Proposed Public sector pay rises

barneystinson

Jawgap wrote: »

Really, many Kevin Street addresses on their enrolment?

Plus religious patronage of schools is utterly archaic.

What's this got to do with Brendan Howlin talking to PS unions about PS pay in the post-FEMPI world..??!!?!

barneystinson

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm sorry but they do allow locals in. It's a protestant school so it's totally entitled to give preference to protestants.

What's this got to do with Brendan Howlin talking to PS unions about PS pay in the post-FEMPI world..??!!?!

ezra_pound

This is their admissions policy which you edited earlier to suit your argument:

Pupils entering First Year, in accordance with Department of Education and
Science regulations must be at least 12 years of age on the 1st day of January of
the school year, and as a rule have completed a full course of primary education.
The maximum number of places available in any year group is 30.
In offering places in First Year, priority is given to:
 Pupils from St Patrick’s Cathedral Choir School.
 Protestant children or children of a Protestant parent.
 Brothers and sisters of current or former pupils.
 Children of staff of the Cathedral or the Cathedral schools.
 Children of former pupils.
Should the number of applicants satisfying one or more of these criteria, exceed
the number of places available, those qualifying under the greater number of
these criteria will be offered places first.


The vast majority of schools in the country are based on religious patronage.

Are you serious? What country are you living in?

Jawgap

ezra_pound wrote: »

This is their admissions policy which you edited earlier to suit your argument:

Pupils entering First Year, in accordance with Department of Education and
Science regulations must be at least 12 years of age on the 1st day of January of
the school year, and as a rule have completed a full course of primary education.
The maximum number of places available in any year group is 30.
In offering places in First Year, priority is given to:
 Pupils from St Patrick’s Cathedral Choir School.
 Protestant children or children of a Protestant parent.
 Brothers and sisters of current or former pupils.
 Children of staff of the Cathedral or the Cathedral schools.
 Children of former pupils.
Should the number of applicants satisfying one or more of these criteria, exceed
the number of places available, those qualifying under the greater number of
these criteria will be offered places first.


The vast majority of schools in the country are based on religious patronage.

Are you serious? What country are you living in?

Well I'm note sure how my edit changed anything?

Anyway I agree with Barney - this has gone way off topic. It seems people are happy enough to allow PS teachers into to teach in schools they could never afford to send their own kids to (without a hefty discount) on current salaries.

ezra_pound

barneystinson wrote: »

What's this got to do with Brendan Howlin talking to PS unions about PS pay in the post-FEMPI world..??!!?!

I'm just debating the issue that was brought up by jawgap. It's the only productive argument on this thread for weeks.

ezra_pound

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I'm note sure how my edit changed anything?

Anyway I agree with Barney - this has gone way off topic. It seems people are happy enough to allow PS teachers into to teach in schools they could never afford to send their own kids to (without a hefty discount) on current salaries.

Yes. Of course they are happy to have PS teachers. Why in earth would you think they wouldn't?

That is a complete misunderstanding of why someone would want to go to a fee paying school.

ezra_pound

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/nurses-seeking-reversal-of-pay-cuts-and-pension-levy-1.2095931

ezra_pound

ezra_pound wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/nurses-seeking-reversal-of-pay-cuts-and-pension-levy-1.2095931

Interesting that inmo are looking for reversal of Haddington rd. measures as well as fempi measures.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

ezra_pound wrote: »

Interesting that inmo are looking for reversal of Haddington rd. measures as well as fempi measures.

They'll look for reversal of everything in the hope that they'll get anything at all. As a PS worker, I'd be happy if they binned the Pension Levy which was meant to be gone at the end of 2014. Haddington Road is here to stay in some shape or form and we know the USC is going nowhere.

noodler

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

They'll look for reversal of everything in the hope that they'll get anything at all. As a PS worker, I'd be happy if they binned the Pension Levy which was meant to be gone at the end of 2014. Haddington Road is here to stay in some shape or form and we know the USC is going nowhere.

Thats the Private Sector pension levy you are thinking of.

There was never any end date for the Public Sector Pension levy that I am aware of.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

There was never any end date for the Public Sector Pension levy that I am aware of.

Yes there was..2016 at the latest.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

Yes there was..2016 at the latest.

I'll leave the burden of proof on you to prove that.

I think you are confusing the levy with the Private Sector version or Haddington Rd though.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

I'll leave the burden of proof on you to prove that.

I think you are confusing the levy with the Private Sector version or Haddington Rd though.

http://www.impact.ie/haddington-road-agreement/haddington-road-frequently-asked-questions/

The HRA (and related Croke Park measures) are in place until the end of June 2016.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

http://www.impact.ie/haddington-road-agreement/haddington-road-frequently-asked-questions/

Ah here is your problem.

You think the Pension Levy was part of Croke Park.

