Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts
Options
Comments
-
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
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?
I think the original point in relation to pensions was that the requirement for public sector staff to have a pension related deduction (paying more for their pension than they were pre 2009) was not a pay cut and as such should not come under any of the allegeded reinstatement of salary that the government are currently kite flying about.
Some posters believed this to be a pay cut while others believed this to be contributing more to something that they are still getting excellent value for.
Some posters have absolutely not idea how a public service pension works, depite numerous exchanges in this and other fora on the topic in the past number of years.
Some posters think that all public service pensions are "gold plated" and you get infinite amounts more than you ever paid for them - true in some cases to be fair.
Some posters think that private sector pensions always end up making money and that having a pensions scheme that is discretionary is a good thing - at least you have the option of not funding one, as you generally need all that money in your thirties and forties as opposed to your sixties when the state will look after you anyway, whether you have worked or not.
Everyone thinks that everyone else is is doing better than them.
I think pensions in general need major reform, right across the board, as there are a lot of vultures making money out of private sector schemes, some public sector pensions are way too high (an no matter what you do in your career they appear to be sacred), and the OAP,COAP need reviewing to some extent.0 -
Peter Flynt wrote: »It's ridiculous because you cannot face the reality that that statement is true.
You didn't exactly put up a defence.
Huh?
So you agree with Head the Wall then?0 -
Based on the Public Service Pensions Modeller, a clerical officer who joined the service after 2004 on a final salary of approx. €36,000, would be entitled to a lump sum of €54,000 and an annual pension of €7,200 plus the contributory pension (approx. €12,000). Hardly a gold plated pension!
So some really basic calculations - with contributions of approx. 7%, that would be €2,590 employee contributions per year. Multiply it by 40 years service = €103,600. Double it as most employers match employee contributions and that is a pension fund of €153,200 (I have deducted the lump sum). Assuming 20 years of retirement, should give an approx. annual pension of €7,660. This doesn't even take into account the PRD being deducted.
Single Scheme (new entrants from 2013) is a complete joke (I am a member of this scheme) and by my rough calculations, my employer and I will have paid way more into the scheme than I will get at retirement. I am looking at a pension of about €4,000 annually!
Sources: http://http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/calculators.asp
http://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/finance/2006/12.pdf0 -
barneystinson wrote: »That's one of the most ridiculous statements on the thread, I'm actually surprised at you.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?
I was trying to keep it as simple as possible but people don't seem to be grasping what I am trying to say.
Take for example someone finishing on 40k now after full service (not necessarily 40 years because they can buy extra years) they will get a lump sum which is not relevant to my point. The claim is that they get the COAP which everyone gets as they have paid PRSI all their life and then all their contributions make up the other 7-8k. They think this is a bad deal.
What I am saying is that the COAP concept is irrelevant, PS staff get 50% final salary and they get this regardless of what the COAP currently is. They say that private sector workers get this so it is unfair. PRSI covers much more than Pensions
But how do the PS think private sector workers feel about people that never contributed getting pretty much the same pension as them (it's around 10-20 a week less)
As I see it PRSI basically contributes bugger all towards the COAP as if it did then the Non COAP should be getting a lot less. This is what PS don't seem to grasp
If the COAP amounts to 3k a year or 15k a year then the PS pension still stays at 50% of their salary. The Govt has effectively implemented three pension systems for the people that it provides for
PS Pension - as mentioned is based on final salary and service
COAP - For private sector workers
Non COAP - As it says on the tin, for people that have not contributed
Tell me what's ridiculous about that?0 -
Based on the Public Service Pensions Modeller, a clerical officer who joined the service after 2004 on a final salary of approx. €36,000, would be entitled to a lump sum of €54,000 and an annual pension of €7,200 plus the contributory pension (approx. €12,000). Hardly a gold plated pension!
So some really basic calculations - with contributions of approx. 7%, that would be €2,590 employee contributions per year. Multiply it by 40 years service = €103,600. Double it as most employers match employee contributions and that is a pension fund of €153,200 (I have deducted the lump sum). Assuming 20 years of retirement, should give an approx. annual pension of €7,660. This doesn't even take into account the PRD being deducted.
