Proposed Public sector pay rises

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

Nice try .. says it all .. I thought we had left the school yard!

Basically, despite all the efforts to say otherwise, incremental pays systems apply in both the public and private sector. Now if increments are described as pay increases in the PS then it follows they also qualify as pay increases in the private sector ... a 38% pay increase over 4 years is not a bad return in a sector where apparently pay is falling/stagnant ...

A big problem with the arguments put forward by those against the PS is that its seems perfectly OK to use sweeping statements and generalisations to explain the position of an individual PS but in no way can a similar approach be taken to those in the private sector.

your trying to equate payrises in a company that has upped its profits and share of the market in Ireland considerable against a country who is in debt of 200billion+ and borrowing 5/8 billion this year and you think the same mechanism can be used for both? So ok I will indulge you... If we do go on this paradigm then do you really think if Lidl was 200billion in debt and borrowing 5/8 billion this year that they would give any pay ries..Becaue and maybe I am just being a little silly here but would they not of hit the wall and gone out of business?

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Where am I talking ****e..These increments are costing the tax payer money pal and they are also increasing the public sector pension burden aswell ..So I am not talking ****e. These increments should of stopped at the time of the crash and not reinstated until the deficit was bridged and now you guys want pay rises on top.

the way this government has dealt with spending on public servants pay and pensions has been a joke and is akin to trying to empty a swimming pool by taking buckets of water out of the deep end and throwing it back into the shallow end

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1027770.shtml

The PS pay and pensions bill is down a massive 6% now thats with 10% less staff (not being paid) after the optional, show them the money redundancies that happened.

Now you guys want pay rises when this 6% will be reduced even further with the annual increments this year? REALLY

Since 2007 annual increments has cost us north of 1.4 billion and as i stated multiples of this when the effect is passed onto the pensions..

But dont let actual facts get in the way of you guys spinning that you had it hard...

You cut your numbers by 10% and in years of the crash we the tax payer have only been able to save 6% on the bill we have to pay for it and now you want pay rises...

I am actually here typing this with a sense of disbelieve

I was pointing fact that you are trying to paint the picture that everybody in the PS are still getting increments. Which is wholly untrue.

noodler

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Oh noodler dont try and reach so hard please, your attempt to pronounce me foolish say more about you than me

Your link does nothing other than verify a figure of 30 in one year for one category and shows it was a cherry picked number as I suspected.

It does not give any details on the reasons for the rest of deferred payments because I know from personal experience the number is ALOT higher than 30 people whose increment was deferred, and I also know from published reports that figure is alot higher.

And we won't even discuss the obvious entire PS having their increments deferred either

What the hell are you talking about?

Absolute deflection and restating qualifications that I have already made.

Nothing was cherry picked the results of the 2012 PMDS are in the link. 30 CS were refused increments on performance grounds just like I said.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

The goalposts were the number of people performing accepatably.

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

it isn't rocket science, if you are using the pay and pension bill than you must divide by the number receiving pay and pensions. If you want to divide by the number receiving pay than use the pay bill.

You have a case, you should not need to engage in banana calculations to make it.

Missed that one alright but the headline figures still screams out that we are what 7 years into cuts in numbers and wage within the public sector and we have only managed to save 6% off the pay/pensions bill which will be further eroded with another annual increment this year

I also missed the report I linked does not include the pay and pensions of people working in the local authorities 30k ..

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I was pointing fact that you are trying to paint the picture that everybody in the PS are still getting increments. Which is wholly untrue.

I never said everyone got them I said they are given indiscriminately, those who dont deserve them get them is the point i have been trying to make

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

How much did Lidl borrow last year?
How much are Lidl in debt this year?

Nice try

The chances are they have a working debt,yes..they don't pay all their suppliers cash on the nose,they're dependent on revenue stream to pay suppliers.

many private sector firms prefer to spunk the profits on payrises for management and either let their creditors go to the wall or refuse to pay their staff.

A-Wear being one,Total Fitness being another.

Jawgap

fliball123 wrote: »

No but you can sure as ****e that if the manager acts the job****e and scratches his arse while he works there he will be on the dole queue pronto.

How much did Lidl borrow last year?
How much are Lidl in debt this year?

