Clarity, ambiguity, and concerns

Back to news 

Paramedic and ISP member, PJ Maguire Kavanagh, shares his analysis of the WRC proposal document that is currently the subject of a ballot.

I’ve been doing a bit of a pros and cons list while reading into the WRC proposals document a bit more over the last few days, generally when it comes to pay increases, scales, the new rostered allowance and overtime conditions it’s looking pretty solid in terms of how they should be interpreted, basically I would interpret them how they’re written. 

However there is an overwhelming amount of ambiguity throughout the rest of the document especially relating to conditions, roles, clinical governance, earning potential (overtime) and processes that they say are going to happen but haven’t even started yet nor any indication of how some terms may play out in the long run.

There’s a lot to be said on it so I’ve run it through an AI to condense it into something a bit more bite size. However my general interpretation of the entire document when it comes to future certainties aside from clearly defined pay scales is that as a whole the document is as clear as mud, especially with regard to how future modernisation might impact us and what sort of increase in clinical responsibility we would be required to undertake in line with these new pay scales.

After having thoroughly reviewed the proposed workforce reform document and reflecting on its various components, I’ve compiled the following considered observations. While certain aspects are clearly laid out and appear straightforward, a number of critical areas remain ambiguous and raise serious concerns with regard to their future implications.

✅ Clarity and Certainty in the Document

1. Pay Increases & Pay Scales:

The revised figures and proposed structures are clearly defined and transparent as presented in the tables, leaving little room for misinterpretation.

2. Overtime Rates & Standardisation:

The intention to align with national HSE standards is articulated with sufficient clarity, including the process for prior approval, which is understood however is also harmful as it could lead to a reduction in earning potential long term.

3. Non-Reversibility Clause on Allowances:

The document unambiguously confirms that prior payment structures involving premia (e.g., Saturday/Sunday, unsocial hours, shift, cardiac and Dublin) will not be subject to future claim or reinstatement. This provides clarity, though also represents a permanent trade-off.

⚠️ Significant Ambiguities and Concerns

1. “Five out of Seven” Working Week:

While the language is clear in wording, it fails to define whether this affects total weekly hours or the distribution of shifts. More clarity is needed on how this aligns with current full-time hours and impact on roster patterns specific to our job description being that we’re a 24/7 patient facing service within the wider HSE.

2. Late Finishes / Undefined Mechanism:

An appendix mentions ongoing engagement regarding reducing late finishes but no mechanism or solution is defined. Agreeing in principle without knowing the intended model lacks transparency.

3. Rostering Rules Based on Grade Matching:

The need for exact grade-for-grade matching for overtime potentially limits flexibility and reduces overtime opportunities for most. It restricts coverage and ultimately dictates who can take overtime and who can’t at any given time when there’s a shortage in coverage.

4. Ambiguity Around Rostered Allowance:

It’s unclear whether this new “rostered allowance” would incorporate existing travel (subsistence) payments. While it’s handled by the department for public expenditure and not the HSE the lack of definition here makes it hard to assess if the autonomy would be given to HSE management to administrate on behalf of the department. Especially seeing as recent articles were published in the Irish times detailing plans that aim to complete remove travel expense claims and reduce/remove agency staffing through changing rostering arrangements in other areas of the HSE. It’s leaving uncertainty as to whether we could possibly be affected by these possible changes.

5. Modernisation & Flexible Operating Models:

Reference to “flexibility” and alternative deployment methods (e.g. dynamic deployment through use of state assets I.e. fire stations or primary care centres) is extremely vague. There’s no indication of how these would function in practice, nor the safeguards in place. In combination with a “hub and spoke model” what would this mean for day to day duties.

6. Alternative Pathway Project:

Without any visible draft or outline, the proposal leaves open what new clinical tasks or referral responsibilities may be expected from frontline practitioners. The scope and practicality remain completely undefined. Without even a draft document presented there would be no way to gauge how this would impact our clinical responsibilities as they currently stand.

7. Rotational Roles & Eligibility:

Although adoption of more rotational roles is mentioned, it’s unclear whether these would be voluntary or mandatory for those working outside of clinical hub. As there is no clearly defined prerequisites mentioned there could be a concern that management might dictate eligibility based on grade, limiting upskilling and career progression routes to those with an existing BSc/MSc leaving Diploma paramedics without the ability to compete for these opportunities.

8. Abolition of Historic Agreements (1978 & 1997):

Under “Organisational Redesign,” there is a future commitment to develop a national transformation agreement to replace longstanding national ambulance agreements. However, negotiations are not underway, and we are effectively being asked to agree to dismantle existing protections without knowing what will replace them. This represents perhaps the most concerning ambiguity in the entire proposal.

9. Adoption of NISRP/ Payroll Self-Service:

While digitisation may be the goal, there’s no confirmation of a transition plan, whether paper fallback will remain during rollout, whether there will be an opt out option to allow for using paper time returns, or what processes are in place for errors or systems failure potentially leading to delayed payment of salary. Especially given the temperamental nature of how that system currently operates.

10. Introduction of e-Rostering System:

Separate from general rostering changes, this introduces considerable uncertainty. There is no detail how it would be implemented, system function, or how it might enable real-time deployment (dynamic rostering). It raises legitimate concerns about work predictability, shift location changes, and tech governance, particularly around whether you will be expected to use a personal mobile device or would one be issued to you/would you receive a contribution if you preferred to use your own device with a managed work profile installed to securely separate work content while protecting your personal data. 

11. Staff Bank and Flexible Working Ambiguities:

Reference to flexible staffing through a “staff bank” creates uncertainty about whether this includes agency personnel or external contractors. This could further displace internal overtime opportunities for existing staff and reduce earning potential for those wishing to compete for overtime shifts.

12. Modernising Scheduling Arrangements:

While described as an effort to improve work-life balance by removing relief/rostered differentiation, the document doesn’t explain who will fill resulting  gaps in coverage — raising the question of whether agency staff would be used in place of permanent staff and what the trade-off will be for permanent staff in terms of voluntary overtime and potential to earn.

Conclusion

While there are some areas of clear benefit and reform, the document contains a disproportionate amount of elements that are either incomplete or vaguely defined. 

Before any informed decision can be made, I would be certainly looking for:

• Reliable Drafts or models of proposed systems, pathways, processes and future agreements 

• Clarification of eligibility rules, especially around rotational and promotional opportunities

• Guarantees or safeguards regarding transitions from old frameworks (e.g. 1978/1997 agreements)

• Clarity surrounding overtime allocation, the likelihood for subsistence/travel payments to be encompassed by the new rostered allowance and most importantly would there still exist options to submit valid claims on future pay reform or would we be essentially precluded from ever being able to negotiate for better pay again, I.e. forgoing negotiating rights in the future.

Given the long-term and structural implications of these reforms, it is essential that staff have access to full transparency before being asked to consent to changes that could reshape their working conditions, remuneration, duties, and career progression.