Labour's private sector pay freeze

thebaldsoprano

According to this article, Labour plan to freeze private sector wages for the next three years:

Mr Gilmore also promised to seek to negotiate an agreement for a pay freeze in the private sector for three years -- to match the existing pay freeze in the public sector. If particular sectors of the economy started to move ahead and grant workers pay rises, it would place pressure on other sectors of the economy, he said.

How exactly do they plan to implement this? On the face of it, the latter part of that quote is pretty worrying, since it would hinder growing parts of the economy in attracting staff, and discourage people from taking on the necessary training or education to get into them. If a company builds product that does particularly well then why shouldn't it reward its staff? If someone does a masters to learn how to make similar products should they not have the chance to be rewarded for their efforts?

This approach would maintain the current state of affairs, which badly needs to change. A company working in food technology will likely have better prospects than one working in construction, and while this mightn't be 'fair' for the construction workers, it'll work out better for everyone if innovative companies are allowed to succeed.

BeeDI

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

According to this article, Labour plan to freeze private sector wages for the next three years:

How exactly do they plan to implement this? On the face of it, the latter part of that quote is pretty worrying, since it would hinder growing parts of the economy in attracting staff, and discourage people from taking on the necessary training or education to get into them. If a company builds product that does particularly well then why shouldn't it reward its staff? If someone does a masters to learn how to make similar products should they not have the chance to be rewarded for their efforts?

This approach would maintain the current state of affairs, which badly needs to change. A company working in food technology will likely have better prospects than one working in construction, and while this mightn't be 'fair' for the construction workers, it'll work out better for everyone if innovative companies are allowed to succeed.

No problem! If Labour get into power, the whole country will freeze:D
We will all be in suspended animation for a full government term

Count Dooku

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

According to this article, Labour plan to freeze private sector wages for the next three years:

How exactly do they plan to implement this? On the face of it, the latter part of that quote is pretty worrying, since it would hinder growing parts of the economy in attracting staff, and discourage people from taking on the necessary training or education to get into them. If a company builds product that does particularly well then why shouldn't it reward its staff? If someone does a masters to learn how to make similar products should they not have the chance to be rewarded for their efforts?

This approach would maintain the current state of affairs, which badly needs to change. A company working in food technology will likely have better prospects than one working in construction, and while this mightn't be 'fair' for the construction workers, it'll work out better for everyone if innovative companies are allowed to succeed.

LP is losing votes to SF and united loony alliance and as result Gilmore urgently needs a populist move in order to buy votes by preserving privileged position of PS aristocracy
Now we have total job security in PS and opportunity to earn more for hard work in some cases in private sector
Equalizing with pay freeze while preserving job security will give more votes to Labour, even if pay freeze will result at least freeze in tax collection, but in worse case it will force private companies away

mickoneill30

I must be missing something.

How can Labour dictate to private companies? If a private companies profits go through the roof theyre not allowed to reward employees and just keep the profits. I'm sure companies wouldn't mind that. Employees might though and would just leave to go to a different company and negotiate their pay when they're starting.

It doesn't sound populist to me. Employees of private companies will hardly be voting for labour with a policy like that.

As an employee of a private company I've been on a pay freeze for the last two years. Now my company is just starting to become profitable again. Now labour are saying they want my wages to be frozen for another 3 years. Don't think so.

average_runner

Labour have no authority to do this, might be able to do it unionise private companies but not with the rest.


I would agree to it if the public sector loses their pension, their job security, a bit cut in numbers and wages drop down to what alot of private people have drop to.

Public sector were hit hard with cuts but private sector was worst hit with even alot losing jobs.

Will there be a price freeze on fuel and food while the workers price freeze is on?

gurramok

I've been on a pay freeze for the last 3 odd years(lost count now), will Labour guarantee me job security and a better pension?

Will be funny Labour trying to dictate wages to the large MNC I work for!!

thebaldsoprano

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I'm sure companies wouldn't mind that. Employees might though and would just leave to go to a different company and negotiate their pay when they're starting.

The companies might well be concerned, since it could affect their ability to retain good staff.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

It doesn't sound populist to me. Employees of private companies will hardly be voting for labour with a policy like that.

I agree with this - looks like they're finally nailing their colours to the mast. They won't be getting my vote though. They might have had to make a decision between attracting centre-ish voters and those leaning to the left. It looks like they're targeting the latter.

average_runner wrote: »

Labour have no authority to do this, might be able to do it unionise private companies but not with the rest.

