Fergus Finley: Freeze all PS increments

ILikeBananas

Fergus Finley, who was heavily involved in the Labour Party in the past and recently ran for their nomination for president, suggested this in his weekly column for the Examiner today.

I’m talking about increments. The vast majority of public servants in Ireland are employed on an incremental scale – and that means their salaries are increased year after year for no reason other than that their service in the job has increased. Generally speaking, the only reason an increment is denied is because the public servant involved has reached the top of the scale. It’s almost impossible to find out how much this costs. It’s never broken out of the payroll figures published by government, and therefore no hard amount is published. I know from my own experience though, and I’ve checked this with other comparable employers, that where most of the employees are on incremental scales, the annual full year cost of the increments is around 3% of the payroll.

What I’m proposing is that every increment due next year — and for as long as this crisis lasts — should be foregone, in both the public and the private sectors. Nobody will be worse off in either absolute or relative terms as a result. If you don’t get an increment, that simply means you stand still in pay terms. And if the person in a comparable position in the private sector doesn’t get an increment either, then nobody’s competitive position has been worsened.

I would love to think that we could have some kind of national voluntary agreement to forego increments — say until the end of 2015. But if we can’t, I believe the Government should unilaterally decide to abandon them for the time being. It would simply mean telling everyone that they are going to remain on the same point of whatever scale they are on now until further notice.

What would be saved? Next year alone, in the public sector alone, the saving would be 3% of almost €16bn — that’s the size of the public service pay bill. That’s not for short of €500m — or a third of the total required next year. And it could be done without being unfair to anybody — or to be honest, without hurting anybody too much either. If the choice is between job losses and reduced services on the one hand, and a freeze on increments on the other, I have to say it seems like an entirely logical choice to me. I’ve never understood the justification for annual increments in the first place. Nowadays, a lot of people seem to regard them as a sort of contractual entitlement. Indeed, I suspect if the government ever looked at freezing increments, the advice they’d get would suggest that it’s illegal. That’s poppycock. But so is the fact that no government is ever presented by the civil service with a detailed statement of how much is spent each year on increments. That’s because the senior civil service regard increments as a given. Why they should is not clear.

link

What do people think? Would this be fair on new entrants? How about his suggestion that people in the private sector also forgo increments-surely that's out of the governments hands?

The most interesting thing about this is that someone associated with the Labour Party, who would traditionally be the most pro-union party, would come out with this kind of suggestion. Does this show a willingness for them to move away from their blind loyalty to the unions or is Finley going on a solo run here?

Riskymove

This is the bit that is an issue

If you don’t get an increment, that simply means you stand still in pay terms. And if the person in a comparable position in the private sector doesn’t get an increment either, then nobody’s competitive position has been worsened.

while this is technically true, it would mean that people who are on the max are completely unaffected and for ever more would be paid more than those lower down the scales, regardless of ability and performance

I think that would kill morale

amacachi

Private sector too? Are they talking about a nationwide wage-freeze? No thanks.

Riskymove

here is the offical line

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Increments within the Public Service vary in terms of timing, cost and application both within and across the various sectors of the Public Service and estimates of cost are of necessity, tentative.

It has been estimated that the annual cost in a full year of increments would be around €250 million. However, significantly reduced recruitment and higher numbers on the maxima of scales will mean that this cost will reduce in the coming years and will be affected by other factors. These include retirements, voluntary redundancies, number reductions, recruitment rates and the numbers of employees reaching the maximum of the scale, which cannot be quantified.

No specific provision is made in the financial allocations to public service bodies as they are required to meet the cost within their allocations.

Suspending increments would affect some public servants but would have no effect on others. Generally, incremental scales are longer for lower paid staff than for higher. Accordingly a higher proportion of lower paid including front line staff would be affected by a suspension of increments.

I have no proposals to change the current arrangements in relation to the payment of increments as they would disproportionately affect the lower paid staff in the public service.

fliball123

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Fergus Finley, who was heavily involved in the Labour Party in the past and recently ran for their nomination for president, suggested this in his weekly column for the Examiner today.



link

What do people think? Would this be fair on new entrants? How about his suggestion that people in the private sector also forgo increments-surely that's out of the governments hands?