Nice try

Two completely ambiguous measures of company performance. Even highly profitable companies borrow and maintain a debt pile.

Apple just declared an $18 billion profit (off revenues of $74.6 biilion)for Q4 2014 - they have cash (and near cash) reserves of $178 billion - it also has debts of €35 billion.

Sometimes companies borrow to avoid tax, sometimes to avail of low interest rates and yes, sometimes because they actually need the cash.

bobbysands81

noodler wrote: »

So, you agree then? Only 30 were refused increments based on performance?



http://www.thejournal.ie/civil-service-pay-rises-to-be-linked-with-stricter-performance-reviews-536062-Jul2012/[/url

I haven't checked the figures but you'll notice I haven't argued against them.

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

your trying to equate payrises in a company that has upped its profits and share of the market in Ireland considerable against a country who is in debt of 200billion+ and borrowing 5/8 billion this year and you think the same mechanism can be used for both? So ok I will indulge you... If we do go on this paradigm then do you really think if Lidl was 200billion in debt and borrowing 5/8 billion this year that they would give any pay ries..Becaue and maybe I am just being a little silly here but would they not of hit the wall and gone out of business?

Yes an organisation would go out of business if it borrowed beyond its capability to trade out of the problem in the long term and therefore no longer a going concern unable to attract further funds to stay afloat. Its a bit much to compare the Iriah State's borrowing to an individual comanies borrowings though .. what is Lidl's annual Irish turnover?

However, a private sector organisation in troubled waters does not slash it pay levels as it knows in doing so it will either lose its existing staff or fail to recruit staff of necessary expertise/experience to help it trade out of its difficulties. If it can't pay it staff and make a profit .. it will simply jettison staff or close down altogether. Or at least that is the normal approach taken in the private sector .. I should be making sweeping generalisations!

Maybe Ireland INC should just go into receivership or simply shut down .. we all know that the private sector would be much better off without the incumberance of a state/public sector hanging off it and sucking it dry while individual private sector wealth creators scurry to maximise their own wealth at the expense of pretty much everyone else .. does that make them me feiners?

Ctrl Alt Delete

noodler wrote: »

The goalposts were the number of people performing accepatably.

OK I'll try go slower then. If an increment is deferred that indicates that their performance was not acceptable we agree yes ?

Your figure of 30 however simply means they were deferred for under performing, however, equally excessive sick leave and so on is also not acceptable performance and that number of public servants who had increments deferred on that ground is HIGH.

Through your blinkers 30 is only a cherry picked number that you think validates your case but in reality it does the opposite as if only 30 people had increments deferred for non performance that is 0.01% of the PS workforce deemed to be ineffective.

So if 0.01% are deemed ineffective then that means PMDS and performance management is highly effective and working no ?

Or will you move said goalposts and say its because the PS are rubbish at everything including PMDS :rolleyes:

bobbysands81

fliball123 wrote: »

your trying to equate payrises in a company that has upped its profits and share of the market in Ireland considerable against a country who is in debt of 200billion+ and borrowing 5/8 billion this year and you think the same mechanism can be used for both? So ok I will indulge you... If we do go on this paradigm then do you really think if Lidl was 200billion in debt and borrowing 5/8 billion this year that they would give any pay ries..Becaue and maybe I am just being a little silly here but would they not of hit the wall and gone out of business?

But the PS did their bit, we took pay cuts, pension levy, changed work practices, took on new roles and responsibilities, did more with less... etc... yet detractors like you will never be happy even though we're the only workers who had a cut imposed on us without having to agree it.

Every cent taken away from my wages went back to the Exchequer.

The irony is that if you took a pay cut you actually gave less back to the Exchequer.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

The chances are they have a working debt,yes..they don't pay all their suppliers cash on the nose,they're dependent on revenue stream to pay suppliers.

many private sector firms prefer to spunk the profits on payrises for management and either let their creditors go to the wall or refuse to pay their staff.

A-Wear being one,Total Fitness being another.

They are not in any debt your just guessing there now unless you have a
link . Even with monies owed out to creditors on their balance sheet there is not a chance that Lidl are in debt. By the way if you want to bring that 200billion of working debt we owe into the equation the nonsense of pay rises in the public sector is even more farcical

chopper6

creedp wrote: »

However, a private sector organisation in troubled waters does not slash it pay levels as it knows in doing so it will either lose its existing staff or fail to recruit staff of necessary expertise/experience to help it trade out of its difficulties.

