Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

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

Exactly. None of the figures include anything for 2013/2014. The further pay cuts and additional working hours imposed under Haddington road aren't included either... can you guess what effect they'll have on the average figures (particularly the p/hr figure)..?

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

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

4.4% came of the incremental scale also as an average. I thought that would have been obvious to you even with your minimal knowledge of the public sector scaling system

fliball123 wrote: »

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

Nope you are the embarrassment is I was referring to your quote here

fliball123 wrote: »

....PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade.........

So are you conceding now that PS pay is decreasing?

fliball123 wrote: »

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

So lets see, you are giving out about their pay when they were working and now they are no longer on the payroll you are up in arms over that. :eek::D

fliball123 wrote: »

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)

As a ratio there were lots. That's why benchmarking was introduced without an whimper from the private sector. There wasn't one protest from the public when benchmarking was introduced. Were you out protesting fliball?

fliball123 wrote: »

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

No problems. Thank you for the intelligent "contributions" you made to this thread.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Exactly. None of the figures include anything for 2013/2014. The further pay cuts and additional working hours imposed under Haddington road aren't included either... can you guess what effect they'll have on the average figures (particularly the p/hr figure)..?

Sure they have only kicked in and the unions want them reversed...as if the deficit and debt dont exist..I didnt realise hadding cuts were not in it..So the 4.4% may be more but it will also be clawed back with 3/4 lots on increments in the same period.

Riskymove

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

What issue??

the argument

not yet

comongethappy wrote: »

Data to back that?

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

I think you'll find that during the boom tradesmen were earning upwards of 2k a week, drivers were earning 600 euro per week.

Yes there were people on minimum wage but most people were earning good money.

Flippyfloppy

Riskymove wrote: »

the argument

Look, I made a casual comment. The only way the follow up could have been avoided would have been if I'd back read the thread and realised the kind of people inhabiting it.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

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

In 2008 the PS pay bill was 17.097bn and in 2012 was 14.402bn. A decrease of 2.7bn.

In 2008 the PS pensions bill was 1.656bn and in 2012 was 2.502bn. An increase of 846m.

Overall a decrease of about 1.85bn.

barneystinson

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Look, I made a casual comment. The only way the follow up could have been avoided would have been if I'd back read the thread and realised the kind of people inhabiting it.

Maybe you should have read the thread before commenting then?!

You haven't explained how you avoided the 2010 pay cuts by the way.

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

4.4% came of the incremental scale also as an average. I thought that would have been obvious to you even with your minimal knowledge of the public sector scaling system


Nope you are the embarrassment is I was referring to your quote here

So are you conceding now that PS pay is decreasing?



So lets see, you are giving out about their pay when they were working and now they are no longer on the payroll you are up in arms over that. :eek::D


As a ratio there were lots. That's why benchmarking was introduced without an whimper from the private sector. There wasn't one protest from the public when benchmarking was introduced. Were you out protesting fliball?


No problems. Thank you for the intelligent "contributions" you made to this thread.

I am giving out about all spend not just ps..Spend has not come down since 2008 when all that we are on the hook for. Yet taxation has gone through the roof.

Do you not think that with 40k less people working basically 1/7th or 8th of the work force that was there and there is only a saving of 4.4% up unto 2012...Which I reckon is the main reason why haddington had to be put in place.

Also the hidden cost of us having to repay the 200billion in debt..A portion of that 200billion was for ps pay and pensions.

Look I have no doubt that the paybill is down it had to come down (After more than doubling in the decade preceeding the bust) but it goes back up with increments if no more cuts happen in the ps in a couple of years we will be paying as much as we were, and the ps is still paid a lot when compared to the private sector and other countries, also perks, pensions are taken into account.

As I say there would be a very small amount of PS workers who swaped for the private sector in the period between 2008 and 2014 and that can be measured by adding those who got redancies to those going onto their pensions since 2008 - 2014 and take that away from the 45k you mention.

So things must not be so bad if the vast majority of ps employees are staying put.

Asking for a payrise when people have to start paying for water is very embarrassing for the public sector unions.

What should happen is the USC should be cut and let everyone not just the the 300k ps workers have a bit more and before PS get a payrise new employees should be given a chance in there by offering jobs to those on the dole a job who meet the employment criteria.

As for benchmarking ..why is there no record of this now. Why cant the same process take place now..?? Those in the ps say some of the jobs have no comparison in the private sector ..yet they were happily compared when their wage went up?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Sure they have only kicked in and the unions want them reversed...as if the deficit and debt dont exist..I didnt realise hadding cuts were not in it..So the 4.4% may be more but it will also be clawed back with 3/4 lots on increments in the same period.

The 4.4% also doesn't include the pension levy which is also a paycut.

And I don't know what the point of your first sentence is - of course the unions want any cuts in pay or conditions reversed, that's their raisin d'être! But this thread exists not because of anything the unions have said, but because the minister has acknowledged that he has to revisit the legislation next year to justify its continued operation, which requires getting the labour turkeys to vote for Christmas with a general election looming.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

In 2008 the PS pay bill was 17.097bn and in 2012 was 14.402bn. A decrease of 2.7bn.

