January 2011. You make the decision The choice for ASTI members is a very difficult one. Our lengthy negotiations have clarified matters and we now know that accepting the Croke Park Agreement means: ◆ an extra 33 hours annually ◆ an extra period on the Supervision and Substitution rota ◆ provision of cover for a teacher taking your class away ◆ changes to redeployment arrangements On the other hand, the Agreement also means: ◆ consultation and consensus on the use of the 33 hours ◆ adherence to existing Department circulars on posts of responsibility ◆ guarantee of no compulsory redundancies (over 300 second-level teachers are in 'surplus' positions) ◆ no pay cut before 2014 (ASTI reserves its right to withdraw from the Agreement if this changes) ◆ retirement lump sum to be based on ‘uncut’ salary until February 2012 Use your vote on time Background to the Talks Croke Park Agreement In March 2010, representatives of Government and public sector unions concluded an agreement which covered pay and conditions for the 2010 - 2014 period. This became known as the Croke Park Agreement. It dealt with teachers, nurses, civil servants, local authority staff, prison officers, etc. The aim, set out in the agreement, was to create a more effective public service with greater flexibility and efficiency. This efficiency was to create savings in public expenditure and in return the unions were guaranteed that there would be no pay cuts before 2014 and no compulsory redundancies. The relevant text of the Croke Park Agreement, including proposals for the education sector, can be found on pages 13 to 18. Economic context In Spring 2010 the economic context in which the Croke Park Agreement was being negotiated was deteriorating alarmingly. In the months following the Agreement the deterioration accelerated culminating in massive injections of public money into the banks, the procurement of significant loans from the IMF and ECB, the introduction of the Government's Four Year Plan with cuts of €15 billion, and the most draconian budget in living memory. Many public and media commentators sought the abandonment of the Croke Park Agreement on the basis that it would not succeed in producing sufficient public service savings for the state. Despite these pressures, the Croke Park Agreement remains in place and the public service unions are engaged in negotiations on its implementation. Public service unions vote In May 2010 ASTI members rejected the Croke Park Agreement by a 2:1 majority. In...
January 2011. In parallel, the possibility was raised that Israel would join the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project.4 Ultimately, however, Israel was not included in the project at this point, both because of its decision not to invest in the project and because of American reservations about Israel’s participation — mainly fears of technology leaks — and the reluctance to meet Israel’s special demands concerning the model it would purchase. However, Israel was included with a special status of observer, without permission to be involved or inftuence the configuration of the plane. For their part, the heads of the defense establishment in Israel expressed their confidence that in any case Israel would be among the first to receive the plane upon its completion. In 2003, the United States agreed to upgrade Israel’s status on the project to security cooperation participant, and Israel agreed to invest a sum of some $50 million in the project (for the purpose of comparison, Britain invested $2.7 billion).5 Once again, the question arose of customizing the plane for Israel’s unique needs. The first controversial issue concerned the possibility of a two-seat model. The Israel Air Force prefers to use two-seater planes and divide the operating load of the plane between the pilot and the navigator/systems operator. The F-35 was planned as a single-seat plane, and its designers believed that its advanced systems would make the additional crew member unnecessary. The second controversial issue concerned installation of Israeli systems on the plane, including:
January 2011. The Merits of the Deal Israel has always seen its qualitative advantage as a crucial component of its security, and the United States has also affirmed its commitment to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge. More than in any other branch this advantage is expressed in the air force, and Israel has always been equipped with the most up-to-date planes. As such, the purchase of the F-35 was an obvious move. Nonetheless, the rationale of the purchase merits careful consideration.
January 2011 threats. This low signature is effective especially in a forward sector, but less so in other sectors. Its level of stealth is much lower against radar using lower frequencies (and the Russians are already developing such systems).
January 2011. 305,905,004 113,514,005 August 2008........