Single Scheme (new entrants from 2013) is a complete joke (I am a member of this scheme) and by my rough calculations, my employer and I will have paid way more into the scheme than I will get at retirement. I am looking at a pension of about €4,000 annually!
Sources: http://http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/calculators.asp
http://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/finance/2006/12.pdf
Someone that started in 2004 would have started paying a lot smaller percentage on a lot smaller starting salary so your maths of taking a full 7% for a full 40% years service is the start of what's wrong about your calculations.
Secondly the COAP was €157 in 2004 and it's €230 now which is nearly a 50% increase
Thirdly why did you not include the lump sum? Are you under some illusuon that everyone gets it because if you are you're deluded. That needs to be included and also not every employer matches employee contributions so there's another glaring hole in your maths
Pension Levy - Private sector pension funds have been paying a pension levy the last few years as well (for the Jobridge Sham/Scam) but let's just ignore that as it doesn't fit into your model0 -
Advertisement
-
Head The Wall wrote: »I was trying to keep it as simple as possible but people don't seem to be grasping what I am trying to say.
Take for example someone finishing on 40k now after full service (not necessarily 40 years because they can buy extra years) they will get a lump sum which is not relevant to my point. The claim is that they get the COAP which everyone gets as they have paid PRSI all their life and then all their contributions make up the other 7-8k. They think this is a bad deal.
What I am saying is that the COAP concept is irrelevant, PS staff get 50% final salary and they get this regardless of what the COAP currently is. They say that private sector workers get this so it is unfair. PRSI covers much more than Pensions
But how do the PS think private sector workers feel about people that never contributed getting pretty much the same pension as them (it's around 10-20 a week less)
As I see it PRSI basically contributes bugger all towards the COAP as if it did then the Non COAP should be getting a lot less. This is what PS don't seem to grasp
If the COAP amounts to 3k a year or 15k a year then the PS pension still stays at 50% of their salary. The Govt has effectively implemented three pension systems for the people that it provides for
PS Pension - as mentioned is based on final salary and service
COAP - For private sector workers
Non COAP - As it says on the tin, for people that have not contributed
Tell me what's ridiculous about that?
For starters, the existence of the means test.
And additionally, the fact that the bottom line is that the first X amount of the PS pension is the COAP, it's only the incremental amount in excess of the COAP, that their pension contributions are funding.
Put it another way, if contributions were optional, and I'd never paid into the pension, what pension would I get? I'd get my COAP, same as any other PRSI payer. The COAP absolutely is not "for private sector workers", that's another ridiculous statement.0 -
What's the alternative?
I will agree that there are some people retiring from the public service on criminally generous pensions.
You'd be amazed how many are well linked politically.
The newer workers in the PS are getting screwed by the older ones leaving the system.0 -
Head The Wall wrote: »Someone that started in 2004 would have started paying a lot smaller percentage on a lot smaller starting salary so your maths of taking a full 7% for a full 40% years service is the start of what's wrong about your calculations.
Secondly the COAP was €157 in 2004 and it's €230 now which is nearly a 50% increase
Thirdly why did you not include the lump sum? Are you under some illusuon that everyone gets it because if you are you're deluded. That needs to be included and also not every employer matches employee contributions so there's another glaring hole in your maths
Pension Levy - Private sector pension funds have been paying a pension levy the last few years as well (for the Jobridge Sham/Scam) but let's just ignore that as it doesn't fit into your model
Someone starting in 2004 would have started paying about 7% in pension contributions. Why do you not think they would?0 -
Head The Wall wrote: »Someone that started in 2004 would have started paying a lot smaller percentage on a lot smaller starting salary so your maths of taking a full 7% for a full 40% years service is the start of what's wrong about your calculations.
