Croke Park Agreement

27061986a

The Government reckon that they have saved €1.5 billion from the deal.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0613/body-to-announce-croke-park-agreement-savings.html


I cant see how this has been achieved. What do other people think?

Godge

27061986a wrote: »

The Government reckon that they have saved €1.5 billion from the deal.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0613/body-to-announce-croke-park-agreement-savings.html


I cant see how this has been achieved. What do other people think?

If you bothered to do any research and read the report, you might understand how the savings have been achieved before going off on a short rant in an uninformed OP.

http://implementationbody.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Second-Progress-Report.pdf

ardmacha

Now, now Godge, people don't have to time actually read reports and get data before ranting. Easier to read the summary in the Evening Herald or get the story from the mate in the pub.

kennyb3

Just more fudging of figures by government - Howlin openly admitted that the €650 'saved' doesn't include €680m in lump sums paid out. There will no doubt be a response saying these have to be paid anyway but my point is that we should report things as they are - i.e no saving this year and if the saving is €1bn next year well and good. Stop smoothing out figures!

My beef here is not with public sector workers (we've enough of those threads), simply the continued spin and false reporting and lazy journalism.

Icepick

We saved €0.
We just spent less but still much more than we can afford.

golfwallah

I’m not disputing the figures for savings, as a certain amount of independent verification has been carried out. That said, my own personal view is that Minister Howlin has delivered on very soft targets so far - the “low hanging fruit”.

This view is confirmed by:

• The implementation body’s own report, which under “Assessment and Conclusions” on page 29, states that it “is of the view that accelerating change now needs to occur across all public service bodies, in every sector, with an increased sense of urgency. It is not sufficient to rely on the reforms delivered to date. There is a need to go much further in light of the continued very difficult circumstances confronting the economy. It is essential, therefore, that management work proactively with staff and their representatives to explore opportunities for further far reaching reform and to deliver the change required in a time-bound way. Over the coming months, the Body will be engaging with top management in each sector to analyse in detail their plans for future reform and its delivery”.

• Comments by Minister Varadkar that a new Croke Park Agreement should allow for compulsory redundancies in the public service, as opposed to the re-deployments that currently take place when services / activities are ceased (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/leo-varadkar-public-sector-compulsory-redundancy-comments-infuriate-unions-3138317.html). Of course these views were attacked by a prominent public service union and opposed by Minister Howlin.

• CPSU, which campaigned for a No vote in the referendum, now seeking a pay increase from savings claimed for the Croke Park Agreement.

The jury is still out on whether Croke Park can continue to deliver or, indeed, if it is really up to the job of “accelerating change” that is still urgently needed in every sector of the public service.

rumour

ardmacha wrote: »

Now, now Godge, people don't have to time actually read reports and get data before ranting. Easier to read the summary in the Evening Herald or get the story from the mate in the pub.

Thats right....those private sector guys are all getting pay rises why should we give up our incremental pay rises.

RichardAnd

Before the puerile trading of desultory remarks kicks off in earnest, let me just throw in my view of the CPA.

Firstly, I actually do believe that it has delivered some savings and I am even willing to believe, at least for now, that it might actually full-fill its original aims by 2014. However, this would be one of those situations where the end can't really be justified by the means.

Firstly, let's consider the go to method used by the state to save money in hard times; the hiring ban or, perhaps euphemistically, the recruitment moratorium. Though it is a very quick and easy way of stabilising costs, it is not a sustainable or even healthy course of action for any organisation because for any organisation to thrive, it must take in new blood. An extended hiring ban is not only extremely unfair to young people looking for work (we just love f**king over the youth, don't we) it's damaging as it removes the possibility of new ideas and fresh ways of doing things from entering the equation.

Moving on, we also have the method being employed to reduce numbers, honey dripped retirement. Everyone retires eventually, that's a given but what happens when people, many of whom are still more than able to work, are offered retirement early? Well the first answer is that it costs a hell of alot in lump sums and pensions but it also has the knock on effect that alot of knowledge and experience will be lost before it can be properly passed on. Of course, the solution to the latter is to rehire the said individuals with extortionate remuneration to do the jobs they had been doing before their pseudo-retirement.

Both of these approaches to saving money have one thing in common, they are hugely irresponsible actions. Can this course be sustained? Well, we shall see . . .

Dannyboy83

Godge wrote: »

If you bothered to do any research and read the report,

ParkRunner

27061986a wrote: »

The Government reckon that they have saved €1.5 billion from the deal.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0613/body-to-announce-croke-park-agreement-savings.html


I cant see how this has been achieved. What do other people think?