Even this could damage the economy though. The food technology company may be unable to pay their lab technicians more because their union won't allow it.

markpb

Perhaps Labour are suggesting something akin to the JLC agreements that, in the past, guaranteed employees of private companies pay rises over a longer term in response to a guarantee of no strike action?

red_diesel

Are public servants on pay scales still getting their annual increments?

RichardAnd

red_diesel wrote: »

Are public servants on pay scales still getting their annual increments?

As far as I know, yes.

Public sector were hit hard with cuts but private sector was worst hit with even alot losing jobs.

You can't lump the entire private sector together at all. Some people are down wages but many are not. There is no central employer in the private sector so these comparisons don't work.

gigino

given public sector pay is so much more than private sector pay, the labour party cannot dictate to private companies how much they should pay their staff above the min wage.


not a clue do the labour party have

a great reason not to vote for them.



i know an architect in private practice working for the min wage as thats all the company can afford now ( + for the past few years ).

his classmate from uni is on 100,000 p.a. in the public service.
if the economy improves or the private practice gets a few decent jobs, the architect there cannot get paid more than the min wage ? Even though he has big debts + a wife + kids to support ? crazy f****y party the labour party is.
under left wing cuckoos like sf or the labour party we'll be like cuba or cold war russia next

Cookie_Monster

All that accomplishes is more profiteering in the private sector at the expense of employees, rather than appropriate award to those employees.

How dare they suggest to cap my wages when I don't work for them, are they going to cap their take out of my pocket too? I doubt it...

And sure why stop there, why not cap prices on food and goods and fuel and services and everything else in the entire country :rolleyes:

Dream on idiots

Count Dooku

RichardAnd wrote: »

You can't lump the entire private sector together at all. Some people are down wages but many are not. There is no central employer in the private sector so these comparisons don't work.

Private sector workers don't have so much job security as private sector workers.
Let limit redundancy pay in public sector by 2 week for 8 years max the same way it is working for insolvent private companies and introduce compulsory redundancies on exchange

almighty1

red_diesel wrote: »

Are public servants on pay scales still getting their annual increments?

Yeah I just got one, it just negated my USC.

RichardAnd

gigino wrote: »

i know an architect in private practice working for the min wage as thats all the company can afford now ( + for the past few years ).

his classmate from uni is on 100,000 p.a. in the public service.
if the economy improves or the private practice gets a few decent jobs, the architect there cannot get paid more than the min wage ? Even though he has big debts + a wife + kids to support ? crazy f****y party the labour party is.
under left wing cuckoos like sf or the labour party we'll be like cuba or cold war russia next

Hmm, I think you actually made that up, though I'm sure it is a situiation that can be true. I could be wrong of course.

Funny thing about this, I seem to recall teachers going on strike in the early 2000s with a similar argument to this. Their "friends from college" in the private sector were on 70k a year whilst they were on 35k a year (god help them ). Isn't life just filled with these little twists of fate.

I would point out though that 100k a year is an exceptionally rare wage in the public sector and outside it. Also, your argument says absolutly nothing. For all we know, the guy on 100k a year could have worked his ass off to get to that level while his counterpart on the min wage didn't. It's a moot point just like the teachers' argument. I'd liken it to me saying something like this.

"My friend who bought a guitar the same day as me can play like the ghost of hendrix, how come I can only play green day songs?". The reason, "my friend" practiced and worked hard while I didn't.

Head The Wall

almighty1 wrote: »

Yeah I just got one, it just negated my USC.

Typical never happy PS response. You know if you didn't get an increment you would actually be down wages like the other 1.5 million workers in the country.

almighty1

Head The Wall wrote: »

Typical never happy PS response. You know if you didn't get an increment you would actually be down wages like the other 1.5 million workers in the country.

I never said I wasn't happy.
In fact I look at the glass half full scenario. Hopefully my next increment might actually put some more money in my pocket though.

danbohan

almighty1 wrote: »

I never said I wasn't happy.
In fact I look at the glass half full scenario. Hopefully my next increment might actually put some more money in my pocket though.

or maybe in the unlikely event that we got a govt of substance you might be one of the 80,000 redundancies thats needed in public sector

RichardAnd

Isn't it amazing that a thread that has virtually nothing to do with the matter invariably decends into public sector flaming. Ah well, what can you expect from boards.ie

And danbohan, before you tell people that 80k more unemployed people are needed, think carfully on what that would actually mean to an economy.

seamus

He's talking about negotiating pay freezes with private sector unions with the intention that it "benchmarks" pay rates across the economy for 3 years. This means that the public sector can't whinge about pay rates in the private sector when redundancies and pay freezes are kept in force.

But of course the FF-loving independent would never clarify that for the sake of a good scaremongering headline.