Secondly the COAP was €157 in 2004 and it's €230 now which is nearly a 50% increase
Thirdly why did you not include the lump sum? Are you under some illusuon that everyone gets it because if you are you're deluded. That needs to be included and also not every employer matches employee contributions so there's another glaring hole in your maths
Pension Levy - Private sector pension funds have been paying a pension levy the last few years as well (for the Jobridge Sham/Scam) but let's just ignore that as it doesn't fit into your model
Re point 2 this just means that the non coap portion of a post 95 PS pension is less - this benefits prsi paying private sector workers but does not benefit public sector pensions.
Re point 4 that levy is not exclusive to private sector workers. As a PS worker, my private pension fund is also levied.0 -
Based on the Public Service Pensions Modeller, a clerical officer who joined the service after 2004 on a final salary of approx. €36,000, would be entitled to a lump sum of €54,000 and an annual pension of €7,200 plus the contributory pension (approx. €12,000). Hardly a gold plated pension!
So some really basic calculations - with contributions of approx. 7%, that would be €2,590 employee contributions per year. Multiply it by 40 years service = €103,600. Double it as most employers match employee contributions and that is a pension fund of €153,200 (I have deducted the lump sum). Assuming 20 years of retirement, should give an approx. annual pension of €7,660. This doesn't even take into account the PRD being deducted.
Single Scheme (new entrants from 2013) is a complete joke (I am a member of this scheme) and by my rough calculations, my employer and I will have paid way more into the scheme than I will get at retirement. I am looking at a pension of about €4,000 annually!
Sources: http://http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/calculators.asp
http://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/finance/2006/12.pdf
As a general question and I genuinely do not know the answer, how many people start as clerical officers, spend 40 years in the same position and never get promoted as per your example?
Also you reckon that an annuity of €153,200 will give you a pension of €7600 a year? That is a big overvaluation. The actual return is probably closer to €4500. You can use this calculator http://www.find.co.uk/pensions/annuities_centre/annuities-calculator . It is UK based but Irish annuity rates are not going to be much different.
This is one of the issues public sector workers fail to appreciate i.e. just how low annuity rates have gone. They are now about half what they were 10 years ago and about one third what they were 30 years ago. In other words to get the same pension now as you would have received 10 years ago you need to have saved twice as much as you would have 10 years ago and 3 times what you needed 30 years ago. Pension costs are increasing for everyone which is why it is only fair public sector workers pay more to receive the same pension via pension levy.
page 18 of this document shows how annuity rates have changed in last 30 years.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/reviewoftheirishannuitiesmarket.pdf0 -
Advertisement
-
Not that many.As a general question and I genuinely do not know the answer, how many people start as clerical officers, spend 40 years in the same position and never get promoted as per your example?
In my experience, COs that get passed over for promotion for that long are either complete wasters (who ordinarily would face disciplinary procedures) or people who choose to stay as COs.0 -
Not that many.
In my experience, COs that get passed over for promotion for that long are either complete wasters (who ordinarily would face disciplinary procedures) or people who choose to stay as COs.
Thanks. That is what I figured so we really shouldn't be using that scenario to look at pensions.0 -
As a general question and I genuinely do not know the answer, how many people start as clerical officers, spend 40 years in the same position and never get promoted as per your example?
Since the abolition of promotion based on seniority, plenty. Impossible to know or even estimate accurately, but if you look at the structure of CS depts, they're relatively heavily weighted at the lowest grades.
Figures I found for Revenue as an example:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CA0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdebates.oireachtas.ie%2Fdail%2F2012%2F01%2F31%2F00092.asp&ei=NSHvU5bHDJKy7AafjYGABQ&usg=AFQjCNFVk8daEhCn3evg_qorKvTqiMZdhw
Over 40% of staff are CO's and 30% EO's.
On a pure numbers basis you would say most CO's should at some stage progress to EO. The reality however is that the same people are likely to continue to fail to compete successfully for promotion, either because they actually aren't good enough, or aren't good enough at the competitive process itself (aptitude tests, form filling, interview).
So I'd say lots, anywhere between one third and two thirds?, of CO's in the merit-based promotion system, will never be promoted.0 -
barneystinson wrote: »Since the abolition of promotion based on seniority, plenty. Impossible to know or even estimate accurately, but if you look at the structure of CS depts, they're relatively heavily weighted at the lowest grades.
