Benchmakring III without the comparison

fliball123

Been a while since I started a thread but can I get an opinion on the current effort of the government trying to buy the next general election with regards to their blanket pay rise for public servants.

Is it me or does this look like benchmarking without any valid comparison?

Can anyone else understand how or why the gov and unions think we are out of trouble even do we owe over 200billion and will borrow 6billion this year.

Also can anyone else comprehend that instead of giving this pay rise why tax cuts for everyone is not used as the mechanism to give everyone some money back in their pockets.

We all know the argument they took pay cuts which I accept, but what is not been forwarded is the fact that they had 8 rounds of pay rises via increments costing between 100m and 250m each year.

On top the pensions that they receive are not covered by what they pay even taking the pension levy into account. Not to mention that not one public servant was forced into redundancy during the crash

So why do the powers that be think that these 300k people are worthy of this increase with no valid explaination as to why. To anyone looking in and seeing this you would swear that our public services are going to be used in the next Carlsberg ad as if Carlsberg did public services..

But the damning fact is that every week we have a new scandal in the HSE or coming from the guards, not to mention the efforts to try and bring teachers in to the 21 century yet they kick and scream all the way.

Am I the only one thinking that this benchmark and increment approach should be quelled and actual hard working decent public servants doing a good job should be rewarded properly and fat cats who sit on the throne all day playing candy crush should be sidelined to the dole queue.

The unfortunate part is hard working public servants are being tarred with the same feather,

Is it time to bring someone in from the outside to bring some clarity to this. As in first a valid comparison with other sectors and with other countries to get a baseline, now I would hazard a guess that in the majority of areas our public services would be paid more but I would not cut any more I would leave the ps pay stagnant until other countries and other sectors in the private sector caught up.

Also is there any way of changing the defined benefit aspect to public sector pensions. If a ps employee does not want to pay for their own pension..give them their levy back but then they must take the OAP like everyone else.

galljga1

Benchmarking applied properly, giving a correct 'weight' to pensions would result in significant reductions in the wages of public servants.

BoJack Horseman

Its not some dark conspiracy.

The Haddington road agreement compels the reversal of some pay cuts once the overall deficit is under 3% of GDP..... which will be this year.

A silly clause, but what government has ever had the grapes to stand up to the unions?

Gumbo

Reduce the pension levy and USC dramatically.
Gives PS and PrvS workers money back in their pockets and also keeps salary rates the same and thus doesn't increase PS pensions too.

Letree

fliball if you are still asking for answers to the above questions after all that has been explained to you here and on politics.ie then i'm at a loss. You have seen every possible answer to every possible question related to this issue. Why do you want to read it all over again. Or are you just looking for an excuse to state your position all over again.

Sleepy

galljga1 wrote: »

Benchmarking applied properly, giving a correct 'weight' to pensions would result in significant reductions in the wages of public servants.

It'd be interesting to see the reaction to genuinely applied bench-marking. The majority of the PS, those on the lower ends of the scale, would get nothing or decreases while those on the higher grades would get raises.

TBH, the entire concept is a fallacy. You can't benchmark a position with extremely limited (or no) accountability against one where you can be let go on the basis of a single major screw-up.

Rightwing

It's an absolute disgrace. An overbloated, overpaid, underworked PS looking for more pay rises. Isn't that what increments are ffs.

The likes of Howlin are feeling underpaid & undervalued :rolleyes:.