The Indo is nothing more than a mouthpiece for FF interests at this stage. Unless you have the text of Gilmore's speech, then take the Indo's report with a mountain of salt.

cursai

Private sector employees are martyrs and never had huge wages even during the boom when everyone offered them pay increases they said NO! because they felt a social responsibilty to Eire inc.

Is this a true statement?

bleg

Definitely not voting for Labour now. Their strategy seems to be to pander to the public service.

fred252

i can't believe that. are there any quotes?

you might expect that idiocy from SF but not from labour.

Mountjoy Mugger

gigino wrote: »

i know an architect in private practice working for the min wage as thats all the company can afford now ( + for the past few years ).

his classmate from uni is on 100,000 p.a. in the public service.

A friend of mine works in Local Government and has sent me the salary scale for Architects in Dublin City Council:

Top of scale only
Executive Architect 48487
Senior Exec Arch't 62276
Senior Arch't 76685
City Architect 100466

It must be a City Architect then. One of maybe four in the country. Wow, what a coincidence.

seamus

Here's the actual text from the policy document:

Competitiveness
Competitiveness has improved during the past three years, but it is necessary to
ensure that, as growth returns, these gains are not eroded. In particular, it is
important that costs in the protected sectors of the economy do not undermine
the capacity of the traded sector to compete. To maintain and enhance
competitiveness, Labour is proposing the following measures.

- Labour favours a negotiated wage freeze for three years. This would provide
certainty for investment in Irish enterprise.

Such negotiations could only be done with unions.

danbohan

bleg wrote: »

Definitely not voting for Labour now. Their strategy seems to be to pander to the public service.

and you are surprised by this ?, loathe though i am to say it the only hope this country has is a fine gael govt with a strong majority or even a fine gael, fianna fail coalition

Count Dooku

RichardAnd wrote: »

And danbohan, before you tell people that 80k more unemployed people are needed, think carfully on what that would actually mean to an economy.

it will mean nothing for economy, because it is only question who will spend money earned by private sector
redistribution in not self-sufficient country will not create anything, except visibility of economical activity

Count Dooku

danbohan wrote: »

and you are surprised by this ?, loathe though i am to say it the only hope this country has is a fine gael govt with a strong majority or even a fine gael, fianna fail coalition

Do you mean that Gilmore finally decided to lose elections in order to safely stay next few years in opposition tranches and let FG clean all this mess?

RichardAnd

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

A friend of mine works in Local Government and has sent me the salary scale for Architects in Dublin City Council:

Top of scale only
Executive Architect 48487
Senior Exec Arch't 62276
Senior Arch't 76685
City Architect 100466

It must be a City Architect then. One of maybe four in the country. Wow, what a coincidence.

Yep, I'm calling his story a bluff at worst and an exaggeration at best.

Manach

seamus wrote: »

Such negotiations could only be done with unions.

So for clarification, this would not effect MNC employers, (who by their natural do not usually have unions)?

CrackisWhack

seamus wrote: »

He's talking about negotiating pay freezes with private sector unions with the intention that it "benchmarks" pay rates across the economy for 3 years. This means that the public sector can't whinge about pay rates in the private sector when redundancies and pay freezes are kept in force.

But of course the FF-loving independent would never clarify that for the sake of a good scaremongering headline.

The Indo is nothing more than a mouthpiece for FF interests at this stage. Unless you have the text of Gilmore's speech, then take the Indo's report with a mountain of salt.

Public sector workers whinging about pay rates in the private sector, I can't speak for all private sector companies, but in my line of work, the private sector pays considerably less than the public sector.

Also if a public servant isn't happy with the money/annual leave/entitlements etc. they are earning in the public sector, they can go and apply for a job in the private sector? I think they'd be running back to the public service once they seen what was on offer though.

danbohan

RichardAnd wrote: »

Isn't it amazing that a thread that has virtually nothing to do with the matter invariably decends into public sector flaming. Ah well, what can you expect from boards.ie

And danbohan, before you tell people that 80k more unemployed people are needed, think carfully on what that would actually mean to an economy.

before you tell people that 80k more unemployed people are needed, think carfully on what that would actually mean to an economy.


and the cost of keeping 80,000 overpaid by any worldwide comparison public sector workers to the country is ?, the alternative is to slash wages and have widespread reforms but of course the public sector wont do anything on that either

gurramok

seamus wrote: »

Here's the actual text from the policy document:

Such negotiations could only be done with unions.

Didn't we establish before that unions only have less than 20% representation in the private sector?

Basically, it will have hardly any affect what they decide.

