Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

antoobrien

antoobrien wrote: »

Given your initial & subsequent comments it appears that it is not only obvious but explanation is still required.


I suppose it would be an incredible leap if you can't equate the public/taxpayer to being the customer of the PS rather than just a funding source. Lets face it, we pay the gross figure - same as the analogy earlier. The fact that the PS worker does not see part of it is irrelevant to the cost of employing them.

Maybe if we removed deduction at source for PS workers and had the relevant departments report the deductions to revenue and made the PS workers pay the tax themselves they'd see the difference.

The PS are also in your analogy both the customer and the service being provided, I don't see how you have accounted for that. So while being paid for by antoobrien they are also acting as antoobrien inc and paying.

kippy

antoobrien wrote: »

The last word on this I have is that it is not and can not be the true cost. As every business person knows the true cost is gross wage (including bik) & employers PRSI & employers pension contribution - that figure is the figure that has to be funded from taxes. You would like us to ignore it and use a lower figure because it doesn't go into the pockets of PS workers.

To out this in an Angola that you might understand, lets say antoobrien inc. buys a HR application off kippy inc. The application needs hardware, OS, databases & application servers to run, so they also have to buy all that, bringing the total cost of the system to €10m.

Does the CEO of antoobrien inc. care that the CFO of kippy inc decides that the apps team should only get €1m of the total paid, the hardware division gets €2m and the infrastructure software teams (db, application servers etc) get €5m and €2m goes to cover other costs? Hell no, he cares that the application cost his company €10m to buy.

PS pay is the exact same thing - it doesn't matter to the taxpayer what the government allocates parts of the pot to, it matters what the pot costs!

That example is nothing at all close to the scenario we are looking at unless anobrien inc is a major shareholder in kippy inc.
Infact even if you look at it that way, it makes no sense at all.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

What is the difference? So now the PS worker receives a payment (A) from the State. He then hands a proportion (B) of this payment straight back to the State. Cost to taxpayer of the PS salary(C) = A-B. Now the State uses these deductions to fund welfare/CB, pay down national debt, etc.

creedp, that logic would be valid if the goverment gave B back to the taxpayer, but it does not. It keeps it.

All the mental contortions in the world does not change the fact that A is the amount tax has to be gathered to pay the amount C, regardless off what B is actually used for.

At this point I'm just going to give up because it's like talking to brick walls.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

why would you include pensions contributions? Pension contributions are not a source of income for the government.

Eh, according to the national accounts, they are a source of income. They are treated as an appropriation-in-aid and help to bring the deficit down. Where do you think the pension contributions go? Into some mythical pension fund?

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

creedp, that logic would be valid if the goverment gave B back to the taxpayer, but it does not. It keeps it.

All the mental contortions in the world does not change the fact that A is the amount tax has to be gathered to pay the amount C, regardless off what B is actually used for.

At this point I'm just going to give up because it's like talking to brick walls.

You really have a mental block on this. As B, taken off the public servant is used for example to pay social welfare, it means that if it wasn't for B, the taxpayer would be asked for more.

Let us put is another way once more. Say the private sector taxpayers of Ireland pay the wages of the first two-thirds of public servants. Then 50% of their income is collected by the government and used to pay the final one-third (do the maths, it works) then is the cost of the public service to the taxpayer the full cost or the two-thirds cost? Answers on a postcard......

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Eh, according to the national accounts, they are a source of income. They are treated as an appropriation-in-aid and help to bring the deficit down. Where do you think the pension contributions go? Into some mythical pension fund?

You don't see a difference in say income tax and pension contributions?

antoobrien

kippy wrote: »

I'm gonna try and move on this discussion as I, probably more than anyone else, have assisted to derail it.

What CP2 should look to achieve:

1. Centralised Payroll and possibly HR for any Civil or Public service body.
This, in my opinion is critical. There are people within the same departments even who are on different pay frequencies and pay methods (some still get cheques) and there are different payrolls software used across the various units with different staff operating them all, some local, some national.
There is NO reason in my mind that the vast majority of payroll based work cannot be centralised and indeed payment frequencies and methods be standardised.

2. A move towards a centralised IT group for CERTAIN functions.

Personally I wouldn't stop there, I'd say we have to go beyond just HR & Payroll, bring in ERP, CRM, Fins, Case management and possibly a few others, across all departments & quangos. If there is any duplication of systems at all they can be and should be consolidated. Dump the home grown stuff that requires specific expertise to run, get IBM, HP, SAP etc - which have pools of experienced people available (reduced training costs in the long run).