We now know where the extra revenue generated from water and property charges are ending up.

glacial_pace71

The usual compendium of issues here. Alas a benchmarking exercise would see pay rises in the order of 10-15% for middle and senior managers. This is the last thing the Government needs.
Further, the whole idea is not to let things go arms-length to some arbitration mechanism. Instead it's to be held tightly as possible. Croke Park was still delivering an objectively-verified 750 million in savings for the part of the year the Government sought to repudiate the agreement and introduce Haddington Rd. The HRA was an intensely political exercise, to put an FG/LAB stamp on the cutback process, so why lose ownership now?
Similarly, the fiscal adjustment of 2 years ago was dressed up as 1/3 in taxation measures (which affected everyone, including the 300,000 public servants), 1/3 in cutbacks (once again of universal applicability) and finally 1/3 in pay cuts, i.e. 300k people were to carry 300 million of an adjustment. This was called 'proportionate'. So, in the current side-talks, when the Government was asked 'is 1/3 of the 750 million-1.5 billion re-adjustment going to be allocated to pay reversal?' the answer was universal laughter/derision.
The Government is in a difficult spot, but the public service unions are in a worse one: remember that many public servant middle and senior managers are people of deep personal integrity. They regularly fight against political opportunism and skulduggery. To tell them to vote for an agreement that, in many of their minds, would lend a perception that they'd consented to the mistreatment of their clerical staff is simply beyond them. They just won't consent to the abuse of other people. So, if say 20-25% of the union membership will vote against any outcome of the pay talks, then it's narrowing the margin of success considerably.
Of course, there'll be 20-25% of the union membership in deep financial difficulty. They've unemployed partners, and have increased childcare costs arising from the 2-3 hours extra per week that they work for free under Haddington Road. They will vote for something, anything to relieve the pressure. (I had a Govt adviser crow to me once that 'yiz can't afford to go on strike', when the to and fro of Haddington Rd was underway). Even if the Govt has them in the bag it's still not much by way of political cover: the idea was to have an agreement endorsed so that they could say on the doorsteps "ah didn't the majority of you vote for this? It's sorted" or, depending on the TD in question, "shut up, btch, you've been bought, so stick with the agreement".
There's a further 20% of the union membership that won't vote, i.e. they won't endorse an agreement that'd offer 5% of the 15% cuts back, over an 12-18 month period, but they won't vote against an agreement and be someone else's gaoler.
The union leadership are left then with perhaps 20-30% of union membership to persuade to endorse any deal. Certainly some union officials have taken the view that an element within the Govt would be happy to see the talks fail and instead lose a legal challenge to the financial emergency (FEMPI) legislation rather than voluntarily endorse a deal that sees the gradual reversal of cuts.
There are quite a few moving parts. Do bear in mind that what's broadly called the "Reform Agenda" is still working away. Very, very difficult to get buy in though - you dress up some changes to work practice, some staffing reductions and some staff redeployment as 'important reforms' but then find that several multiples of that notional saving have just been squandered on some political decision to reward a marginal political constituency. Everyone's a fiscal hawk until it affects exp relating to their patch, e.g. farmers' lobby re TEAGSC, IBEC/CFA/ISME re public procurement project rules etc. It's very difficult to sustain continuous cuts and retrenchment when some politician is arbitrarily and capriciously undermining reforms agreed after much effort.

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Reduce the pension levy and USC dramatically.
Gives PS and PrvS workers money back in their pockets and also keeps salary rates the same and thus doesn't increase PS pensions too.

Why should the levy be reduce..hows about remove the defined benefit mechanism and if the ps employee wants a pension let them pay the full cost then you can remove the levy in full

fliball123

Letree wrote: »

fliball if you are still asking for answers to the above questions after all that has been explained to you here and on politics.ie then i'm at a loss. You have seen every possible answer to every possible question related to this issue. Why do you want to read it all over again. Or are you just looking for an excuse to state your position all over again.

What answers so we are out of trouble with regard to our debt and deficit? and the other facts that I put up have not come into anyones reckoning when answering the question its an absolute joke...I spent 2 days in Beaumont A&E with a relative and it was disgusting the lack of actual service as in beds and trollies they had they had really sick people lying on the the bloody floor and the public sector employees think their wages out stripe the need for money to be pumped into our public services..its a joke and a scandal

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

Why should the levy be reduce..hows about remove the defined benefit mechanism and if the ps employee wants a pension let them pay the full cost then you can remove the levy in full

It is the norm that employers across the world contribute to their workers pensions.