In 2008 the PS pensions bill was 1.656bn and in 2012 was 2.502bn. An increase of 846m.

Overall a decrease of about 1.85bn.

Ok so you also have to take into the equation. The cost of golden handshakes, the cost of increments since 2012 and also take away what haddington road cuts come to get the figure for 2014/2015

So with 45k less we are saving 1.85bn and there is no costings for any of the 45k who went onto the dole..

The plan that was followed saves very little and seems to have caused hassle in the ps

They should of just done a third and fourth benchmarking process

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

The 4.4% also doesn't include the pension levy which is also a paycut.

And I don't know what the point of your first sentence is - of course the unions want any cuts in pay or conditions reversed, that's their raisin d'être! But this thread exists not because of anything the unions have said, but because the minister has acknowledged that he has to revisit the legislation next year to justify its continued operation, which requires getting the labour turkeys to vote for Christmas with a general election looming.

Well considering the pensions you guys get it comes no where near covering the costs of those pensions..So its a contribution to a defined benefit and comes out before your taxed.

also I dont want the ps to be cut anymore..I just do not want them getting payrises above what they are already getting..There are fair more deserving people who need to be alleviated first

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

I am giving out about all spend not just ps..Spend has not come down since 2008...

But the wage bill has, as you've admitted, so why not focus your tremendous amount of bile on area(s) that haven't come down?

fliball123 wrote: »

IDo you not think that with 40k less people working basically 1/7th or 8th of the work force that was there and there is only a saving of 4.4% up unto 2012...Which I reckon is the main reason why haddington had to be put in place.

Yep, you're still not understanding the basic arithmetic. 4.4% is an AVERAGE. It is the amount of wages divided by the number of workers. The 4.4% relates specifically to the wages of the people still there, the fact that the number of workers has fallen means nothing, other than the mathematical certainty that if you multiply a lower average by a lower number of workers you have to have a lower cost.

fliball123 wrote: »

Also the hidden cost of us having to repay the 200billion in debt..A portion of that 200billion was for ps pay and pensions.

Once again, where are you getting this figure from?!?!?!?!

Sheldons Brain

fliball123 wrote: »

Look I have no doubt that the paybill is down it had to come down (After more than doubling in the decade preceeding the bust) but it goes back up with increments if no more cuts happen in the ps in a couple of years we will be paying as much as we were,

Fliball, do you accept that in a steady state situation where the size and composition of the PS and the rates of pay do not change, that the payment of increments means no change whatsoever in the overall pay bill of the PS?

If you do not accept this, then perhaps you'll explain why as the rest of us cannot understand your reasoning, or perhaps more accurately your lack of reason.

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Also the hidden cost of us having to repay the 200billion in debt..A portion of that 200billion was for ps pay and pensions.

Can you explain where you're getting this figure from?

Tigger

not yet wrote: »

I think you'll find that during the boom tradesmen were earning upwards of 2k a week, drivers were earning 600 euro per week.

Yes there were people on minimum wage but most people were earning good money.

any figures to back that up?

the carpenters i had working with/for me were on about €900 a week before insurance diesel tool maintenance/replacement but i'm sure you have figures to show we were all fools


http://www.siptu.ie/divisions/utilitiesconstruction/construction/rearatesfortheconstructionindustry/

the craft rate was €725 so those who were employed by others were on that

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Well considering the pensions you guys get it comes no where near covering the costs of those pensions..So its a contribution to a defined benefit and comes out before your taxed.

also I dont want the ps to be cut anymore..I just do not want them getting payrises above what they are already getting..There are fair more deserving people who need to be alleviated first

Just because you call it a contribution doesn't make it so. It's a pay cut.

Edit: just to be clear, it's a pay cut imposed only on serving PS employees - the reason it was implemented the way it has been, was a sop to PS pensioners, a political decision.

Tigger

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..

whingers is an emotive expression; i don't understand why its always us and them if the public service have more to spend then i'll earn more its pretty simple. my wife applied to the public service many times its wasn't actually that easy to get into. i remember friends of mine with degrees who had to apply multiple times to become cops and prison officers. i applied to state agencies and then number of people in the halls was massive.

it annoys me that people who are struggling to make ends meet with either effective rates of deductions over 32k of 63% or of 52% don't see that they should join together and have the tax system changed. put the cut off rate back up and increase the higher rate so both the hard working middle in the public and private sectors can get the monkey off their backs.
ffs the illegally paid high earners in the ps are apparently being red circled so they still get obscene amounts cos its one rule for the rich and another for the workers.

why do you think they encourage the public and private sectors to be at each others throats ?

Tigger

barneystinson wrote: »

Just because you call it a contribution doesn't make it so. It's a pay cut.

