Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

sharper

creedp wrote: »

Post 95 PS pay full PRSI

Yes. What does that have to do with pre-95 public sector workers?

ardmacha

If you deduct something from public sector pay and not from anything else then public sector pay is less".

As I said, by all means produce statistics showing other public expenditure less PAYE, PRSI, Pension levy, Pension contribution deducted at source, when the government does not need the cash to fund the gross amount of the expenditure.

We welcome data here.

sharper

ardmacha wrote: »

As I said, by all means produce statistics showing other public expenditure less PAYE, PRSI, Pension levy, Pension contribution deducted at source, when the government does not need the cash to fund the gross amount of the expenditure.

Firstly I am not making the claim that public sector pay is cheaper under criteria other than the gross pay criteria.

Secondly choosing direct taxation only as the deduction criteria is clear cherry picking in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

ardmacha

Secondly choosing direct taxation only as the deduction criteria is clear cherry picking in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with supporting a point by identifying relevant calculations. If you feel that the point is not valid then refute it, by proposing your own calculations, preferably more persuasive ones than you've managed so far.

sharper

ardmacha wrote: »

If you feel that the point is not valid then refute it, by proposing your own calculations, preferably more persuasive ones than you've managed so far.

I have pointed out a flaw in your calculations which demonstrates they're not reflective of the true cost of various types of government spending. I have made no claims regarding what the answer would be if the correct criteria are concluded therefore I need provide no calculation to support that claim.

You and others have made claim after claim in relation to the public sector pay and what you can deduct from it to make it appear cheaper. You all balk at the notion you're then required to make consistent comparisons.

Gryire

Maura74 wrote: »

Wow, wish that scheme was available in UK, but no such luck, however the public section in UK are lazy and some of them get generous holidays and guarantee pensions as well as generous sick pay, unlike the private sector.

I know some large multinationals give their employee a career break but that is unpaid with the proviso of maybe not getting the same job you left when they return to work. Also you have to be employed with the company for at least 2 years before you can get the benefit if any career breaks and it certainly unpaid.

It has been well established that we have the most highly paid Public Service in the world with the best pension entitlements / sick pay arrangements / holidays / working hours. That is why any job that becomes available is oversubscribed 10 times over. The people in the PS are doing their best to preserve what they have regardless of the costs to the Private Sector. What is wrong with this! They should be entitled to try and keep their excellent terms and conditions. It is up to government to change these but this will not hapoen. All that is going to happen is a bit of musical chairs and take out of one pocket and put it back into the other pocket. Remember the negotiations that have been going on are between the Public Service unions and the Public Service higher management. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

It has been well established that we have the most highly paid Public Service in the world with the best pension entitlements / sick pay arrangements / holidays / working hours. That is why any job that becomes available is oversubscribed 10 times over. The people in the PS are doing their best to preserve what they have regardless of the costs to the Private Sector. What is wrong with this! They should be entitled to try and keep their excellent terms and conditions. It is up to government to change these but this will not hapoen. All that is going to happen is a bit of musical chairs and take out of one pocket and put it back into the other pocket. Remember the negotiations that have been going on are between the Public Service unions and the Public Service higher management. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

Has is it been well established and if so where?

According to the OECD...."Middle managers, economists/policy analysts [my bit] and executive secretaries in the Irish public service receive total compensation that is quite close to the OECD average"

The required working week (34.75 hours) is lower than the OECD average, but that's the 'required working week' - the actual hours worked are different and I for one will definitely not work more than the required working week when this deal goes through - if salary is being linked to hours worked instead of job done, then the employer can have the hours paid for, and no more.

I also remember that up until late 2009 we had severe trouble recruiting and retaining staff. I remember more than once being laughed at in an interview when we told people what the starting salaries were, and we had plenty of people start but not even finish their first week - the record was held by one guy who started on Monday morning, go a call about another job and left by 10-30 without even the courtesy of telling anyone he was going!

The idea that the PS is a 'good' job has really only gained traction in the last 3/4 years up until then you were regarded almost as some kind of incompetent idiot who couldn't function anywhere else if you were inclined towards working in a job where service, rather than profit, was core value.




