salary £130,000 a WEEK. Then you know there is something wrong with the world, and if we were to tax all of these people the minimum wage could be £25,000 a year. So simple it's a wonder loads of people can't see it. Socialism is about a better distribution of the world's wealth, not the idea that everyone gets the same. I suggest starting to redistribute Bill Gate's wages may make more sense that distributing a £1,700 top up from NIIPSA.

Seconded officers are paid by work. If you are a staff officer, you get a staff officers wage, if you are an AA you get an AAs wage, not from the union, but from the employer. The union does not employ seconded officers. And as stated above, the top up paid by the union is about £1,700, which is buttons given the extra expense a hard working seconded officer would accrue.

And I hate to say this, but it is true, until the left stepped in, including members of the SP, there were no plans to discuss the classroom assistants, let alone have protest meetings.I hate to say it because it is shameful, and the "name and shame" document at conference did the trick. If you saw the document, you will know that not one of the twelve named, who quickly and affectionately became known as "The Dirty Dozen", was a member of the SP. Arguing with and running down the SP on the issue of classroom assistants is a beaten docket, without them the assistants would have been forgotten.

So could we all show a bit of UNION solidarity, and try to achieve something, before we are all members of the Unemployed Union.

by stroppy Thu Jul 26, 2007 23:53

Patrique you are not a stupid man and you know this is about the hypocrisy of people saying one thing and doing another . Never at any time before they outed themselves on this thread did the SP let on that the working wage was something other than the figure you suggested. Now you can keep whatever you earned before you ousted a bureaucrat .
A cynic might think that this new definition of a working wage has something to do with the fact that the person likely to be put forward for election in NIPSA by the SP now has a salary befitting of the finest bureaucrat.
I asked if the SP would commit themselves to taking the max of the AO salary if their nominee was elected and put the rest back into NIPSA funds. By now you will know the answer.

by stroppy Fri Jul 27, 2007 00:09

Just spotted that JRG has confirmed that Joe Higgins took the 'average industrial wage ' when he was a TD. This must mean that a figure can be put on this. At last the SP have a chance to actually answer a question and this one is easy peasy. How much did Joe take as the 'average industrial wage '?
Dont worry about the expenses, any legitimately incurred should be recoverable, just answer the fu*^ing question.

by Irene Buxton Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:07

This is really dialogue with the deaf. 'Stroppy', 'john' and whatever other name this person is using do not get it.

Left-wingers in Trade Unions have a principle that a workers' wage should be paid to workers' representatives. This is done for many reasons outlined above. It is not undermining workers' rights and it is not 'not paying the rate for the job'.

In return for this clear argument this person (most likely a right-winger in the Union movement) is throwing around slurs and mistruths about "golden couples" with "motors" and foreign holidays. Well good luck to them is what I say! It's not as if owning a car or going on a holiday is completly unachievable on a workers' wage! When were you living? The 19th century? The people you attack are not in elected office and are fully entitled to earn what they earn and spend it as they like.

There are examples given above of socialist representatives that lived on the workers wage. Joe Higgins received €30,000 (give or take a few hundred) in his last year as a TD. Obviously this rose over the 10 years as the average wage rose. The average industrial wage figure can be found from the CSO in the South. There were also examples of socialist MPs in the 1980s in Britain: they took the average wage. One MP who had prior financial committments based on a projected salary took the wage of a firefighter (his job) (also not far above the average wage at the time). This is the workers' wage policy in action. I've not got access to the average wage figures in specific Unions so I can't give you a figure for NIPSA. But I'm sure you're going to keep asking as you are blind and deaf to the answers given!

by Una Simpson Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:40

Joe Higgins earned the following over the passt number of years. (This is based on the average industrial wage from the Central Statistics Office website)

1998 €428.82 per week, €22,298 per year
1999 €453.04 per week, €23,558 per year
2000 €477.73 per week, €24,841per year
2001 €512.38 per week, €26,643 per year
2002 €538.38 per week €27,995 per year
2003 €564.90 per week, €29,374 per year
2004 €588.92 per week €30,623 per year
2005 €609.91 per week, €31,715 per year
2006 €624.45 per week, €32,471 per year

Over the course of these eight years Joe Higgins received €249,518. About the same as what Bertie Ahern earns in one year! If you really want to get pedantic you can then look at the cost of living over these years and you will see that Joe Higgins, like other Irish workers, faced massive hikes in prices on essentials like electricity, gas, and other utilities. I really knew Joe was on our side when he was talking about Bin tax and hikes in feuls (he was only one to do it) because he was not on a cushy salary and removed from real life. It's disgusting that 'stroppy' is sniping at this principled representative and others like him. 'Stroppy' is actually defending not having elections and not have a workers wage policy.

