nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Public service pay cut?

[Deleted User]

Will, there be public service pay cuts and cuts to services themselves after COVID 19? interesting discussion on RTE 1 radio about this, on the other hand, the likes of David McWilliams take a different view on how we can pay for this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hotblack Desiato

noodler wrote: »

What point are you trying to make?

AP is the next grade above AO

The AO scale never reaches the bottom of AP. It's quite a number of thousands short even with LSIs included.

Oh ffs

AO starts just above the bottom of the EO scale
It finishes equal to the top of the HEO scale

HEO is the grade above EO

Comprenez?

You chose the ONLY grade in the civil service with a pay scale which spans the pay scales of two other grades, in order to cherry-pick some BS point about pay doubling (which even your own figures are nowhere near)

This is a grade for honours degree holders only and recruits in limited numbers, it is regarded as a fast track to promotion to AP so comparatively few AOs would get to the top of their scale without being promoted.

noodler wrote: »

Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.

Another spoof.

Increments were postponed for most staff.

Many things including OAP were not cut.

[Deleted User]

daithi7 wrote: »

serious question for all you public sector union types:

Is there any other country in the world (OECD) giving an across the board pay rise of 2% or more to their public sector at this time???

Google it.

Scoundrel

daithi7 wrote: »

because we all have to pay for the massively over generous, individual lottery win for every retiring pubic service employee in the land last year, this year and for the next 50 fuppin years. That's why!!

Why don't you just join the PS if it's so great? Or is the martyr complex too strong?

Geuze

daithi7 wrote: »

The latest one was 2% when the country had hit a pandemic, bringing with it 25% unemployment, over 50% of the population dependent on the state and borrowing for current expenditure. That's before even considering the obliterated hospitality, tourism, sport & retail sectors with many self employed obliterated & the tax base going forward seriously eroded. To give a pay rise in that scenario is patently stupid & grossly unfair imho.

The 2019 pay restoration was 1.75%, not 2%.

The 2020 pay restoration is 2%, planned for 1 Oct 2020.

5.1. Unwinding of FEMPI
5.1.1. As part of the progressive ongoing reduction of the impact on the remuneration and other terms and conditions of all public servants through the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts, the Parties have reached agreement to provide for a fiscally sustainable programme of public service pay measures as follows:

2018
• 1 January 2018 annualised salaries to increase by 1%;
• 1 October 2018 annualised salaries to increase by 1%.
2019
• 1 January 2019 annualised salaries up to €30,000 to increase by 1%;
• 1 September annualised salaries to increase by 1.75%.
2020
• 1 January 2020 annualised salaries up to €32,000 to increase by 0.5%;
• 1 October 2020 annualised salaries to increase by 2%.

Treppen

daithi7 wrote: »

You would if you were paying for it though

The thing you're missing out is that it's not a closed loop where private sector pays for all public sector.

You're paying for some Joe's pay bonus in the bank where you keep your money or the pharma company shareholder dividends that provides your medication.

But I guess you'd only be happy if everyone in the public sector stayed on Pt. 1 of the scale for their whole career. Recession or no recession.

[Deleted User]

daithi7 wrote: »

serious question for all you public sector union types:

Is there any other country in the world (OECD) giving an across the board pay rise of 2% or more to their public sector at this time???

Germany

https://www.ei-ie.org/en/detail/16172/germany-a-collective-agreement-with-an-8-salary-increase-for-public-workers

The collective agreement provides for increases:

With retroactive effect from 1 January 2019: 3.2 % (including minimum amount 100€)
From 1 January 2020: 3.2 % (including minimum amount 90€)
From 1 January 2021: 1.4 % (including minimum 50€)
Major increases: 4.5 % as of 1st January 2019, 4.3 % as of 1st January 2020, and 1.8 % as of 1st January 2021
A total of 8 % for the full collective agreement’s 33-month term.

I'm not a public sector union type, so being offered a fifteen percent pay rise from the company that I work for as a way to try and keep me from leaving next week.

daithi7

Fann Linn wrote: »

I never really bother myself with what other people get paid.

You would if you were paying for it though

mickuhaha

As far as I am aware the 2 percent pay increase it part of the restoration of pay levels pre 2007. It has been a slow restoration over the last number of years with I believe 5 different points increased. In 2007 the average wage was 37700 and in 2018 it was closer to 39000. If you look at it from that point of view the civil service pay never increased in line with the private sector.

Fann Linn

daithi7 wrote: »

serious question for all you public sector union types:

Is there any other country in the world (OECD) giving an across the board pay rise of 2% or more to their public sector at this time???

I never really bother myself with what other people get paid.

daithi7

serious question for all you public sector union types:

Is there any other country in the world (OECD) giving an across the board pay rise of 2% or more to their public sector at this time???

daithi7

The incremental position is people getting pay rises. That's what 'increments' are, incremental pay rises.

The latest one was 2% when the country had hit a pandemic, bringing with it 25% unemployment, over 50% of the population dependent on the state and borrowing for current expenditure. That's before even considering the obliterated hospitality, tourism, sport & retail sectors with many self employed obliterated & the tax base going forward seriously eroded. To give a pay rise in that scenario is patently stupid & grossly unfair imho.

