Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

not yet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I'm a public sector worker and am pay cut free.... :rolleyes:

Not possible..

Larbre34

Any discussion of the actual merits of returning pay levels to the PS, or how that feeds into the structural deficit, is irrelevant.

This is about the political and probably actual survival of the Labour Party. The 'Emergency Measures' pieces of legislation which enacted the various levies and cuts require, by their nature, annual renewal. A moment will come next year, perhaps just 5 or 6 months out from a general election, where the Labour party TDs will have to vote to continue those emergency measures or not. As self preservation mode kicks in, the numbers to pass that vote could become quite tight all of a sudden, and the legislation could lapse, thereby returning all of the pay levels to 2008 in one go.

Howlin is obviously desperate to avoid that and achieve a negotiated gradual restoration or else it would be a disaster for him and his department and the government as a whole in the eyes of the troika etc. It would also bring down the government early (if Irish Water hasnt done it already).

Howlin should have included this likelihood in the package of measures within Haddington Road and that was a major mistake, but if I were the Public Sector Unions I would sit back and postpone engagement on pay restoration and let nature take its course.

not yet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

What's to elaborate?

Never.Got.A.Paycut.

I call bollix.

Riskymove

Larbre34 wrote: »

This is about the political and probably actual survival of the Labour Party.

and FG tbh

Why do you think there is so much take about reducing tax for all workers at the first opportunity

Or why there is insistence at not reducing SW or changing free travel etc in budget

robp

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Jeez I know there was pay freezes, changes to entry scales & pay rises due to qualifications, but was there really many actual pay cuts? Wasn't it more reduction of sick leave, croke park hours, taxation of maternity benefit, not allowing teachers to take holidays in lieu while on maternity leave, pension levy, USC etc. I think they're saving more money outside of paycuts.

Their absolutely was a paycut. Just because someone earns more then 65,000 doesn't mean they don't deserve it and all the more so if you consider pay in the public sector is already considerably more equally distributed then the private sector. If consider pensions, frozen increments and promotion freezes the reduction is very sizeable.

Riskymove

not yet wrote: »

I call bollix.

It is possible

anyone joining after the first paycut and earning less than 65k would not have had a direct paycut

of course it overlooks the fact that the salary they are on is less than it was before

not yet

Riskymove wrote: »

It is possible

anyone joining after the first paycut and earning less than 65k would not have had a direct paycut

of course it overlooks the fact that the salary they are on is less than it was before

The freeze on recruitment came in 08, the first pay cut came in................................................................................



















You guessed it..08, followed by the PRD.

Phoebas

not yet wrote: »

The PS pay bill is approx 17 billion, take back 30% in taxes etc and that leaves 11.90 billion. Now I don't think that figure is excessive to run a country, and had little or nothing to do with the crash.

The crash was caused by greedy bankers-investors-developers and politicans, it was not caused by a PS worker earning 35k a year.

It clearly is excessive when we have to borrow a large part of it.

The crash was caused by a variety of things, including greedy bankers and developers etc, but also including growing a public service too large on the back of unsustainable property based taxes.

barneystinson

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I didn't say none. I said not many. Why people bother wasting time twisting peoples words....maybe argue with the wall? Might be more fun??


Fair enough, I pay the PRD, and along with all the other taxes etc I'm not earning much more than I did 4 years ago. I work in the Education sector, the largest payroll in the country, and afaik there were little actual 'paycuts' but sanctions in other areas, as I mentioned in my first post here.

My thinking, if they reverse these paycuts it won't have much bearing in the Education sector as there were so many other cuts carried out

There were pay cuts across the board in budget 2010;
5% on the first 30k
7.5% on the next 40k
10% on the next 55k

How did you avoid that?

Riskymove

not yet wrote: »

The freeze on recruitment came in 08, the first pay cut came in

There has been some limited recruitment since the moratorium

barneystinson

Riskymove wrote: »

It is possible

anyone joining after the first paycut and earning less than 65k would not have had a direct paycut

of course it overlooks the fact that the salary they are on is less than it was before

True, I joined in 2010 and the scale was lower than the one advertised back in 2008 when the competition took place. I didnt consider it a paycut, but taking a more than 15% drop in gross pay (more if you include pension levy) was scaldy!

Riskymove

Phoebas wrote: »

It clearly is excessive when we have to borrow a large part of it.

obviously the level of government expenditure was a factor in how large the deficit was when government income collapsed due to the economic crash.