What part of the independently verified report do you disagree with out of interest?

Count Dooku

27061986a wrote: »

The Government reckon that they have saved €1.5 billion from the deal.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0613/body-to-announce-croke-park-agreement-savings.html


I cant see how this has been achieved

They are comparing figures with 2009, while Croke Park Deal have been signed in 2010
If they would compare with 2010 after all paycuts implemented, they wouldn't achieve even half of it

kennyb3

Again the big issue is reporting;

see table 3 and table 4 between 2011 and 2012, pay + pensions increased by 15m. No savings whatever for this year due to the higher retirement related costs.

Also no account taken of non payroll re-hiring, redeployment and re training costs.

No account of the extra social welfare element due to those taking voluntary redundancy.

Lot of gross savings being highlighted rather than net ones.

Time for our lazy journalists to stop believing the headline figures.

Simply spin

creedp

Count Dooku wrote: »

They are comparing figures with 2009, while Croke Park Deal have been signed in 2010
If they would compare with 2010 after all paycuts implemented, they wouldn't achieve even half of it

I think though that it should berecognised that the Croke Park Deal was agreed on the basis that there would be a four year pay freeze after the 12-15% pay cuts, i.e. the pay cuts form part of the agreement.

I was interested in this context in the AIB announcement of a 2 year pay freeze following no pay cuts which Larry Broderick was very unhappy with saying that staff were being asked to pay for the mistakes of the bank! Where did I hear that before! AIB is effectively a state org and is completely bust ... somebody has to pay for this ..

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

I think though that it should berecognised that the Croke Park Deal was agreed on the basis that there would be a four year pay freeze after the 12-15% pay cuts, i.e. the pay cuts form part of the agreement.

I was interested in this context in the AIB announcement of a 2 year pay freeze following no pay cuts which Larry Broderick was very unhappy with saying that staff were being asked to pay for the mistakes of the bank! Where did I hear that before! AIB is effectively a state org and is completely bust ... somebody has to pay for this ..

I have to ask what is the definition of a pay freeze within the context of the CPA?
I ask as I am aware that incremental pay rises are still being given (and this is not a debate on the merit/demerit of incremental pay rises, merely stating a factual reality), then my definition of a pay freeze is very different to the CPA's definition of a pay freeze.

Degsy

kennyb3 wrote: »

No account of the extra social welfare element due to those taking voluntary redundancy.

I'd like to hear about this too..these public servants who've taken voluntary redundancy and then gone on the dole.

Can you provide a link to this trend?

ParkRunner

sarumite wrote: »

creedp wrote: »

I think though that it should berecognised that the Croke Park Deal was agreed on the basis that there would be a four year pay freeze after the 12-15% pay cuts, i.e. the pay cuts form part of the agreement.

I was interested in this context in the AIB announcement of a 2 year pay freeze following no pay cuts which Larry Broderick was very unhappy with saying that staff were being asked to pay for the mistakes of the bank! Where did I hear that before! AIB is effectively a state org and is completely bust ... somebody has to pay for this ..

I have to ask what is the definition of a pay freeze within the context of the CPA?
I ask as I am aware that incremental pay rises are still being given (and this is not a debate on the merit/demerit of incremental pay rises, merely stating a factual reality), then my definition of a pay freeze is very different to the CPA's definition of a pay freeze.

A foregoing of the agreed pay increases under Towards 2016. The CPA has frozen the salary scales but not the ability to move up the scale

Blowfish

sarumite wrote: »

I have to ask what is the definition of a pay freeze within the context of the CPA?
I ask as I am aware that incremental pay rises are still being given (and this is not a debate on the merit/demerit of incremental pay rises, merely stating a factual reality), then my definition of a pay freeze is very different to the CPA's definition of a pay freeze.

Indeed, in fact the CSO have released the latest average wage report, Public Sector pay has now crept back up above the 2008 level:

.|2008 Q1|2009 Q1|2010 Q1|2011 Q1|2012 Q1|Annual % Change
Private Sector|642.54|631.82|612.46|610.71|619.74|+1.5
Public Sector|904.80|934.00|895.43|893.54|911.63|+2.0

ardmacha

Public Sector pay has now crept back up above the 2008 level:

No, it has not. These figures do not include the pension levy.
The usual misleading misuse of statistics.

creedp

ardmacha wrote: »

No, it has not. These figures do not include the pension levy.
The usual misleading misuse of statistics.

