Public sector pay increase

Specialun · 26-04-2015 2:28pm #1

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/public-sector-set-for-2-pay-rise-31171774.html

And dont they deserve it...

Kermit.de.frog · 26-04-2015 2:30pm

No.

Cold War Kid · 26-04-2015 2:31pm

= I know I'm stirring sh-t.

Drakares · 26-04-2015 2:31pm

Oh this should be good. *grabs popcorn*

dxhound2005 · 26-04-2015 2:37pm

This is what they were supposed to get, an annual pay increase each year since 2008. That was what was agreed with the previous government but they reneged on it. Most workers have been on a pay freeze for the last 7 years.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/towards201626june06.pdf

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 2:46pm

Specialun wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/public-sector-set-for-2-pay-rise-31171774.html

And dont they deserve it...

It's not a pay increase, it's pay restoration.

TerrorFirmer · 26-04-2015 2:47pm

Let's not let the fact that a huge portion of public sector workers are on pretty crap pay get in the way of a good rabble!

Icaras · 26-04-2015 2:47pm

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not a pay increase, it's pay restoration.

Still don't deserve it

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 2:49pm

Icaras wrote: »

Still don't deserve it

Why not?

Their pay was unilaterally cut - the justification for the cut was the financial emergency - the financial emergency is winding down.

Kermit.de.frog · 26-04-2015 2:52pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Why not?

Their pay was unilaterally cut - the justification for the cut was the financial emergency - the financial emergency is winding down.

Because we can not afford it and it will damage the wealth creating private sector by hurting the competitiveness of the country.

kowloon · 26-04-2015 2:54pm

Some public sector workers got royally fcuked over, the rabble always focuses on the ones that get paid far more than they deserve.

stimpson · 26-04-2015 2:55pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Why not?

Their pay was unilaterally cut - the justification for the cut was the financial emergency - the financial emergency is winding down.

My pay was unilaterally cut by a lot more when I was made redundant. How many PS workers were made redundant?

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 2:56pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Because we can not afford it and it will damage the wealth creating private sector by hurting the competitiveness of the country.

Yes, that's the mantra. But the figures are hardly definitive - everyone, including the PS workers, can interpret to suit themselves.

Personally, I think the pay cuts should be unwound - a deal was done and one side unilaterally reneged. I also think the PS workers would be stone made to go back into anything resembling social partnership.

tomwaterford · 26-04-2015 2:57pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Because we can not afford it and it will damage the wealth creating private sector by hurting the competitiveness of the country.

Most likely a last desperate and expensive grab by the Labour Party to try and save itself with elections and what not coming up??

Son Of A Vidic · 26-04-2015 2:58pm

Wow, such a surprise. An election around the corner and nobody could have saw this one coming.

By all means help out the lower paid members of the public & private sector. But any universal pay rise that includes those who do not need it, would be complete nonsense.

Peregrine · 26-04-2015 2:58pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Because we can not afford it and it will damage the wealth creating private sector by hurting the competitiveness of the country.

Saying that we can't afford it and saying that they don't deserve it are two completely different things.

Specialun · 26-04-2015 2:58pm

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not a pay increase, it's pay restoration.

You should ring the indo so...

Specialun · 26-04-2015 2:59pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Let's not let the fact that a huge portion of public sector workers are on pretty crap pay get in the way of a good rabble!

This made me LOL

ShoulderChip · 26-04-2015 2:59pm

hard to complain about anyone getting a 2% payrise in fairness!

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 3:01pm

stimpson wrote: »

My pay was unilaterally cut by a lot more when I was made redundant. How many PS workers were made redundant?

Well the place I was in until recently saw a forced 30% reduction in headcount between 2008 and about mid-2010. No one got redundancy though.

People had their contracts terminated, forced into unsustainable working patterns (compelling them to leave), had career breaks terminated (forcing people to return or resign) etc

About 4 people from about 35 who were exited got early retirement or redundancy packages.

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 3:03pm

Specialun wrote: »

You should ring the indo so...

Nah, I prefer to have as little to do with that rag as possible.

I might ring Joe......

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 3:20pm

Public sector workers don't deserve a pay increase, yes their wages have been on a freeze since 2007 for very good reasons but public sector wages are still higher than their private sector counterparts.

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 3:24pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Public sector workers don't deserve a pay increase, yes their wages have been on a freeze since 2007 for very good reasons but public sector wages are still higher than their private sector counterparts.

That's not universally true.

My wife left the Civil Service in 08 for a higher paying job in private practice.

I left (the Public Service) last year, because the salary differential just became too great to ignore.

ShoulderChip · 26-04-2015 3:25pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Public sector workers don't deserve a pay increase, yes their wages have been on a freeze since 2007 for very good reasons but public sector wages are still higher than their private sector counterparts.

Why don't they? and how have you come to that conclusion? seems an insane blanket statement to me.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 3:27pm

Jawgap wrote: »

That's not universally true.