[Deleted User]

noodler wrote: »

Are you playing the role of some hard nosed union negotiator for the sake of it?

The original post was that this phantom public sector worker hadn't increased in ten years.

In this case, it doubled.

Pretending otherwise is nonsense.

Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.

A little bit of perspective not to be telling those who were unemployed or suffering other service cuts that this "didn't count".

my response was a bit short in fairness.

these threads and phone posting have a way of doing that, so sorry if it came across too brusque

but i will restate that a public servant who moves up the increments does so under the terms and conditions under which they were offered and accepted the job.

it is fully correct and only correct to treat this one way- over time, you account for increments when comparing whether the person's pay has risen

ao pt 1 did not rise significantly over ten years. thats the valid comparison.

what happened a given ao, who was on pt 1 in 2010, is tbh irrelevant. many are ap or higher now. many are ao pt 7. many no doubt are private sector and earning buckets of cash. maybe some moved abroad and maybe some died.

if you were discussing say mechanical engineer's pay from 2010 through 2020 you wouldnt pick one and start pinning how he moved on himself in that time.

youd pick yr position, average starting or average with five years or whatever, in 2010 and youd use that plot point again for 2020

its not me playing any kind of silly buggers to point this out.

an ao pt 7 has progressed there on merit (and if you disagree that's another thread) and will be performing at a totally different level than one starting out.

if you total their pre fempi nominal earnings for that decade, they are *significantly* cumulatively worse off. this isnt fake accounting practice, this is the reality of how the cuts work.

i suspect we'll just have to disagree fundamentally if incremental progression is taken as individuals getting "pay rises"

blanch152

noodler wrote: »

Are you playing the role of some hard nosed union negotiator for the sake of it?

The original post was that this phantom public sector worker hadn't increased in ten years.

In this case, it doubled.

Pretending otherwise is nonsense.

Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.

A little bit of perspective not to be telling those who were unemployed or suffering other service cuts that this "didn't count".

What if you were top of a scale, say Assistant Principal in 2008?

There are very few promotion posts above this, so you have nowhere to go.

Your salary today is still below 2008, and you are paying significant extra deductions through the ASC replacement for the pension levy.

Vizzy

in my own case (Local Authority) I was at the top of the scale, including LSI's in 2010, so my gross salary has increased by 5.8% in 10 years.

Many of my colleagues would have been in the same position , i.e. at the max or very close to the max of the scale since 2010.
Some exceptions would probably be clerical officer who have a very long scale before they reach the max.

Very little opportunity to seek or get promotion until about 2018, and before somebody jumps in to say "why would you not travel to get promoted " - been there, done that. Want to buy a T-shirt or two ?

noodler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

again

it is incorrect to compare incremental progression as overall pay increases

the correct comparator for an AO on point seven of the scale is not an AO on point one of the scale

it is an AO on point seven of the scale.

any other approach is bunkum

Are you playing the role of some hard nosed union negotiator for the sake of it?

The original post was that this phantom public sector worker hadn't increased in ten years.

In this case, it doubled.

Pretending otherwise is nonsense.

Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.

A little bit of perspective not to be telling those who were unemployed or suffering other service cuts that this "didn't count".

[Deleted User]

noodler wrote: »

No.

That starting position is now around 32,405 and tops out at 57,429 after 9 years (we'll ignore LSIs for the moment which could get you to nearly 62k because they take a long time to kick in.. This is a 77% increase on the gross.

In addition, considering we are talking about a ten year period, if you started as an AO in 2011, you'd have been on just under 30k, but that starting salary (as with most of the points on the scale ) is now nearly 10% higher as mentioned above. So that 57,429 is 91% higher than the 2011 starting AO salary point.

Then, on the net side, there have been substantial reductions in PRD and even moreso if you are on the Single Scheme.

So nearly double quite easily tbh.

again

it is incorrect to compare incremental progression as overall pay increases

the correct comparator for an AO on point seven of the scale is not an AO on point one of the scale

it is an AO on point seven of the scale.

any other approach is bunkum

noodler

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

AO starts around the bottom of the EO scale and finishes at the top of the HEO scale. AP is above both HEO and AO.

What point are you trying to make?

AP is the next grade above AO

The AO scale never reaches the bottom of AP. It's quite a number of thousands short even with LSIs included.

noodler

Vizzy wrote: »

Nope - AO scales for 1st Jan 2010 is here

https://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/finance/2009/28.pdf

Rates for 2020 are here https://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/per/2019/17.pdf

So assuming the the person entered the scale at the minimum in 2010 €31,619 and received all increments and increases since they would now be on €54,652.
This is a 72% increase (and takes account of all increases under wage agreements etc)not 100%

Also, acording to the scales, the minimum of the scale is less now than it was in 2010, despite all the "huge increases" over a 10 year period.

No.

That starting position is now around 32,405 and tops out at 57,429 after 9 years (we'll ignore LSIs for the moment which could get you to nearly 62k because they take a long time to kick in.. This is a 77% increase on the gross.

