Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

your deluded....and Noonan and has already said as much...If you want to believe in the spin from a Minister like Howlin whos party will be demolished if they dont pull a rabbit from the hat then go for it.

Just do the math..and ask the logical questions.
How much are we borrowing this year?
How much has the debt risen by?
How much will we cut/increase taxes in the budget?
Are the troika still looking over the shoulder?

I am tired of this argument just because 300k think l'oriel and that they are worth it , I am afraid that the tax payer in general can no longer afford your lifestyle choices? if you feel hard done by or that the ps is a bad deal for you..Feel free to find a new job.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/noonan-no-room-for-public-sector-pay-increases-635251.html

Yawn, so yesterday or last week, that argument. The pay cuts will be reversed, they were always going to be reversed, it was only a matter of when. Read the following post for some more information.

Godge wrote: »

It is a bit more than that.

Contract law is very important and it is extremely difficult to resile from contracted agreements. However, that is what the Government did with the Financial Emergency Acts. At the time, there were fears that such cuts to contracted pay could be found to be unconstitutional because of the protection of contractual rights in the Constitution. This was never challenged fully in the Courts and the Government would have resisted a challenge anyway. The basis of any resistance would have been the public interest defence based on the financial challenge that faced the State and that these cuts were necessary to save the State from going bankrupt. It is likely, in my opinion, that the Government would have managed to defend any challenge. However, one of the main planks of their defence would have been the following legislative provision which was included in each of the Acts.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0005/sec0013.html#sec13

"Before 30 June in 2010 and every year after 2010, the Minister shall—

(a) carry out a review of the operation, effectiveness and impact of this Act, having regard to the overall economic conditions in the State and national competitiveness,

(b) consider whether or not any of the provisions of this Act continue to be necessary having regard to the purposes of this Act, the overall economic conditions in the State, national competitiveness and Exchequer commitments in respect of public service pensions,

(c) make such findings as he or she thinks appropriate consequent on such review and consideration, and

(d) cause a written report of his or her findings resulting from the review and consideration to be prepared and laid before each House of the Oireachtas."


The purpose of this Section was to demonstrate that the Government wasn't breaking contracts forever but was only doing so temporarily at a time when the country faced an unprecedented crisis and that the necessity for the cuts would be revisited in years to come.

What this does is create a legitimate expectation, maybe even a contractual right that once we are in a situation where the country's finances have eased, that the pay cuts and pension levy will be reversed. Yes, there are clauses to give the government some escape but if say, a public service union sought a judicial review in 2016 of tax cuts or extra payments to farmers on the basis of the provisions of this Act, the Minister would have to clearly justify why he wasn't giving the pay cut back. In the circumstances of a clearly improving financial situation, the union would have a very strong case.

This case would be supported by references to the Dail debates at the time in which such commitments were made clear.

To sum up, the cuts were never meant to be permanent (except possibly the pension levy), and the Acts and the Dail debates made that clear. In seeking the restoration, the unions are only acting on what was promised and agreed. And let us be clear, the unions are only seeking this on the basis that the deficit drops below 3%.

Idbatterim

You also cannot argue IRL Pay V UK pay alone, there many many considerations to be taking into account such as what you get for your tax, property tax, how much it costs to run your car, have house insurance, life insurane (if any), cost of living etc etc

Some guy was on the radio last week saying we need to bring our PS pay rates in mine with EU average pay rates, thats fine, bring IRL cost of living into line with EU average cost of living too.

I appreciate there are all the other costs involved etc. But my point was and I was actually trying to play devils advocate for the PS, when just the pay rates are compared with other countries, are they comparing gross or net, because if its gross, how valid are the comparisons given the ridiculous marginal rate and how low it kicks in here and then if you wanted to go even further the cost of living as you say...

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Yawn, so yesterday or last week, that argument. The pay cuts will be reversed, they were always going to be reversed, it was only a matter of when. Read the following post for some more information.

So to your post and to which I have pointed when did we stop borrowing? When did we pay back the over 200billion in debt.

This country is still a bank mess, public unions strike or housing bubble bursting away from being back in the sh1ts. Do you really think that the there will be pay rises in 2016 while starting to charge for water...I think it would be political suicide from FG if it happened

ardmacha

So to your post and to which I have pointed when did we stop borrowing?

In how many years since the foundation of the State was there no borrowing? In how many of these years was there no pay increases?
How many OECD countries borrow? How many of these have pay increases for their employees?