My wife left the Civil Service in 08 for a higher paying job in private practice.

I left (the Public Service) last year, because the salary differential just became too great to ignore.

An overall fact doesn't have to be true in every case. I'm not saying every civil servant would earn less money in private sector but over all for the level of education, training and pressure required civil servants, despite the pay freeze, still get paid more than their private sector counter parts.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 3:28pm

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Why don't they? and how have you come to that conclusion? seems an insane blanket statement to me.

Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.

Peregrine · 26-04-2015 3:31pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An overall fact doesn't have to be true in every case.

If it's not true in every case then it's not a fact. You're generalising.

trashcan · 26-04-2015 3:32pm

ShoulderChip wrote: »

hard to complain about anyone getting a 2% payrise in fairness!

Seemingly not.

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 3:32pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.

There are a lot of public service jobs in health, policing, defence, the emergency services that are woefully underpaid if the metric is 'stress.'

And I still remember interviewing people for entry level and not so entry level jobs in the place I worked and them turning their noses up at the salaries on offer - including one girl who burst out laughing when we confirmed the money on offer.

dxhound2005 · 26-04-2015 3:37pm

stimpson wrote: »

My pay was unilaterally cut by a lot more when I was made redundant. How many PS workers were made redundant?

http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2015/03/12/employment-in-the-public-sector/

In the South, government departments have been subject to a moratorium on recruitment since 2009 and incentives were put in place to encourage senior staff to retire from the service. The recent Annual Progress Report on Public Service Reform indicates public service numbers have been reduced by approximately 10 per cent and the public service pay bill has been reduced by over 20 per cent since 2009.

Pay has been increasing in the private sector in general in the last few years. Average pay in the private sector is lower than the public sector because the private sector is more than 80% of all employees. Including lots of people in part time jobs. PS jobs are mostly full time.

But the biggest salaries by far are available in the private sector, some of those guys wouldn't get out of bed for less than €20K a week.

Jawgap · 26-04-2015 3:37pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.

Also stress comes in different 'flavours' - I wouldn't say I'm under more stress in my current role, compared to when I was in the PS, but it is definitely a different kind of stress.

mad m · 26-04-2015 3:39pm

PRD.....plus USC, plus wage cut. Plus loss of an annual leave, another form of pay cut. And before someone says anything about annual leave, I've 23 days a year which I've to keep 3 of those for Christmas closure.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 3:40pm

Nim wrote: »

If it's not true in every case then it's not a fact.

That... doesn't make any sense. Statistics don't have to be true for every case in order to be a fact. If I say the fertility rate in Ireland is 1.99 that is a fact but not only is it not true for every woman, it's not true for any woman.

Similarly public sector wages in Ireland are higher than they are in the private sector taking into account education and training needed to carry out the job. But that doesn't mean it's true for every case.

Get it now?

dxhound2005 · 26-04-2015 3:43pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That... doesn't make any sense. Statistics don't have to be true for every case in order to be a fact. If I say the fertility rate in Ireland is 1.99 that is a fact but not only is it not true for every woman, it's not true for any woman.

Similarly public sector wages in Ireland are higher than they are in the private sector taking into account education and training needed to carry out the job. But that doesn't mean it's true for every case.

Get it now?

And the highest salary in the Public Service would be only 5% or 10% of the highest salary in the private sector. And as per my other post 80% of workers are in the private sector, many of them part time, thus skewing the statistics on average pay.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 3:45pm

Jawgap wrote: »

There are a lot of public service jobs in health, policing, defence, the emergency services that are woefully underpaid if the metric is 'stress.'

It's not, the metric is what are people willing to work for. And the unionization of the public sector warps this metric.

And I still remember interviewing people for entry level and not so entry level jobs in the place I worked and them turning their noses up at the salaries on offer - including one girl who burst out laughing when we confirmed the money on offer.

The problem with the public sector is unions, the unions threw the younger generation under the bus in order to protect their own salaries.

The solution isn't throwing more money at the problem, the solution is to break the unions, strip the older generation of their protection and re-distribute funds to the more junior staff.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 3:48pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

And the highest salary in the Public Service would be only 5% or 10% of the highest salary in the private sector. And as per my other post 80% of workers are in the private sector, many of them part time, thus skewing the statistics on average pay.

I've heard this arguement before but in the public sector you can have teachers with ordinary degrees earning 60k. In what private sector industry could a person with a BA earn 60k with experience alone?

It's madness, imagine how more efficient the public sector would be if it were de-unionized.

Bacchus · 26-04-2015 3:52pm

I've no objection to a 2% bump in a person's salary if they deserve it. Not everyone in the public sector is on a 6 figure salary for a cushy desk job.