You suggest that for one group of workers, the staff should bear the full and total cost of their pensions.

This is not realistic.

Now, you could argue that PS don't contribute enough, okay.

But to suggest that Ireland be the only country where PS workers pay the entire costs of their pension, that is not acceptable.

Here's a question:

PS staff currently pay 6.5% pension cont plus the PRD of 2.5% / 10% / 10.5%. So the top marginal rate of pension cont is 17% of wages.

Do you think that's enough or too much?

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

On top the pensions that they receive are not covered by what they pay even taking the pension levy into account. Not to mention that not one public servant was forced into redundancy during the crash

There were no compulsory redundancies, true.

Yet thousands left the public service.

BoJack Horseman

Geuze wrote: »

Do you think that's enough or too much?

I don't care what a PS staff member contributes, once 'defined benefit' is got rid off, for the good of the taxpayer.

Eric Cartman

I will not be voting for anyone who supports public sector pay increases. They're already living the high life.

Geuze

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't care what a PS staff member contributes, once 'defined benefit' is got rid off, for the good of the taxpayer.

Okay, as long as both cont rates are enough.

Say 10 ee plus 15 er, meaning 25%, sounds okay.

Godge

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't care what a PS staff member contributes, once 'defined benefit' is got rid off, for the good of the taxpayer.

The actuarial cost of the old (pre-2013) public service pension scheme is 20%. I was surprised it was that low but the advantage of a collective scheme over an individual scheme is that the collective scheme gets to keep the contributions of those who die early and don't collect the pension or only collect a little.

Public servants contributed 6.5% before the pension levy and contribute a lot more since it was introduced. In the case of some who are in the new (2013) scheme, they would be fully financing their pension.

Either way, if you base the calculation on employer paying half, public servants should only be contributing 10% which means there is plenty of scope to reduce the pension levy.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I will not be voting for anyone who supports public sector pay increases. They're already living the high life.

The most recent CSO research, based on pay figures for 2010 show that the public sector premium is gone (and is negative for some) for certain classes of employees (males, higher paid) and that reasons such as sexism in the private sector could explain any residual difference.

Since 2010, there have been further pay cuts and an increase in working hours (which mean an cut in hourly pay) in the public sector, while many parts of the private sector have enjoyed 2% a year pay increases.

So to say that public servants are living the high life is no longer backed up by any facts.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Why should the levy be reduce..hows about remove the defined benefit mechanism and if the ps employee wants a pension let them pay the full cost then you can remove the levy in full

I offered that argument 5 years ago in these boards and was laughed at. Glad to see you have gone full circle.

I would fully support a move like that.

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

It is the norm that employers across the world contribute to their workers pensions.

You suggest that for one group of workers, the staff should bear the full and total cost of their pensions.

This is not realistic.

Now, you could argue that PS don't contribute enough, okay.

But to suggest that Ireland be the only country where PS workers pay the entire costs of their pension, that is not acceptable.

Here's a question:

PS staff currently pay 6.5% pension cont plus the PRD of 2.5% / 10% / 10.5%. So the top marginal rate of pension cont is 17% of wages.

Do you think that's enough or too much?

I never said Ireland was the only country doing this I suggested that if they want their pension they should pay for it themselves and while they are not covering the full cost the pension levy should be increased to cover the cost, nothing more nothing less and to ask people working in the private sector to pay for the shortfall while the vast majority struggle to pay for their own is wrong. By all means they should be entitled to the OAP for which they pay PRSI for, but this is a crisis that is going to spank us in years to come and the nature of defined benefit should be consigned to the past when it comes to both private and public as when they go belly up the tax payer is on the lamb to pay it.

Even with your figures it is a widely known fact that public servants do not pay enough even with PRSI and pension levy to cover the costs of their pension

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

There were no compulsory redundancies, true.

Yet thousands left the public service.

With golden parachute payouts .... yeah they really felt the harsh realities of redundancies

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see the reaction to genuinely applied bench-marking. The majority of the PS, those on the lower ends of the scale, would get nothing or decreases while those on the higher grades would get raises.