Figures I found for Revenue as an example:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CA0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdebates.oireachtas.ie%2Fdail%2F2012%2F01%2F31%2F00092.asp&ei=NSHvU5bHDJKy7AafjYGABQ&usg=AFQjCNFVk8daEhCn3evg_qorKvTqiMZdhw
Over 40% of staff are CO's and 30% EO's.
On a pure numbers basis you would say most CO's should at some stage progress to EO. The reality however is that the same people are likely to continue to fail to compete successfully for promotion, either because they actually aren't good enough, or aren't good enough at the competitive process itself (aptitude tests, form filling, interview).
So I'd say lots, anywhere between one third and two thirds?, of CO's in the merit-based promotion system, will never be promoted.
Surely based on those figures if 91 out of 2534 clerical officers are over 60 that means only about 4% remain at CO level for 40 years assuming that 91 actually started around age 20 and have completed 40 years.0 -
Regardless of what anyone thinks I believe there are is nothing to see here.
PS workers signed up to do a job under the conditions and rules that they did.
So whether when they started that their employment contract stated that they get a pension of 1% or 99% of salary does not matter. They should get whatever was agreed when they started. Both sides agreed to this.
Regarding the pay cuts.
I believe they were told that when conditions improved their paycuts would be reversed if they agreed to the cuts. Well thats what should happen.
And being in the private sector i can tell you that pay increases are a reality again. There are companies who dont think so, who quickly change their mind as staff leave to go to higher paying jobs.
Another thing i believe should be reversed is this whole jobbridge scam where people are made to work for €50 more than their dole and companies benefit from their work, but do not have to pay them. That is a travesty, and abuse of not only emplyees, but of the tax payer.0 -
Surely based on those figures if 91 out of 2534 clerical officers are over 60 that means only about 4% remain at CO level for 40 years assuming that 91 actually started around age 20 and have completed 40 years.
Well if you go back 40 years to the early 70's, people at that level joined the service straight from school, that's at 17/18, not at 20.
And at risk of sounding like a broken record, until the 2000's there was promotion based on seniority, so you can't use those figures to prove what you're trying to prove (there's also the historic issue of the marriage bar, whereby women had to leave the service when they got married!).
I think it was very clear that I'm specifically talking about what proportion of a current generation of CO's, who cannot get promoted by virtue of how long they're in the job, will be likely to stay stuck in the grade.0 -
Not that many.
In my experience, COs that get passed over for promotion for that long are either complete wasters (who ordinarily would face disciplinary procedures) or people who choose to stay as COs.
Maybe that's true under the old seniority based system, but there are currently people working as CO's nearly 10 years who are yet to get an opportunity to progress. And my experience of recent EO competitions is that some very hardworking, competent and well educated CO's were culled at the aptitude test stage - you have huge numbers competing for relatively few opportunities.0 -
barneystinson wrote: »Well if you go back 40 years to the early 70's, people at that level joined the service straight from school, that's at 17/18, not at 20.
And at risk of sounding like a broken record, until the 2000's there was promotion based on seniority, so you can't use those figures to prove what you're trying to prove (there's also the historic issue of the marriage bar, whereby women had to leave the service when they got married!).
I think it was very clear that I'm specifically talking about what proportion of a current generation of CO's, who cannot get promoted by virtue of how long they're in the job, will be likely to stay stuck in the grade.
Using the figures you supplied
81% of those 20-29 are COs
59% of those 30-39 are
40% of those 40-49 are
22% of those 50-59 are
Clearly the majority get promoted.0 -
Using the figures you supplied
81% of those 20-29 are COs
59% of those 30-39 are
40% of those 40-49 are
22% of those 50-59 are
Clearly the majority get promoted.
Clearly you're determined to use those figures to prove your point, but that's seriously flawed logic!