by stroppy Fri Jul 27, 2007 19:56

Thank you Una for confirming that going by Joes 2006 salary the average working wage can now be determined at about £23k.
In response to Irene I have not disputed that people are entitled to earn what they earn and spend it. I have merely highlighted the hypocrisy of the Socialist Party who made a big play of taking what we now know to be £23k and putting any surplus back into the union movement.
Except when presented with the opportunity to do it they chose to hold on to as much as £10k more than £23k and give nothing back to their union.
Given that the majority of NIPSA members earn far less than £20k, this means that leaders of the Socialist Party have knowingly held on to a salary that divorces them totally from the lifestyle of the members they claim to represent.
So good luck to those of you who have earned the entitlement to earn £10k more than the average wage.
Just spare us the hypocrisy of the pretence that you are willing to practice what you preach.
It just goes to prove that inside every member of the Socialist Party there is a capitalist waiting to burst out.

by Geordie'the Truth'Washington - Veritas Pro Omnia Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:12

Despite the devastating exposees above,it is heartening to see that some continue to adhere to the staunch no-nonsense Thatcherite principles of electing workers irrespective of whether they meet the criteria for the job,accepting less than the rate for the job and acquiescing in the practice of employers summarily dismissing employees for no legally justifiable reason("instant recall"). I am pleased to announce that Morecambe Bay Gangmasters and Domino's Pizzas will be electing cockle pickers and delivery staff respectively at a venue near you shortly and Socialist Party members are cordially invited to form an orderly queue. Those who do not espouse 'democracy' need not apply.

by Anita - NI Civil Service Sat Jul 28, 2007 13:51

"Patrique" says a civil servant on £12,000 a year(and I am getting very little more than that myself) would be paid the same if seconded to the union-correct-plus an allowance which he says" would hardly pay your phone bill" and "which is buttons given the extra expense a hard-working seconded officer would accrue." Well,the seconded allowance is I believe £1744,so that would effectively be a 14.5% pay rise for someone on £12,000-there is no extra expenses,the union picks these up,including phone bills(or the employer).Nice work if you can get it,then. I confess that I have no respect for self styled socialists who preach one thing and do another,by the way-there is very little substance in what they have posted here,it is mostly name-calling and ranting as per usual.I saw that "dirty dozen" thing at conference and was appalled by it,as were most people.I'm glad the General Secretary got a circular out telling the truth but if I was one of the people smeared I'd still sue the ones responsible if they ever mustered the courage to own up to it.

by patrique - nipsa Sun Jul 29, 2007 02:23

Stroppy, you have completely lost me.

Anita, expenses? Real trade unionists claim their conference expenses like everyone else, but that's it. When you jump into a hack to get to Harkin, because you are running late due to handling 15 urgent personal cases and distributing 15 more to other reps, you pay the fare. You don't claim it back. well, real trade unionists do not. As for NIPSA paying for phones, news to me, unless it is for full time officials, who do not earn £12,000 a year.

I personally am not a member of the SP, indeed I have many differences with them.However the fact that they get the same top up as everyone else as seconded officers is not one of them, and as for Stroppy's idea, basically that a DP earning say £30,000 a year , therefore that is what they get if they were seconded, can keep it, unless they are in the SP and then they should give £18,000 of it to the union, that is not another. I think poor Strop has lost it.

And Anita, if you think that £13, 744 is nice work if you can get it, you could work part-time at Tesco, or become a seconded officer.

by patrique - nipsa Sun Jul 29, 2007 02:31

I forgot to mention "The Dirty Dozen" expose. If members would prefer that the union was a secret society and no-one ever knew what decisions were being made, well letting members know what General council are doing, or not doing, would be a heinous crime.

As for taking a libel case, you would need to prove that the list was not factual.

I suggest we all devote our energies to trying to do something positive for the union. We are facing difficult times, could we not just be a UNION, united and all that? We can argue and debate all we like, but let's do something as well.

by Benni ( with an I ) - Libel Expert Thu Aug 02, 2007 16:30

So publishing the names of those who refused to listen to democratically elected representatives is libellous?
Strange, doesn't the General Council minutes actually record votes? Aren't these minutes issued to Branches? Thought so; looks like 'Anita' will have to sue NIPSA!!

by Scrabble Tower - NIPSA Sat Aug 04, 2007 00:30

Folks

Remember if you are in the Public Officers side you get facility time from the employer with no uplift. You pay your own phone bill. When members come and ask can NIPSA sponsor a sick relative you tell them not right away but you will write to the General Council. Also you give up any chance of promotion. Therefore the PO side of the house is populated by activists who have only one goal to represent members. God save us from the Dirty Dozen.