Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 26 Jan 2024
TRADE UNIONS AND the Government have agreed on a proposal for a public sector pay deal that will see a 10.25% rise in pay for workers over 2.5 years.
Minister for Public Expenditure Paschal Donohoe has said that the overnight negotiations were a “difficult” process for all of the parties involved.
The deal stands to benefit 385,000 civil and public sector workers including teachers, gardaí, and HSE staff.
The deal includes pay increases of 9.25%, with a provision for a local bargaining mechanism equivalent to 1%.
Overnight talks at the WRC saw the unions and the Government land on the 10.25% figure after the Government initially proposed an increase of just over 8%, and the unions combatted the offer with an ask of over 12%.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) said that it has briefed its 19 affiliate unions on the terms of the new public sector pay agreement, which was finalised following 22 hours of negotiations.
The ICTU said that the pay increase secured by unions was the “absolute maximum achievable through negotiations.
Affiliate unions have been asked to consider the terms of the deal and begin the process of organising ballots of union members. The balloting period is expected to extend until 25th March to allow the unions time to decide.
It said that the unions’ negotiators have secured a higher pay adjustment for workers in 2024 (4.5%) than the Government was initially willing to offer.
The ICTU said that details for the local bargaining mechanism that will be introduced in the deal will be agreed by 30 June this year, with local negotiations to take place between then and June 2025.
Speaking to Claire Byrne on RTÉ Radio One this morning, Minister Donohoe said there was little point in going back into the WRC and asking Union reps to move on their position if he wasn’t willing to himself.
He added that the negotiations were a “very difficult process for both sides of the table”, but one that all parties approached with “good will”.
Donohoe said he was persuaded to make some “final changes” during the night because he believes that reaching an agreement on the value of public sector wages in the Irish economy over two and a half years is “vital” for stability.
He also said the agreement means Ireland can continue to develop its public services, and retain public servants.
Donohoe said that he has made a commitment to continue engaging with unions on local bargaining rights for separate public sector workforces, which the 1% mechanism agreed to in this deal evidences.
He stressed that while 1% may seem like a small amount when viewed as an increase in an individual’s pay, it represents a cost to the public purse of well over €300 million.
Talks on a pay deal began last November, and have broken down twice in the intervening months. The latest round of negotiations kicked off after WRC officials invited the Government and Union representatives to re-engage.
Antoinette Cunningham from AGSI, the union for gardaí, told Morning Ireland that officials in negotiations “do not understand garda work related issues” this morning after leaving the WRC.
She said that unions had agreed on a “set of proposals” and that she would bring the details back to the AGSI national executive.
Cunningham said that issues affecting Gardaí such as rosters are “very different from other sectors”, and that that is something that the union will have to “continue to address”.
The Forsa trade union has sent further details of the deal to its members.
This is a breaking news story, we will have an update shortly.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Wonder how much it cost them to make?
@Daíthí: 500% margin markup I’m guessing, probably more. With fashion tat you’re paying for the badge not quality or ethically made.
It’s only worth €32m if someone wants it so obviously it’s a load of over-priced old tat
@Victor Brown: yep…has a smell of ” creative” accounting about that figure.
@Victor Brown: as the Garda would say “street value”
Should be illegal to do such a thing. In an age where the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer, corporations should be forced to donate.
@Engine No. 9: Donate perfume to the homeless is it?
@David j: theyd smell nice though…that Burberry ‘weekend’ is good stuff
@David j: some already do!
@Robert O’Rourke: just read the headline then?
@David j: u dont have to picture it, just go to the right areas and you will see if for yourself
@Cormac Ó Braonáin: No mention of perfume in the headline?
@David j: Is it not an incitement on our society when the destruction of material overpriced fashion can be linked to people on the dole.
Arrogant and disgraceful. All the poverty in this world and they burnt that much stock to protect their brand!!! Corporate greed at its best.
@Olive whyte: More like a tax dodge or creative accounting. I’d like that independently verified by UK revenue.