EDIT:- In 2009, clerical staff were paid below the OECD average - I can't imagine their situation has changed much in he wake of the various pay cuts that have been introduced since then.

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

Has is it been well established and if so where?

According to the OECD...."Middle managers, economists/policy analysts [my bit] and executive secretaries in the Irish public service receive total compensation that is quite close to the OECD average"

The required working week (34.75 hours) is lower than the OECD average, but that's the 'required working week' - the actual hours worked are different and I for one will definitely not work more than the required working week when this deal goes through - if salary is being linked to hours worked instead of job done, then the employer can have the hours paid for, and no more.

I also remember that up until late 2009 we had severe trouble recruiting and retaining staff. I remember more than once being laughed at in an interview when we told people what the starting salaries were, and we had plenty of people start but not even finish their first week - the record was held by one guy who started on Monday morning, go a call about another job and left by 10-30 without even the courtesy of telling anyone he was going!

The idea that the PS is a 'good' job has really only gained traction in the last 3/4 years up until then you were regarded almost as some kind of incompetent idiot who couldn't function anywhere else if you were inclined towards working in a job where service, rather than profit, was core value.

There is no one debating the the hours worked in the PS are less than the required of 34.75.

I am not sure what positions/salaries you are referring to in your reference to 2009 but if you want to elaborate, please do.

I am not sure what you mean about the idea that the PS is a 'good' job. It is not a 'good' job. It is a boring job suited to certain type of people. I think you will find how you were regarded in 2009 and has not changed in the current environment.

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

It has been well established that we have the most highly paid Public Service in the world with the best pension entitlements / sick pay arrangements / holidays / working hours. That is why any job that becomes available is oversubscribed 10 times over. The people in the PS are doing their best to preserve what they have regardless of the costs to the Private Sector. What is wrong with this! They should be entitled to try and keep their excellent terms and conditions. It is up to government to change these but this will not hapoen. All that is going to happen is a bit of musical chairs and take out of one pocket and put it back into the other pocket. Remember the negotiations that have been going on are between the Public Service unions and the Public Service higher management. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

Same old rhetoric .. anyone would think that PS had not had their pay cut, other terms and conditions reduced, numbers cut, etc over the last 4 years.

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean about the idea that the PS is a 'good' job. It is not a 'good' job. It is a boring job suited to certain type of people. I think you will find how you were regarded in 2009 and has not changed in the current environment.

Chr1st there's a sweeping generalisation for you!

Gryire

creedp wrote: »

Chr1st there's a sweeping generalisation for you!

The 'you' is the one referred to by 'Jawgap'

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

There is no one debating the the hours worked in the PS are less than the required of 34.75.

I am not sure what positions/salaries you are referring to in your reference to 2009 but if you want to elaborate, please do.

I am not sure what you mean about the idea that the PS is a 'good' job. It is not a 'good' job. It is a boring job suited to certain type of people. I think you will find how you were regarded in 2009 and has not changed in the current environment.

You can read the links to see which jobs / positions are being referred to.

You seem not to have much concept of what goes on in the PS - it's as interesting as you want it to be; and given that three times in the last 7 years I've been approached about returing to the private sector (the last time was last September) - I think I know exactly how I'm perceived.

These public servants seem to have less than boring jobs....

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

The 'you' is the one referred to by 'Jawgap'

I'll rephrase as obviously I've caused confusion .. Chr1st there's a sweepng generalisation if there ever was one!

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

The 'you' is the one referred to by 'Jawgap'

To quote Churchill......



".....eh?"

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

You can read the links to see which jobs / positions are being referred to.

You seem not to have much concept of what goes on in the PS - it's as interesting as you want it to be; and given that three times in the last 7 years I've been approached about returing to the private sector (the last time was last September) - I think I know exactly how I'm perceived.

These public servants seem to have less than boring jobs....

I know a awful lot about the PS and if you read my original post, you might have picked up that I think the unions are dead right to defend the working conditions. There is no need to be embarrassed about having a cushy job with good salary and pension.

I doubt that the private sector could match your terms and conditions!!!!

It is not a good idea to use an exception to get a point across.

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

It is not a good idea to use an exception to get a point across.