I'm glad to see private sector wages have recoved and surpassed their 2008 levels.

Head The Wall

ardmacha wrote: »

No, it has not. These figures do not include the pension levy.
The usual misleading misuse of statistics.

And likewise the private sector numbers don't include pension figures either. It seems a valid comparison to me

sarumite

Head The Wall wrote: »

And likewise the private sector numbers don't include pension figures either. It seems a valid comparison to me

Nor the impact of job cuts.

antoobrien

ardmacha wrote: »

No, it has not. These figures do not include the pension levy. The usual misleading misuse of statistics.

Okay lets take it into account. It was introduced in March 2009, so would not affect most of Q1 2009:

Sector | 2008 Q1 | 2009 Q1 | 2010 Q1 | 2011 Q1 | 2012 Q1
Private | 642.54 | 631.82 | 612.46 | 610.71 | 619.74
Public | 904.80 | 934.00 | 832.75 | 830.99 | 847.81

Still 1/3 above private sector pay.

ardmacha

And likewise the private sector numbers don't include pension figures either. It seems a valid comparison to me

The statement was made about the change in PS wages, the levy is a reduction in wages and so relevant to the comparison. The contention that PS wages are above or very close to 2008 levels is false.

ParkRunner

antoobrien wrote: »

ardmacha wrote: »

No, it has not. These figures do not include the pension levy. The usual misleading misuse of statistics.

Okay lets take it into account. It was introduced in March 2009, so would not affect most of Q1 2009:

Sector | 2008 Q1 | 2009 Q1 | 2010 Q1 | 2011 Q1 | 2012 Q1
Private | 642.54 | 631.82 | 612.46 | 610.71 | 619.74
Public | 904.80 | 934.00 | 832.75 | 830.99 | 847.81

Still 1/3 above private sector pay.

The figures are of little value in any case. It is comparing 386,000 public sector workers with 1,100,000 private sector workers. There is no analysis of age, length of service, qualifications, professional skills etc.

Head The Wall

ardmacha wrote: »

The statement was made about the change in PS wages, the levy is a reduction in wages and so relevant to the comparison. The contention that PS wages are above or very close to 2008 levels is false.

And likewise when private sector workers make a pension contribution it also reduces their wages. Not everyone in the private sector pays towards a pension so the easiest thing to do is to leave out the pension arrangements altogether. This is the most valid comparison as the CSO figures don't allow for any pension payments in relation to private sector figures

ardmacha

Not everyone in the private sector pays towards a pension so the easiest thing to do is to leave out the pension arrangements altogether.

I agree. However the pension levy is not a pension contribution.
This is supposed to be a serious forum, why do people keep on coming back making the same erroneous and misleading points again and again?

gerryo777

ardmacha wrote: »

No, it has not. These figures do not include the pension levy.
The usual misleading misuse of statistics.

What's a pension levy?
Would that be actually paying for your own pension?

Explain the almost €230 weekly difference between public and private.

Croke park my arse, no wonder the country runs a massive deficit.

PS, why don't we use benchmarking now?

ardmacha

What's a pension levy?

Why don't you read some of the many threads on the subject and educate yourself?

gerryo777

ardmacha wrote: »

Why don't you read some of the many threads on the subject and educate yourself?

Why don't you and your unions stop holding the country to ransom?

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

I agree. However the pension levy is not a pension contribution.
This is supposed to be a serious forum, why do people keep on coming back making the same erroneous and misleading points again and again?

While I agree with the fact that the pension levy is not a pensions payment, there are serious questions about the sustainability of DB's penions in general.

The reality is the majority of private sector workers would not have the same pension arrangements as the public sector (especially for the younger generation) and the payscales would not reflect this either.

ardmacha

The reality is the majority of private sector workers would not have the same pension arrangements as the public sector (especially for the younger generation) and the payscales would not reflect this either

There is a broader social problem here. At one time the permanent pensionable job was valued. I think in more recent years that people didn't really think about pensions and their value.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

There is a broader social problem here. At one time the permanent pensionable job was valued. I think in more recent years that people didn't really think about pensions and their value.

I would agree, however its both a social and economical issue. The permanent pensionable job is becoming a scarce prospect within the private sector. The inherent value of it is a premium that is often missing from the discussion on benchmarking pay across different professions and employers. While certainly the data excludes the penions levy (which is not a pension contribution) it also excludes the value of the DB pensions scheme.

rightwingdub

I actually think the only thing that will end this odious Croke Prk agreement is an outright default, our politicians are living in complete denial.

golfwallah

rightwingdub wrote: »

I actually think the only thing that will end this odious Croke Prk agreement is an outright default, our politicians are living in complete denial.