Edit: just to be clear, it's a pay cut imposed only on serving PS employees - the reason it was implemented the way it has been, was a sop to PS pensioners, a political decision.

this is 100% true it was an effective pay cut and as a private sector worker i said so at the time
it penalized the longest serving least from not at all if retired exponentially increasing as age/years served decreased

also there is a good chance that the gold plated pensions that are about at the moment will not be there in 20 years


the grey vote is very powerful and includes both private and public sector workers/retirees

the center aged center employed public and private sectors need to combine; those of us who have increasing child care/education costs health costs and housing / energy costs are being targeted while the grey with decreasing costs are being pandered to

kippy

Irish Steve wrote: »

Can't help thinking that it would be a lot more equitable to reduce one of the multitude of taxes or charges that have been loaded on to everyone, on the basis that everyone would then benefit, instead of pandering to a specific minority, albeit a large and vocal minority.

Yet again, we see the 5 year mind set political thinking coming to the fore. Forget the good of the country, make sure that I can get re-elected in a short while.

It would be so nice to see some politicians that are thinking beyond the next election, who care about what's happening to Ireland Inc over the next 20 years. Can't see it happening any time soon, so we're going to be stuck with the same old garbage all over again.

Totally agree tbh.

Knock the USC down a notch or five. Would have a far greater impact on the entire working population, and might provide a bit more of an encentive for people to work hard.
Although I would suggest the state don't see this as a good option, mainly because the net cost of employing public servants increase with any tax cut they apply to the working population as a whole.

barneystinson

kippy wrote: »

Totally agree tbh.
Knock the USC down a notch or five. Would have a far greater impact on the entire working population, and might provide a bit more of an encentive for people to work hard.

Same here.

if they reduced the 2% back down to zero on the first 10k, and extended the 4% band up to the mid-20k's it'd mean a tenner a week to everyone earning 25k or above.

antoobrien

chopper6 wrote: »

Can you explain where you're getting this figure from?

GGD (the figure that is used when economists talk about debt) was 215.54bn as of the end of last year.

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

Same here.

if they reduced the 2% back down to zero on the first 10k, and extended the 4% band up to the mid-20k's it'd mean a tenner a week to everyone earning 25k or above.

Wow..a whole tenner a week!

I'm down over 500 a month since 2008.

Tigger

chopper6 wrote: »

Wow..a whole tenner a week!

I'm down over 500 a month since 2008.

i'm down 2,000 a month take home

AlekSmart

kippy wrote: »

Totally agree tbh.

Knock the USC down a notch or five. Would have a far greater impact on the entire working population, and might provide a bit more of an encentive for people to work hard.
Although I would suggest the state don't see this as a good option, mainly because the net cost of employing public servants increase with any tax cut they apply to the working population as a whole.

Excellent suggestion,which,if combined with removing VAT from the PSO/Standing Charge elements of Utility Bills would give Workers/Contributors a bit of incentive.

One other element of legislation,often overlooked,is the effect of Working Time Act which effectively acts as a direct Income Cap on employees.

Ireland Teo, appears to place great importance on preventing those who DO have a will to work,from maximizing their income ?

Icepick

People who want to cut USC don't realize that Prsi is very low, taking the amount paid by the employer into account, compared to the benefits you are entitled to.
In fact USC should be merged with Prsi and the whole welfare system should be reformed so that benefits depend on your social insurance payments.

VAT should be cut to really benefit everyone, including retailers.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Wow..a whole tenner a week!

I'm down over 500 a month since 2008.

So?

It was an illustration.

If you're not bothered by a tenner a week then you must be one of those who could bear more austerity ...

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

People who want to cut USC don't realize that Prsi is very low, taking the amount paid by the employer into account, compared to the benefits you are entitled to.
In fact USC should be merged with Prsi and the whole welfare system should be reformed so that benefits depend on your social insurance payments.

VAT should be cut to really benefit everyone, including retailers.

I don't disagree so long as the end result is an increase in take home pay for all workers.

Tigger

Icepick wrote: »

People who want to cut USC don't realize that Prsi is very low, taking the amount paid by the employer into account, compared to the benefits you are entitled to.
In fact USC should be merged with Prsi and the whole welfare system should be reformed so that benefits depend on your social insurance payments.

VAT should be cut to really benefit everyone, including retailers.

lower income tax and higher vat benefit the working people and target the pensioners and the unemployed / idle rich. the govt pander to these people so that won't be on the cards

the system is closed so if something goes up then something can go down

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

But the wage bill has, as you've admitted, so why not focus your tremendous amount of bile on area(s) that haven't come down?



Yep, you're still not understanding the basic arithmetic. 4.4% is an AVERAGE. It is the amount of wages divided by the number of workers. The 4.4% relates specifically to the wages of the people still there, the fact that the number of workers has fallen means nothing, other than the mathematical certainty that if you multiply a lower average by a lower number of workers you have to have a lower cost.


Once again, where are you getting this figure from?!?!?!?!

I put the link to the debt already. Also the bile is coming out as PS unions are looking for payrises