Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

PeteFalk78

Rightwing wrote: »

So will I.

You won't get it as you edited it out.

Rightwing

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

You won't get it as you edited it out.

Show an edited post then.

PeteFalk78

Rightwing wrote: »

Show an edited post then.

CBA'd trawling through your posts, looking at them individually hurts my eyes enough. Could even have been in a different thread.

Rightwing

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

CBA'd trawling through your posts, looking at them individually hurts my eyes enough. Could even have been in a different thread.

Chuckle chuckle.

barneystinson

kippy wrote: »

In general I would question the amount of management grades within the CS and why there are so many as well as the logic behind a reform agenda in relation to centralised services, when you aren't going to take the staff that were in these services originally and redeploy them. (HSE was an example of this, and it seems to be happening on the Peoplepoint side of it as well)

Peoplepoint is a disaster in my experience, personally and as a manager. It took over 2 months for me to get a very simple issue resolved (my carried forward leave was too high, someone needed to reduce a figure in a box on a software system by 3 days). If it had happened last year, one phone call and it would've been resolved in about 90seconds.

Areas of the PS that had well functioning locally managed HR are now mired in bureaucratic back & forth with Peoplepoint; the local HR people still in situ and busier than ever trying to get Peoplepoint to either do their job or fix their mistakes...

kippy

barneystinson wrote: »

Peoplepoint is a disaster in my experience, personally and as a manager. It took over 2 months for me to get a very simple issue resolved (my carried forward leave was too high, someone needed to reduce a figure in a box on a software system by 3 days). If it had happened last year, one phone call and it would've been resolved in about 90seconds.

Areas of the PS that had well functioning locally managed HR are now mired in bureaucratic back & forth with Peoplepoint; the local HR people still in situ and busier than ever trying to get Peoplepoint to either do their job or fix their mistakes...

Yeah, at the moment there are definetly issues there however I would put them down to a few things in order of importance.
1. Existing HR units staying in place within the department it has always been in, instead of it somehow being merged inwith the peoplepoint setup.
2. Lack of clarity for staff on who looks after what.
3. Bedding in issues from all sides.

In theory centralising HR and later payroll for the public/civil service is a great idea. Will save on replication of work, staffing costs, software costs, premises costs, a heap of other costs and should lead to a more standard expericene across the departments in time. Staff should get familiar with the system and it should be a good thing.
However, if this is not implemented properly, in practice it is going to be very very messy. At the moment the implementation is not great.

antoobrien

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I'll wait with baited breath.

Revised:

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Those figures I posted are the figures contributed to the pension purely from the public servant alone, it doesn't include any contributory funds added to by the employer/government. You didn't realise this or you chose to ignore?

Employer pension contributions in the private sector generally match the contributions made by the employee. If the same figure is applied to the public sector then that would give a pension pot of around .....boom......500k. excluding any pension returns previously mentioned by ardmacha

You see this is where the argument falls down, because the notional PS pension pot is not anywhere nearly based on contributions given throughout the working lifetime of a PS worker.

Take a teacher that has gone through the full pre 2011 into pay scale and finished at the top salary after 40 years service. This is 59359, but we'll use 60k for simplicity as it gives approximately the pension you have outlined.

Their total lifetime salary would be ~€2.04m, assuming the teacher reached the maximum pay rate after in year 25 of 40 years service (how likely is this?). I'll take a more reasonable approach that the teacher spent 1 year at each pay level up to level 10, then 2 years after that, meaning they spend the last 3 years at the maximum pay grade instead of 16. Total pay is ~€1.94m.


Teachers pay 5% into their pension, with a further 1.5%-2% going to the Spouses & Children pension, so we'll say total 7%. Total contributions of €135,800 personally, or 194,000 using your 11% rate.

There's still a big gap between either of these pots and your original claim of 270k or the adjusted 240k.

And in reality this notional pot is wildly inflated as a teacher starting in 1974 would not have been getting a 30k salary. In 1988, the average teacher salary was approx €20,000, my calculations put our notional teacher at point 12 in 1988 modern equivalent of 46,844 (about average based in the 2008 figures of 46k average). We can realistically half the earnings on that scale until 1991, which would bring us roughly in line with the average average of the time.