KindOfIrish

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

According to this article, Labour plan to freeze private sector wages for the next three years:

How exactly do they plan to implement this

It's a nonsense. Gilmore doesn't even understand what he is talking about.

Head The Wall

RichardAnd wrote: »

Isn't it amazing that a thread that has virtually nothing to do with the matter invariably decends into public sector flaming. Ah well, what can you expect from boards.ie

Labour are claiming there should be a wage freeze and using the fact that there is a "Pay freeze" in the Public Sector as justification for that. I'm just calling bullsh1t on that because people are still receiving increments.

This is another reason I will be telling everyone I know not to vote for Labour.

ei.sdraob

Seems like Gilmore has finally come out of his communist closet

whats next? mass deportation to Gulags on the west side of Shannon :eek:

jmayo

average_runner wrote: »

Labour have no authority to do this, might be able to do it unionise private companies but not with the rest.

And guess what a big chunk of the unionised private sector workforce is in none other than the banks who are now in public ownership.

MNCs are usualyl not unionised as with many small companies.

The area I would agree that private sector salaries might need to be held in and the subsequent cost to the public is in areas such as medical and denstry.
But a lot of this has to do with smashing the representative bodies grip on these professions.

gurramok wrote: »

Didn't we establish before that unions only have less than 20% representation in the private sector?

And a large chunk of those work for banks and ex semi states like Eircom.

Head The Wall wrote: »

Labour are claiming there should be a wage freeze and using the fact that there is a "Pay freeze" in the Public Sector as justification for that. I'm just calling bullsh1t on that because people are still receiving increments.

This is another reason I will be telling everyone I know not to vote for Labour.

Oh yes the much forgotten increments, otherwise known to us private sector workers as actual pay increases. :rolleyes:

jmayo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Seems like Gilmore has finally come out of his communist closet

whats next? mass deportation to Gulags on the west side of Shannon :eek:

Hey less of the to hell or to Connacht analogies. :mad:

Gumbo

gigino wrote: »

given public sector pay is so much more than private sector pay, the labour party cannot dictate to private companies how much they should pay their staff above the min wage.

i know an architect in private practice working for the min wage as thats all the company can afford now ( + for the past few years ).

his classmate from uni is on 100,000 p.a. in the public service.
if the economy improves or the private practice gets a few decent jobs, the architect there cannot get paid more than the min wage ?

absolute pure BS, full stop.
i have the architect payscales for PS on a csreen in front me and they dont earn 100k

god damn it, the highest postion available is Dublin City Architect, and he doesnt earn 100k :rolleyes:

the crap thats posted on these forums is unbelievable.

Count Dooku

seamus wrote: »

He's talking about negotiating pay freezes with private sector unions with the intention that it "benchmarks" pay rates across the economy for 3 years. This means that the public sector can't whinge about pay rates in the private sector when redundancies and pay freezes are kept in force.

He's talking about negotiating pay freezes with private sector unions which will apply not only for sheltered sectors such as banks or other areas effectively controlled by unions, but for whole private sector where unions are controlling very few areas

BTW, it is not first time when he mentioned pay freeze

One of the reasons for the gloom in economic forecasts is the level of price increases in the economy that is depressing nominal GNP. However, we should not assume that there is no work to do in dealing with the cost base and competitiveness. Wages may fall on average next year but underneath that average we are likely to see wage pressures re-emerging in more sheltered sectors. As of now, the Government effectively has no pay policy outside the public service. I favour a return to social dialogue, in a new format with a far more limited agenda than before. Arising from that, I would like to see a negotiated pay freeze for three years.

Dáil Eireann Debate - Wednesday, 27 October 2010

gigino

kceire wrote: »

absolute pure BS, full stop.
i have the architect payscales for PS on a csreen in front me and they dont earn 100k

god damn it, the highest postion available is Dublin City Architect, and he doesnt earn 100k :rolleyes:

There is more than one public service architect in the country paid 100k. There are plenty of different public sector areas wher architects are employed. Think of all the Borough Councils and County councils, quangos, Schools of Architecture like UCD etc. More than half private sector architects in the country have lost their jobs, and most have taken salary reductions. Ask their professional body, the RIAI. Not too many fancy new buildings being designed these days;)

Under labour, a private sector architect getting say 18k or 20 k a year now in private practice ( many architects in the country would love to be earning that, just to be keeping their hand in ) has their pay frozen for 3 years. Strange little country this is.