Standardise hardware (my company have a 3 year hardware replacement cycle for servers - no reason why we couldn't start replacing 3-5 year old machines) and software across departments, which will make further savings on licensing & maintenance to the ones you have outlined.

It's not specific to staffing, but we need to have a serious look at analytics software (reporting is one of the functions of this). It can be used to help generate reports on pretty much anything that information is gathered on. The biggest place benefit of it would be means testing welfare payments, which would pay for the system in a couple of years in savings on CB alone.

kippy wrote: »

3. A move from the 34.75 hour working week to a 36.75 working week.

Why stop there, 39 hour week is the standard working week. If we're going to do that we may as well drop the standard working week to 36.75 hours, which might (but probably won't) create more jobs.

kippy wrote: »

4. A stipulation that PROPER and MEANINGFUL performance appraisal linked DIRECTLY to salary be implemented. Basicilly the scrapping of time based increments.

I don't hold out hope for this, they got around it in benchmarking.


I'd like to see all middle managers & above being converted to fixed period contracts with the phrase "perform tasks including but not limited to" introduced - that should cure the "but it's not my job" syndrome.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

You really have a mental block on this. As B, taken off the public servant is used for example to pay social welfare, it means that if it wasn't for B, the taxpayer would be asked for more.

Let us put is another way once more. Say the private sector taxpayers of Ireland pay the wages of the first two-thirds of public servants. Then 50% of their income is collected by the government and used to pay the final one-third (do the maths, it works) then is the cost of the public service to the taxpayer the full cost or the two-thirds cost? Answers on a postcard......

Oh goody, rhetoricals. I refer your mental block to my previous posts. If you still have a mental block, tell someone who cares.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Godge forget measureing the reason we are doing this is to bring costs down. Tax payers looking at whats going on within the public sector..see the costs being shifted from pay by people taking retirement and redundancy and see these costs transfered to the ps pensions and social welfare..We are looking to bring costs down and to date the spend side since 2008 hasnt moved much at all. Now these same tax payers see their taxes increased year in year out for 5 years and the listen to union leaders threaten to strike if pay rises are stopped or if outdated allowances are taken away. If you want to measure something it has to be the total spend this country is on the hook for we can no longer move expenditure from Column A to B and expect that to be enough

let me divide your points into two.

First, in relation to bringing costs down. You are wrong to say that the spend side hasn't moved since 2008. The net pay and pensions bill (and by net is meant net of pension levy etc and not net of income tax) has come down from 18.753 bn in 2008 to 16.904 in 2012, a reduction of 9.8%. The credibility of your points (and others who make similar points on here) is reduced by the fact that this is continually ignored and unacknowledged. While I am no longer a public servant, I can see why those on here who are, react so strongly when so many posters are ignoring the fact that the pay bill has sharply dropped and the total pay bill has also come down a lot though not quite as far.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf


Secondly, if what we are looking to do is reduce the budget deficit, then it does matter what the actual real saving to the government from a particular measure is. So the real net (net of pension levy and then net of taxes, prsi and usc) is the figure that will affect the budget deficit.

What is plainly obvious is that the vast bulk of public servants are on scales below 70,000. Any cut that saves money will have to hit them hard and that includes those below 40,000 and 50,000. To have any effect on the budget deficit, that hit will have to be in the order of 25-30% on those. That means that there is a big issue with regard to rates of social welfare and other social provision. Many of these would be better off on social welfare than continuing working for the public service. (There is also the fairness question of why one group should have to take 25-30% of a hit greater than any other group but let us just deal with the mathematical reality). As a result from pure maths and allowing for changes in tax receipts, the money isn't there if you want to keep employing teachers and nurses etc. In fact, even the targeted 1 bn that Noonan has set out looks extremely ambitious to me. To explain in a different way, bringing all public servants down to a maximum of 70,000 would probably save only around 200-250m. That means you need 750m from those who didn't get a 50% pay-cut. Other measures, especially in relation to social welfare which is 22bn and climbing are needed.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

You don't see a difference in say income tax and pension contributions?

Doesn't matter what I see, they are both treated as income to the Government (albeit in slightly different ways) in the national accounts that calculate the budget deficit.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

What is plainly obvious is that the vast bulk of public servants are on scales below 70,000.

There was a post in a previous thread that gave these figures (can't find it now unfortunately) based on figures provided by Brendan Howlin.

Anyone know where we can get these?

Tim Robbins

I am private sector. One thing that really worries me increasing the hours of the public sector worker.

