Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

barneystinson

Good loser wrote: »

Pay and pensions in the Public Service: 2008 €18.753 bn

2011 €17.127 bn

It shouldn't really need to be pointed out. Your figures are for pay AND PENSIONS.

Try again.

Gryire

ardmacha wrote: »

Some are working with salaries 16% or 18% less than in 2009.

That is not true. No public servants have had pay cuts of 16%.

ardmacha

That is not true. No public servants have had pay cuts of 16%.

The average is 14%, of course some people are above the average. Your coming on here declaring black to be white will not change that.
These people are now getting another 5-8% chop, so will be down a quarter or more. Yet despite this reduction when equivalent private sector jobs will have had a 10% increase in many cases, people will still be coming on here claiming that there have been no pay cuts, the public servants are "protected" and similar nonsense.

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

No public servant has had their core pay cut by 16%

Utter rubbish!

My pay is down 23% since 2008, this despite the fact that the job I do is fee earning and I've increased income in by 5% last year.....

.....the PS must be the only job where you get pay cuts when you bring in more money. If I was back in my old job in private practice, I'd have had a modest bonus for growing income @ 5%!

ardmacha

.....the PS must be the only job where you get pay cuts when you bring in more money.

The present process is designed for the convenience of the Minister and the aggregation of greater power to politicians. Matters such as the performance of the individual, contract law, the relative amount of the salary, the degree to which savings have been made, the proper performance of the public service are definitely not considered or thought relevant by politicians.

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

Utter rubbish!

May pay is down 23% since 2008, this despite the fact that the job I do is fee earning and I've increased income in by 5% last year.....

.....the PS must be the only job where you get pay cuts when you bring in more money. If I was back in my old job in private practice, I'd have had a modest bonus for growing income @ 5%!

Would you like to give details of your core salary over the last 5 years to demonstrate how your pay has been cut by 23%!

ardmacha

Would you like to give details of your core salary over the last 5 years to demonstrate how your pay has been cut by 23%

Please don't ask posters to reveal their salary.
Why don't you calculate it yourself, here are the two previous cuts
http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/faqpaycutspubser.pdf
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/guidelines/faqprdjul09.pdf

Gryire

ardmacha wrote: »

Please don't ask posters to reveal their salary.
Why don't you calculate it yourself, here are the two previous cuts
http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads...cutspubser.pdf
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/...aqprdjul09.pdf

OK. Just details of the cuts as they happened in percentage terms!

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

Would you like to give details of your core salary over the last 5 years to demonstrate how your pay has been cut by 23%!

No problem boss....



Top figure are from January 2010, bottom are from January 2012. Those figures show a 30% decrease in salary, despite gross salary remaining the same - as you can see the amount deducted grew by just over 40%.

I've had my pay cut(s).......

Vizzy

Jawgap wrote: »

No problem boss....



Top figure are from January 2010, bottom are from January 2012. Those figures show a 30% decrease in salary, despite gross salary remaining the same - as you can see the amount deducted grew by just over 40%.

I've had my pay cut(s).......

Wait for it,wait for it !!:D

Jawgap

Vizzy wrote: »

Wait for it,wait for it !!:D

Seriously, you don't have to be a genius to work out a public servant's salary - the pay scales are all published!

earlyevening

Jawgap wrote: »

No problem boss....



Top figure are from January 2010, bottom are from January 2012. Those figures show a 30% decrease in salary, despite gross salary remaining the same - as you can see the amount deducted grew by just over 40%.

I've had my pay cut(s).......

Something not right there.

Those deductions couldn't be just taxes/PRSI/levies. I'd guess you increased voluntary deductions at source (like credit union subscriptions if you're a garda)- something you could easily stop.

You'll have to give more detail on how you lose 4k on 6.6k of income.

ardmacha

In fairness Jawgap, there needs to be a distinction between USC and the like paid by everyone, and discriminatory measures designed only to target the public service.

Vizzy

earlyevening wrote: »

Something not right there.

Those deductions couldn't be just taxes/PRSI/levies. I'd guess you increased voluntary deductions at source (like credit union subscriptions if you're a garda)- something you could easily stop.