I agree about politicians in denial. Thankfully, there is one exception, Transport Minister, Leo Varadkar, who has not been afraid to raise the dreaded spectre of real reform, including compulsory redundancies if necessary. And for his trouble he has been roundly labelled as “mad” by one union leader. We’ve also had stiff denials on compulsory redundancies by Minister Brendan Howlin and Tainiste Eamon Gilmore.

The Croke Park Agreement protects inflated public sector pay rates, which are way above the norm in other EU countries. This is no surprise, when Germany, for example, to whom we are looking to backstop the Euro was not the chosen standard used for pay comparison in the disastrous benchmarking exercise.

Germany has seriously reformed its public service / welfare costs since re-unification – they had no choice but to address the issue and seriously negotiate a realistic approach with its social partners – nor will we until there is no choice.

The current Euro crisis is coming to a head and although Germany has been in the vanguard of support for member states in trouble, they will not do this indefinitely.

At the moment, Minister Varadkar is on his own as the one public figure calling for serious reform in the public service. I hope he has the courage to continue along this difficult road but, right now, his voice is isolated in the wilderness – a bit like Churchill’s against the prevailing policies of appeasement and before the calamities of 1940 finally forced politicians to face the inevitable real issues.

ParkRunner

After what happened to FF when they cut public sector pay twice I would be very surprised if a FG/Labour Government go down the same route. Given the amount of compulsory deductions taken away from public servants payslips any cut would have to be very substantial to make any real difference and this would be money which would otherwise be spent in the local economy generally.
I expect the government will continue along the same route of cost saving measures through reform.

P.s I would be in favour of redundancies where performance is unacceptably poor

Head The Wall

EF wrote: »

What part of the independently verified report do you disagree with out of interest?

There was an independent verification of "4" items on it, that is hardly a thorough examination of it

EF wrote: »

A foregoing of the agreed pay increases under Towards 2016. The CPA has frozen the salary scales but not the ability to move up the scale

So in a long winded way you are stating that there is indeed no pay freeze currently in place in the PS. Maybe certain words in the english language have a different meaning to what I was taught because I don't see in what other way the usage of the word "payfreeze" can be construed.

ardmacha wrote: »

I agree. However the pension levy is not a pension contribution.
This is supposed to be a serious forum, why do people keep on coming back making the same erroneous and misleading points again and again?

When people stop trying to compare Public Sector gross wage minus pension contributions against private sector gross wage then we may make some progress.

EF wrote: »

P.s I would be in favour of redundancies where performance is unacceptably poor

Whats wrong with making unneeded positions redundant.



One thing I noted in the report on page 23 is the 865 HR staff providing services to the Civil Service (Anyone got any figures on the number of staff involved here - it seems a lot to me). It claims that the 865 staff cost 53.4 million which is an average of 61,734 each which is well above the PS average of roughly 50k which PS members/unions claims is skewed by the highly paid.


They have not implemented anything in this area yet but they claim they can save 12.5 million and get the employment numbers down to "149 full time equivalent staff". What happens the other 700 staff that will be redeployed as their wage will still have to be paid and isn't there already 2,000 excess HR staff floating around the HSE.


One way most of the depts saved money is through procurement. It just shows the way people waste money when there is no accountability, after reading the report it just seems like more waffle from the govt including a rehash of what was in last years report, getting rid of staff seems to have been the main tool to save costs and as we all know the way they have gone about is the worst possible way.

opti0nal

Head The Wall wrote: »

T
Whats wrong with making unneeded positions redundant.

Lots, if it's a 'decentralised' quango.

woodoo

Congratulations to the public servants for the savings made under the croke park agreement.

cricketfan

I can only imagine when the Troika sit down every 12 weeks with our lot, both our elected representatives and 'the permanent government' the senior civil servants, they must be saying 'look, this cannot continue, you, the people we are talking to right now, are paying yourself 30% too much, if we compare you to similar economies elsewhere'.

The greatest gesture Enda Kenny and his ministers could make now would be to reduce their own salaries by 50%. They'd still have a very comfortable lifestyle and they'd still be able to claim expenses, although vouched only.

History may then almost judge them as true statesmen. That gesture might, only might, provide a cascade effect because we are all paid too much.