Please let us know the data.

Idbatterim

youd wonder how much smoke and mirrors it is though. FG probably know they wont get majority, eyeing up Labour as bed buddies again. They know they will probably have to give them something, PS rates were always going to rise again at some stage in the future, they could give them that before GE, then the next few years freeze them again etc, there are many ways to skin a cat... Or are Labour going after PS because welfare rate increases wouldnt be tolerated by either FG or public and private sector workers, as they or just simply "workers" are top of the pecking order IMO... Once I dont hear about welfare rates rising, I wont totally lose the plot!

Godge

ted1 wrote: »

its an increase in pay, and hence a pay increase. kop on its stupids comments like that, that cause the rivalry between the private and public sector

Alternatively, it could well be argued that the inability to intellectually grasp the difference between an increment and a pay increase causes the rivalry?

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Did I say that? I said our taxes were deemed enough up until this year to cover water ..now we need to pay more to get water and you think that 300k public sector workers will get additional pay rises on top of increments at a time when this imposition is being implemented?? REALLY

Not a pay rise.

A restoration of cuts.


I've no idea how you havnt been banned for trolling.

Tiger Mcilroy

chopper6 wrote: »

Not a pay rise.

A restoration of cuts.


I've no idea how you havnt been banned for trolling.

This is a bit rich after your performance in this thread today alone.

noodler

Idbatterim wrote: »

at least if PS get it, a large % goes back in direct taxes to government and the rest into the economy, with welfare if they give out a billion, they are getting far less back. With Ps if they give out a billion, you could be looking at what 40-50% coming straight back by it being deducted at source.

I seriosuly doubt the above statement.

I'd say much higher percentage of welfare gets spent the the equivalent in PS increments.

Poeple on welfare generally don't have as much disposable incoem to save.

That means the money is spent in the economy, stimulates demand elsewhere, supports employment, State beneifts in indirect taxes etc.

Anyway, neither is an argument for increasing either!

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Can you provide a link for this?

I love the idea of nurses moonlighting as landlords!

I have colleagues in the PS who own rental properties, do you honestly not know anyone in the PS who does?

A Garda who I know, asked for my advice last week about an issue he has with undeclared rental income on an apartment he owns as a reluctant landlord since being stationed down the country a few years ago...

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you don't think anyone working in the PS evades tax.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Not if you work in the public sector you cant.

Nonsense, I have worked with several colleagues who are publicans.

LordNorbury

chopper6 wrote: »

An annual increment is not a pay increase...it's a progression through the salary scale.

It is in the private sector. I never in my life heard of a set up in the private sector where people pass through a pay scale automatically and unimpeded, as a matter of absolutely automatic entitlement, without other factors such as (1) performance and productivity (2) peer review (3) attendance and (4) your general attitude towards your employment in terms of your current and future potential/value to the organisation.

It is totally alien to most people working in a private sector job, that you can get an automatic increase every year that brings you through a pay scale and that then on top of, and separate to this, you can also expect to get your 2-3% salary to keep you abreast with inflation in ordinary times.

When I hear things like, "my yearly increment is not a pay increase", I just wonder what planet we have been living on, where this language of total and automatic entitlement becomes entirely normalised. This is the greed that as far as I'm concerned, has this country ruined. We have a completely inefficient and indifferent public sector that is unfit for purpose in relation to the three core services that it has to deliver, namely (1) health, (2) policing and (3) education.

None of these services are working, and why are they not working??? because in each service, whether it be health, justice or education, approximately 80% of the budget is eaten up (for eaten up, read RESERVED), for pay costs.

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

Nonsense, I have worked with several colleagues who are publicans.

And what department in the PS do they work in that allows them to run a pub empire as well as doing their day jobs?

You're spoofing,plain and simple.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

And what department in the PS do they work in that allows them to run a pub empire as well as doing their day jobs?

You're spoofing,plain and simple.

PM me if you actually want to know and I'll tell you you can go there and have a pint, safe in the knowledge that your money is going to a tax compliant PS businessperson...

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

PM me if you actually want to know and I'll tell you you can go there and have a pint, safe in the knowledge that your money is going to a tax compliant PS businessperson...

Are they retired or active within the PS?

Riskymove

chopper6 wrote: »

Are they retired or active within the PS?

tbh I don't know what you are so worked up about

barring conflict of interests there is nothing stopping a PS worker renting out property or having a second job

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

In how many years since the foundation of the State was there no borrowing? In how many of these years was there no pay increases?
How many OECD countries borrow? How many of these have pay increases for their employees?