That reduces total pay to about 1.59m, assuming that our teachers wages are doubled between 1991 and 1992 (from 24998 to 49,996).

This reduces our notional contributions to 111,300 at 7% (the actual contributions) or 179,140 at 11% (your notional level).

I can go on and try to include salary inflation (averaging 4.5% for primary teachers between 1998 & 2008 ) to keep getting more accurate figures, but we both know that all it's going to do is take another significant chunk out of the pot.

Is the 60k salary based defined benefit pension still overly generous, yes.

Head The Wall

kceire wrote: »

Post 95 staff pay the same PRSI contributions as everybody in the workforce, but they don't get get the COAP on top of their pension, it's included and capped at 50% final salary.

So what you're trying to say is that effectively the value of the OAP has little do with the PS pension as ye will still receive 50% of final salary anyway.

If the OAP is €50 a week ye still get paid the same pension. I just see this as trying to muddy the water

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

I just see this as trying to muddy the water

it's only relevant when comparing to the cost of a comparable pension etc that people get caught up about


as these PS will have paid PRSI like PAYE private sector they recieve the COAP

therefore it is the remainder of the pension that is paid like a traditional PS pension and therefore that is what the cost is to public funds

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

Revised:



You see this is where the argument falls down, because the notional PS pension pot is not anywhere nearly based on contributions given throughout the working lifetime of a PS worker.

Take a teacher that has gone through the full pre 2011 into pay scale and finished at the top salary after 40 years service. This is 59359, but we'll use 60k for simplicity as it gives approximately the pension you have outlined.

Their total lifetime salary would be ~€2.04m, assuming the teacher reached the maximum pay rate after in year 25 of 40 years service (how likely is this?). I'll take a more reasonable approach that the teacher spent 1 year at each pay level up to level 10, then 2 years after that, meaning they spend the last 3 years at the maximum pay grade instead of 16. Total pay is ~€1.94m.


Teachers pay 5% into their pension, with a further 1.5%-2% going to the Spouses & Children pension, so we'll say total 7%. Total contributions of €135,800 personally, or 194,000 using your 11% rate.

There's still a big gap between either of these pots and your original claim of 270k or the adjusted 240k.

And in reality this notional pot is wildly inflated as a teacher starting in 1974 would not have been getting a 30k salary. In 1988, the average teacher salary was approx €20,000, my calculations put our notional teacher at point 12 in 1988 modern equivalent of 46,844 (about average based in the 2008 figures of 46k average). We can realistically half the earnings on that scale until 1991, which would bring us roughly in line with the average average of the time.

That reduces total pay to about 1.59m, assuming that our teachers wages are doubled between 1991 and 1992 (from 24998 to 49,996).

This reduces our notional contributions to 111,300 at 7% (the actual contributions) or 179,140 at 11% (your notional level).

I can go on and try to include salary inflation (averaging 4.5% for primary teachers between 1998 & 2008 ) to keep getting more accurate figures, but we both know that all it's going to do is take another significant chunk out of the pot.

Is the 60k salary based defined benefit pension still overly generous, yes.

Not a pension expert in any way but I would have thought you would really have to impute some investment return into this analysis which would apply if an actual fund was established to fund the eventual pension. Is is the case that private pension funds simply pay out the value of contribution paid in?

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

Not a pension expert in any way but I would have thought you would really have to impute some investment return into this analysis which would apply if an actual fund was established to fund the eventual pension. Is is the case that private pension funds simply pay out the value of contribution paid in?

Private funds only have to pay out of what is in the fund. So yes we have to look at returns, but then some of the projected returns I've given examples of assumed 3% average annual return and 3% average pay rises per year and those seem seem optimistic (I haven't had anything like a 3% pay rise in the past 3 years).

So given the fact that "the value of investments fall and rise" it seems prudent to be......conservative with potential futures. This is the reason that I've gone with actual contribution inputs as a result.

I could easily go with the 3% estimate, as the averaged return of my own pension fund is currently 3.65%, but then I remember when the value of my pension fund was down 1/3 on what I had paid in (I think it was 5k out of 15k lost at the time). If the fund was to pay out then, I'd be getting out significantly less than was paid in, a problem not faced by most PS workers (assuming some of them are on strictly contributory pensions like mine).