Therefore the cost of PS, along with welfare and everything else is a factor in how big the subsequent problems were but was not an actual factor in the economic crash itself

tbh the line that "we are borrowing to pay X" is fairly tiresome at this stage. It is used by many to suit their agenda etc

If they are unhappy with PS, we are borrowing to pay that, if they have an issue with SW then we are borrowing to pay that etc

The estimate for expenditure in 2014 was about €54bn with PS pay €17bn of that

Income was €43bn


to suggest we are borrowing to pay PS is simply lazy imo

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

You haven't learned a single thing in the years you've been on here. You've obviously been mouthing plenty but listening none. Not all staff are on increments. Most people in the public service today are at the top of the incremental scale.

So what? it is the spending side of this I have the issue with it has been costing the tax payer more and more every year.

Anyone who wants to argue go look at how much more we are taking in on tax now than we were in 2008 and go and see how much we are spending.

The spend side since 2008 has not come down? We are being forced to pay about 1/4 of a billion each year in increments since 2008. That money has to be borrowed or got by increasing taxes.

Now the unsions want pay rises on top and at the same time we will be getting charged for water..

Thats the issue I have..If there is any scope for money to be spent PS should be down near the end of the queue..

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

The PS pay bill is approx 17 billion, take back 30% in taxes etc and that leaves 11.90 billion. Now I don't think that figure is excessive to run a country, and had little or nothing to do with the crash.

The crash was caused by greedy bankers-investors-developers and politicans, it was not caused by a PS worker earning 35k a year.

Lies this is lies..the banks cost us 64 billion ..PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade preceeding the bust has cost us just as much if not more..It more than doubled with idiotic schemes like benchmarking. You just refuse to believe it. We are paying too much in tax..first in line for relief should be tax payers.. The good news is all ps are tax payers..Why should the 300k be singled out for special treatment? Where has the other money we owe on our debt come from? We are up over 200billion in debt

Sheldons Brain

fliball123 wrote: »

So what? it is the spending side of this I have the issue with it has been costing the tax payer more and more every year.

Anyone who wants to argue go look at how much more we are taking in on tax now than we were in 2008 and go and see how much we are spending.

The spend side since 2008 has not come down?

The spend on PS pay has come down, so if you have an issue with spending then I suggest you rant in a thread about some other category of spending.

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Lies this is lies..the banks cost us 64 billion ..PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade preceeding the bust has cost us just as much if not more..It more than doubled with idiotic schemes like benchmarking. You just refuse to believe it. We are paying too much in tax..first in line for relief should be tax payers.. The good news is all ps are tax payers..Why should the 300k be singled out for special treatment? Where has the other money we owe on our debt come from? We are up over 200billion in debt

Lets talk some facts instead of reading your meandering, one-eyed, diatribe, hyperbolic tripe.

According to the CSO’s latest earnings and labour costs report, in the three years to the end of 2012, public sector earnings fell by €42.75 per week or 4.4%. That compared to a decline of €7.60 per week or 1.2% in the private sector. FACT!!!

The report also shows the number of people employed in the public service and semi-state sector fell by 9,100 in the year to the end of 2012. At that point, there were 381,800 employed.
Since 2008, the total number of state employees has fallen by 45,000. FACT!!!


So really if you should redeem any sense to intelligence to this debate you should at least try and back up some of your statements with fact.


However backing up hyperbole with fact is an oxymoron.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

We are up over 200billion in debt

Source for that figure?

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

Lies this is lies..the banks cost us 64 billion ..PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade preceeding the bust has cost us just as much if not more..It more than doubled with idiotic schemes like benchmarking. You just refuse to believe it. We are paying too much in tax..first in line for relief should be tax payers.. The good news is all ps are tax payers..Why should the 300k be singled out for special treatment? Where has the other money we owe on our debt come from? We are up over 200billion in debt

Take it easy there Tiger, can't have you choking on your anger...

fliball123

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The spend on PS pay has come down, so if you have an issue with spending then I suggest you rant in a thread about some other category of spending.

How much has ps pay and pensions come down since 2008?

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

How much has ps pay and pensions come down since 2008?

Read post 167.

Flippyfloppy

Riskymove wrote: »

well, imo, the clear implication from your post was that rather than "actual" paycuts there were only other measures

Perhaps if you have said this clear statement in the first place



you could have avoided the issue

What issue?? This thread is hilarious!!

