Unpaid leave option sparked public derision

IN response to Brendan Richardson (Letters, December 10), I have seen no evidence of a “baying mob hysterically screeching for public service pay cuts rather than unpaid leave”.

The fact is that once details of the 12 days unpaid leave proposal emerged from the talks between public sector unions and the Government, the public response was rightly one of complete derision.

How on earth could that possibly work in schools, hospitals or in the gardaí?

Given the size of our public service, it is quite clear that such a system could work at various bureaucratic levels without any effect on services. If so, this is an indication of present inefficiencies and should be addressed by ridding the public service of such waste by cutting its size.

As for Mr Richardson’s charge that the Government caved in to those who “shout loudest and for longest”, who on earth does he think was shouting loudest and longest if not the public service unions, culminating in the irresponsible decision to strike? These are the very people who seem least interested in “working in a spirit of cooperation and partnership.” Mr Richardson is also incorrect in indicating that the cuts are the banks’ bailout, which is a separate issue. The €20-odd billion gap between public expenditure and public income has to be closed and severe cuts in public sector pay are unavoidable.

Contrary to Mr Richardson’s claim that negotiations were aimed at providing a “better, fairer way” to restore equity, they were in fact aimed only at maintaining union power and protecting their members’ narrow and immediate interests at the expense the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.

If the Government had failed to face down this threat, they are the very ones who would suffer most in the inevitable financial meltdown of our society.

James McGrath

Birchgrove

Hollyford

Co Tipperary