Just to show the kind of amounts involved, my current salary is 37,600. One of the projections puts my final pot at 478,564.90, with a pension of 18,928.94 and allowance for 2% annual increase (I had previously said there was scope for a lump sum, it appears that I was mistaken in this).

Sounds good right?

But then we look at the underlying assumptions under this projections.

Assumed return 3% per annum.
Assumed salary increase of 3% per year.

Both of those sound reasonable if a tad optimistic, until we take a look at what the second assumption means. A 3% annual pay rise would at retirement leave me with a salary of over 90k.

To get an equivalent 60k pension, that will be worth about 20% of my final salary.

If these assumptions hold, the total contributions for this pension will be 265k, which is 86k more than the inflated 11% PS example I was working on.

Harold Weiss

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Immature nonsense. If salaries are increasing then so will those in public services, otherwise the chaos would get worse as anyone capable left.

Nobody in public sector seems accountable for anything so I see no reason to pay anymore for poor performance.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

Private funds only have to pay out of what is in the fund. So yes we have to look at returns, but then some of the projected returns I've given examples of assumed 3% average annual return and 3% average pay rises per year and those seem seem optimistic (I haven't had anything like a 3% pay rise in the past 3 years).

So given the fact that "the value of investments fall and rise" it seems prudent to be......conservative with potential futures. This is the reason that I've gone with actual contribution inputs as a result.

I could easily go with the 3% estimate, as the averaged return of my own pension fund is currently 3.65%, but then I remember when the value of my pension fund was down 1/3 on what I had paid in (I think it was 5k out of 15k lost at the time). If the fund was to pay out then, I'd be getting out significantly less than was paid in, a problem not faced by most PS workers (assuming some of them are on strictly contributory pensions like mine).

Just to show the kind of amounts involved, my current salary is 37,600. One of the projections puts my final pot at 478,564.90, with a pension of 18,928.94 and allowance for 2% annual increase (I had previously said there was scope for a lump sum, it appears that I was mistaken in this).

Sounds good right?

But then we look at the underlying assumptions under this projections.

Assumed return 3% per annum.
Assumed salary increase of 3% per year.

Both of those sound reasonable if a tad optimistic, until we take a look at what the second assumption means. A 3% annual pay rise would at retirement leave me with a salary of over 90k.

To get an equivalent 60k pension, that will be worth about 20% of my final salary.

If these assumptions hold, the total contributions for this pension will be 265k, which is 86k more than the inflated 11% PS example I was working on.

With all the uncertainties and downright spoofing in relation to potential returns by the private pension industry it is surprising that so many people want one. Having said that it you believe the experts, and presumably people do in the main otherwise why voluntarily hand over hard earned income to the pension industry, you will be looking at a pension of €30k per annum on retirement which is what a PS on €60k would be hoping for but likewise not guaranteed from his/her gold plated PS pension

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

With all the uncertainties and downright spoofing in relation to potential returns by the private pension industry it is surprising that so many people want one.

It's that, other savings/investments or one of the OAPs, which don't pay an awful lot.

Pick one, most people go with the professionals because they probably can do better than we can.

creedp wrote: »

Having said that it you believe the experts, and presumably people do in the main otherwise why voluntarily hand over hard earned income to the pension industry, you will be looking at a pension of €30k per annum on retirement which is what a PS on €60k would be hoping for but likewise not guaranteed from his/her gold plated PS pension

If I believe them I'll get 30k (18k + COAP) off a final salary of 90k, with no lump sum, from my investment of 265k.

If I was on a PS pension as I understand it's set up for the post 95 workers, for the equivalent final salary I'd be getting ~33k + COAP and 135k of a lump sum from the same investment.

See the difference?

mirrorwall14

antoobrien wrote: »

If I believe them I'll get 30k (18k + COAP) off a final salary of 90k, with no lump sum, from my investment of 265k.

If I was on a PS pension as I understand it's set up for the post 95 workers, for the equivalent final salary I'd be getting ~33k + COAP and 135k of a lump sum from the same investment.

See the difference?

