Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

bumper234

fliball123 wrote: »

Only difference is now the ps want a pay rise and think that we are no longer borrowing or in debt??

So people who have taken large pay cuts and not had a pay rise in years are now asking for a pay rise and this pi$$es you off? :rolleyes:

fliball123

bumper234 wrote: »

So people who have taken large pay cuts and not had a pay rise in years are now asking for a pay rise and this pi$$es you off? :rolleyes:

Sorry what the hell are increments you got pay rises even in the height of the bust and have so every years since the bust.....There are more deserving people to get some relief before the public sector ever get a larger slice of the pie..

It pi$$es me off that the unions seem to think that we have stopped borrowing or that the 200billion that we owe in debt will some how disappear. I am pi$$ed off with the suggestion that I may have to pay more in tax to cover pay rises for a select 300k people when the right thing to do would be to drop income tax and allow everyone have a bit more in their pocket...

Instead of pay rises in the public sector they should be employing people who meet the employment criteria from people off the dole. That would get those numbers down that collect dole and also help those in the front line services that are under pressure

comongethappy

Is there any stats on how many public & civil servants left their roles in the past 5 years due to low pay?

Anecdotally there are a lot in medicine.

I'm wondering if the government or unions keep a tally?

mirrorwall14

There would a be a lot of transfers in teaching among younger staff because of the splitting of jobs into small amounts of hours

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry what the hell are increments you got pay rises even in the height of the bust and have so every years since the bust.....There are more deserving people to get some relief before the public sector ever get a larger slice of the pie..

You do know there is a cap on the incremental scale, it isn't infinite? Or are you deliberately trying to be one-eyed?

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

You do know there is a cap on the incremental scale, it isn't infinite? Or are you deliberately trying to be one-eyed?

What is one eyed at being asked to pay about 1/4 of a billion a year since 2008 in annual increments and to public sector workers who have no valid performance mechanism

chopper6

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

IF you think that all jobs in the PS are so cushy and the perks are so good then why didn't you get one in there yourself?

He mentioned that heapplied several years ago and was rejected...he obviously wasn't good enough for the role and this is where his hatred comes from...absolutely *not* for the economic good of the country.

comongethappy

chopper6 wrote: »

He mentioned that heapplied several years ago and was rejected...he obviously wasn't good enough for the role and this is where his hatred comes from...absolutely *not* for the economic good of the country.

This kind of stuff gets no one anywhere.
The smug 'oh you weren't worthy' attitude wins the PS few friends.

I think its very legitimate to consider the tax burden on the economy sufficient to run the public services as is.

Though I'm open to being convinced that placing a greater tax burden on the economy to pay you more benefits Ireland.

As it stands though, I don't think that additional burden is justified.

PeteFalk78

Do you have the same aversion to all aspects of public expenditure? Social welfare, education, health, justice etc or just the people who work in there.

comongethappy

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Do you have the same aversion to all aspects of public expenditure? Social welfare, education, health, justice etc or just the people who work in there.

Not at all.

As I said, I think levels of taxation are about right in the economy (approx 35% of GDP for 2014)..... Which is average for OECD countries.

As I said, if there is an economic argument for having this burden increased further to accommodate pay hikes I'm happy to hear it.

chopper6

comongethappy wrote: »

Not at all.

As I said, I think levels of taxation are about right in the economy (approx 35% of GDP for 2014)..... Which is average for OECD countries.

As I said, if there is an economic argument for having this increased further to accommodate pay hikes I'm happy to hear it.

Where did anybody mention increasing that tax burden for "pay hikes"?

comongethappy

chopper6 wrote: »

Where did anybody mention increasing that tax burden for "pay hikes"?

Well, can you can advise how the government increases the PS pay-bill without increasing the tax burden on the economy?

Obviously through either issuing more debt or expenditure cuts elsewhere.
Question is.... What else gets cut in order to pay the PS workers more?

Bob24

chopper6 wrote: »

Where did anybody mention increasing that tax burden for "pay hikes"?

Where else will you find the money though?