Please let us know the data.

Your ignoring the point. We are still in the same sh1t that we were back in 2008 when the conscription was pay cuts for the public sector.

We owe a hell of a lot more more now than we did back in 2008 and we are still borrowing and now all of a sudden we can afford pay rises. We had taxed the population almost in Armageddon and the spend side of the equation has still not come down.

So regardless of your findings with regards to people giving historical pay rises either here or in other countries. In this particular case we can not afford them and it will not be tolerated at a time when we will have to start paying for water

Now if you want to go the OCED route compare our rate of pay in the PS to those in the OCED and please let us know the data?

chopper6

Riskymove wrote: »

tbh I don't know what you are so worked up about

barring conflict of interests there is nothing stopping a PS worker renting out property or having a second job

I asked what part of the PS does this "friend" work in that he can be a publican as well.

ted1

Godge wrote: »

Alternatively, it could well be argued that the inability to intellectually grasp the difference between an increment and a pay increase causes the rivalry?

an increment is a pay rise.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Your ignoring the point. We are still in the same sh1t that we were back in 2008 when the conscription was pay cuts for the public sector.

No, we are not, the budget deficit will be under control in 2015.

fliball123 wrote: »

We owe a hell of a lot more more now than we did back in 2008 and we are still borrowing and now all of a sudden we can afford pay rises.

You misunderstand public finances by a distance. IT doesn't matter how much we owe, it matters how much interest we can pay and can we rollover debt. We are more than ok on both fronts which is one of the reasons bond yields are down.

fliball123 wrote: »

We had taxed the population almost in Armageddon and the spend side of the equation has still not come down.

We are still one of the lowest-taxed countries in Europe.

We do not tax low income workers like in other countries.
We do not yet charge for water like in other countries.
We have low property taxes compared to other countries.

All of those need to change, then we can reduce the marginal tax rates on higher earners in line with other countries.

fliball123 wrote: »

So regardless of your findings with regards to people giving historical pay rises either here or in other countries. In this particular case we can not afford them and it will not be tolerated at a time when we will have to start paying for water

Just because you won't tolerate them and will rant and rave about them on this forum doesn't take away from the legal requirement to restore the pay cuts once the emergency is over.

fliball123 wrote: »

Now if you want to go the OCED route compare our rate of pay in the PS to those in the OCED and please let us know the data?

There is no up-to-date data available that takes account of the HRA pay cuts and that adequately adjusts for cost of living, other perks like the 13th month in France etc. You can find data to agree with you, I can find data to agree with me.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

Not a pay rise.

A restoration of cuts.


I've no idea how you havnt been banned for trolling.

It is a pay rise..if you guys were not being over paid you would not of had your pay cut.

Godge

ted1 wrote: »

an increment is a pay rise.

The appropriate salary scale for a post is not adjusted (i.e. there is no pay rise) when an increment is awarded, the person just moves up the salary scale.

For example,

http://hr.per.gov.ie/files/2011/09/Terms-Conditions-01-February-20101.pdf

"Most civil servants are on a pay scale with annual increments up to a maximum point."

The maximum point changes if there is a pay increase, it does not change if an increment is awarded to an individual.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

It is a pay rise..if you guys were not being over paid you would not of had your pay cut.

Public sector pay was cut as a result of a financial emergency caused by the failure of private sector banks and the FF government's over-reliance on construction for jobs and taxes.

If that tax system had been more stable (property-based rather than transaction-based) and Anglo/Irish Nationwide let go bust, there would have been no need for a public service pay cut.

ted1

Godge wrote: »

The appropriate salary scale for a post is not adjusted (i.e. there is no pay rise) when an increment is awarded, the person just moves up the salary scale.

For example,

http://hr.per.gov.ie/files/2011/09/Terms-Conditions-01-February-20101.pdf

"Most civil servants are on a pay scale with annual increments up to a maximum point."

The maximum point changes if there is a pay increase, it does not change if an increment is awarded to an individual.

if someone receives €100 in year 1 and €101 in year 2, then thy received a 1% pay rise, it's as simple as that.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

No, we are not, the budget deficit will be under control in 2015.





You misunderstand public finances by a distance. IT doesn't matter how much we owe, it matters how much interest we can pay and can we rollover debt. We are more than ok on both fronts which is one of the reasons bond yields are down.