For post 95 workers the COAP is included in that 33k and is not an additional benefit

For post 2011(I think thats when it was floated) workers the pension is based on career average not on final salary.

chopper6

Rightwing wrote: »

Exactly - what most in the private sector want is value for money in the PS.

Thats a bit rich considering they cant even deliver value for money for themselves.

Most pubs in dublin city are charging more than 5 euros a pint with some nearer to 7 euros.

House prices are starting to creep back up again as the estate agents and thier lackies in the Indo try to kick-start the construction sector again.

An average meal in an average restaurant will usually cost 25 per head without wine.

Arse-scratching "tradesemen" are back to thier old tricks,arriving late(if at all) and trying to overcharge for routine work.

Private landlords are driving the cost of rental property through the roof as they seek to gouge more and more money out of innocent tenants.

Irish dental treatment is the most expensive in europe.


GPs are still charging a minimum of 50 euros for a "consultation".

The cost of private health insurance has gone through the roof.

Creches are charging outrageous fees for childcare.


Petrol stations are continuing to profit heavily by charging inflated prices n teh forecourt despit stability in the regions they source the fuel from.

Great value for money we're getting.

luckyboy

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

For post 95 workers the COAP is included in that 33k and is not an additional benefit

For post 2011(I think thats when it was floated) workers the pension is based on career average not on final salary.

I think what antobrien was saying was that, if he was in the PS and reached a 90k salary by retirement, he'd get a 45k pension, made up of 33k in return for his contributions plus 12k in COAP ...

His 135k lump sum equates to 120/80 of his final 90k salary, so I presume that's what he was saying ...

luckyboy

chopper6 wrote: »

Thats a bit rich considering they cant even deliver value for money for themselves.

Most pubs in dublin city are charging more than 5 euros a pint with some nearer to 7 euros.

House prices are starting to creep back up again as the estate agents and thier lackies in the Indo try to kick-start the construction sector again.

An average meal in an average restaurant will usually cost 25 per head without wine.

Arse-scratching "tradesemen" are back to thier old tricks,arriving late(if at all) and trying to overcharge for routine work.

Private landlords are driving the cost of rental property through the roof as they seek to gouge more and more money out of innocent tenants.

Irish dental treatment is the most expensive in europe.


GPs are still charging a minimum of 50 euros for a "consultation".

The cost of private health insurance has gone through the roof.

Creches are charging outrageous fees for childcare.


Petrol stations are continuing to profit heavily by charging inflated prices n teh forecourt despit stability in the regions they source the fuel from.

Great value for money we're getting.

Hard to disagree with much of this. If we accept that the Irish PS has many failings, we should also accept that standards are not always necessarily the highest in the Irish private sector either. This is, of course, a generalisation. There are outstanding performers in both sectors, whose performances can be obscured by their less-industrious colleagues.

I have always wondered though, why the private sector - collectively - has not taken its share of the blame for some of the colossal misjudgments it made during the boom years.

_Kaiser_

luckyboy wrote: »

I have always wondered though, why the private sector - collectively - has not taken its share of the blame for some of the colossal misjudgments it made during the boom years.

But it has - through huge numbers of businesses going bust, layoffs and cutbacks.

Though there are those in certain sectors who effectively own the politicians through donations, lobbying and friendships (of convenience) - those are the ones who are insulated from the blame for a situation they (to varying degrees) actually caused.

Head The Wall

Riskymove wrote: »

it's only relevant when comparing to the cost of a comparable pension etc that people get caught up about


as these PS will have paid PRSI like PAYE private sector they recieve the COAP

therefore it is the remainder of the pension that is paid like a traditional PS pension and therefore that is what the cost is to public funds

Explain then to me the anomaly of how people that haven't contributed get a pension roughly €10 less than people do. PRSI doesn't just pay for pensions and from above it effectively pays little towards the OAP

My point still stands, the PS pension is still 50% of the final salary regardless of what the OAP is

barneystinson

Head The Wall wrote: »

Explain then to me the anomaly of how people that haven't contributed get a pension roughly €10 less than people do. PRSI doesn't just pay for pensions and from above it effectively pays little towards the OAP

My point still stands, the PS pension is still 50% of the final salary regardless of what the OAP is

That's one of the most ridiculous statements on the thread, I'm actually surprised at you.

ardmacha

Head The Wall wrote: »

My point still stands, the PS pension is still 50% of the final salary regardless of what the OAP is

On this forum some people have no problem ignoring facts, but most people will not dispute your point.

