Clyde Weath­er­head

A For­mer PSA Pres­i­dent and

Ne­go­ti­a­tion Prac­ti­tion­er

The lat­est round of talks be­tween the CPO and the se­cu­ri­ty ser­vices as­so­ci­a­tions and re­cent talks in­volv­ing the PSA have re­vealed that the Gov­ern­ment is stick­ing to its po­si­tion of 4 per cent - 002-002 for 2014-2019.

While the Po­lice, Pris­ons and Fire As­so­ci­a­tions have in­di­cat­ed their re­jec­tion of the Gov­ern­ment’s po­si­tion, the PSA Pres­i­dent last week ex­pressed op­ti­mism for a bi­lat­er­al set­tle­ment.

Dif­fer­ent re­ac­tions re­flect­ing the dis­parate po­si­tions tak­en by each of the bar­gain­ing bod­ies in these ne­go­ti­a­tion.

It al­so re­flects the Gov­ern­ment’s tac­tics of treat­ing these ne­go­ti­a­tions for pe­ri­ods long past as if sep­a­rat­ed by an im­pen­e­tra­ble wall and keep­ing the bar­gain­ing bod­ies di­vid­ed in the hope of im­pos­ing its po­si­tion on them one by one.

Yes­ter­day, the Pris­ons and Fire As­so­ci­a­tions’ spokes­men ex­pressed con­cern at the CPO’s state­ment that “if we don’t ac­cept you might take this mat­ter to the court; that is a re­al pos­si­bil­i­ty”, say­ing “we find that to be a strong-arm­ing tac­tic”.

Well, maybe the bar­gain­ing bod­ies and all pub­lic of­fi­cers need to be re­mind­ed that the pub­lic ser­vice ne­go­ti­at­ing process in­volves:

- dis­cus­sions be­tween the CPO (in­struct­ed by the Fi­nance Min­is­ter)

_ re­fer­ral to the Fi­nance Min­is­ter in case of no agree­ment

- a wait­ing pe­ri­od with the dis­pute re­ferred to the Min­is­ter.

- re­fer­ral of the dis­pute to the Spe­cial Tri­bunal for ar­bi­tra­tion with a min­i­mum 5-year award.

So the pos­si­bil­i­ty of the CPO re­fer­ring the un­re­solved ne­go­ti­a­tions to the Spe­cial Tri­bunal (made up of Mem­bers of the In­dus­tri­al Court) is the Gov­ern­ment’s BAT­NA (Best Al­ter­na­tive to a Ne­go­ti­at­ed Agree­ment).

The rep­re­sen­ta­tive As­so­ci­a­tions and Unions al­so have their BAT­NA -- in­dus­tri­al ac­tion (out­lawed by the IRA which de­fines Pub­lic Of­fi­cers as not be­ing work­ers and hav­ing no Right to Strike or Take In­dus­tri­al Ac­tion).

The CPO is re­mind­ing the se­cu­ri­ty bar­gain­ing bod­ies of his op­tions

They should re­mind him of theirs.

THE PM’S In­ter­im pay­ment po­si­tion

At his me­dia con­fer­ence af­ter the last Cab­i­net Re­treat, the Prime Min­is­ter spent a good deal of time ex­plain­ing what the cost of the 4% po­si­tion is.

He al­so re­ferred to the wind­fall Rev­enues from in­creased hy­dro­car­bon prices which have risien prin­ci­pal­ly due to the Russ­ian ag­gres­sion in Ukraine and the An­glo-Amer­i­can-NA­TO eco­nom­ic war­fare in re­sponse.

The PM went on to raise the pos­si­bil­i­ty of treat­ing the 4% in­crease which would cost part of the wind­fall as an in­ter­im pay­ment.

But, the CPO’s po­si­tions on ei­ther side of Eman­ci­pa­tion Day shows that the PM and his Fi­nance Min­is­ter have not di­rect­ed the CPO to put that po­si­tion on the ta­ble.

Not sur­pris­ing.

Be­cause the PM al­so put a con­di­tion for pos­si­bly putting for­ward the in­ter­im pay­ment po­si­tion.

His de­mand was for the Trade Union Move­ment to re­turn to NTAC and the po­si­tion could be put there.

This is the re­al bul­ly­ing and strong-arm tac­tic of the Gov­ern­ment since NTAC is not a part of the ne­go­ti­a­tion process in the Pub­lic Ser­vice.

NEED for joint ne­go­ti­at­ing ap­proach by Pub­lic ser­vice as­so­ci­a­tions/Unions

Gov­ern­ment is the em­ploy­er of all Pub­lic Of­fi­cers and Dai­ly-paid and con­tract Em­ploy­ees in the Gov­ern­ment Ser­vice.

These ne­go­ti­a­tions up to 2019 deal with 2 ne­go­ti­at­ing pe­ri­ods for which Gov­ern­ment re­fused to en­gage in col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing un­til now.

These pe­ri­ods are the His­to­ry part of the ne­go­ti­a­tions and can be paid for out of the Wind­fall Rev­enues that Gov­ern­ment says now amount to $8 Bil­lion.

That is the source of the PM’s car­rot an stick tac­tic of rais­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of an in­ter­im pay­ment.

That his­to­ry needs to be set­tled by pay­ing Gov­ern­ment Em­ploy­ees their Fair Share out of that Wind­fall.

That is a mat­ter for all pub­lic ser­vice as­so­ci­a­tions and unions and pub­lic sec­tor unions to ad­dress joint­ly as a Joint ne­go­ti­at­ing team.

That His­to­ry needs to be set­tled and quick­ly so that the Cur­rent pe­ri­od of 2020-2022 can then be ad­dressed and bring Col­lec­tive Agree­ments in the Pub­lic Ser­vice cur­rent and main­tain Rel­a­tiv­i­ties in Pay among All the Pub­lic Ser­vices - Civ­il, Teach­ing, Po­lice, Fire, Pris­ons, Statu­to­ry Bod­ies.

The Pub­lic Ser­vice As­so­ci­a­tions and Unions need to re­build the joint ne­go­ti­at­ing team ap­proach of the 1980’s to en­sure that a ne­go­ti­at­ed set­tle­ment is reached first on the His­to­ry part of these ne­go­ti­a­tions.

Gov­ern­ment un­der­stands its in­ter­ests and is con­duct­ing its tac­tics ac­cord­ing­ly.

The Pub­lic Ser­vice As­so­ci­a­tions bet­ter un­der­stand their col­lec­tive joint in­ter­ests and con­duct their tac­tic ac­cord­ing­ly.

Fail­ure to do this, Gov­ern­ment will im­pose its po­si­tion on them one by one with or with­out re­sort to use of the Spe­cial Tri­bunal.