It wasn't - it preceded it by more than a year.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

Ah here is your problem.

You think the Pension Levy was part of Croke Park.

It wasn't - it preceded it by more than a year.

That's why I said it would be revisited by 2016 at the latest.



If you read what I posted it also said "and related measures"..the pension levy was a related measure.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

That's why I said it would be revisited by 2016 at the latest.



If youy read what I posted it also said "and related measures"..the pension levy was a related measure.

Ok, you are just making things up now and you need to be called on it.

The Public Sector Pension levy has no announced end-date.

It just doesn't.

Please stop posting in the manner you are because it breeds confusion.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

Ok, you are just making things up now and you need to be called on it.

The Public Sector Pension levy has no announced end-date.

It just doesn't.

Please stop posting in the manner you are because it breeds confusion.

You working in the PS now are you?

Our unions are going to be beginning negotiations very soon with a view to revoking the PS pension levy...this will occur by 2016 at the latest.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

You working in the PS now are you?

Our unions are going to be beginning negotiations very soon with a view to revoking the PS pension levy...this will occur by 2016 at the latest.

So you admit everything you said in the last few posts is aspirational?

Yes I do by the way not that it matters.

HRA runs until the middle of 2016 so I repeat, there is no deadline for the abolition (or even reduction) of the public sector pension levy.

No doubt, the pay talks over the next few months will negotiate over the issue but what the outcomes of those negotiations are is unclear. Even if successful they could result in straight out pay restoration rather then any chnage to the levy.

Again, the Public Sector Pension Levy has no end date, even if you reckon it will be altered or removed in 2016.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

So you admit everything you said in the last few posts is aspirational?

Yes I do by the way not that it matters.

HRA runs until the middle of 2016 so I repeat, there is no deadline for the abolition (or even reduction) of the public sector pension levy.

No doubt, the pay talks over the next few months will negotiate over the issue but what the outcomes of those negotiations are is unclear. Even if successful they could result in straight out pay restoration rather then any chnage to the levy.

Again, the Public Sector Pension Levy has no end date, even if you reckon it will be altered or removed in 2016.

Who gives a damn?

We will get some or all of the money back by next year and that's all that matters.

Waffling back and forth will not change that.

Semantics.

And boring semantics at that.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

Who gives a damn?

We will get some or all of the money back by next year and that's all that matters.

Waffling back and forth will not change that.

Semantics.

And boring semantics at that.

Do you understand how a message board works?

You said something grossly incorrect, I corrected you, you argued semantics for a few post before ultimately conceding and saying the whole thing didn't matter anyway.

If you aren't interested in being corrected then just research your posts before you write them.

barneystinson

noodler wrote: »

Do you understand how a message board works?

You said something grossly incorrect, I corrected you, you argued semantics for a few post before ultimately conceding and saying the whole thing didn't matter anyway.

If you aren't interested in being corrected then just research your posts before you write them.

As someone who is (broadly) on the same side of the debate, imagine how I feel... It's like being back at school when you always end up with THAT fella on your team in 5-aside...

Godge

noodler wrote: »

So you admit everything you said in the last few posts is aspirational?

Yes I do by the way not that it matters.

HRA runs until the middle of 2016 so I repeat, there is no deadline for the abolition (or even reduction) of the public sector pension levy.

No doubt, the pay talks over the next few months will negotiate over the issue but what the outcomes of those negotiations are is unclear. Even if successful they could result in straight out pay restoration rather then any chnage to the levy.

Again, the Public Sector Pension Levy has no end date, even if you reckon it will be altered or removed in 2016.

Actually, you are both wrong. It is not a permanent feature but the end date is not fixed.

The pension-related deduction may not have a fixed end date but it arguably should have ended this year as it is only legal in the context of a financial emergency which arguably ended when we implemented income tax cuts.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Actually, you are both wrong. It is not a permanent feature but the end date is not fixed.

The pension-related deduction may not have a fixed end date but it arguably should have ended this year as it is only legal in the context of a financial emergency which arguably ended when we implemented income tax cuts.

Nope, not at all.

I said it did not have an end-date.
It does not.

If you could show me explicitly where the financial emergency legislation references the pension levy then I would appreciate it.

Unless you practice law, you can understand why I would be sceptical at the layman interpretation of FEMPI that you repeatedly put forward. I'd more accurately call it your opinion.

Regardless, and as I said, there is no end date for the public sector pension levy.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Actually, you are both wrong. It is not a permanent feature but the end date is not fixed.

The pension-related deduction may not have a fixed end date but it arguably should have ended this year as it is only legal in the context of a financial emergency which arguably ended when we implemented income tax cuts.

