Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

woodoo

BigEejit wrote: »

Oh hey, is this the thread where the PS people put forward weak arguments stating that the cuts should be somewhere else, like those people on the dole. And then the people on the dole have similarly weak arguments stating that the PS should have their wages cut.... And then they both agree the private sector needs to be taxed more to pay for both?

The Public Service workers will pay any tax rises that the private sector are subjected too.

Good loser

All this comparison of wage cuts in the public service with wage cuts elsewhere is irrelevant. Because the PS is a bankrupt entity to all intents and purposes. Even when comparisons are made the job security (10%) and carrying of the useless (another 10%) should mean PS salaries significantly lower than equivalent Private Sector salaries.

Until there is exchequer balance the PS costs will have to be continuously examined and ground down where appropriate.

The test should be: sufficient money should be paid to recruit and retain staff and no more.

Fat chance that will happen!

Godge

Good loser wrote: »

All this comparison of wage cuts in the public service with wage cuts elsewhere is irrelevant. Because the PS is a bankrupt entity to all intents and purposes. Even when comparisons are made the job security (10%) and carrying of the useless (another 10%) should mean PS salaries significantly lower than equivalent Private Sector salaries.

Until there is exchequer balance the PS costs will have to be continuously examined and ground down where appropriate.

The test should be: sufficient money should be paid to recruit and retain staff and no more.

Fat chance that will happen!

The problems with a simplistic unthinking analysis like this are numerous. Apart from the fact that it has nothing to back it up - where did the poster get the figure that 10% is the value of job security (in the pub?) - it ignores the fact that there are other policy options to bring the GGB to 3% (we actually don't need to balance, only those ignorant of public policy believe we do) such as cutting social welfare, increasing taxes or cutting foreign aid or grants to farmers and sportsmen. Not saying that any of these options should be taken but to equate balancing the budget with cutting public service pay is probably first year economics (first year of school that is, not first year of third level).

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

Had a quick look at report ..seemed pretty clear to me that pay increases have been awarded across the board in 2012 and are planned for 2013.

What the definition of across the board are you using?

Across the board: Including or applying to all categories or members

broad-based salary increases generally have not been paid in the Covered Institutions since 2009, over 60% of participants in the Mercer remuneration databases paid increases in 2012, averaging around 2%

60% getting increases means that up to 40% did not get pay rises in an "across the board" pay increase.

creedp wrote: »

Interesting summary on page 95 of report

There are a number of interesting items before the "summary":
staff are paid to Irish medians (and often below)
the numbers of staff have come down by approx 1/7 of 2008 levels
increments have offset non core salary losses.

I don't see it mentioned in there but the redundancies have been largely targeted at the lower levels, which will cause average pay to rise and it appears that there have been no salary increases between for 2010 & 2011 (or at least they are not mentioned if they occurred).

It's a great pity that they didn't include comparative data for every category they showed 2012 data (e.g on page 48 the discussion of salary by grade has no 2008 equivalent).

creedp

Good loser wrote: »

All this comparison of wage cuts in the public service with wage cuts elsewhere is irrelevant. Because the PS is a bankrupt entity to all intents and purposes. Even when comparisons are made the job security (10%) and carrying of the useless (another 10%) should mean PS salaries significantly lower than equivalent Private Sector salaries.

If the comparison is irrelevant why are there pages of comments seeking the slashing of PS pay because the average PS pay is higher that theaverage private sector pay? Lets put that to bed so!

Until there is exchequer balance the PS costs will have to be continuously examined and ground down where appropriate.

As for this one - I can see why it would be attractive for non PS workers - Govt please balance the books by cutting PS pay and by the way while you're at it cut my taxes and make up the shortfall by cutting PS pay further ... in fact why pay them at all.

Presumably you'd apply to same logic to bank pay - keep cutting pay until the banck are sustainable and profitable again!

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

There are a number of interesting items before the "summary":
staff are paid to Irish medians (and often below)
the numbers of staff have come down by approx 1/7 of 2008 levels
increments have offset non core salary losses..

The reason I referred to the summary is that it takes into account what have come before it.



While there has been a sharp reduction in overall remuneration costs at the Covered

Institutions, our Review highlights that this has been achieved primarily through

headcount reductions and the elimination of incentives. These incentives were linked to

the high levels of profits being recognised during the boom years, which have

subsequently proved to be illusory. Salaries on the other hand have increased in all of

the entities over the 2008-12 period, and this is the fixed cost that the Institutions must

recover on an annual basis through their revenue line.