What is the purpose of your point?

Rightwing

chopper6 wrote: »

Thats a bit rich considering they cant even deliver value for money for themselves.

Most pubs in dublin city are charging more than 5 euros a pint with some nearer to 7 euros.

House prices are starting to creep back up again as the estate agents and thier lackies in the Indo try to kick-start the construction sector again.

An average meal in an average restaurant will usually cost 25 per head without wine.

Arse-scratching "tradesemen" are back to thier old tricks,arriving late(if at all) and trying to overcharge for routine work.

Private landlords are driving the cost of rental property through the roof as they seek to gouge more and more money out of innocent tenants.

Irish dental treatment is the most expensive in europe.


GPs are still charging a minimum of 50 euros for a "consultation".

The cost of private health insurance has gone through the roof.

Creches are charging outrageous fees for childcare.


Petrol stations are continuing to profit heavily by charging inflated prices n teh forecourt despit stability in the regions they source the fuel from.

Great value for money we're getting.

Irish businesses do charge more for their services. I would imagine that is as a result of the 'cost of doing business' in Ireland.

But the bottom line is, as a consumer, I won't do business with them if I feel there is no value for money. If only we had that option with with the PS.

RGS

[QUOTE=Rightwing;91730426

But the bottom line is, as a consumer, I won't do business with them if I feel there is no value for money. If only we had that option with with the PS.[/QUOTE]

Course you have choices in a number of areas:

Education--plenty of private schools willing to take your money to educate your kids.

Health--plenty of private hospitals willing to treat you and charge you for the service, except dont expect them to treat you if you suffer any significant trauma in an RTA or a serious neurological condition.

Rightwing

RGS wrote: »

Course you have choices in a number of areas:

Education--plenty of private schools willing to take your money to educate your kids.

Health--plenty of private hospitals willing to treat you and charge you for the service, except dont expect them to treat you if you suffer any significant trauma in an RTA or a serious neurological condition.

But then you pay on the double. Paying all the teachers' wages / consultants etc and fees for the private school.

garancafan

Head The Wall wrote: »

...the PS pension is still 50% of the final salary...

Yes - if you have worked for 40 years in the PS.

kippy

garancafan wrote: »

Yes - if you have worked for 40 years in the PS.

And you entered pre 2010.

Peter Flynt

barneystinson wrote: »

That's one of the most ridiculous statements on the thread, I'm actually surprised at you.

It's ridiculous because you cannot face the reality that that statement is true.

You didn't exactly put up a defence.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

On this forum some people have no problem ignoring facts, but most people will not dispute your point.

What is the purpose of your point?

On this forum some people have no problem confusing their opinion with facts.

On the pension issue. The vast majority of pensions since the recession began and the majority of pensions over the next 20 years do not include the PRSI related pension. Yet, constantly this point is made that public sector pensions include state pension.

Look at this another way. If the pension was not "gold plated" despite the pension levy, how come the unions are not campaigning to make contributing to your pension optional. I know in the short term it would cost the government, but how about it all you public sector workers, let's start a campaign to make pensions optional. Let workers invest in their own personal pensions see how you get on then.

Riskymove

QUOTE=Head The Wall;91730282]Explain then to me the anomaly of how people that haven't contributed get a pension roughly €10 less than people do. PRSI doesn't just pay for pensions and from above it effectively pays little towards the OAP

I'm not sure what relevance this anomaly has to the discussion in hand.

The PS we are talking about will have contributed to PRSI over their working life and will qualify for the COAP just like any similar private sector worker

However, a provate sector worker can recieve the COAP in addition to any other pension while the PS worker will have their occupational pension reduced by the value of the COAP

My point still stands, the PS pension is still 50% of the final salary regardless of what the OAP is

well, as pointed out there are service requirments here too

I don't think anyone disputes how the PS pension operates though?

Not sure what the point is here?