Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

relax carry on

Rightwing wrote: »

You are making the classic mistake and looking at it from the wrong angle. Economies are bust because of big Government, they are piling up debt and thinking they are rich.

Thanks but that's not what I asked. You have an ideal of how a state should be run. Has your ideal ever been put into practice in any state anywhere in the world successfully? A yes or no answer will suffice. If it's just a theory that you hold to then fair enough.

Rightwing

relax carry on wrote: »

Thanks but that's not what I asked. You have an ideal of how a state should be run. Has your ideal ever been put into practice in any state anywhere in the world successfully? A yes or no answer will suffice. If it's just a theory that you hold to then fair enough.

All States through out history started off with small Government.

But it's very popular and a great vote getter to create quangos and provide many services. The downside is, debt is accumulated. There is only so much debt an individual/corporation/economy can sustain. Then what? Ask Greece.

barneystinson

not yet wrote: »

Can I once and for all put the idea that PS workers earn average 50k and Private sector 35k..to bed
The wage bill in the PS includes every single woker: from Enda Kenny, all his advisers, consultants, Judges etc etc etc, this does not give a true reflection of the average worker, whilst the private sector does not include, C.E.O's, Bank Managers, Chairmen.

As I'm sure you'll agree this does not give a fair comparison of ''average'' wages in bother sectors.

That's not right. The average is what the average is.

The point is that the two averages are in no way comparable, because the 2 groups are (as you've pointed out) composed of completely different classes of worker.

For example the average person in Ireland has 1 testicle and 1 breast, but what does that actually tell us that's of any use? Nothing. Now compare that to another equally meaningless figure, and what have you got? More of the same.

relax carry on

Rightwing wrote: »

All States through out history started off with small Government.

But it's very popular and a great vote getter to create quangos and provide many services. The downside is, debt is accumulated. There is only so much debt an individual/corporation/economy can sustain. Then what? Ask Greece.

So it's a no then and you hold to a theory. Fair enough. To continue on in this, what level of state public service/government would you like to see for Ireland? And how would you fund it? 10% flat tax on everything? Make income tax voluntary?

Rightwing

relax carry on wrote: »

So it's a no then and you hold to a theory. Fair enough. To continue on in this, what level of state public service/government would you like to see for Ireland? And how would you fund it? 10% flat tax on everything? Make income tax voluntary?

Well your initial question did state in the past. It worked well in the past until they decided Government should be bigger, now they all have massive debt.
It's a flaw with democracy. A bit of a tangent I know.

Let's just take the Dept of Transport as an example. Is there really need for all of these quangos?


Department of TransportE

15.1 Córas Iompair Éireann
15.2 Railway Safety Commission
15.3 Railway Safety Advisory Council
15.4 Railway Procurement Agency
15.5 Commission for Taxi Regulation
15.6 Advisory Council to the Commission for Taxi Regulation
15.7 Dublin Transport Office
15.8 Integrated Ticketing Project Board
15.9 National Roads Authority
15.10 The Marine Casualty Investigation Board
15.11 Aer Lingus
15.12 Commission for Aviation Regulation
15.13 Irish Aviation Authority
15.14 Dublin Airport Authority
15.15 Shannon Airport Authority
15.16 Cork Airport Authority
15.17 Dublin Port
15.18 Cork Port
15.19 Waterford Port
15.20 Dun Laoghaire Port
15.21 New Ross Port
15.22 Shannon Foynes Port
15.23 Dundalk Port
15.24 Drogheda Port
15.25 Galway Port
15.26 Wicklow Port
15.27 Arklow Harbour Commissioners
15.28 Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners
15.29 Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Commissioners
15.30 Kilrush Urban District Council
15.31 Kinsale Harbour Commissioners
15.32 River Moy Commissioners
15.33 Tralee and Fenit Harbour Commissioners
15.34 Westport Harbour Commissioners
15.35 Wexford Harbour Commissioners
15.36 Youghal Urban District Council
15.37 Medical Bureau of Road Safety
15.38 Public Transport Partnership Forum

mirrorwall14

barneystinson wrote: »

That's not right. The average is what the average is.

The point is that the two averages are in no way comparable, because the 2 groups are (as you've pointed out) composed of completely different classes of worker.

For example the average person in Ireland has 1 testicle and 1 breast, but what does that actually tell us that's of any use? Nothing. Now compare that to another equally meaningless figure, and what have you got? More of the same.

You know that the word average covers a multitude of different calculations right? It's even on the JC maths syllabus now. They learn three, the mean, median and mode. All are averages. They also learn their flaws. The mode does not always exist, the median is useful when there are outliers and the mean is heavily affected by really small/really large pieces of data which are different

barneystinson

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

You know that the word average covers a multitude of different calculations right? It's even on the JC maths syllabus now. They learn three, the mean, median and mode. All are averages. They also learn their flaws. The mode does not always exist, the median is useful when there are outliers and the mean is heavily affected by really small/really large pieces of data which are different

There's no ambiguity here about which meaning of average is being discussed, it's the most commonly used one, but thanks for that Professor P. Edant

mirrorwall14

barneystinson wrote: »

There's no ambiguity here about which meaning of average is being discussed, it's the most commonly used one, but thanks for that Professor P. Edant

You're the one who said the average is what the average is!

barneystinson

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

You're the one who said the average is what the average is!