Why? Because when you have kids you realise that working a long week is awful - you never see your kids. If one of you can manage to get a PS job then you have a chance.

Furthermore, if 40 hour weeks become the norm in public sector you can bet you dollar that 42.5 hour will be pencilled into your contract which will translate to 50 hour week being the norm.

The public sector are the low water mark on the hours. If they are made work more than all boats will rise. Bad news for all of us.

I would prefer if they just did things like changed lunch break times so libraries remained open during lunch hour.

antoobrien

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would prefer if they just did things like changed lunch break times so libraries remained open during lunch hour.

Staggered staff starting times so that offices open at 9am, close at 5/6 (if that's the normal business opening time) and coverage is available so that offices are open during lunch hours.

Tim Robbins

antoobrien wrote: »

Staggered staff starting times so that offices open at 9am, close at 5/6 (if that's the normal business opening time) and coverage is available so that offices are open during lunch hours.

Yeah so its win win. If they extend flexi time hours - and they on a sort of a pro-rata basis there could be a win.

antoobrien

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yeah so its win win. If they extend flexi time hours - and they on a sort of a pro-rata basis there could be a win.

It's not flexi-time, which allows for arbitrary start & end times with fixed core hours, rather better rostering of start & end times to give more flexibility..

eric hoone

Leave the workers alone, cut the pensions.
There's pensioners earning more than the workers who replace them, it's perverse.

Gumbo

antoobrien wrote: »

Anyone know where we can get these?

€0-€20,000 19,442
€20,001-€30,000 26,749
€30,001-€40,000 66,504
€40,001-€50,000 68,935
€50,001-€60,000 44,019
€60,001-€70,000 30,315
€70,001-€80,000 22,285
€80,001-€90,000 10,814
€90,001-€100,000 4,146
€100,001-€125,000 3,043
€125,001-€150,000 1,212
Over €150,000 2,536

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am private sector. One thing that really worries me increasing the hours of the public sector worker.

Why? Because when you have kids you realise that working a long week is awful - you never see your kids. If one of you can manage to get a PS job then you have a chance.

Furthermore, if 40 hour weeks become the norm in public sector you can bet you dollar that 42.5 hour will be pencilled into your contract which will translate to 50 hour week being the norm.

The public sector are the low water mark on the hours. If they are made work more than all boats will rise. Bad news for all of us.

I would prefer if they just did things like changed lunch break times so libraries remained open during lunch hour.

antoobrien wrote: »

Staggered staff starting times so that offices open at 9am, close at 5/6 (if that's the normal business opening time) and coverage is available so that offices are open during lunch hours.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yeah so its win win. If they extend flexi time hours - and they on a sort of a pro-rata basis there could be a win.

antoobrien wrote: »

It's not flexi-time, which allows for arbitrary start & end times with fixed core hours, rather better rostering of start & end times to give more flexibility..

Im a firm believer of work/life balance too. Flexi time allows for a slightly earlier or slightly later staff start/finish. In our office, core hours are 7.30am-6.30pm.

There is always someone here during lunch, mostly 3-4 as the age profile allows for the younger staff to get a bit of lunch together while the older staff tend to stick together too, or do something different. Theres only 9 in my Dept though so its a tight nit office and very easy to keep on top of.

Most of the larger libraries in North Dublin open through lunch too, including Raheny, Donaghmeade, Coolock, Finglas, Ballymun and Cabra.
Drumcondra, Phibsboro and Charleville Mall close for lunch at present.

Havent got the southside libraries in front of me so cant comment on them at the moment.

antoobrien

kceire wrote: »

€0-€20,000 19,442
€20,001-€30,000 26,749
€30,001-€40,000 66,504
€40,001-€50,000 68,935
€50,001-€60,000 44,019
€60,001-€70,000 30,315
€70,001-€80,000 22,285
€80,001-€90,000 10,814
€90,001-€100,000 4,146
€100,001-€125,000 3,043
€125,001-€150,000 1,212
Over €150,000 2,536

I'm sure you'll forgive me for asking for the source of that as well;).

kceire wrote: »

Flexi time allows for a slightly earlier or slightly later staff start/finish. In our office, core hours are 7.30am-6.30pm.

I've no problem with flexi time, we have it in my office too, but it's open to everyone saying "I don't have to be in until x" leaving the office closed. I'd be in favour if it if the balance of opening hours & flexibility could be matched,

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Doesn't matter what I see, they are both treated as income to the Government (albeit in slightly different ways) in the national accounts that calculate the budget deficit.