Or they can jack their prices up..as publicans have been doing steadily for the last number of years.

fliball123

Jawgap wrote: »

Two completely ambiguous measures of company performance. Even highly profitable companies borrow and maintain a debt pile.

Apple just declared an $18 billion profit (off revenues of $74.6 biilion)for Q4 2014 - they have cash (and near cash) reserves of $178 billion - it also has debts of €35 billion.

Sometimes companies borrow to avoid tax, sometimes to avail of low interest rates and yes, sometimes because they actually need the cash.

Can you show me any evidence of Lidl being in debt?

Just on your analogy is there a + or - figure when the sum of 178billion - 25billion is calculated?

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

Yes an organisation would go out of business if it borrowed beyond its capability to trade out of the problem in the long term and therefore no longer a going concern unable to attract further funds to stay afloat. Its a bit much to compare the Iriah State's borrowing to an individual comanies borrowings though .. what is Lidl's annual Irish turnover?

However, a private sector organisation in troubled waters does not slash it pay levels as it knows in doing so it will either lose its existing staff or fail to recruit staff of necessary expertise/experience to help it trade out of its difficulties. If it can't pay it staff and make a profit .. it will simply jettison staff or close down altogether. Or at least that is the normal approach taken in the private sector .. I should be making sweeping generalisations!

Maybe Ireland INC should just go into receivership or simply shut down .. we all know that the private sector would be much better off without the incumberance of a state/public sector hanging off it and sucking it dry while individual private sector wealth creators scurry to maximise their own wealth at the expense of pretty much everyone else .. does that make them me feiners?

I didnt make the original comparison a different poster did

Godge

creedp wrote: »

Yes an organisation would go out of business if it borrowed beyond its capability to trade out of the problem in the long term and therefore no longer a going concern unable to attract further funds to stay afloat. Its a bit much to compare the Iriah State's borrowing to an individual comanies borrowings though .. what is Lidl's annual Irish turnover?

However, a private sector organisation in troubled waters does not slash it pay levels as it knows in doing so it will either lose its existing staff or fail to recruit staff of necessary expertise/experience to help it trade out of its difficulties. If it can't pay it staff and make a profit .. it will simply jettison staff or close down altogether. Or at least that is the normal approach taken in the private sector .. I should be making sweeping generalisations!

Maybe Ireland INC should just go into receivership or simply shut down .. we all know that the private sector would be much better off without the incumberance of a state/public sector hanging off it and sucking it dry while individual private sector wealth creators scurry to maximise their own wealth at the expense of pretty much everyone else .. does that make them me feiners?

And this was clearly demonstrated in the most recent recession in Ireland whereby companies ditched staff rather than cut pay rates. It was only in the construction sector that you saw any widespread pay cuts, in other sectors they were isolated or non-existent (certainly none of the major players in retail cut salaries by any significant amount or for any substantial amount of time).

creedp

chopper6 wrote: »

Or they can jack their prices up..as publicans have been doing steadily for the last number of years.

Ah c'mon the private sector would never do such an immoral thing.. unthinkable

fliball123

bobbysands81 wrote: »

But the PS did their bit, we took pay cuts, pension levy, changed work practices, took on new roles and responsibilities, did more with less... etc... yet detractors like you will never be happy even though we're the only workers who had a cut imposed on us without having to agree it.

Every cent taken away from my wages went back to the Exchequer.

The irony is that if you took a pay cut you actually gave less back to the Exchequer.

The public sectors bit sums to 1 billion to the end of 2014 and this 1 billion will be further reduced by about 200million with the 2015 round of increments..so with the total adjustment that took place between 2008 and 2014 estimated to be at 30billion you lads gave 1 billion..Thanks for that but its not enough we simply cannot afford payrises at the moment and while the status quo of payrises continue in the public sector for time served is adhered to your 1 billion will be naturally consumed by 2019. No payrises needed..You will have gotten back what you gave naturally or unnaturally depending on whether you see these increments being natural

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

I didnt make the original comparison a different poster did

Ah sure one private sector contributor equals all private sector contributors ..