TBH, the entire concept is a fallacy. You can't benchmark a position with extremely limited (or no) accountability against one where you can be let go on the basis of a single major screw-up.

Really? Someone starting as a clerical officer is taking home €14 more per week than someone on minimum wage and a mythical pension if they stay for 40 years. I can't see how much more that can be cut.

PeteFalk78

Fliball, not that you'll tell us. But I'd love to know your own personal situation, job wise, since 2000.

Eric Cartman

Godge wrote: »

The actuarial cost of the old (pre-2013) public service pension scheme is 20%. I was surprised it was that low but the advantage of a collective scheme over an individual scheme is that the collective scheme gets to keep the contributions of those who die early and don't collect the pension or only collect a little.

Public servants contributed 6.5% before the pension levy and contribute a lot more since it was introduced. In the case of some who are in the new (2013) scheme, they would be fully financing their pension.

Either way, if you base the calculation on employer paying half, public servants should only be contributing 10% which means there is plenty of scope to reduce the pension levy.



The most recent CSO research, based on pay figures for 2010 show that the public sector premium is gone (and is negative for some) for certain classes of employees (males, higher paid) and that reasons such as sexism in the private sector could explain any residual difference.

Since 2010, there have been further pay cuts and an increase in working hours (which mean an cut in hourly pay) in the public sector, while many parts of the private sector have enjoyed 2% a year pay increases.

So to say that public servants are living the high life is no longer backed up by any facts.

Ahh will ye stop. I thought you were smarter than that, believing that feminist codswallop

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? Someone starting as a clerical officer is taking home €14 more per week than someone on minimum wage and a mythical pension if they stay for 40 years. I can't see how much more that can be cut.

€20,859 isn't a bad starting salary for an administrator tbh (the equivalent would get about 18k in the private sector with no job security or pension), particularly when it has the potential to rise to €33,607 for nothing more than having managed not to commit gross misconduct for 20 years... And let's face it, the majority of clerical officers are on the old rates which top out at €37,341... almost double what the private sector would pay someone for basic clerical work.

Now, a Grade II technician working for a Dublin LA with 5 years experience might have a case for being underpaid at €29,539 if they're in an area such as IT where they could command a larger salary in the private sector but, tbh, that's the price they pay for the job security, the shorter family friendly working hours, the opportunities for career breaks, term-time / job-sharing contracts, employer paid skills certification etc...

Then again, if they're like some I know who don't take advantage of those perks and work their arse off, I'd see nothing wrong with them getting the same salary levels as their private sector equivalents. But only on an individual basis of merit. As it stands, they suffer lower salaries than they deserve because they're carrying their colleagues who avail of all those perks.

Idbatterim

I will not be voting for anyone who supports public sector pay increases.

all of the establishment parties, it appears support it! I am not sure what SF position is, but I don't even consider them an option for government. Renua are the only ones against it, they will be getting my vote, and not simply on that basis, but based on their position on multiple other issues, I would be far closer aligned to them ideologically on economic issues, than the alternatives and I have a feeling I am one of many...

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

I never said Ireland was the only country doing this I suggested that if they want their pension they should pay for it themselves and while they are not covering the full cost the pension levy should be increased to cover the cost, nothing more nothing less and to ask people working in the private sector to pay for the shortfall while the vast majority struggle to pay for their own is wrong.

Again, as far as I can read from this, you are specifically stating that PS staff should pay the full cost of their pension.

Have I got that right?

I am a customer of Vodafone. Some of the price I pay goes to pay employer conts into the Vodafone staff pension scheme.

Similarly, as a taxpayer, some of taxes go to pay employer conts towards PS pensions.

It is totally normal and expected that employers pay some of the cost of their workers pensions.

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

Even with your figures it is a widely known fact that public servants do not pay enough even with PRSI and pension levy to cover the costs of their pension

Correct, the 6.5% pension cont paid by PS does not cover the full cost of their pension.