Context, context, context...

Read what I was responding to, and stop being a smartarse.

In any event, as long as you're using a consistent interpretation of the word average (whether mean, median or mode) my point remains valid. So what's yours again?

noodler

Godge wrote: »

The new pay scales issue has already been addressed with the new combined payscales. They are not worse than the new entrant scales, they mean that new entrants will end up the same as old entrants, effectively there are just a couple of lower points on entry meaning a slightly longer time to reach the max.

The pension changes were inevitable. I am surprised that the government didn't move to make all future service subject to the new scheme. Would have kept pension costs down even more.

You are wrong about the new combined scales.

They mean an AO who starts in 2014 will be earning considerably less than an AO who started in 2012.

A 2012 AO gets 35k for their third point.

A 2014 AO gets 33k for their third point. And this discrepancy remains until the tenth year of service.

James esq

There are over 250K public servants - like the oaps most of them vote - all pay cuts will be reversed within 16 months. With a possibility of a 6% increase for the increase in working hours.

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

That's not right. The average is what the average is.

The point is that the two averages are in no way comparable, because the 2 groups are (as you've pointed out) composed of completely different classes of worker.

For example the average person in Ireland has 1 testicle and 1 breast, but what does that actually tell us that's of any use? Nothing. Now compare that to another equally meaningless figure, and what have you got? More of the same.

Actually, slightly more than one breast and slightly less than one testicle.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

You are wrong about the new combined scales.

They mean an AO who starts in 2014 will be earning considerably less than an AO who started in 2012.

A 2012 AO gets 35k for their third point.

A 2014 AO gets 33k for their third point. And this discrepancy remains until the tenth year of service.

But it disappears thereafter.

Lower entry scales for new entrants is not a new idea, it has happened before.

barneystinson

Godge wrote: »

Actually, slightly more than one breast and slightly less than one testicle.

Feck, meant to say approximately!

Rightwing

James esq wrote: »

There are over 250K public servants - like the oaps most of them vote - all pay cuts will be reversed within 16 months. With a possibility of a 6% increase for the increase in working hours.

When I heard the welfare bonus was restored, I gave up all hope. A bonus, for what exactly?

Godge

James esq wrote: »

There are over 250K public servants - like the oaps most of them vote - all pay cuts will be reversed within 16 months. With a possibility of a 6% increase for the increase in working hours.

There isn't the money to do that.

There will be some restoration and a promise that it will all be given back under the next government led by FG and Labour.

You will have to balance that with a promise from SF to restore it all the day after they get into office with money from the fairy money tree.

Sheldons Brain

Godge wrote: »

You will have to balance that with a promise from SF to restore it all the day after they get into office with money from the fairy money tree.

Surely SF will promise money for the "workers" while the rich will have their salaries reduced to 100,000. I wouldn't fancy my chances having an operation in a public hospital subsequently.

Rightwing

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Surely SF will promise money for the "workers" while the rich will have their salaries reduced to 100,000. I wouldn't fancy my chances having an operation in a public hospital subsequently.

I'd hope that €100K figure would be for the likes of lord mayors, and those in quangos (i.e no need for them in the first place)

noodler

Godge wrote: »

But it disappears thereafter.

Lower entry scales for new entrants is not a new idea, it has happened before.

What??

What has precedence got to do with it?

There are currently three pay scales in the civil service.

Old entrants, new entrants and combined scales.

Disappears thereafter implies the AO is going to be happy earning less than old entrants or 'new entrants" for ten years until he reaches the max I mum point on the scale.

I can safely say that is not something that would happen.

Your ability to argue for PS pay rises whilst at the same time telling new entrants "sh1t happens" is difficult to reconcile.

Sheldons Brain

noodler wrote: »

What??

What has precedence got to do with it?

There are currently three pay scales in the civil service.

Old entrants, new entrants and combined scales.

Disappears thereafter implies the AO is going to be happy earning less than old entrants or 'new entrants" for ten years until he reaches the max I mum point on the scale.

I can safely say that is not something that would happen.

Your ability to argue for PS pay rises whilst at the same time telling new entrants "sh1t happens" is difficult to reconcile.

I don't think these new entrant scales should persist indefinitely. However, there is a case that market conditions are different at different points on the experience curve. There can exist jobs in which there is a plentiful supply of graduates, but a shortage of experienced people.

James esq

Godge wrote: »

There isn't the money to do that.

There is always the money for a block vote

ezra_pound

Godge wrote: »

But it disappears thereafter.

Lower entry scales for new entrants is not a new idea, it has happened before.

When?

Paulzx

Rightwing wrote: »

Well your initial question did state in the past. It worked well in the past until they decided Government should be bigger, now they all have massive debt.
It's a flaw with democracy. A bit of a tangent I know.

Let's just take the Dept of Transport as an example. Is there really need for all of these quangos?