You'll have to give more detail on how you lose 4k on 6.6k of income.

Jawgap,don't like to say that I told you so.

7 minutes and the vultures are in

barneystinson

Jawgap wrote: »

No problem boss....



Top figure are from January 2010, bottom are from January 2012. Those figures show a 30% decrease in salary, despite gross salary remaining the same - as you can see the amount deducted grew by just over 40%.

I've had my pay cut(s).......

Awww jeeeez.

What you appear to have shown is that your pay hasn't been cut in the period, and that you've a very poor understanding of what a pay cut is - it's the same gross figure on both payslips so by definition you haven't had a paycut. The difference in your net pay could be due to increased taxes (ie the USC that everyone pays, not just PS), and any number of voluntary deductions.

sharper

Vizzy wrote: »

Jawgap,don't like to say that I told you so.

7 minutes and the vultures are in

What is this type of sniping for the sidelines supposed to accomplish? People are asking very reasonable questions about how someone's pay ended up being cut 23% and how they're having 4k deducted from a 6k monthly salary.

If Jawgap didn't want to discuss the details he presumably would not have made himself an example for discussion otherwise what's the point?

barneystinson

Vizzy wrote: »

Jawgap,don't like to say that I told you so.

7 minutes and the vultures are in

And rightly so in fairness - posts like that don't do the PS posters any favours.

Jawgap

ardmacha wrote: »

In fairness Jawgap, there needs to be a distinction between USC and the like paid by everyone, and discriminatory measures designed only to target the public service.

earlyevening wrote: »

Something not right there.

Those deductions couldn't be just taxes/PRSI/levies. I'd guess you increased voluntary deductions at source (like credit union subscriptions if you're a garda)- something you could easily stop.

You'll have to give more detail on how you lose 4k on 6.6k of income.

I'm not a Garda and I'm not making any voluntary contributions that can be stopped at my discretion.

I do, however, work in a specialist regulatory role and essentially the increases related to the usual ones we were all subject to, with the added spice of the organisation I work for unilaterally pulling our (myself and my colleagues') employment "contracts" and replacing them with ones where we were liable for our professional indemnity cover and fees - the fees I could accept but having to essentially indemnify your employer when they are benefiting from your efforts is a bit "Irish".

It led to 2 guys leaving and the few that remained feeling quite aggrieved.

On the plus side, now I'm looking after my own ticket, I've decided to work the hours I'm contracted to do and take on some private consultancy work (in the UK) with the extra hours I was working in my job here. And to be honest once the next pay cut goes through, I can see myself going to 4 days a week in the PS and working 1 day a week privately.

The problem with CP2 (or whatever they want to call it) is that it focuses on salaries when many people have taken substantial hits to their income in other ways - but these don't register as pay cuts, nor do the two guys who left register as 'redundancies."

Vizzy

barneystinson wrote: »

And rightly so in fairness - posts like that don't do the PS posters any favours.

In fairness my ass.

It wouldn't matter if Jawgap posted a sworn affadavit signed by his employer and countersigned by the Pope,the anti PS would be on immediately claiming that his signature was a forgery.

Jawgap

barneystinson wrote: »

Awww jeeeez.

What you appear to have shown is that your pay hasn't been cut in the period, and that you've a very poor understanding of what a pay cut is - it's the same gross figure on both payslips so by definition you haven't had a paycut. The difference in your net pay could be due to increased taxes (ie the USC that everyone pays, not just PS), and any number of voluntary deductions.

It's not - the fiction of all the rubbish being spouted is that salaries might be relatively untouched, but incomes are being hammered.

I've said it in other threads, I accept pay has to be reduced, but it should be part of a broader solution that includes some modest tax increases and a proper redundancy programme - the problem at the moment is the number of wasters drawing a salary, and even after the pay cuts they'll still be drawing a salary - better to have a lean, energetic and well paid cadre of public servants than what we have - a bloated administrative 'tail' that reinforces inefficiency and stifles innovation.

barneystinson

Vizzy wrote: »

In fairness my ass.

It wouldn't matter if Jawgap posted a sworn affadavit signed by his employer and countersigned by the Pope,the anti PS would be on immediately claiming that his signature was a forgery.