For starters: You're just wilfully choosing to ignore the fact that those figures include all of the people who historically were promoted on seniority.0 -
I am pointing out that the vast majority if people retiring have not spent 40 years as a clerical officer and so using clerical officer final salary as some measure of pension entitlement is not relevant. It is unimportant how or why they were promoted only that the enormous majority were promoted.barneystinson wrote: »Clearly you're determined to use those figures to prove your point, but that's seriously flawed logic!
For starters: You're just wilfully choosing to ignore the fact that those figures include all of the people who historically were promoted on seniority.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Sheldons Brain wrote: »Or leave?
Possibly. But either way they do not have 40 years as a clerical officer0 -
It was you who provided the link to those figures when you thought that they supported your position!barneystinson wrote: »Clearly you're determined to use those figures to prove your point, but that's seriously flawed logic!
For starters: You're just wilfully choosing to ignore the fact that those figures include all of the people who historically were promoted on seniority.
The fact is that over time there has been ample opportunity for people to get promoted so that all but a very few people who start as a CO end up retiring as a CO. The fact that the system has since changed to make it more merit based means that it should be easier for people who want and deserve to be promoted to be promoted.
We shouldn't worry too much about the small remainder of people who end up retiring as COs - they either choose this themselves or are so incompetent that they couldn't get a single promotion out of a low level clerical grade in a full career that they should count themselves lucky to have gotten the job in the first place.0 -
I am pointing out that the vast majority if people retiring have not spent 40 years as a clerical officer and so using clerical officer final salary as some measure of pension entitlement is not relevant. It is unimportant how or why they were promoted only that the enormous majority were promoted.
If they were promoted and therefore earning more money, they would have been contributing more to their pension therefore I think it is perfectly acceptable to use a CO's final salary as a BASIC example for calculations.0 -
barneystinson wrote: »Maybe that's true under the old seniority based system, but there are currently people working as CO's nearly 10 years who are yet to get an opportunity to progress. And my experience of recent EO competitions is that some very hardworking, competent and well educated CO's were culled at the aptitude test stage - you have huge numbers competing for relatively few opportunities.
Why would you[edit this is not directed at you barney!] assume somone who stays as a CO is incompetent or useless in there current role? What you can speculate is why they remain as a CO, e.g. they have other priorities in life , they don't want the additional responsibility, they are happy with their current job and pay, they don't want to manage people, they don't think they have the skills to operate effectively at a more senior level, etc. However, that does not mean they are incompetent in their current roles. It might mean they are intelligent enough to know where they operate best. Most people become incompetent because they are promoted beyond their capabilities.
Its also amusing that its only PS workers who don't progress in their grades are considered incompetent .. obviously no one in the private sector would ever turn down the possibility of advancement or remain in the one role during their working lives.0 -
Of course all this is in your mind. You are the only one saying this.Its also amusing that its only PS workers who don't progress in their grades are considered incompetent .. obviously no one in the private sector would ever turn down the possibility of advancement or remain in the one role during their working lives.0 -
Why would you[edit this is not directed at you barney!] assume somone who stays as a CO is incompetent or useless in there current role? What you can speculate is why they remain as a CO, e.g. they have other priorities in life , they don't want the additional responsibility, they are happy with their current job and pay, they don't want to manage people, they don't think they have the skills to operate effectively at a more senior level, etc. However, that does not mean they are incompetent in their current roles. It might mean they are intelligent enough to know where they operate best. Most people become incompetent because they are promoted beyond their capabilities.
Its also amusing that its only PS workers who don't progress in their grades are considered incompetent .. obviously no one in the private sector would ever turn down the possibility of advancement or remain in the one role during their working lives.
There has been a moratorium on promotions for the last 5 or 6 years.0 -
barneystinson wrote: »And additionally, the fact that the bottom line is that the first X amount of the PS pension is the COAP, it's only the incremental amount in excess of the COAP, that their pension contributions are funding.
Have you got some documentation that specifically states what is in bold above because I have data that states otherwisePublic service pension schemes are mainly
statutory, set up by or under Acts of the
Oireachtas, and virtually all are financed on a
Pay As You Go basis, that is, as part of current
expenditure, voted in the annual estimates.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/greenpaperchapter13.pdf
That means your pension contributions now are not for "your" pension.