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

Ah sure one private sector contributor equals all private sector contributors ..

Sorry it was actually a public sector head that brought in the analogy. You can only debate whats put in front of you

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Can you show me any evidence of Lidl being in debt?

Just on your analogy is there a + or - figure when the sum of 178billion - 25billion is calculated?

Ireland isn't Ldl...a country isn't a supermarket.

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Those who dont deserve them get them is the point i have been trying to make

How do you know who deserves them and who doesn't?

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

Ireland isn't Ldl...a country isn't a supermarket.

Like I said it was a public sector head who brought in the analogy..crazy once the theory that they try to use is blown out of the water that it is no longer an apt analogy..Like I say I can only debate whats put in front of me

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

How do you know who deserves them and who doesn't?

This is the problem at the moment no one knows so everyone gets them regardless of if your a horse of a worker or if your a dosser having a nap

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

I didnt make the original comparison a different poster did

I was responding to this analogy ..

your trying to equate payrises in a company that has upped its profits and share of the market in Ireland considerable against a country who is in debt of 200billion+ and borrowing 5/8 billion this year and you think the same mechanism can be used for both? So ok I will indulge you... If we do go on this paradigm then do you really think if Lidl was 200billion in debt and borrowing 5/8 billion this year that they would give any pay ries..Becaue and maybe I am just being a little silly here but would they not of hit the wall and gone out of business?

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

The public sectors bit sums to 1 billion to the end of 2014 and this 1 billion will be further reduced by about 200million with the 2015 round of increments..so with the total adjustment that took place between 2008 and 2014 estimated to be at 30billion you lads gave 1 billion..Thanks for that but its not enough we simply cannot afford payrises at the moment and while the status quo of payrises continue in the public sector for time served is adhered to your 1 billion will be naturally consumed by 2019. No payrises needed..You will have gotten back what you gave naturally or unnaturally depending on whether you see these increments being natural

Current government expenditure in Ireland in 2007 was €48.6 bn. In 2013 it was €51.1 bn, a rise of €2.5 bn. We obviously owe the public service a great deal of thanks as without their sacrifice of €1 bn, the rest of us might have had to see some cuts.

Where did you get the €30 bn from? And please, don't refer me to David McWilliams or some other tabloid journalist, link me to the relevant part of the Exchequer returns.

fliball123

so now that this link is here

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1027770.shtml

How do the public service deserve any payrise when the ps pay and pensions bill will be back up to what we were paying out pre bust (and before the pay cuts) in the year 2019 when annual increments will erode the 1 billion we currently save as of the end of 2014 and this all with 30k less staff aswell

so like I say no need for pay rises

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

I was responding to this analogy ..

As I was to a different poster as you can see in the post

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Current government expenditure in Ireland in 2007 was €48.6 bn. In 2013 it was €51.1 bn, a rise of €2.5 bn. We obviously owe the public service a great deal of thanks as without their sacrifice of €1 bn, the rest of us might have had to see some cuts.

Where did you get the €30 bn from? And please, don't refer me to David McWilliams or some other tabloid journalist, link me to the relevant part of the Exchequer returns.

I am sure I heard either noonon or kenny spout it cant be sure.

Ahh yeah just bring the expenditure in what about the Income side of this and how much of a hole we were in after the stamp duty dried up.

how much did income tax go up by , how many new taxes have been introduced..yeah but you guys gave 1billion which will be clawed back in increments in 2019..So like I say no need for any payrises so

We owe the public service nothing more and nothing less (maybe a bit less) than the current wage they are on..If they dont like it then tough

Jawgap

fliball123 wrote: »

Can you show me any evidence of Lidl being in debt?

Just on your analogy is there a + or - figure when the sum of 178billion - 25billion is calculated?

Sure

Lidl Borrows $66 Million to Fund Romania Expansion, ZF Says

Not sure what your second point is about. Apple have $178 billion in cash and near cash equivalents being managed by their wholly owned vehicle Braeburn Capital - effectively it's a giant hedge fund which Apple own 100% of.

they have $35 billion in issued debt

giving them a net cash SURPLUS of about $142 or $143 billion - give or take a billion, but sure who is counting.

And it may be worth noting that Enron was, apparently according to its filings, one of the least indebted companies in the energy sector