And it shouldn't, as their employer is also paying some of the cost.

Now, since 2009, PS pay 6.5% + the pension levy PRD of 10% - 10.5%.

So PS are now paying a substantial cont towards their pensions, more than is the norm.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

€20,859 isn't a bad starting salary for an administrator tbh (the equivalent would get about 18k in the private sector with no job security or pension), particularly when it has the potential to rise to €33,607 for nothing more than having managed not to commit gross misconduct for 20 years... And let's face it, the majority of clerical officers are on the old rates which top out at €37,341... almost double what the private sector would pay someone for basic clerical work.

You can't use the gross AND the pension both as supposed benefits.
Anyone I know who's started in Admin in the private sector is on a good bit more than minimum wage and I doubt you'll find too many people in an office job for 10+ years without getting a raise.

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Fliball, not that you'll tell us. But I'd love to know your own personal situation, job wise, since 2000.

What has that got to do with anything? I have been working in IT for last 2 decades I am in my current employment 12 years in that time I have had 2 payrises. The company I work for is small and the team covers a whole host of areas from coding, testing, support, customer service, HR and other areas in IT.

Now regardless of my situation why do people not tackle this issue head on. Why should 280/300k individuals workers all receive a further payrise on top of increments when it is clear that not all of them deserve them. Throw in that we are not out of the woods yet (6 billion being borrowed this year) not to mention areas in need like hospitals , our schools, our infrastructure and our workers who are being bleed dry through taxation..All deserve money well before this cushioned group of employees.

Its easy to see that this is Labour's way to buy votes for the next election

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Again, as far as I can read from this, you are specifically stating that PS staff should pay the full cost of their pension.

Have I got that right?

I am a customer of Vodafone. Some of the price I pay goes to pay employer conts into the Vodafone staff pension scheme.

Similarly, as a taxpayer, some of taxes go to pay employer conts towards PS pensions.

It is totally normal and expected that employers pay some of the cost of their workers pensions.

wholly Jesus

Just stop and think about what your trying to compare.

You have the right to change from Vodafone if you don't want to pay for their pensions, we cant do this with the public sector.

Is vodafone on the lamb for billions for their current defined benefit arrangement. NO

Is vodafone borrowing 6 billion this year .. NO

Is vodafone in over 200billion in debt.. NO

and also read my post I said the defined contribution should be consigned to the past in both the public and PRIVATE sectors as generally when they go belly up the tax payer is asked to bridge the gap.

Also it is not normal you would want to have a look at what % private sector employees have defined benefit pensions. It is an unfair ask to be raided by further taxation to pay others pensions when you cannot pay for your own.

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Correct, the 6.5% pension cont paid by PS does not cover the full cost of their pension.

And it shouldn't, as their employer is also paying some of the cost.

Now, since 2009, PS pay 6.5% + the pension levy PRD of 10% - 10.5%.

So PS are now paying a substantial cont towards their pensions, more than is the norm.

Under what do you consider the norm

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026530.shtml

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFYQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publicpolicy.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FThe-Valuation-of-PPSP-Some-Issues.pdf&ei=tANbVfzsJuLG7AbnjYH4Dw&usg=AFQjCNHj-yJLQf_ZBBs_v7hPxmLn4kCsog&bvm=bv.93564037,d.ZGU&cad=rja

While over 50% of the private sector cant pay for their own they should not have to pay for others to have theirs..Why should they. If you want a pension you bloody go and pay for it.

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

I have been working in IT for last 2 decades I am in my current employment 12 years in that time I have had 2 payrises. The company I work for is small and the team covers a whole host of areas from coding, testing, support, customer service, HR and other areas in IT.

We are constantly been told that there are labour and skills shortages in IT.

How come some IT staff got only 2 payrises in 12 years?

It looks like their wages will lag inflation, meaning a fall in real wages.

The employer is getting a very good deal here, employing scarce staff but paying them less in real terms