Halloween Jack

comongethappy wrote: »

Well, can you can advise how the government increases the PS pay-bill without increasing the tax burden on the economy?

Obviously through either issuing more debt or expenditure cuts elsewhere.
Question is.... What else gets cut in order to pay the PS workers more?

Rising tax receipts as more people enter work force, spend more due to increasing consumer confidence etc.

As the economy improves the govt should be able to start injecting some money into the economy, without raising taxes or cutting elsewhere.

I would have thought that was obvious?

ardmacha

When you come back to this forum it is like GroundHog Day. You expect some sort of mature discussion might have arisen, but instead you get the same set of posts misstating facts. So you have the usual falsehoods about the pension levy being pension contribution, falsehoods about the calculation of PS pensions and the old canard about increments. The latter is particularly pernicious misuse of language since the error has been pointed on numerous occasions to the main poster concerned. Say there was a discussion in Motors forum on car insurance costs. I could go in there and say that everyone I knew got older every year and so had a reduction in their insurance costs. Now this might have potential as a wisecrack, but it is not a serious contribution to the discussion. The change in an individual's insurance cost owing to that person's experience is a separate issue from the change in insurance costs generally and a reduction in the former does not imply anything directly about the latter. If I was in the Motors forum and kept implying, like a broken record, that my experience of reduced insurance cost as I grew older meant that there wasn't an issue with insurance costs generally, then I would be told to wise up and would probably eventually be banned. Yet people can continually come in here and talk about increments, payments reflecting experience, when the thread is about a separate issue, the level of PS pay.

As I said, I think levels of taxation are about right in the economy (approx 35% of GDP for 2014)..... Which is average for OECD countries.

Using the OECD average is fine, but this includes places such as the US, Korea, Turkey etc that have a significantly different structure to the Irish government spending. The West European countries to which we compare ourselves have higher spending. If you want Turkish style welfare policies or US style health and university fees than your proposal is appropriate.

comongethappy

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Rising tax receipts as more people enter work force, spend more due to increasing consumer confidence etc.

As the economy improves the govt should be able to start injecting some money into the economy, without raising taxes or cutting elsewhere.

Government revenues are likely to rise in the coming years, as they have been for each of the previous 4 years.... But there wasn't automatically a rush to blow those increases on increased PS pay.

I'm still awaiting an economic argument as to the benefits of spending increased tax revenues on PS pay instead of focusing on debt, or service provision, or more importantly, the disastrous deficit in capital/infrastructure?

comongethappy

ardmacha wrote: »

then your proposal is appropriate.

What was my proposal?

Halloween Jack

comongethappy wrote: »

Government revenues are likely to rise in the coming years, as they have been for each of the previous 4 years.... But there wasn't automatically a rush to blow those increases on increased PS pay.

I'm still awaiting an economic argument as to the benefits of spending increased tax revenues on PS pay instead of focusing on debt, or service provision, or more importantly, the disastrous deficit in capital/infrastructure?

That's fine, if you read the thread you'll notice I'm a civil servant and advocated spending any extra revenue on capital projects, indeed I just had an argument with colleagues on the same subject.

But people were claiming that to restore pay cuts elsewhere were necessary, which isn't the case. Indeed Howlin only broached the subject on the back of better than expected exchequer returns.

Obviously I'd love to get the cuts reversed, but to my mind there are more pressing issues to be addressed first. As you suggested capital investment would be a lot more beneficial to country at the moment, than pissing money away on current spending. Capital projects can help shorten our dole queues, and help strengthen the recovery, once we do this and hopefully increase our capacity to pay off our gargantuan debt, then maybe the likes of me can ask for a slice of the pie;)

Halloween Jack

And actually, even if the government were hell bent on spending money on public servants I'd rather they hired new staff for areas where shortages exist/significant cut backs have had a negative impact on services.

What I will say though is that my position on this is informed by the fact that despite the continuing bitterness on the part of some posters around here, we really all are in this together and pay rises for public servants will happen naturally once we get more people working.

ardmacha

Halloween Jack wrote: »

What I will say though is that my position on this is informed by the fact that despite the continuing bitterness on the part of some posters around here, we really all are in this together and pay rises for public servants will happen naturally once we get more people working.