FEMPI Legislation

AND WHEREAS it is necessary for the State to achieve further significant savings in its expenditure, both directly and indirectly, on remuneration and in its expenditure on public service pensions as a contribution to the reduction of the shortfall between revenue and expenditure that is needed to put debt on a downward path;

I'm not a lawyer, but that suggests that the emergency isn't over until borrowing stops.

barneystinson

antoobrien wrote: »

FEMPI Legislation



I'm not a lawyer, but that suggests that the emergency isn't over until borrowing stops.

You sure aren't! The word is reduction, not elimination. So it is open to interpretation how much reduction is enough reduction...

Of course, the context in which that legislation was enacted would be considered, and the context was an enormous shortfall far in excess of the parameters we've undertaken to operate within to the EU. Since we are now back below 3%, my non-lawyer's interpretation would be that the reduction sought has been attained.

noodler

barneystinson wrote: »

You sure aren't! The word is reduction, not elimination. So it is open to interpretation how much reduction is enough reduction...

Of course, the context in which that legislation was enacted would be considered, and the context was an enormous shortfall far in excess of the parameters we've undertaken to operate within to the EU. Since we are now back below 3%, my non-lawyer's interpretation would be that the reduction sought has been attained.

Again, all open to debate and interpretation as you say.

It is incorrect, however, to say that the Public Sector Pension Levy ends in 2016.

barneystinson

noodler wrote: »

Again, all open to debate and interpretation as you say.

It is incorrect, however, to say that the Public Sector Pension Levy ends in 2016.

You're right, it never had a specified end date (I never argued with you on that!).

But since Howlin has indicated he won't be able to extend FEMPI this year, it means that what happens next has to be negotiated.

Which is the point of the thread, if anyone can still remember the OP!!

noodler

barneystinson wrote: »

You're right, it never had a specified end date (I never argued with you on that!).

But since Howlin has indicated he won't be able to extend FEMPI this year, it means that what happens next has to be negotiated.

Which is the point of the thread, if anyone can still remember the OP!!

You could also interpret it as wages simply being open to negotiation in 2016 rather than a cast-iron promise!

Obviously I hope not as long as we don't find ourselves in bother after the next budget.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

If you could show me explicitly where the financial emergency legislation references the pension levy then I would appreciate it.

Unless you practice law, you can understand why I would be sceptical at the layman interpretation of FEMPI that you repeatedly put forward. I'd more accurately call it your opinion.

.

noodler wrote: »

Do you understand how a message board works?

You said something grossly incorrect, I corrected you, you argued semantics for a few post before ultimately conceding and saying the whole thing didn't matter anyway.

If you aren't interested in being corrected then just research your posts before you write them.

Maybe you could follow your own advice and admit I was right about the FEMPI legislation.

Section 2 relates to the pension levy.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0005/sec0002.html#sec2


"(3) The person who is responsible for, or authorises, the payment of remuneration to a relevant person shall deduct or cause to be deducted an amount at the applicable rate or rates specified in the Table in this subsection—

(a) in the case of the period 1 March 2009 to 31 December 2009, in respect of that period, and

(b) in the case of the year 2010 and each subsequent year, in respect of the year concerned,

from the remuneration from time to time payable to the relevant person during that period or any such year.

TABLE

Amount of Remuneration

Rate of deduction

Up to €15,000

3 per cent

Any excess over €15,000 but not over €20,000

6 per cent

Any amount over €20,000

10 per cent

(4) The deduction which this section requires shall be made in accordance with any regulations made by the Minister under section 3 ."


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0005/sec0013.html#sec13

Section 13 relates to the review.


"13.— Before 30 June in 2010 and every year after 2010, the Minister shall—

(a) carry out a review of the operation, effectiveness and impact of this Act, having regard to the overall economic conditions in the State and national competitiveness,

(b) consider whether or not any of the provisions of this Act continue to be necessary having regard to the purposes of this Act, the overall economic conditions in the State, national competitiveness and Exchequer commitments in respect of public service pensions,

(c) make such findings as he or she thinks appropriate consequent on such review and consideration, and

(d) cause a written report of his or her findings resulting from the review and consideration to be prepared and laid before each House of the Oireachtas."


I have studied employment law, contract law and constitutional law, though I am not a lawyer. It is my considered opinion based on that legal training, that this clause presents the Minister with considerable difficulty this June for the following reasons:

(1) Economic conditions have improved to the point where he made tax cuts and expenditure increases in the last budget

(2) A new public service pension scheme has been introduced which reduces the future cost of public service pensions

(3) His Department has acknowledged a significant drop in the actuarial cost of accrued public service pensions

(4) We are growing as an economy at the fastest rate in Europe so there appear to be no competitiveness issues.

(5) Any decision he makes would be subject to judicial review.

So rather than having (5) happen to him, the Minister is likely to negotiate an orderly wind-down of the public service pension levy over the next few years.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

y that the Public Sector Pension Levy ends in 2016.

At the latest...