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Lets talk some facts instead of reading your meandering, one-eyed, diatribe, hyperbolic tripe.

According to the CSO’s latest earnings and labour costs report, in the three years to the end of 2012, public sector earnings fell by €42.75 per week or 4.4%. That compared to a decline of €7.60 per week or 1.2% in the private sector. FACT!!!

The report also shows the number of people employed in the public service and semi-state sector fell by 9,100 in the year to the end of 2012. At that point, there were 381,800 employed.
Since 2008, the total number of state employees has fallen by 45,000. FACT!!!


So really if you should redeem any sense to intelligence to this debate you should at least try and back up some of your statements with fact.


However backing up hyperbole with fact is an oxymoron.

First off you ask your self the following

So how much will be eaten into that 4.4% when the 2/3 tranches of increment are taken into account up to 2014?

secondly only 4.4% with 45000 less employees ..thats such a small saving its embarrassing..

Also how many of those 45000 ex ps employees went onto either the dole or onto their pensions? How much is that costing. Increasing the cost on the tax payer

If you want to compare private and public cos, how many private sector companies gave any kind of pay rises whilst the employer was broke and borrowing. (the only exception would be the banks)

Thanks for those facts as they actually condemn the farcical way the government have been dealing with the public sector.

Flippyfloppy

barneystinson wrote: »

There were pay cuts across the board in budget 2010;
5% on the first 30k
7.5% on the next 40k
10% on the next 55k

How did you avoid that?

We're part of a certain....group.

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

How much has ps pay and pensions come down since 2008?

By approx 2.5 billion in 5 years, upwards of 30k staff have retired and not been replaced. The PS have been trimmed and is very close to being fit for purpose as they call it. We have some of the hardest working people in the country in the PS.

Just on a side note,

If the PS is a cash cow why didn't all these whingers join it pre 09. Reason: Most people earned a lot more then your average PS worker in the boom..

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Source for that figure?

202.9 at the end of 2013

http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

Take it easy there Tiger, can't have you choking on your anger...

whos choking..merely pointing out lies when I see them

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

First off you ask your self the following

So how much will be eaten into that 4.4% when the 2/3 tranches of increment are taken into account up to 2014?

secondly only 4.4% with 45000 less employees ..thats such a small saving its embarrassing..

Also how many of those 45000 ex ps employees went onto either the dole or onto their pensions? How much is that costing. Increasing the cost on the tax payer

If you want to compare private and public cos, how many private sector companies gave any kind of pay rises whilst the employer was broke and borrowing. (the only exception would be the banks)

Thanks for those facts as they actually condemn the farcical way the government have been dealing with the public sector.

I actually feel a little embarrassed for you.

If the average pay has fallen (which you don't dispute), and the number of employees has fallen (which you don't dispute) then its a mathematical certainty that the total cost has fallen.

Your point about increments eating into the reduction also displays a very poor understanding of arithmetic. The 4.4% reduction in average pay quoted by the previous poster is inclusive of all increments payable during that 3-year period. And the average in the subsequent year's figure will include all subsequent increments...

comongethappy

not yet wrote: »

Most people earned a lot more then your average PS worker in the boom..

Data to back that?

I think more than 60% of private sector workers earn less than the average wage.

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

By approx 2.5 billion in 5 years, upwards of 30k staff have retired and not been replaced. The PS have been trimmed and is very close to being fit for purpose as they call it. We have some of the hardest working people in the country in the PS.

Just on a side note,

If the PS is a cash cow why didn't all these whingers join it pre 09. Reason: Most people earned a lot more then your average PS worker in the boom..

Have you a link for the 2.5 billion? ..You also have some people who are not fit for purpose and get pay rises with no valid performance measure..I have no doubt that there are hard working people there.

As for you Side note..If the PS is so underpaid..how many people have volentarily left and sought employment in the private sector?

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

I actually feel a little embarrassed for you.

If the average pay has fallen (which you don't dispute), and the number of employees has fallen (which you don't dispute) then its a mathematical certainty that the total cost has fallen.

Your point about increments eating into the reduction also displays a very poor understanding of arithmetic. The 4.4% reduction in average pay quoted by the previous poster is inclusive of all increments payable during that 3-year period. And the average in the subsequent year's figure will include all subsequent increments...

That report is up to 2012 is it not? Which means 2013 or 2014 increments are not included?