Fine, so long as everyone foregoes pay increases until we get "more people working". Or is it just the PS that are going to do this while others take increases and drive up the costs of goods and services?

Flex

ardmacha wrote: »

When you come back to this forum it is like GroundHog Day. You expect some sort of mature discussion might have arisen, but instead you get the same set of posts misstating facts. So you have the usual falsehoods about the pension levy being pension contribution, falsehoods about the calculation of PS pensions and the old canard about increments. The latter is particularly pernicious misuse of language since the error has been pointed on numerous occasions to the main poster concerned. Say there was a discussion in Motors forum on car insurance costs. I could go in there and say that everyone I knew got older every year and so had a reduction in their insurance costs. Now this might have potential as a wisecrack, but it is not a serious contribution to the discussion. The change in an individual's insurance cost owing to that person's experience is a separate issue from the change in insurance costs generally and a reduction in the former does not imply anything directly about the latter. If I was in the Motors forum and kept implying, like a broken record, that my experience of reduced insurance cost as I grew older meant that there wasn't an issue with insurance costs generally, then I would be told to wise up and would probably eventually be banned. Yet people can continually come in here and talk about increments, payments reflecting experience, when the thread is about a separate issue, the level of PS pay.

As far as I know insurance gets lower as you get older because statistically older drivers are safer. Statistically how much more efficient is, say for example, a Clerical Officer after 6 or 7 years doing the same job as they were after 3 years doing it? Little or none Id imagine. On top of that, if youre a poor driver your insurance costs will be affected by it, you wont simply get reduced rates 'just because someone else did'.

The claim I find that is usually made is that because an individuals pay scale isnt increasing, then their pay is frozen, which I find ridiculous.

On the topic at hand, Im not necessarily against further pay increases in the Public Sector, however, Im frustrated at the fact its done in a brainless manner to buy votes. Consistently, reports have showed that while the Public Sector are overall paid more than their counterparts in the private sector, those at the lower end are overpaid, and as you move closer to the top end you find workers are underpaid. Id like to see those who deserve them get them. I doubt that will happen though, how we pay our Public Sector mirrors how our income tax is implemented; the effective rate is overly generous for lower earners, and punitive on mid to higher earners. In both circumstances it encourages mediocrity and discourages ambition and hard work.

I also think it would be good to see some data answering comongethappy's question earlier regards how many people have left the Public Sector due to low pay over the past five years, would be quite interesting and something worth using in decisions about where to award more pay increases

Flex

ardmacha wrote: »

Fine, so long as everyone foregoes pay increases until we get "more people working". Or is it just the PS that are going to do this while others take increases and drive up the costs of goods and services?

Additional money from incremental pay increases spent on goods and services doesnt cause any increase in the cost of goods and services? It isnt additional money being spent in the economy?

Sand

comongethappy wrote: »

Government revenues are likely to rise in the coming years, as they have been for each of the previous 4 years.... But there wasn't automatically a rush to blow those increases on increased PS pay.

I'm still awaiting an economic argument as to the benefits of spending increased tax revenues on PS pay instead of focusing on debt, or service provision, or more importantly, the disastrous deficit in capital/infrastructure?

That is the key thing - where is the indication that there is any economic argument for increasing PS pay? Performance hasn't improved. Management hasn't improved. Reform has been relentlessly rejected by the unions. There is no indication that there is any difficulty filling positions, and there is no indication that any pay rise is targeted at solving any issue.

On the other hand, we have immense debt, very little investment and a collapse in services, all of which are more pressing concerns. Labour indicating again why they are a populist joke of a party. I gave two transfers to two individual Labour politicians I respected individually. I can see now that was a mistake. Labour need to be cleared out, root and branch.

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

Halloween Jack

ardmacha wrote: »

Fine, so long as everyone foregoes pay increases until we get "more people working". Or is it just the PS that are going to do this while others take increases and drive up the costs of goods and services?