You may be misguided by the vague terminology used by the government. Their statement that your pension is half your final salary minus the COAP was just a way to soften the blow to PS who had to start paying full PRSI in 1995.
You can try and split the pension into two distinct entities if you want but the fact is that the pension you and other PS receive comes from the exact same potbarneystinson wrote: »Put it another way, if contributions were optional, and I'd never paid into the pension, what pension would I get? I'd get my COAP, same as any other PRSI payer. The COAP absolutely is not "for private sector workers", that's another ridiculous statement.
If that is the case then why is it only private sector workers that receive the COAPPS workers signed up to do a job under the conditions and rules that they did.
So whether when they started that their employment contract stated that they get a pension of 1% or 99% of salary does not matter. They should get whatever was agreed when they started. Both sides agreed to this.
You are wrong here, the govt as the legislator and employer can change the terms and conditions as they feel the need. This is what has happened at budget time previously.barneystinson wrote: »Maybe that's true under the old seniority based system, but there are currently people working as CO's nearly 10 years who are yet to get an opportunity to progress. And my experience of recent EO competitions is that some very hardworking, competent and well educated CO's were culled at the aptitude test stage - you have huge numbers competing for relatively few opportunities.
If they are good enough and there is no opportunity within the PS should these people not take their skills elsewhere where they will get recognised for it?
Do you know many of these competent people that have not been promoted and if so how many have chosen to leave the PS?If they were promoted and therefore earning more money, they would have been contributing more to their pension therefore I think it is perfectly acceptable to use a CO's final salary as a BASIC example for calculations.
FFS, if they were promoted then their lumpsum and pension entitlement would also have increased. Totally idiotic statement :eek:There has been a moratorium on promotions for the last 5 or 6 years.
Things like that don't stop the PS doing what it wants
More than 5,000 public service jobs filled despite recruitment ban
HSE accepts that hiring staff internally without interview isn’t “desirable”0 -
Just to clarify:
PS workers, hired since April 1995, pay full-rate PRSI class A, and will receive a COAP, assuming they have paid enough conts.
Yes, this State Pension is "integrated" with their occupational PS pension, by which is meant the PS pension is reduced.
But they will receive the COAP element from the DSP each week, from the COAP pension age (now 66, 2021 = 67, then 68).0 -
Advertisement
-
Head The Wall wrote: »Have you got some documentation that specifically states what is in bold above because I have data that states otherwise
http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/greenpaperchapter13.pdf
That means your pension contributions now are not for "your" pension.
You may be misguided by the vague terminology used by the government. Their statement that your pension is half your final salary minus the COAP was just a way to soften the blow to PS who had to start paying full PRSI in 1995.
You can try and split the pension into two distinct entities if you want but the fact is that the pension you and other PS receive comes from the exact same pot
If that is the case then why is it only private sector workers that receive the COAP
You are wrong here, the govt as the legislator and employer can change the terms and conditions as they feel the need. This is what has happened at budget time previously.
If they are good enough and there is no opportunity within the PS should these people not take their skills elsewhere where they will get recognised for it?
Do you know many of these competent people that have not been promoted and if so how many have chosen to leave the PS?
FFS, if they were promoted then their lumpsum and pension entitlement would also have increased. Totally idiotic statement :eek:
Things like that don't stop the PS doing what it wants
More than 5,000 public service jobs filled despite recruitment ban
HSE accepts that hiring staff internally without interview isn’t “desirable”
You seriously don't know what you're talking about.
If a post 95 employee retires before they are entitled to the coap then they only get the balance of their entitlement until they are old enough to qualify for the coap and the PS pension.
They are two separate pensions. The coap is not a private sector pension.
As the law currently stands, many current post 95 employees can retire on a full pension at 65 of they have 40 years service however they will only qualify for the coap at 66, 67, or 68 years of age.
Again these employees could retire on a full PS pension at 65 but only receive PS less coap for one two or three years before getting a combined half income pension from two different sources, social protection and revenue.
You don't have a clue.0
Advertisement