Department of TransportE

15.1 Córas Iompair Éireann
15.2 Railway Safety Commission
15.3 Railway Safety Advisory Council
15.4 Railway Procurement Agency
15.5 Commission for Taxi Regulation
15.6 Advisory Council to the Commission for Taxi Regulation
15.7 Dublin Transport Office
15.8 Integrated Ticketing Project Board
15.9 National Roads Authority
15.10 The Marine Casualty Investigation Board
15.11 Aer Lingus
15.12 Commission for Aviation Regulation
15.13 Irish Aviation Authority
15.14 Dublin Airport Authority
15.15 Shannon Airport Authority
15.16 Cork Airport Authority
15.17 Dublin Port
15.18 Cork Port
15.19 Waterford Port
15.20 Dun Laoghaire Port
15.21 New Ross Port
15.22 Shannon Foynes Port
15.23 Dundalk Port
15.24 Drogheda Port
15.25 Galway Port
15.26 Wicklow Port
15.27 Arklow Harbour Commissioners
15.28 Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners
15.29 Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Commissioners
15.30 Kilrush Urban District Council
15.31 Kinsale Harbour Commissioners
15.32 River Moy Commissioners
15.33 Tralee and Fenit Harbour Commissioners
15.34 Westport Harbour Commissioners
15.35 Wexford Harbour Commissioners
15.36 Youghal Urban District Council
15.37 Medical Bureau of Road Safety
15.38 Public Transport Partnership Forum

Its so easy to use the headline term " Quango" and then randomly list reams of so called "quangos" without having a clue what you are talking about. Whilst there is no doubt there are semi states that we could most definately do without or amalgamate there are also plenty that cost the state nothing, are self sufficent, efficently run and essential to the country.

Take for example the list you yourself have thrown up to try and "prove" a point. The Irish Aviation Authority ( which you have selected as one of your quangos) receives no government funding. A cursory examination of how it operates shows that it not only provides a vital service in overseeing the aviation industry in Ireland but does so at a profit (much of it from international sources) and has diversified into many areas.

I'm sure if I bothered (unlike you) to go through every organistaion on your list i can find plenty more of the same.

The lack of structure, informed thought or evidence in your posts is staggering if not downright embarrassing. Basing something on your random thoughts is not exactly debate

noodler

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I don't think these new entrant scales should persist indefinitely. However, there is a case that market conditions are different at different points on the experience curve. There can exist jobs in which there is a plentiful supply of graduates, but a shortage of experienced people.

I love that Godge thanked your post.


Someone who is perfectly willing to ignore the application of the supply and demand argument in Ireland's labour force to the Public Sector when it suits him i.e. the fact he is so obviously against PS pay cuts despite swells of unemployment (i.e. at HRA time). Yet, its okay to do so for new entrants apprently. I am delighted to at least see Godge implictily admit that he doesn't have an idealogical position at all - he just wants his own pension protected.


Regarding your post itself. Why should new entrants suffer vis-a-vis existing PS members? Many of which are less skilled than their modern cohort? Isn't that supposed to be the type of thing unions fight against?

robp

I do agree there are and were quangos that should not exist (examples include those doing purely advocacy work) but a great deal of quangos do critical work. Merging does not necessarily reduce costs in any appreciable way. In fact it could raise costs. There were plans for the National Library and National Museum to share services but it has been found to not improve their effectiveness or costs. The board members are unpaid. If the museums are subsumed into the department they can no longer fund raise and attract philanthropists. Or we can look at the ports. Would merging all these port authorities actually save money? If it does by all means merge but rarely do we see figures.

Rightwing

robp wrote: »

I do agree there are and were quangos that should not exist (examples include those doing purely advocacy work) but a great deal of quangos do critical work. Merging does not necessarily reduce costs in any appreciable way. In fact it could raise costs. There were plans for the National Library and National Museum to share services but it has been found to not improve their effectiveness or costs. The board members are unpaid. If the museums are subsumed into the department they can no longer fund raise and attract philanthropists. Or we can look at the ports. Would merging all these port authorities actually save money? If it does by all means merge but rarely do we see figures.

Maybe there should be a thread on quangos. In discussion on water thread too.

chopper6

Rightwing wrote: »

Maybe there should be a thread on quangos. In discussion on water thread too.

You start it then...show your in-depth knowledge of Quangos.

ardmacha

noodler wrote: »

Why should new entrants suffer vis-a-vis existing PS members? Many of which are less skilled than their modern cohort?

Would retention of pay rates for existing experienced employees and some lowering of rates for new recruits not have characterised the private sector response to the recession?

creedp

ardmacha wrote: »

Would retention of pay rates for existing experienced employees and some lowering of rates for new recruits not have characterised the private sector response to the recession?

Without a doubt and maybe also throw into the mix some staff made redundant to protect the remainder's terms and conditions and jobs .. however its not for the PS to comment on how the private sector does its business as the PS don't pay the private sector wages or apparently provide any added value to society.

noodler

ardmacha wrote: »

Would retention of pay rates for existing experienced employees and some lowering of rates for new recruits not have characterised the private sector response to the recession?

Mass redundancy would have characterised the private sector response to the recession.