Gumbo

gigino wrote: »

There is more than one public service architect in the country paid 100k. There are plenty of different public sector areas wher architects are employed. Think of all the Borough Councils and County councils, quangos, Schools of Architecture like UCD etc. More than half private sector architects in the country have lost their jobs, and most have taken salary reductions. Ask their professional body, the RIAI. Not too many fancy new buildings being designed these days;)

Under labour, a private sector architect getting say 18k or 20 k a year now in private practice ( many architects in the country would love to be earning that, just to be keeping their hand in ) has their pay frozen for 3 years. Strange little country this is.

yes there are, but the highest postition is Dublin City Architect within Dublin City Council which is not currenty earning 100k.

xE

Ah Gilmore returning to his Stalinist ways. Nothing too surprising there, I doubt in Sinn Fein would propose such a thing.

fliball123

almighty1 wrote: »

I never said I wasn't happy.
In fact I look at the glass half full scenario. Hopefully my next increment might actually put some more money in my pocket though.

I find this incredible that there are still pay raises going on in the public sector

gigino

kceire wrote: »

yes there are, but the highest postition is Dublin City Architect within Dublin City Council which is not currenty earning 100k.

there is a liberarian in UCD paid a lot more than 100k. Wonder what the head of the school of architecture there is paid, for example ? ...never mind the other architects who work in the quangos + other bits + pieces of the public service.

From post 24 of this thread, someone - more than likely a public servant from the content of the post - posted the salary grades in one p.s. office.:
Executive Architect 48487
Senior Exec Arch't 62276
Senior Arch't 76685
City Architect 100466

I do not care less. Financially, some of the p.s. architects earning 100k may be sorry they did not spend as long ( 5 + 2 years ) studying at medicine + work in a hospital. Good luck to the p.s. architects whatever they earn, though one I know is constantly groaning he is down 20% through the cuts etc.

The point of the thread is "Under labour, a private sector architect getting say 18k or 20 k a year now in private practice ( many architects in the country would love to be earning that, just to be keeping their hand in ) has their pay frozen for 3 years. "

If you had studied 5 years in college in a very difficult course, would you like to be stuck with a house ( in negative equity ) and kids and a job capped at 18 or 20k for 3 years, and little or no hope of getting a better paid job elsewhere, given more than 50% of the architects in the country are out of work ? I know a job paying 18 or 20 k is better than no job at all, and at least its relevant experience on the c.v., but still ?

swampgas

Mr Gilmore also promised to seek to negotiate an agreement

This is just electioneering - he can "seek to negotiate" all he wants, he isn't going to find anyone who is going to enter such negotiations and he knows it.

Gumbo

gigino wrote: »

there is a liberarian in UCD paid a lot more than 100k.

what has that got to do with your argument that an architect in the PS gets 100k (even though they dont), your words........

gigino wrote: »

If you had studied 5 years in college in a very difficult course, would you like to be stuck with a house ( in negative equity ) and kids

i did study for 5 years and im still stuck in a house worth approx 50% of what i paid for it in 2006. im on a pay freeze, no increments etc and have no prospects of promotion as the guys above are going nowhere so ive nowhere to go also.

gigino wrote: »

I know a job paying 18 or 20 k is better than no job at all, and at least its relevant experience on the c.v., but still ?

i totally agree, my GF earns this after 12 years in private sector admin but the biggest problem is those architects you talk about would not work for this as they would earn far more than this on social welfare though JSA/JSB, FIS, mortage paid, or rent paid etc

alphabeat

if this is true , hes just lost my vote

gigino

kceire wrote: »

the biggest problem is those architects you talk about would not work for this as they would earn far more than this on social welfare though JSA/JSB, FIS, mortage paid, or rent paid etc

actually some architects would rather work for 18 or 20k a year than be unemployed. They do this for pride, to have somewhere to go each day, and to be in a position to benefit from an upturn in business. Having the experience of work on your c.v. is better than being unemployed - like more than 50% of architects are. Working for 18 or 20 k they still gain experience, maintain + gain work contacts , keep up to date etc. Just because you would not have that ethic does not mean others would not. If / when the economy improves those people will be better placed than those with nothing on their c.v. for a few years. Problem is, if the office gets a few decent jobs over the next 3 years, said architect will not be able to get a pay increase under the Labour party new initiave ! ( if elected + implemented ).

even labour party supporters must see the unfairness of this. you do not even need to be a public servant earning a few hundred grand a year ( as some are ) to see the unfairness of it. I thought the labour party were for the downtrodden of society ; yet in this case they are for the public sector ?

COYW

Load of rubbish from Gilmore. He is just trying to steal some of SFs populist votes. No private sector company will give him the time of day on this.

The_Thing

Surely if this was implemented it would curb the excessive greed of the private-sector which was as we all know is largely responsible for our current economic woes?