But what he asserted was incorrect? His gross pay hasn't changed.

Gryire

barneystinson wrote: »

But what he asserted was incorrect? His gross pay hasn't changed.

No core pay has been cut by 16%. Fact.

barneystinson

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not - the fiction of all the rubbish being spouted is that salaries might be relatively untouched, but incomes are being hammered.

I've said it in other threads, I accept pay has to be reduced, but it should be part of a broader solution that includes some modest tax increases and a proper redundancy programme - the problem at the moment is the number of wasters drawing a salary, and even after the pay cuts they'll still be drawing a salary - better to have a lean, energetic and well paid cadre of public servants than what we have - a bloated administrative 'tail' that reinforces inefficiency and stifles innovation.

Agree with you completely.

But your pay hasn't been cut by 23%.

ardmacha

No core pay has been cut by 16%. Fact.

This repetition of nonsense is becoming tiresome.
I provided the details of the cuts.
Please stop repeating this.

Jawgap

barneystinson wrote: »

But what he asserted was incorrect? His gross pay hasn't changed.

I never said my gross pay had changed, I said.....

Jawgap wrote: »

Utter rubbish!

My pay is down 23% since 2008, this despite the fact that the job I do is fee earning and I've increased income in by 5% last year.....

.....the PS must be the only job where you get pay cuts when you bring in more money. If I was back in my old job in private practice, I'd have had a modest bonus for growing income @ 5%!

As far as I'm concerned my 'pay' is what I get into my account each month. Quite frankly who gives a flying F%^k what gross pay is - it's what you come out with that's important.

Also, the extra deductions while not tax or USC are made for the benefit of the exchequer - they have broken an agreement, discarded accepted practice and forced a charge on me that they would otherwise have to pay - semantically you call it what you want, but in effect it is what it is.

barneystinson

Jawgap wrote: »

I never said my gross pay had changed, I said.....



As far as I'm concerned my 'pay' is what I get into my account each month. Quite frankly who gives a flying F%^k what gross pay is - it's what you come out with that's important.

Also, the extra deductions while not tax or USC are made for the benefit of the exchequer - they have broken an agreement, discarded accepted practice and forced a charge on me that they would otherwise have to pay - semantically you call it what you want, but in effect it is what it is.

There's nothing semantic about it. Your contract defines what your pay is, and it's your gross pay.

That is an irrefutable fact, and "as far as I'm concerned" doesn't really come into it. If tomorrow the Govt decided to do away with income tax, would you consider you'd had an enormous pay rise?

Jawgap

barneystinson wrote: »

There's nothing semantic about it. Your contract defines what your pay is, and it's your gross pay.

That is an irrefutable fact, and "as far as I'm concerned" doesn't really come into it. If tomorrow the Govt decided to do away with income tax, would you consider you'd had an enormous pay rise?

Yes, actually I would - if I was offered the choice of a 50k salary taxed @ 10% and a 60k salary taxed at 40%, I know which one I'd take!

Gross pay is completely notional - it's an imaginary figure of little relevance because unless you work in la-la-land all kinds of deductions have to come off it. - it's take home pay, and discretionary income that's important, and both of those in the PS have been drastically cut using a whole swathe of obvious and not so obvious measures - something the media and everyone else conveniently overlook.

Vizzy

barneystinson wrote: »

There's nothing semantic about it. Your contract defines what your pay is, and it's your gross pay.

That is an irrefutable fact, and "as far as I'm concerned" doesn't really come into it. If tomorrow the Govt decided to do away with income tax, would you consider you'd had an enormous pay rise?

If the Govt did away with the pension levy on Public servants I would certainly think that I had a payrise(or at least it would be increased back to what it was previously)

handlemaster

its a pity the teachers will aggree with the pay cuts in the end. It would be interesting to see the gov putting in legislation. Will the teachers hold out ? I dont think so. They must realise they are on a good number, especially the permanent ones.Easy hours , good money and lots of holidays.

barneystinson

Vizzy wrote: »

If the Govt did away with the pension levy on Public servants I would certainly think that I had a payrise(or at least it would be increased back to what it was previously)

I thought pretty much everyone had agreed that the pension levy is a pay cut..?