Given that incentives (now eliminated) were generally offered to more senior staff, it is

no surprise that the market review shows that it is those at middle and lower levels

(where the vast bulk of employee numbers and overall cost lies) within the Covered

Institutions, that are shown to have salary and total remuneration levels close to, or

above their comparator groups.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

The reason I referred to the summary is that it takes into account what have come before it.

The summary is distortative and like all summaries it cherry picks points.

creedp wrote: »

subsequently proved to be illusory. Salaries on the other hand have increased in all of

the entities over the 2008-12 period

There is mention of 1 salary review between after 2009, in 2012 where salaries went up by on average 2%. The text used makes it look like they've been living the Life of Reilly for the 4 year period with big pay increases regularly happening. You'd be (rightly) outraged if the same words were used to describe the application of increments to any PS salaries.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

60% getting increases means that up to 40% did not get pay rises in an "across the board" pay increase.

But only about 40% of public servants (at most) would receive an increment in any one year yet that is described as an "across the board" pay increase? Definition failure here.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

But only about 40% of public servants (at most) would receive an increment in any one year yet that is described as an "across the board" pay increase? Definition failure here.

I don't think anybody had described increments as across the board, especially after it is made clear that they are not.

But then somehow increments are not counted as pay raises despite the fact that this is what they do, so go figure.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

The summary is distortative and like all summaries it cherry picks points.

So now we find that we can't use averages or summaries to support our position. Its amazing how when the story doesn't support an argument .. the story is wrong.

I suppose what I am taking from the implicit lack of support for recommendations that bank pay should be cut is that people don't support reductions in wages for employees where their employer is broke. Obviously then as people in general are pretty objective and impartial I'm going to assume that they would want this principle applied to all employees.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

So now we find that we can't use averages or summaries to support our position. Its amazing how when the story doesn't support an argument .. the story is wrong.

I'm saying, as you have before wrt PS pay, that the averages don't tell the whole story. Trying to use them now when the private sector bashers (not aimed at you specificially but if PS bajhers is valid then so is ps;)) have specifically said in the past they're not valid for PS pay is well, childish and hypocritical.

creedp wrote: »

I suppose what I am taking from the implicit lack of support for recommendations that bank pay should be cut is that people don't support reductions in wages for employees where their employer is broke. Obviously then as people in general are pretty objective and impartial I'm going to assume that they would want this principle applied to all employees.

I won't speak for anybody else, but i'm not saying that at all or anything remotely like it.

What I am saying is that your argument is on shaky ground and from what I've read of the report it doesn't support the aims you appear to by trying to make it fit.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't think anybody had described increments as across the board, especially after it is made clear that they are not.

But then somehow increments are not counted as pay raises despite the fact that this is what they do, so go figure.

Increments are not across the board pay rises, we can agree on that then.

I have pointed out repeatedly (and I am not going to dig out the sources again) that inclusive of the pension levy (that is a pay cut, we all agree now) average public service pay should have fallen by around 14% from peak. The actual decrease is around 11% which means the effect of the increments was small in cancelling out the cuts.

In the case of the banker's pay, it seems that there were no cuts, just a freeze with increments.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

I have pointed out repeatedly (and I am not going to dig out the sources again) that inclusive of the pension levy (that is a pay cut, we all agree now) average public service pay should have fallen by around 14% from peak. The actual decrease is around 11% which means the effect of the increments was small in cancelling out the cuts.

If there had been no paycuts or involuntary pension levies applied would you be trying to use that argument?

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm saying, as you have before wrt PS pay, that the averages don't tell the whole story. Trying to use them now when the private sector bashers (not aimed at you specificially but if PS bajhers is valid then so is ps;)) have specifically said in the past they're not valid for PS pay is well, childish and hypocritical.

You can describe my attitude anyway you like. I have read enough arguments on here and elsewhere where the use of averages and broke employers has been used as a definitive/no other game in town reason to slash the pay of a small proportion of this country's workers. When anyone tried to question this approach they were told to wake up and smell the coffee. I find it hyprothetical in the extreme when these arguments are only selectively applied.

Just to clarify also I have never sought, no never demanded, pay reductions for any individual/sector.

I won't speak for anybody else, but i'm not saying that at all or anything remotely like it.

Neither am I (speaking for anybody else that is!)

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm saying, as you have before wrt PS pay, that the averages don't tell the whole story. Trying to use them now when the private sector bashers (not aimed at you specificially but if PS bajhers is valid then so is ps;)) have specifically said in the past they're not valid for PS pay is well, childish and hypocritical.

I think the point is that as long as there are people who insist on using the averages as an argument then we should be able to direct the debate to other examples.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Increments are not across the board pay rises, we can agree on that then.