@Olive whyte: Olive I agree but if they were to give there products away for free it would no longer appear as a luxury brand because everyone’s wearing it and boom goes the business.
@Olive whyte:
What should they do send a load of handbags and perfume out to Africa?
@Bernie Roche: manage their stock requirements would be a good start!!
@John: It is disgraceful that some people only enjoy wearing something because normal people can’t afford it, regardless of quality. Why are such low personal qualities propagating?
Soon to change name to Burnberry!
This was a necessary step to keep the retail price of the brand high, otherwise we could face the horrible prospect of their clothing being worn by chav’s.
Nike should follow suit to make sure their clothes adorn only the finest of people.
@David McShite:
I hope that was a ‘tongue in cheek comment ‘
Disgraceful act from a disgraceful company.
It shows the dark side of people more than anything. The reality is it’s more profitable for them to destroy products than to cut prices and allow them to fall into the hands of the ordinary working class as that would ruin the allure to their primary market.
It’s like burning a book you wrote in case it was file-shared.
Chav tat.
“Worth” €32million, probably cost them €10,000 to make the rubbish.
Yeah that makes loads of sense cos nobody can buy your clothes and just make counterfeit ones. Do they have a vetting process for their customers? Sometimes ya read something and you think wow how can people running these companies be so stupid. Most retailers have a sale to sell unsold stock not burn it..
haha even better just realised they’re a plc I wonder how their shareholders feel about them just burning money…
@Bhiniáimin Ó Beith:
Shareholders might not object to the burning …….. but the bad publicity is another matter!
@Michael Kavanagh: I don’t beleive that. People invest to make a return. It’s bad business not only are you losing revenue but your also losing potential market share by missing out on customers that might not ordinarily buy your product. Not to mention free advertising the more people who wear your product the more people see it. The way you defeat counterfeits is to offer a quality. Superdry and Under Armour are two companies that do this well.
Do people even still wear Burberry?? Evidently not if they are burning excess stock…
If Burberry used its brains, they’d realise that allowing the goods to be sold cut-price is an effective marketing tool. Seeing people wearing a particular brand (if it looks good on said people), will encourage others to purchase similar products. If that were not the case, why would a wide range of companies use product placement? Think sports gear given to sports stars; clothes given to many famous people; watches, cars, you name it.
France is bringing in legislation to ban this.
Kids paid next to nothing to make them in the poorest of poor nations, surely give them to those with nothing would be better than just burning them? So much for corporate responsibility.
I used to have to throw unsold expensive at the time microsoft products in the skip and crush them for the same reason.
Cost to manufacture a copy was low
The cost was in Developing and advertising the product and the name – not in the manufacture or materials which is very low.
Also – probably not as many units as you think if its 250 to $500 an item.
I bought two gold rings for the wedding ceremony of me and girlfriend.
By freak of coincidence, the man in the jewellers shop selling us the rings turned out to be a family member, quietly told us that the rings were normally sold at 500% profit, and then sold us the rings at 50% discount, still making 250% profit.
His apologetic excuse for that was that the remaining 250% charge just barely covered jewellers having to pay huge insurance costs against robbery risks.
There must be something wrong somewhere.
Maybe Burberry should look again and challenge their insurance companies’ charges instead of burinng their products off.
Who cares
That’s how it’s done
The waste produced, the manufacturing hours wasted….Animal hide for leather goods just discarded damaged or incinerated, animals slaughtered to produce something that just becomes waste is nauseating!
The environmental impact too, so wrong!
It seems the more money paid for something the less ethical it’s origin may be.
“A fool and their money are soon parted” and these fashion houses and companies are very aware of that.
How can ordinary householders be expected to follow guidelines such as reduce, reuse and recycle when waste is being produced in this way on such a huge scale..
1 Trillion per year dumped or incinerated, where is the environmental agencies action on this?
Disgusting!
These companies should be penalised for so much over production
I hope they recovered the energy from the big burn and used it to generate heat or elect
All a bit Essex anyway. Best all round
Got you all commenting for Free Publicity
I despair.
have your say