The most interesting thing about this is that someone associated with the Labour Party, who would traditionally be the most pro-union party, would come out with this kind of suggestion. Does this show a willingness for them to move away from their blind loyalty to the unions or is Finley going on a solo run here?

Surely if those in the private sector get a pay rise the gov gets more income tax..if the ps does there is a net loss to the gov...I still find it unreal that increments are still going on in the ps

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

..if the ps does there is a net loss to the gov

arrah sure they should just stop paying them altogether...win all round

woodoo

What makes anything Fergus Finlay has to say important?

sarumite

Riskymove wrote: »

This is the bit that is an issue



while this is technically true, it would mean that people who are on the max are completely unaffected and for ever more would be paid more than those lower down the scales, regardless of ability and performance

I think that would kill morale

Isn't that the whole problem with increments in the first place. That they are there regardless of people ability and performance. I would perfer a whole rethink on the shambolic increment system myself, not just stopping them but discarding them for a more credible system.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

What makes anything Fergus Finlay has to say important?

Does it have to be important to be credible? or discussion worthy?

woodoo

Increments are protected by the Croke Park Agreement. So if they break that then they may as well break the whole thing.

If increments are frozen then the people at the top of their scales are laughing. As ever the highest paid in this country get off scot free. If they are looking for savings bring in another pay cut. Share the burden evenly.

woodoo

sarumite wrote: »

Does it have to be important to be credible? or discussion worthy?

He seems to be wheeled out to have his say on alot of things. Who is he anyway? Why are we supposed to be interested. I just don't get him.

I'll bet he's dead against doing anything about our ridiculous 22 billion welfare bill. Or tackling welfare fraud. I think he was inplying that its no big deal a few weeks ago. Hardly happening at all.

whatstherush

Surprise surprise, Labour shill calls for public sector sacrifices when Labour are in power, but when it was the other crowd it was all about the populist line for the workers

Public sector pay cuts unfair and counter-productive on the tax front
By Fergus Finlay
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I THINK if I were a public servant today, I’d be mad as hell.
With a few well documented political exceptions, I’ve never known anyone who went into the public service to make money.

In fact if you wanted to make money, the last place you’d go for a career is into the public service.

Some people choose a public service career for security and many choose it because it offers the chance to do something or to be something they’ve always wanted to be. A nurse, a doctor, a teacher, a fireman. To work at healing the sick, catching the baddies, teaching the kids — I’ve known people who grew up from childhood wanting to do just that, and who have found tremendous fulfilment from following a chosen career as a public servant.
.....

link

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Increments are protected by the Croke Park Agreement. So if they break that then they may as well break the whole thing.

If increments are frozen then the people at the top of their scales are laughing. As ever the highest paid in this country get off scot free. If they are looking for savings bring in another pay cut. Share the burden evenly.

For the sake of correctness, the government cannot break the GFA, as they are now allowed under the terms of the agreement to walk away from it.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

He seems to be wheeled out to have his say on alot of things. Who is he anyway? Why are we supposed to be interested. I just don't get him.

I'll bet he's dead against doing anything about our ridiculous 22 billion welfare bill. Or tackling welfare fraud. I think he was inplying that its no big deal a few weeks ago. Hardly happening at all.

Doesn't really answer my question though, does it. I don't know enough about him to read up on what he says.....where exactly was he talking baout SW?

Riskymove

woodoo wrote: »

Increments are protected by the Croke Park Agreement. So if they break that then they may as well break the whole thing.

I don't think they are

pay cuts and compusary redundancies are covered

woodoo

sarumite wrote: »

For the sake of correctness, the government cannot break the GFA, as they are now allowed under the terms of the agreement to walk away from it.

The GFA?? Good Friday Agreement

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

The GFA?? Good Friday Agreement

LOl...good catch.

Dannyboy83

My only question is, why hasn't it been done already?

How you can justify tax increases on a domestic economy which is nosediving, while continuing to award increments - is beyond my comprehension.