I have pointed out repeatedly (and I am not going to dig out the sources again) that inclusive of the pension levy (that is a pay cut, we all agree now) average public service pay should have fallen by around 14% from peak. The actual decrease is around 11% which means the effect of the increments was small in cancelling out the cuts.

In the case of the banker's pay, it seems that there were no cuts, just a freeze with increments.

How did you prove the 11% figure?

It seems to me, based on taking a sample of increment scales, that somebody below the average industrial wage in 2008 in the PS would almost certainly be on more money now than they were then.

Riskymove

noodler wrote: »

It seems to me, based on taking a sample of increment scales, that somebody below the average industrial wage in 2008 in the PS would almost certainly be on more money now than they were then.

only perhaps if they were only recently appointed at the time

someone already on the max of the scale in PS would have even lower pay now

Godge

noodler wrote: »

How did you prove the 11% figure?.

CSO data, then factoring in the pension levy

noodler wrote: »

It seems to me, based on taking a sample of increment scales, that somebody below the average industrial wage in 2008 in the PS would almost certainly be on more money now than they were then.

What is the point of referring to the average industrial wage? It has no meaning anymore and even the CSO have stopped calculating it.

It is ok to look at incremental scales and imagine that everyone is getting a pay increase but in reality if say 45% of teachers were on the max of the scale in 2008 and another 23% were within two points of the max of the scale, then increments would have had little effect in the interim and the average salary would have decreased significantly with the effect of the pay cut, the pension levy and the new entrant pay cut.

noodler

Riskymove wrote: »

only perhaps if they were only recently appointed at the time

Well the trend seems to be an increment every year more many salaries up to nearly 40K.

Others get them less frequently but on the other hand the less frequent points on the scale for higher positions seem to be larger increments generally

Riskymove wrote: »

someone already on the max of the scale in PS would have even lower pay now

Fair enough - although that is after many years of progression on said scales.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm saying, as you have before wrt PS pay, that the averages don't tell the whole story. Trying to use them now when the private sector bashers (not aimed at you specificially but if PS bajhers is valid then so is ps;)) have specifically said in the past they're not valid for PS pay is well, childish and hypocritical.

I think the point being made repeatedly was that using averages to directly compare public and private sector pay was simplistic given the other factors that come into play - education, qualifications, experience (or its proxy, age), nature of work etc.

Using averages to compare like with like over time is a logical and coherent position to take. Thus, while I would reject direct comparisons between private and public sectors for the reasons above, I would argue the trends over time in the two statistics are of relevance.

No measure or statistic is correct, wrong, misleading or true. Each statistic has its validity in context. That context may mean it does not add much to one debate but it may add more in another debate.

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

Increments are not across the board pay rises, we can agree on that then.

I have pointed out repeatedly (and I am not going to dig out the sources again) that inclusive of the pension levy (that is a pay cut, we all agree now) average public service pay should have fallen by around 14% from peak. The actual decrease is around 11% which means the effect of the increments was small in cancelling out the cuts.

In the case of the banker's pay, it seems that there were no cuts, just a freeze with increments.

Are you making allowances for private sector pension contributions? If not leave the pension figures out.

The lower paid in the PS which are also the most overpaid are the ones benefitting most from increments, a few have even come on here and stated that they were on more money now than a few years ago.

Godge

Head The Wall wrote: »

Are you making allowances for private sector pension contributions? If not leave the pension figures out..

I am fed up with this. The only people who believe the pension levy is anything other than a pay cut are a handful of people on boards.

Head The Wall wrote: »

The lower paid in the PS which are also the most overpaid are the ones benefitting most from increments, a few have even come on here and stated that they were on more money now than a few years ago.

Of course there are some who are better off - we are talking about averages. But using a few boards anecdotes to make a point especially when a couple of those you mention backed off their claims when asked to provide details as what they were saying didn't stand up to the facts. But if you want to believe everything you hear on the internet about the public service coining it.....

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

I am fed up with this. The only people who believe the pension levy is anything other than a pay cut are a handful of people on boards.

Its not my fault if you're fed up with it, the first reduction was a paycut, the second one wasn't. If the second one was a paycut it would also have reduced the pay scales which would have had a knock on effect to the PS pension in the future.

So they are making a pension contribution which will keep them at the pay scale they were at which will mean a higher pension in the future. So it does theoretically contribute to pensions.

The govt already implemented a paycut so if they wanted a paycut they would just have done the same again

Godge

Head The Wall wrote: »

Its not my fault if you're fed up with it, the first reduction was a paycut, the second one wasn't. If the second one was a paycut it would also have reduced the pay scales which would have had a knock on effect to the PS pension in the future.

So they are making a pension contribution which will keep them at the pay scale they were at which will mean a higher pension in the future. So it does theoretically contribute to pensions.