We are still one of the lowest-taxed countries in Europe.

We do not tax low income workers like in other countries.
We do not yet charge for water like in other countries.
We have low property taxes compared to other countries.

All of those need to change, then we can reduce the marginal tax rates on higher earners in line with other countries.





Just because you won't tolerate them and will rant and rave about them on this forum doesn't take away from the legal requirement to restore the pay cuts once the emergency is over.




There is no up-to-date data available that takes account of the HRA pay cuts and that adequately adjusts for cost of living, other perks like the 13th month in France etc. You can find data to agree with you, I can find data to agree with me.

How much did we owe back in 2008? How much do we owe now?

How you can say we are ok when we still be borrowing in 2016 and we will owe more again than now. How is that being ok?

So you think that the increasing percentage we have to pay to service our debt as we continue borrowing is ok with you..Thank god your not taoiseach..
So less for services and welfare as well as meaning more taxes or borrowing more and in this equation ps want pay rises above increments? REALLY thats ok..

Well pal its not ok by me and it will not be tolerated any party spinning the tune of ps pay rises will get a bump of 300k but will be blanked by pretty much everyone else. As everyone has connected the dots a pay rise for the 300k means a pay cut for the rest (as the money has to be found somewhere) and yeah I am using the ps logic of tax increase = pay cut

We are one of the most progressive income tax paying bases in the world
We pay a very high % which kicks in at a very low level
When you take indirect taxation we are a very high tax ecconomy and do we get a health in return for that..NO we have pay for that aswell.
We are now getting charged for water..we just have not got the bill yet..thats coming in 2016 and you guys want pay rises in the same here
Low property tax which will go and after what people have lumped out on the historic stamp duty..How does that measure up when you put that into the equation

and I am not the only one who will not tolerate it.
When people wake up to the PS pay rise = tax payer pay cut..It will not be tolerated by anyone

Lots of data out there that suggests we have one of the highest pay for public sector employees in the world

Monife

LordNorbury wrote: »

It is in the private sector. I never in my life heard of a set up in the private sector where people pass through a pay scale automatically and unimpeded, as a matter of absolutely automatic entitlement, without other factors such as (1) performance and productivity (2) peer review (3) attendance and (4) your general attitude towards your employment in terms of your current and future potential/value to the organisation.

It is totally alien to most people working in a private sector job, that you can get an automatic increase every year that brings you through a pay scale and that then on top of, and separate to this, you can also expect to get your 2-3% salary to keep you abreast with inflation in ordinary times.

When I hear things like, "my yearly increment is not a pay increase", I just wonder what planet we have been living on, where this language of total and automatic entitlement becomes entirely normalised. This is the greed that as far as I'm concerned, has this country ruined. We have a completely inefficient and indifferent public sector that is unfit for purpose in relation to the three core services that it has to deliver, namely (1) health, (2) policing and (3) education.

None of these services are working, and why are they not working??? because in each service, whether it be health, justice or education, approximately 80% of the budget is eaten up (for eaten up, read RESERVED), for pay costs.

To receive your increment you have to have achieved a satisfactory rating in your annual performance review and have satisfactory attendance levels.

srsly78

Pretty much nobody ever fails to get a satisfactory rating tho.

Monife

srsly78 wrote: »

Pretty much nobody ever fails to get a satisfactory rating tho.

I know of a couple. One woman didn't get a satisfactory rating/increment two years in a row and was let go.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Public sector pay was cut as a result of a financial emergency caused by the failure of private sector banks and the FF government's over-reliance on construction for jobs and taxes.

If that tax system had been more stable (property-based rather than transaction-based) and Anglo/Irish Nationwide let go bust, there would have been no need for a public service pay cut.

Sorry 1/3rd was the banks

the other 2/3rds was for a decade ove upping ps pay and pensions and welfare. This fact as you know Godge has been proven to you over and over again.

ardmacha

Discussion of increments and proper way to manage progression of more experienced individuals is all very interesting, but this thread is about whether the PS should get a payrise (or rather the reversal of a pay cut). There is a case for the modification of the present increment arrangements in at least some cases. But that is a question for another day, increments have no place in this thread and anyone interested in the subject should open another thread and please stop trying to divert this thread.

We have a completely inefficient and indifferent public sector that is unfit for purpose in relation to the three core services that it has to deliver, namely (1) health, (2) policing and (3) education.

I would argue that while health has real problems, policing is better and education is clearly up to international norms.