Its even less of a good idea to use a unsubstantiated sweeping generalisation for thesame purpose.

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

I know a awful lot about the PS and if you read my original post, you might have picked up that I think the unions are dead right to defend the working conditions. There is no need to be embarrassed about having a cushy job with good salary and pension.

I doubt that the private sector could match your terms and conditions!!!!

It is not a good idea to use an exception to get a point across.

More non-boring PS jobs





By the way the deal my potnetial employer was offering far exceeded what I'm getting in the PS - they were offering the same salary, an expensed car, private medical for me and the family etc.

The kicker though was that they know I'm a keen cyclist so I was offered - instead of a golf club, sports club or gym subscription - a bike to the value of about €3k!!

I know from working for the firm in question before I'd be well looked after in return for putting the hours in, but as I've said before - it's more fun being a gamekeeper than a poacher!

sharper

Jawgap wrote: »

I know from working for the firm in question before I'd be well looked after in return for putting the hours in, but as I've said before - it's more fun being a gamekeeper than a poacher!

From an employer perspective, why should you be paid more than what you're willing to do the job for? You clearly have other more lucrative options which you don't avail of because you like where you are, so why should your pay and conditions not reflect that?

Jawgap

sharper wrote: »

From an employer perspective, why should you be paid more than what you're willing to do the job for? You clearly have other more lucrative options which you don't avail of because you like where you are, so why should your pay and conditions not reflect that?

Because that's not how it works - the market dictates what the salaries and benefits packages are, that's why footballers earn in a week what nurses earn in five years.

I like the job I have for two reasons which a private employers can't match. First, it's interesting being at the centre and I'd rather be making the rules than be bound by them.

Secondly, I've done my business travelling and I like not having to bounce all aound the place at the beck and call of clients. In my own particular area, if I returned to the private sector I'd be spending a lot more time in the UK; I like sleeping in my own bed.

Head The Wall

So you would have got paid more to do a different job i.e not a valid comparison

Vizzy

Jawgap wrote: »

The kicker though was that they know I'm a keen cyclist so I was offered - instead of a golf club, sports club or gym subscription - a bike to the value of about €3k!!

Meh- wouldn't even get you the wheels on one of Astrmonti's creations:):)

sharper

Jawgap wrote: »

Because that's not how it works - the market dictates what the salaries and benefits packages are, that's why footballers earn in a week what nurses earn in five years.

The market pays the minimum people are willing to do the job for. You're very clearly willing to do the job for less because of some factor that attracts you to it. There's nothing wrong with that but you're obviously in no way "stuck" in your current position so I'm not at all clear what the basis of your complaint is - if you want to earn more money you can but you have to sacrifice something else to do it. People have to make these choices all the time.

In the IT industry compare something like enterprise applications to games development. The latter is objectively more difficult and more stressful yet pays less. This is because people want to work in the games industry and they're willing to sacrifice pay, terms and conditions in order to do so.

You prefer being a gamekeeper to a poacher which is again fine but your preference doesn't come for free. If you're no longer willing to do the job maybe someone places even more value on being a gamekeeper than you and is willing.

Jawgap

sharper wrote: »

The market pays the minimum people are willing to do the job for. You're very clearly willing to do the job for less because of some factor that attracts you to it. There's nothing wrong with that but you're obviously in no way "stuck" in your current position so I'm not at all clear what the basis of your complaint is - if you want to earn more money you can but you have to sacrifice something else to do it. People have to make these choices all the time.

In the IT industry compare something like enterprise applications to games development. The latter is objectively more difficult and more stressful yet pays less. This is because people want to work in the games industry and they're willing to sacrifice pay, terms and conditions in order to do so.

You prefer being a gamekeeper to a poacher which is again fine but your preference doesn't come for free. If you're no longer willing to do the job maybe someone places even more value on being a gamekeeper than you and is willing.

I think if you read back you'll see I'm not against the pay cuts, what I am against is the unfair way with which they are being dealt with and implemented - and the total lack of acknowledgement of other income reduction initiatives in the PS.