I agree it doesn't matter, however I am just asking your opinion. Do you see a difference between pension contributions and say income tax?

I am assuming that pension payments to the PS are thus considered an expense? If so, I would guess the loss in pension contributions will eventually be balanced by the reduction in pensions expenses.

Gumbo

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm sure you'll forgive me for asking for the source of that as well;).



I've no problem with flexi time, we have it in my office too, but it's open to everyone saying "I don't have to be in until x" leaving the office closed. I'd be in favour if it if the balance of opening hours & flexibility could be matched,

Sorry, I should of put the link in. It's a leaders question that was answered in the dial in July 2012. I saved the PDF on my desktop in work, I'll link it tomorrow.

Edit - http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/07/04/00028.asp#N2

In our place we have a rota to ensure there's people here till close of business each day, at least one member of staff is there.

Tim Robbins

kceire wrote: »

including Raheny, Donaghmeade, Coolock, Finglas, Ballymun and Cabra.
Drumcondra, Phibsboro and Charleville Mall close for lunch at present.

Havent got the southside libraries in front of me so cant comment on them at the moment.

Swords and Malahide are closed for lunch and close for the Saturday of a bank holiday as well.

Anyway in these debates there is a massive emphasis on pay where the public sector is ahead. I think the two most important things about a job are:

1. How many hours a week are you going to have to commit to this job? (Will you have time for a hobbie outside work or time to see your family?)
2. How likely is it you are going to get the sack or be made redundant?

In these jobs the public sector are light years ahead, mainly because of the Unions I suppose.

deise blue

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Swords and Malahide are closed for lunch and close for the Saturday of a bank holiday as well.

Anyway in these debates there is a massive emphasis on pay where the public sector is ahead. I think the two most important things about a job are:

1. How many hours a week are you going to have to commit to this job? (Will you have time for a hobbie outside work or time to see your family?)
2. How likely is it you are going to get the sack or be made redundant?

In these jobs the public sector are light years ahead, mainly because of the Unions I suppose.

I have worked all across the private sector , admittedly in all unionised workforces ( thankfully ) & my standard working week was always 32.5 hours.

Over a period of 30 years I worked in a flour mills , a furniture factory , a brewery , a fruit growing operation & more recently in a Bank - my core hours were 9 to 5 with a 15 minute break in the morning & afternoon & a 1 hour lunch & because of the physically demanding nature of the work in all my jobs with the exception of the Bank you really needed the morning & afternoon breaks !

There must be numerous workers currently employed in factories , retail & financial areas who still work a 32.5 hour working week - certainly the Banks standard week is still 32.5 hours - for the life of me I cannot fathom how the average working week is reckoned to be 39 hours .

Gumbo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Swords and Malahide are closed for lunch and close for the Saturday of a bank holiday as well.

Anyway in these debates there is a massive emphasis on pay where the public sector is ahead. I think the two most important things about a job are:

1. How many hours a week are you going to have to commit to this job? (Will you have time for a hobbie outside work or time to see your family?)
2. How likely is it you are going to get the sack or be made redundant?

In these jobs the public sector are light years ahead, mainly because of the Unions I suppose.

My list would be Dublin council libraries, I didn't check for fingal county libraries.

antoobrien

deise blue wrote: »

I have worked all across the private sector , admittedly in all unionised workforces ( thankfully ) & my standard working week was always 32.5 hours.

.
.

There must be numerous workers currently employed in factories , retail & financial areas who still work a 32.5 hour working week - certainly the Banks standard week is still 32.5 hours - for the life of me I cannot fathom how the average working week is reckoned to be 39 hours .

I've worked in a mixture of union & non union places (don't recall being a union member) in Galway & Dublin - never less than 39 hours, usually more due to overtime (I loved the double time after midnight in one place). There's nowhere (private) I know of in either Galway or Dublin that does 32.5 hours, the only exception I can think of is the three day weeks factories in Galway, which might be 3x12 - though I couldn't say they don't do 3x13.

The banks have a lot of setup to do before opening, as well as end of day processing after closing, so I doubt (despite their opening hours) they're working as little as that (35 sounds much more realistic).

The only people I know of (private) working less than 35 are part time workers.

If 32.5 hours offered for the same pay I'd tell them I'll do Monday to Thursday and take Friday off, after tearing their hand off for it.

deise blue

antoobrien wrote: »

I've worked in a mixture of union & non union places (don't recall being a union member) in Galway & Dublin - never less than 39 hours, usually more due to overtime (I loved the double time after midnight in one place). There's nowhere (private) I know of in either Galway or Dublin that does 32.5 hours, the only exception I can think of is the three day weeks factories in Galway, which might be 3x12 - though I couldn't say they don't do 3x13.