It's like the firemen on 1 side of a building risking their lives to quench a fire, while the firemen on the other side pour petrol on it! (And the water supply is not unlimited!)

femur61

fliball123 wrote: »

Surely if those in the private sector get a pay rise the gov gets more income tax..if the ps does there is a net loss to the gov...I still find it unreal that increments are still going on in the ps

Are increments not pay rises? I thought under the CPA it was agreed on a pay freeze.

Riskymove

femur61 wrote: »

Are increments not pay rises?

technically ....no

but they are obviously seen as such

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

arrah sure they should just stop paying them altogether...win all round

There should be some people let go so some should be stopped being paid altogether...whats your point?

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

technically ....no

but they are obviously seen as such

How can you say that an annual increment is not a pay rise....of course its a pay rise..we pay the person more , they come out with mor money in there back pocket so yes its a bloody pay rise..technically no will you stop

irishh_bob

woodoo wrote: »

What makes anything Fergus Finlay has to say important?

must be the gravitas he injects into every utterance , incredibly smug man

WalterMitty

Hey Fergus, as a supposed socialist who espouses fairness and equity and justice how about calling for equity in pay and pensions between public sector and private sector?

That would be fair in my opinion, reducing the average public sector wage from close to 50k to the average of less than 40k in private sector would be just and the resources saved can be used to ensure the most vulnerable in society are protected through maintaining service levels, investment in education for poorest kids etc.

We will allow the public sector to keep their excellent pension that is so much better than those in private sector once they agree to reforms to better run the public services in an efficient and effective manner so the most vulnerable dont suffer undue deprevation and suffering.
How about that? That would generate twenty times more than your increments suggestion and restore EQUITY to public v private pay. Maybe we could call it Benchmarking 3.
Just an idea , but oh i forgot you are an establisment insider and you and your friends and political friends would all face large pay cuts so we cant be having that.

jimmycrackcorm

fliball123 wrote: »

How can you say that an annual increment is not a pay rise....of course its a pay rise..we pay the person more , they come out with mor money in there back pocket so yes its a bloody pay rise..technically no will you stop

By that same standard then a government income tax reduction is also a pay rise then?

murphaph

fliball123 wrote: »

How can you say that an annual increment is not a pay rise....of course its a pay rise..we pay the person more , they come out with mor money in there back pocket so yes its a bloody pay rise..technically no will you stop

I think Riskymove acknowledged that they are pay rises, just that technically they are not (weird government way of paying people according to a scale that ignores their ability and is based purely on time served)

ardmacha

once they agree to reforms to better run the public services in an efficient and effective manner so the most vulnerable dont suffer undue deprevation and suffering.

I think they did that, it is called the Croke Park agreement.

Try to keep up.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

I think they did that, it is called the Croke Park agreement.

Try to keep up.

Words, words, words. We need to see some real action. Last time teacher assessment was mentioned the ASTI went off on one. Why are the ASTI not pro-actively engaging with the department to deliver some of these efficiencies, to weed out the poorly performing teachers?

The inertia deeply rooted in the PS will take more than a signed agreement to change. Remember Benchmarking II was supposed to deliver many of these efficiencies but clearly if there is still so much that can be gained then Benchmarking II didn't deliver (for the taxpayer).

ardmacha

Words, words, words. We need to see some real action. Last time teacher assessment was mentioned the ASTI went off on one. Why are the ASTI not pro-actively engaging with the department to deliver some of these efficiencies, to weed out the poorly performing teachers?

Poorly performing teachers is a real problem, but not one that will save money if you solve it. Indeed reasonable training measures etc may cost money. Consequently, I wonder if there is any real interest in this at present.

The inertia deeply rooted in the PS will take more than a signed agreement to change. Remember Benchmarking II was supposed to deliver many of these efficiencies but clearly if there is still so much that can be gained then Benchmarking II didn't deliver (for the taxpayer).

I will take proper maanagement which can take advantage of the agreement, not to make life easier for managers, but to improve efficiency and service. There was no attempt to do any of this after Benchmarking, it wasn't a priority for Bertie.

markpb

murphaph wrote: »

I think Riskymove acknowledged that they are pay rises, just that technically they are not (weird government way of paying people according to a scale that ignores their ability and is based purely on time served)

I think the problem is (whips out stereotype brush) that most people see them as payrises but people who have them written into their contract just see them as entitlements

woodoo wrote: »

If increments are frozen then the people at the top of their scales are laughing. As ever the highest paid in this country get off scot free.