The market pays what people think they can get away asking for, it doesn't always end up at the minimum - the minimum I'm willing to work for and the minimum a prospective employer is willing to pay can be very different figures - if an employer offers me more than my minimum, I'm hardly likely to say, "you're grand, I'll do it for 10k less!"

And I know I'm as 'stuck' as I want to be - and I'm lucky in the sense that many of my colleagues in the PS lack the opportunities to move that I do.

As for trade-offs, I've pretty much made them - my current plan is to pare back by working hours to minimum required under the revised deal, then take the extra time and use that to take on some additional project work (in the UK) - again not an option available to everyone, but it's better than passively accepting the cuts.

sharper

Jawgap wrote: »

The market pays what people think they can get away asking for, it doesn't always end up at the minimum - the minimum I'm willing to work for and the minimum a prospective employer is willing to pay can be very different figures - if an employer offers me more than my minimum, I'm hardly likely to say, "you're grand, I'll do it for 10k less!"

I'm not saying the jobs market provides a 100% efficient transaction every time but nevertheless the principle holds true and on average it works out that way like in my games industry example.

Any of the private sector organisations you join may well find themselves in difficulty in a few years and your terms and conditions will change again, then you'll have to decide whether to stick it out or find something better.

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

I think if you read back you'll see I'm not against the pay cuts, what I am against is the unfair way with which they are being dealt with and implemented - and the total lack of acknowledgement of other income reduction initiatives in the PS.

The market pays what people think they can get away asking for, it doesn't always end up at the minimum - the minimum I'm willing to work for and the minimum a prospective employer is willing to pay can be very different figures - if an employer offers me more than my minimum, I'm hardly likely to say, "you're grand, I'll do it for 10k less!"

And I know I'm as 'stuck' as I want to be - and I'm lucky in the sense that many of my colleagues in the PS lack the opportunities to move that I do.

As for trade-offs, I've pretty much made them - my current plan is to pare back by working hours to minimum required under the revised deal, then take the extra time and use that to take on some additional project work (in the UK) - again not an option available to everyone, but it's better than passively accepting the cuts.

I hope you are going to pay tax on the additional work !!!!!!!!

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

I hope you are going to pay tax on the additional work !!!!!!!!

I sure am - it's being organised through a consultancy so they'll make the necessary deductions. However, it'll be going to HM Revenue rather than here.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

.

Your argument is "If you deduct something from public sector pay and not from anything else then public sector pay is less". That's just not useful of sensible.

I will thank you not to repeat my arguments, especially in quotations, when you have repeatedly demonstrated (most clearly in the above post) that you do not understand the arguments.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

Secondly choosing direct taxation only as the deduction criteria is clear cherry picking in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

No it is not.

Indirect taxation applies to all expenditure resulting from government transfers in a fairly equal fashion. In fact, given that VAT rates that apply to luxury goods are higher, you can argue that VAT is a progressive tax. Even if the higher-paid save money, that is subject to DIRT. As against that some would argue that as lower-paid and social welfare spend more on everyday items and not on travel abroad, there is some opposite trends. Then again, expenditure in the black market is higher the lower your income. An assumption that indirect tax applies equally for the purposes of comparison is a valid one given those factors. Certainly it is clear that the measurement issues would not justify trying to calculate for it as the likely outcome would be not significant in the greater scheme of things.

On the other hand, direct taxation is both easily measurable and differentially applied. The marginal tax rate on unemployment benefit is 0%, meaning the government gets nothing back. The marginal tax rate for public servants (inclusive of superannuation and pension-related pay deduction) is over 60%, as previously shown on this thread.

So, to conclude, the analysis above suggests that a comparison net of direct taxes is valid.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

I will thank you not to repeat my arguments, especially in quotations, when you have repeatedly demonstrated (most clearly in the above post) that you do not understand the arguments.

The use of paraphrase is perfectly acceptable. The curious might wonder why you chose to abandon your own argument to become offended by it.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

Indirect taxation applies to all expenditure resulting from government transfers in a fairly equal fashion.

You state this and then go on talk about factors that make it unequal.

People that are genuinely interested in the effects of cutting different types of government spending follow all available avenues to understand it. People that are really only interested in trying to justify something they've already decided pick criteria that suits them and then refuse to budge from it.