The banks have a lot of setup to do before opening, as well as end of day processing after closing, so I doubt (despite their opening hours) they're working as little as that (35 sounds much more realistic).

The only people I know of (private) working less than 35 are part time workers.

If 32.5 hours offered for the same pay I'd tell them I'll do Monday to Thursday and take Friday off, after tearing their hand off for it.

The Banks standard working week is 32.5 hours - an indisputable fact , this standard working week has been agreed between the the Banks & the IBOA Union - there is a further agreement in place that all overtime must be recorded & paid for.

I am aware that the same hours operate throughout the financial sector generally although the question of paid overtime is probably predicated on whether the particular institution is Unionised or not.

Itchianus

antoobrien wrote: »

I've worked in a mixture of union & non union places (don't recall being a union member) in Galway & Dublin - never less than 39 hours, usually more due to overtime (I loved the double time after midnight in one place). There's nowhere (private) I know of in either Galway or Dublin that does 32.5 hours, the only exception I can think of is the three day weeks factories in Galway, which might be 3x12 - though I couldn't say they don't do 3x13.

The banks have a lot of setup to do before opening, as well as end of day processing after closing, so I doubt (despite their opening hours) they're working as little as that (35 sounds much more realistic).

The only people I know of (private) working less than 35 are part time workers.

If 32.5 hours offered for the same pay I'd tell them I'll do Monday to Thursday and take Friday off, after tearing their hand off for it.

You're a gas man Anto, the previous poster has just told you that they've worked in a bank, and you respond with that. :rolleyes: you should change your username to antoknowsbest...

FWIW (and obviously to you it'll be nothing since you'll know doubt know better), in the 8 years between leaving college and taking my current PS job, in the several professional firms I worked for my hours were 9 - 5:30, with two 15 minute tea-breaks and an hour for lunch. That works out as 35 hours worked.

(Although in one of those firms we had to charge our time on time budgeting software, but we only had to charge 6:45 per day, I never figured out why they gave us an extra 15 free minutes without actually giving it to us...)

deise blue

deise blue wrote: »

The Banks standard working week is 32.5 hours - an indisputable fact

Indisputable? 32.5 hours? Since when? Which bank/banks/banks'/bank's do you mean?

woodoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Furthermore, if 40 hour weeks become the norm in public sector you can bet you dollar that 42.5 hour will be pencilled into your contract which will translate to 50 hour week being the norm.

The public sector are the low water mark on the hours. If they are made work more than all boats will rise. Bad news for all of us.

I agree it would be the beginning of a rise for all. But there is no danger of public servants working 40 hours. it wouldn't wash at all. The government have asked for 39. Compromise would mean about 37 hrs per week. I would say the government will be lucky to get 36 hrs.

I will promise to run naked through O'Connell Street on a busy Saturday afternoon if it is any more than 36 hrs.

deise blue

Deleted User wrote: »

Indisputable? 32.5 hours? Since when? Which bank/banks/banks'/bank's do you mean?

AIB & Bank of Ireland both operate a standard 32.5 hour week , obviously there is variable hours - as a departmental worker in BOI I had the option of commencing work at 8.30 , 9 or 9.30.

I enjoyed a 15 minute break in the morning & afternoon & an hour for lunch , I availed of the 8.30 start & finished at 4.30 , when overtime was required it was recorded from 4.30 on & paid at the appropriate rate.

My wife currently works in a Dublin city centre branch & commences work at 9.30 & enjoys the same lunch & tea breaks - it is an exceptional day if she leaves the branch after 5.15.

The standard week to which I refer is a registered agreement between the Banks in question & the IBOA - I'm sure either party can confirm same to you if you are in any doubt.

By the way I have no reason to believe that other banks operating in the state don't have the same standard week.

deise blue

deise blue wrote: »

The standard week to which I refer is a registered agreement between the Banks in question & the IBOA - I'm sure either party can confirm same to you if you are in any doubt.

The IBOA doesn't agree with you.

http://www.iboa.ie/join/howiboacanhelpy.html


For ease of reference:

"By law the average working week is set at a maximum of 48 hours. However, most IBOA members work a basic 35-hour week. If overtime is necessary, it should be paid at one and a half times the hourly rate for any hours worked over and above the 35-hour basic. "