If prices are driven up it'll mean more is being spent in the economy at large which will mean the economic picture is getting rosier and naturally you would expect the unions and government will get round the table and talk pay increases.

Like I say I'd obviously love a pay increase, but I'm thinking medium term, the best way to ensure the recovery continues is to get people back to work imo, once we know growth is sustainable I'd expect to see some of the pay cuts we've made in the public service would start to be reversed.

Sheldons Brain

Sand wrote: »

That is the key thing - where is the indication that there is any economic argument for increasing PS pay? Performance hasn't improved. Management hasn't improved.

Performance has increased in recent years, as less people were employed and more work was done.

On the other hand, we have immense debt, very little investment and a collapse in services, all of which are more pressing concerns. Labour indicating again why they are a populist joke of a party. I gave two transfers to two individual Labour politicians I respected individually. I can see now that was a mistake. Labour need to be cleared out, root and branch.

This seems fair enough,

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

Where do you live? Surely here in Ireland if the past few years have indicated anything it is that uniquely you can just pass a law to reduce PS pay while private sector pay doesn't fall much.

Halloween Jack

Sand wrote: »

That is the key thing - where is the indication that there is any economic argument for increasing PS pay? Performance hasn't improved. Management hasn't improved. Reform has been relentlessly rejected by the unions. There is no indication that there is any difficulty filling positions, and there is no indication that any pay rise is targeted at solving any issue.

On the other hand, we have immense debt, very little investment and a collapse in services, all of which are more pressing concerns. Labour indicating again why they are a populist joke of a party. I gave two transfers to two individual Labour politicians I respected individually. I can see now that was a mistake. Labour need to be cleared out, root and branch.

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

The economic argument to my mind would be boosting domestic demand by empowering a large section of the workforce to spend more money.

Of course there are many, many, other ways to get this effect of course. From my point of view I'd be annoyed if say the government decided to start raising social welfare base rates, but again I'd be against any extra money we have going on current spending that doesn't have a direct job creation aspect. (I'm aware that increasing current spending would lead to some jobs being created indirectly).

As regards reform I'd disagree that the unions have blocked it outright, we've seen an increase in the working week, curtailment of sick leave limits and new regulations regarding redeployment, an integrated HR function etc.

Those measures may have been necessary, but they aren't the type of reforms I would have said would have been most useful in my eyes. Effective performance management would have been my number one priority.

Rightwing

Talk of pay increases is absurd, no wonder the country went bankrupt. Sure we can blame the Germans, eh? :rolleyes:

They ought to be looking at taking 15-20% off the existing wage bill.

barneystinson

Sand wrote: »

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

Really, how difficult was it to implement the pay cuts? Was there much mass-scale industrial action, I don't remember working to rule or crossing any pickets... and pay was cut 3 times in less than 5 years if you include the pension levy... you call that difficult??

And lets be clear, the pay cuts were implemented by emergency legislation, with an automatic expiry. There is no question of pay increases AFAIK, simply a question of whether, if improvement comes quicker than expected, the expiry of some measures should happen earlier than was originally legislated for. That is a fundamental difference from a pay increase.

Its like me borrowing your car tomorrow for a week because mine broke down, and giving it back to you in 4 days because I get mine back early from the garage, then telling you how lucky you are!

Halloween Jack

Rightwing wrote: »

Talk of pay increases is absurd, no wonder the country went bankrupt. Sure we can blame the Germans, eh? :rolleyes:

They ought to be looking at taking 15-20% off the existing wage bill.

I'm sure you have a sophist acted model displaying the economic benefits of taking such action?

Or are you just spouting I'll informed ideologically slanted bollocks as usual?

Rightwing

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I'm sure you have a sophist acted model displaying the economic benefits of taking such action?

Or are you just spouting I'll informed ideologically slanted bollocks as usual?

I've never seen that model before for starters.

Not all in the public sector should be cut, but areas like admin & quangos should be axed, thereby bringing down the wage bill.