What I don't like about this is that it looks like it's just a blanket increase of 2% whether you're a lazy, overpaid leech or a hardworking, front line staff member making just enough to get by. It should be done like in the private sector, yearly increments based on performance goals. You don't meet your goals, you don't get a pay increase. No system is perfect but a universal bump of 2% is lazy, unfair and, as pointed out, just ticking another box in the run up to the election.

ShoulderChip · 26-04-2015 3:55pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.

that doesnt make sense though, if they did have equal jobs paid higher with less qualifications needed, then better people would apply, people with higher qualifications and that would become the norm for that sector.

unless you think that highly qualified people are not clever enough to apply for public sector jobs

Some people find non stressful jobs more stressful, it stresses them out that they dont have things to be stressed out about.

KomradeBishop · 26-04-2015 4:00pm

People who are die-hard advocates of wholesale privatization of parts of the public sector, advocate for cuts of public sector wages, and selectively interpret stats to try and back that - big surprise.

Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society - which costs more money to improve, not less - and not on minimizing the amount of expenditure (as people tend to regard efficiency, as quality of service, not on mere monetary cost).

EagererBeaver · 26-04-2015 4:02pm

dxhound2005 wrote:

PS jobs are mostly full time.

Debatable.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 4:03pm

ShoulderChip wrote: »

that doesnt make sense though, if they did have equal jobs paid higher with less qualifications needed, then better people would apply, people with higher qualifications and that would become the norm for that sector.

unless you think that highly qualified people are not clever enough to apply for public sector jobs

I'm sure they do, but the unions agree public sector recruitment freezes to protect public sector jobs.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 4:05pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society - which costs more money to improve, not less - and not on minimizing the amount of expenditure (as people tend to regard efficiency, as quality of service, not on mere monetary cost).

Throwing money at an inefficient system doesn't make the system more efficient, you know that.

stimpson · 26-04-2015 4:05pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society

That would explain the outrage over pay rises.

KomradeBishop · 26-04-2015 4:06pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Throwing money at an inefficient system doesn't make the system more efficient, you know that.

Your idea of 'efficient' for public services, is different to everyone elses - bar other die-hard free marketeers.

KomradeBishop · 26-04-2015 4:07pm

stimpson wrote: »

That would explain the outrage over pay rises.

It's quite simple really: You cut the money going to public services, as has been happening the past number of years, you get worse quality service. Want better quality public services? Send more money to the public services.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 4:10pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Your idea of 'efficient' for public services, is different to everyone elses - bar other die-hard free marketeers.

My idea of efficient is to maximize service and minimize costs. Once again throwing money at an inefficient system does not make the system more efficient or spontaneously cause the quality of service to increase. That can only be done through systematic changes, changes that are blocked by unions.

dxhound2005 · 26-04-2015 4:11pm

Bacchus wrote: »

I've no objection to a 2% bump in a person's salary if they deserve it. Not everyone in the public sector is on a 6 figure salary for a cushy desk job.

What I don't like about this is that it looks like it's just a blanket increase of 2% whether you're a lazy, overpaid leech or a hardworking, front line staff member making just enough to get by. It should be done like in the private sector, yearly increments based on performance goals. You don't meet your goals, you don't get a pay increase. No system is perfect but a universal bump of 2% is lazy, unfair and, as pointed out, just ticking another box in the run up to the election.

What performance goals would you set for firemen? Or nurses?

The increment system should not be part of this discussion. It would be easy for the employer to say to a fireman you didn't put out enough fires last year so you stay on your starting pay. Forever.

KomradeBishop · 26-04-2015 4:14pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My idea of efficient is to maximize service and minimize costs. Once again throwing money at an inefficient system does not make it more efficient.

I doubt it. When it comes to the public sector, I'd say you'd rather see it defunded and have the service worsen, to set it on the path towards privatization - I doubt you give a toss about having better quality public services.

You're arguing indirectly for privatization, and would support any slant in argument aimed at defunding it (in this case, worker wages), not on the merits/demerits of public sector wages.

To Elland Back · 26-04-2015 4:15pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's quite simple really: You cut the money going to public services, as has been happening the past number of years, you get worse quality service. Want better quality public services? Send more money to the public services.

Total nonsense. Giving more money to a lazy inefficient worker, who cannot be fired, is not going improve public services.

Give every PS worker a pay increase and make individuals accountable with the prospect of redundancy for under performance. That's the way

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 4:15pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I doubt it. When it comes to the public sector, I'd say you'd rather see it defunded and have the service worsen, to set it on the path towards privatization - I doubt you give a toss about having better quality public services.

You're arguing indirectly for privatization, not on the merits/demerits of public sector wages.

Thank you for that insight Komrade but I'm more aware of what I'm arguing for than you are.

Iwasfrozen · 26-04-2015 4:19pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What performance goals would you set for firemen? Or nurses?

Continious assesments, constant grading on various aspects of their work, if a fireman is late for a drill it goes on his record. If a nurse doesn't organize his files correctly it goes on his record.

Public sector pay increase

Comments