The govt already implemented a paycut so if they wanted a paycut they would just have done the same again

Trying not to laugh (actually thanks for bringing a smile to my face). Your whole post and argument rests on the fact that the pension levy was second.

Here is the February 2009 Act that brought in the pension levy:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0509.pdf


Here is the December 2009 Act that brought in the pay cut:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0041/print.html


Oh dear, oh dear. The first one was a pension levy because politically the government could not bring itself to make a direct pay cut so they called it a pension-related deduction to make it politically palatable. As the crisis deepened in 2009, the political situation made it possible to introduce a pay cut, hence the second one being a pay cut.

As I said in my post, I am getting tired of this, the same posters not checking out the facts and making arguments based on spurious random thoughts. You have been involved in these discussions many times, have you not looked into it more seriously by now?

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

Its not my fault if you're fed up with it, the first reduction was a paycut, the second one wasn't.

Its seen as a paycut by some fairly heavy hitters in government and wider society, maybe you know better.

Its been done to death though.

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

Trying not to laugh (actually thanks for bringing a smile to my face). Your whole post and argument rests on the fact that the pension levy was second.

Here is the February 2009 Act that brought in the pension levy:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0509.pdf


Here is the December 2009 Act that brought in the pay cut:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0041/print.html


Oh dear, oh dear. The first one was a pension levy because politically the government could not bring itself to make a direct pay cut so they called it a pension-related deduction to make it politically palatable. As the crisis deepened in 2009, the political situation made it possible to introduce a pay cut, hence the second one being a pay cut.

As I said in my post, I am getting tired of this, the same posters not checking out the facts and making arguments based on spurious random thoughts. You have been involved in these discussions many times, have you not looked into it more seriously by now?

No the reason the first one was a pension levy was to protect PS retiring, the reason that the second was a paycut was that if it was a pension levy again PS would have to pay income Tax on it making the total a gross deduction for many PS as most Under50's would hit the tax relief levels for pensions

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

Trying not to laugh (actually thanks for bringing a smile to my face). Your whole post and argument rests on the fact that the pension levy was second.

Here is the February 2009 Act that brought in the pension levy:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0509.pdf


Here is the December 2009 Act that brought in the pay cut:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0041/print.html


Oh dear, oh dear. The first one was a pension levy because politically the government could not bring itself to make a direct pay cut so they called it a pension-related deduction to make it politically palatable. As the crisis deepened in 2009, the political situation made it possible to introduce a pay cut, hence the second one being a pay cut.

As I said in my post, I am getting tired of this, the same posters not checking out the facts and making arguments based on spurious random thoughts. You have been involved in these discussions many times, have you not looked into it more seriously by now?

Okay fair enough, I stand corrected on the order they were implemented. And no my whole post and argument is not based on it being first. The order still doesn't change the fact that had there been two actual paycuts the PS would actually have been worse off, this way their pay scale stays higher and therefore future pensions will be higher because of that.

If you think the order they were implemented rebuts my point then explain why.

woodoo wrote: »

Its seen as a paycut by some fairly heavy hitters in government and wider society, maybe you know better.

The same heavy hitters that run the country into the ground? yeah right

It didn't reduce the salary scale so it's not a pay cut - it seems like only the PS in Ireland look at it the way you are on about it. It is also classed as a pension for tax reasons while the pay cut isn't. So many differences and people on here still try to claim they are the dame thing. Even resorting to using lying politicians as references???

ardmacha

It is also classed as a pension for tax reasons while the pay cut isn't.

Really? Where does it say that?
In both the case of the pension levy and the pay cut you do not pay tax on the amount lost, because you never got it.

teacherhead

ardmacha wrote: »

Really? Where does it say that?
In both the case of the pension levy and the pay cut you do not pay tax on the amount lost, because you never got it.

When I take home less pay because of a deduction based solely on the fact that I'm a public servant that is,a cut in my pay.

It was a measure designed to cut the PS pay bill, ot is a pay cut.

The current ideology being pursued is one of driving down pay in Ireland generally. People spout about the gap in PS pay and private sector pay. If this closes as a result of a public service pay reduction it will not be long before they are after private sector pay too.

There is a bigger picture here and a strategy that is working. Divide public and private. Divide lower paid and less lower paid public servants, frontline staff from clerical and admin, it's working.

Head The Wall

Really, after how many years you still don't realise it is tax deductible as a pension contribution.

Godge, same point to you. Ye say it's a paycut but it's very different to the actual paycut i.e. it doesn't reduce the salary scale and is treated as a pension contribution for tax purposes. Neither of these are relevant to the paycut.