People at the top of their scales are not necessarily well paid so it's not true at all to say that an increment freeze would benefit rich people. In fact, it won't *benefit* anyone in the civil service at all.

woodoo

markpb wrote: »

People at the top of their scales are not necessarily well paid so it's not true at all to say that an increment freeze would benefit rich people. In fact, it won't *benefit* anyone in the civil service at all.

It will leave those in the public service with the best pay for their grade untouched. You'll have a hell of alot of people in their late 40's, 50's and 60's at the top of their scale untouched. People in their 20's, 30's and early 40's bearing the weight. Its not the fairest option. A 2% paycut would save the same as a freeze in increments.

RDM_83 again

The problem is you'l have young Clerical Officers that could be (and probably are considering they likely came in through a longer and more rigorous probation ) harder working than older members of staff on the same grade (who have never promoted up over a long career) who are doing exactly the same task. But the older members of staff are paid maybe 15 grand more*.
Additionally these younger workers will have a real struggle promoting up in the current civil service.

That said I do think something could be and should be done, perhaps a readjustment of the levy to make it more "equitable" perhaps tailored for the income of each level.




* I think, not in civil service so unsure.
http://www.cpsu.ie/images/ContentBuilder/RevisedSalaryScale.pdf

ianuss

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The problem is you'l have young Clerical Officers that could be (and probably are considering they likely came in through a longer and more rigorous probation ) harder working than older members of staff on the same grade (who have never promoted up over a long career) who are doing exactly the same task. But the older members of staff are paid maybe 15 grand more*.
Additionally these younger workers will have a real struggle promoting up in the current civil service.

That said I do think something could be and should be done, perhaps a readjustment of the levy to make it more "equitable" perhaps tailored for the income of each level.



* I think, not in civil service so unsure.
http://www.cpsu.ie/images/ContentBuilder/RevisedSalaryScale.pdf

The moratorium means there'll be zero promotions. Wherever you are now, you'll be stuck there unless the Minister for Finance signs off on it. It was one of the main reasons I left the HSE myself.

Blowfish

ardmacha wrote: »

Poorly performing teachers is a real problem, but not one that will save money if you solve it. Indeed reasonable training measures etc may cost money. Consequently, I wonder if there is any real interest in this at present.

Of course it would save money, just fire the under performers. Any new teachers you then hire in to replace them will be on less money, hence you improve the teaching level and save money at the same time.

fly_agaric

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The problem is you'l have young Clerical Officers that could be (and probably are considering they likely came in through a longer and more rigorous probation ) harder working than older members of staff on the same grade (who have never promoted up over a long career) who are doing exactly the same task. But the older members of staff are paid maybe 15 grand more*.

I dunno - stopping the increments sounds like a good plan to clear out anyone at or near base of pay scales in lower to middle grades who is not trapped by circumstances.

Joe public knows they're all a bunch of envelope stuffing malingering eejits anyway. The ones who quit will probably emigrate or something so it'll be a great saving for the exchequer!:)

WalterMitty

Blowfish wrote: »

Of course it would save money, just fire the under performers. Any new teachers you then hire in to replace them will be on less money, hence you improve the teaching level and save money at the same time.

Seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to most people except Enda and Co.
It really is amazing how little experience the current cabinet have outside of politics,trade unionism ,teaching professions all of which are publicly funded jobs with security,trade union protection and lack of accountability.

Of the hundreds of years of adult life of the members of the cabinet there are only a small percentage of years in wholly private sector employment.

Its no wonder they dont wanna tackle public sector when they are and have nearly always been embedded in it and reliant on it for their income,careers , prestige even?

And they socialise and work nearly entirely with public sector types and dont really know what its like to struggle in the private sector ,to create jobs or to be accountable for your performance. Thats why ive little confidence in these people to get much done to improve the economy.