OK, I may sound naive, but some of us have got to take lead leadership decisions, when the going is tough, as it is now.

gerryo777

cricketfan wrote: »

I can only imagine when the Troika sit down every 12 weeks with our lot, both our elected representatives and 'the permanent government' the senior civil servants, they must be saying 'look, this cannot continue, you, the people we are talking to right now, are paying yourself 30% too much, if we compare you to similar economies elsewhere'.

The greatest gesture Enda Kenny and his ministers could make now would be to reduce their own salaries by 50%. They'd still have a very comfortable lifestyle and they'd still be able to claim expenses, although vouched only.

History may then almost judge them as true statesmen. That gesture might, only might, provide a cascade effect because we are all paid too much.

OK, I may sound naive, but some of us have got to take lead leadership decisions, when the going is tough, as it is now.

Problem is though that turkeys don't vote for christmas.
History will judge FG/Lab for what they are, FF Mk2.

gerryo777

woodoo wrote: »

Congratulations to the public servants for the savings made under the croke park agreement.

'Congratulations' to a group of cosseted state employees for starting to do their jobs correctly?

Give me a break!

woodoo

gerryo777 wrote: »

'Congratulations' to a group of cosseted state employees for starting to do their jobs correctly?

Give me a break!

Public servants have been given a hard time over the last few years spearheaded by the Indo. I think when they are doing good they should be complimented on it.

Anyway at least they are making savings. What savings are being made from the daddy of all costs the social welfare bill. Which stands at 21 billion. There should be big cuts there.

femur61

woodoo wrote: »

Public servants have been given a hard time over the last few years spearheaded by the Indo. I think when they are doing good they should be complimented on it.

Anyway at least they are making savings. What savings are being made from the daddy of all costs the social welfare bill. Which stands at 21 billion. There should be big cuts there.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553
Uk is 15 times larger than ours in yesterdays Indo we have 400 consultants on over €200,000 and that is not including the private work they do.
http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance
The highest paid PS in the OECD with the shortest hours worked.
I agree SW is high in the UK it is less than £100/wk.
In reality how can we expect to get a debt reduction on our bailout from the EU when our SW and PS are getting more here than economies 10-15 times larger than ours.
FG/L are controlled by the unions/civil servants, they are not just puppets of Europe but the unions/CS. I think I read that the bearded ones are getting €125,000 (plus expenses), that is more than a consultant in the UK.

The next croke park agreement will be very interesting as I said in a different thread. The big thing coming down the line from the government is finding a way to employ people to provide health care and other services, without making them public servants and giving them access to a public services type pension. I think this has the possibility to cause friction because you will have one group of employees ( pre 2009 ) who will have public services pensions and another group doing the exact same work who wont have the same type of pension.

kennyb3

mariaalice wrote: »

The next croke park agreement will be very interesting as I said in a different thread. The big thing coming down the line from the government is finding a way to employ people to provide health care and other services without making them public servants and giving them access to a public services type pension.

I'd be pretty sure the pension side of things will see a switch from DB to DC

gerryo777

woodoo wrote: »

Public servants have been given a hard time over the last few years spearheaded by the Indo. I think when they are doing good they should be complimented on it.

Anyway at least they are making savings. What savings are being made from the daddy of all costs the social welfare bill. Which stands at 21 billion. There should be big cuts there.

Working in the PS is a form of social welfare. Jobs for people the private sector wouldn't hire.

woodoo

gerryo777 wrote: »

Working in the PS is a form of social welfare. Jobs for people the private sector wouldn't hire.

I like thousands of others did an interview to get the job are you telling me they picked the worst staff as a form of welfare or were doing the private sector a favour by taking the unhireables

creedp

gerryo777 wrote: »

Working in the PS is a form of social welfare. Jobs for people the private sector wouldn't hire.

That's a pretty vacuous statement so I can only assume you are taking the p1ss. On the other hand if you really believe that then there are probably many out there the PS has missed!

southsiderosie

gerryo777 wrote: »

Working in the PS is a form of social welfare. Jobs for people the private sector wouldn't hire.

MOD NOTE:

That's enough. Don't post in this thread again.

latenia

gerryo777 wrote: »

Working in the PS is a form of social welfare. Jobs for people the private sector wouldn't hire.

Speaking as a former civil servant, I don't disagree. It's like a cross between a mafia labour racket and a care in the community scheme.

woodoo

latenia wrote: »

Speaking as a former civil servant, I don't disagree. It's like a cross between a mafia labour racket and a care in the community scheme.

Of course you worked there. People on the internet never make things up for effect.