RDM_83 again

fly_agaric wrote: »

I dunno - stopping the increments sounds like a good plan to clear out anyone at or near base of pay scales in lower to middle grades who is not trapped by circumstances.

Joe public knows they're all a bunch of envelope stuffing malingering eejits anyway. The ones who quit will probably emigrate or something so it'll be a great saving for the exchequer!:)

For the first part, yeah you remove people that probably work hardest and cost the country less in pay rather than the people that have sat for 20 years on the CO grade because they're probably terrible workers but cost the country more.

Second part-is that serious not defending all of them by any stretch but its not all bad service they provide.

fliball123

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

By that same standard then a government income tax reduction is also a pay rise then?

No as a cut in tax does not affect your Gross pay where an annual increment does ..simple

mikemac

What I’m proposing is that every increment due next year — and for as long as this crisis lasts — should be foregone, in both the public and the private sectors.

Not everyone business is in trouble, many are making profits

Who is he to ask private companies to set pay rates
As said above, a business doing well and employees earning more means more income tax

fliball123

mikemac wrote: »

Not everyone business is in trouble, many are making profits

Who is he to ask private companies to set pay rates
As said above, a business doing well and employees earning more means more income tax

Totally aggree with you here if an employee in the private sector gets a payrise it means the gov get more in income tax, usc and the extra cash they will get some VAT and possible carbon tax..

If a public sector employee gets a raise its a loss no matter how they spend it.

Are we not trying to close the deficit?

Jaysoose

fliball123 wrote: »

Totally aggree with you here if an employee in the private sector gets a payrise it means the gov get more in income tax, usc and the extra cash they will get some VAT and possible carbon tax..

If a public sector employee gets a raise its a loss no matter how they spend it.

Are we not trying to close the deficit?

We are obviously trying to close the deficit in a way that the pay/pension and conditions currently afforded by the CPA are not affected.

Its a joke that increments are being paid while the rest of the population are being told there is no money for anything.

fliball123

Jaysoose wrote: »

We are obviously trying to close the deficit in a way that the pay/pension and conditions currently afforded by the CPA are not affected.

Its a joke that increments are being paid while the rest of the population are being told there is no money for anything.

Its worse we not just being told there is no money for anything but we have to pay more in return for nothing

sharper

mikemac wrote: »

Not everyone business is in trouble, many are making profits

Who is he to ask private companies to set pay rates
As said above, a business doing well and employees earning more means more income tax

His idea is that if nobody gets a payrise then nobody is worse off for not getting a payrise.

Of course it's nonsense since private sector workers are not protected from pay cuts, working hour cuts or job losses. Next year companies that are losing money will exact all of these without any need for a government directive telling them to do so.

Companies that are making money however will make more profits since they'll be prevented from paying their staff more. Income tax revenues will fall while the PS pay bill will at best remain static as a result of this measure.

Jaysoose

sharper wrote: »

His idea is that if nobody gets a payrise then nobody is worse off for not getting a payrise.

Of course it's nonsense since private sector workers are not protected from pay cuts, working hour cuts or job losses. Next year companies that are losing money will exact all of these without any need for a government directive telling them to do so.

Companies that are making money however will make more profits since they'll be prevented from paying their staff more. Income tax revenues will fall while the PS pay bill will at best remain static as a result of this measure.

So a company that is being run well and keeping costs down etc and managing to turn a profit is supposed to refuse pay increases becuase the public service has frozen increments.

Tin foil hats for everybody methinks...

How do these people reach a position were they have every hair brained crackpot ideas given time of day in the national meeja.

It really depresses me that this guy is seen as somebody that the media want to report about.

jmayo

Riskymove wrote: »

technically ....no

but they are obviously seen as such

They are such.
At the end of the day the person gets more money for doing the same thing as they did before.
In any other walk of life that is a raise.

Jaysoose wrote: »

So a company that is being run well and keeping costs down etc and managing to turn a profit is supposed to refuse pay increases becuase the public service has frozen increments.

I have to say his suggestion about private sector doing same is laughable.
For a start a lot of the private sector have had paycuts over last few years and a lot more have had a little thing called pay freezes.

Then he assumes that a private sector company that actually is self sufficient and performing well should not reward it's workers. :rolleyes:
Why does he want this ?
Well it's because he wants some some overpaid public sector workers to feel better for not getting a raise just because they have lasted another year in their job.

I used to somewhat admire finley, but dear God he just shows himself as someone who has a head up his ar** public sector background of entitlement.
The idea that the private sector has to suffer in order to make the already overpaid and pampered public sector take their pain is BS.
BTW which sector already have higher salaries and better pensions prospects on average?

Glad to know Bernados have such an eejit in charge. :rolleyes:

WalterMitty

jmayo wrote: »

They are such.
At the end of the day the person gets more money for doing the same thing as they did before.
In any other walk of life that is a raise.



I have to say his suggestion about private sector doing same is laughable.
For a start a lot of the private sector have had paycuts over last few years and a lot more have had a little thing called pay freezes.

Then he assumes that a private sector company that actually is self sufficient and performing well should not reward it's workers. :rolleyes:
Why does he want this ?
Well it's because he wants some some overpaid public sector workers to feel better for not getting a raise just because they have lasted another year in their job.

I used to somewhat admire finley, but dear God he just shows himself as someone who has a head up his ar** public sector background of entitlement.
The idea that the private sector has to suffer in order to make the already overpaid and pampered public sector take their pain is BS.
BTW which sector already have higher salaries and better pensions prospects on average?

Glad to know Bernados have such an eejit in charge. :rolleyes:

Interesting the CEO salaries of many irish charities(including Finlay's Barnardos) are linked to public service roles. Finlay as CEO of Barnardos seems to be getting around 120k according to this article but Barnardos wont confirm his pay.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/shedding-light-on-the-pay-of-charity-chiefs-168676.html#ixzz1ZLTg0uEg
His pay is linked to HSE salary scale so no wonder he doesnt mind freezing increments as he is at top of scale! Another establishment figure who has lived off state/charities for decades while never creating a profit making job or business in his life.

woodoo

WalterMitty wrote: »

His pay is linked to HSE salary scale so no wonder he doesnt mind freezing increments as he is at top of scale!.

Exacty, just another gob****e calling for someone else to take the pain. The man is a fraud.

Tea drinker

Riskymove wrote: »

This is the bit that is an issue



while this is technically true, it would mean that people who are on the max are completely unaffected and for ever more would be paid more than those lower down the scales, regardless of ability and performance

I think that would kill morale

same happens in a lot of big business, they have salary scales for positions and if you can't move into the next band then, welcome to stagnation. Nothing stopping them or me or anyone leaving though.
I haven't got a raise in years, companies aren't paying if they can get away with it.

woodoo

Tea drinker wrote: »

same happens in a lot of big business, they have salary scales for positions and if you can't move into the next band then, welcome to stagnation. Nothing stopping them or me or anyone leaving though.
I haven't got a raise in years, companies aren't paying if they can get away with it.

Its not the same. What you are talking about is that people of low ability stagnating at a certain level.

What would happen in the PS is that people at the top of their incremental scale could be complete dossers but they will for ever be on a higher income than people further down the incremental scale even if they are great workers. Morale will collapse. I believe the government understand this. The government aren't going to create that sort of sour atmosphere in the PS now.

Blowfish

woodoo wrote: »

What would happen in the PS is that people at the top of their incremental scale could be complete dossers but they will for ever be on a higher income than people further down the incremental scale even if they are great workers. Morale will collapse. I believe the government understand this. The government aren't going to create that sort of sour atmosphere in the PS now.

Which is why we also badly need for proper performance management to be brought in so the under performers at the top can be sacked.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Its not the same. What you are talking about is that people of low ability stagnating at a certain level.

What would happen in the PS is that people at the top of their incremental scale could be complete dossers but they will for ever be on a higher income than people further down the incremental scale even if they are great workers. Morale will collapse. I believe the government understand this. The government aren't going to create that sort of sour atmosphere in the PS now.

By and large increments have nothing to do with performance though. We could have complete tossers at the bottom of the scale getting their increment year on year, whereas someone at the top of their scale who is doing a great job doesn't get one. The whole increment system is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced with something credible.