In addition, considering we are talking about a ten year period, if you started as an AO in 2011, you'd have been on just under 30k, but that starting salary (as with most of the points on the scale ) is now nearly 10% higher as mentioned above. So that 57,429 is 91% higher than the 2011 starting AO salary point.

Then, on the net side, there have been substantial reductions in PRD and even moreso if you are on the Single Scheme.

So nearly double quite easily tbh.

Geuze

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

With no lump sum, the annual pension would increase from 50% to 66.67% of salary.

The lump-sum is deemed to commute 16.67% of annual salary.

I think teachers pensions in the UK don't have a lump-sum, and instead have a higher pension.

I will check:

https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/

Final Salary pension benefits are calculated based on your final average salary, multiplied by your service, multiplied by the appropriate accrual rate. The accrual rate is dependent on the section of the Final Salary arrangement:

Normal Pension Age = 60: Accrual rate is 1/80th

Normal Pension Age = 65: Accrual rate is 1/60th

Ok, so UK teachers with 40 years service at age 65 get 40/60 or 2/3 of final salary.

The taxpayer might save, as lump-sums are typically tax-free, whereas monthly pensions are taxable.

blanch152

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The public sector lump sum is an extra bonus payment.

The annual pension is already overly generous, without the lottery payment addition...

It is not a lottery payment addition, it is a part of revenue rules.

Maximum revenue rules allow for either

(1) Pension of 66.66% of salary or
(2) Pension of 50% of salary, plus lump sum of 1.5 times salary

Public sector pension is (2).

[Deleted User]

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The public sector lump sum is an extra bonus payment.

The annual pension is already overly generous, without the lottery payment addition...

you are incorrect

mikhail

daithi7 wrote: »

because we all have to pay for the massively over generous, individual lottery win for every retiring pubic service employee in the land last year, this year and for the next 50 fuppin years. That's why!!

The next 50 years? Which 17 year old civil servants are on the pre-1995 pension scheme?

JimmyVik

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is an extra, bonus payment, on top of an already generous annual pension. It's completely unwarranted.

I wouldnt say my entitlement to a lump sum is different to anyone elses.
We all get a state pension when we retire.
We pay into extra pension schemes to add to that and our employers pay into it as well. Also we get tax relief on the contributions which is like a bonus from the state.

How is that different to public sector pensions?

EndaHonesty

Deleted User wrote: »

its part of the terms and conditions of the scheme, contributions taken out of salary every pay packet over forty years

maxed out at 1.5 final multiplier salary figure, like any other

lottery win talk is absolutely nonsensical

any assertion that taxpayers fund it on any extraordinary basis versus any other pension scheme/shareholders or etc is nonsensical

any assertion that doesnt even attempt to look into contribution made by employee and return vs a similar product over a similar time is nonsensical

take a serious run at it or why bother for gods sake.

The public sector lump sum is an extra bonus payment.

The annual pension is already overly generous, without the lottery payment addition...

[Deleted User]

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so really it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is really a lottery payout for each recipient and totally unwarranted.

its part of the terms and conditions of the scheme, contributions taken out of salary every pay packet over forty years

maxed out at 1.5 final multiplier salary figure, like any other

lottery win talk is absolutely nonsensical

any assertion that taxpayers fund it on any extraordinary basis versus any other pension scheme/shareholders or etc is nonsensical

any assertion that doesnt even attempt to look into contribution made by employee and return vs a similar product over a similar time is nonsensical

take a serious run at it or why bother for gods sake.

EndaHonesty

JimmyVik wrote: »

Jesus, dont get rid of tax free lump sums.
Without mine I wont be able to retire.
Ive been counting on that since about 20 years ago now.

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is an extra, bonus payment, on top of an already generous annual pension. It's completely unwarranted.

JimmyVik

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The generous pension is one thing, the tax free lump sum is the one that really annoys me. They should get rid of that element.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/one-in-five-retiring-civil-servants-paid-lump-sums-of-over-100-000-1.2814075

Jesus, dont get rid of tax free lump sums.
Without mine I wont be able to retire.
Ive been counting on that since about 20 years ago now.

EndaHonesty

barneystinson wrote: »

You do realise that's not a civil service thing, that's a pensions thing generally? So whatever you do to the public sector on that front will apply equally to private sector people who pay into a private or occupational scheme.

https://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/lifecycle/tax/tax_on_lump_sums_at_retirement/

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so really it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is really a lottery payout for each recipient and totally unwarranted.

[Deleted User]

daithi7 wrote: »

because we all have to pay for the massively over generous, individual lottery win for every retiring pubic service employee in the land last year, this year and for the next 50 fuppin years. That's why!!

you couldnt cost the inputs, outputs or calculations for post 2014 pension if i stood over you correcting you

suffice to say that any figure you even attempt to fling out to back your statements has either been repudiated easily or could be repudiated easily by any one of ten posters here

keep reading dan o brien. im sure you get what you want out of that

barneystinson

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The generous pension is one thing, the tax free lump sum is the one that really annoys me. They should get rid of that element.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/one-in-five-retiring-civil-servants-paid-lump-sums-of-over-100-000-1.2814075

You do realise that's not a civil service thing, that's a pensions thing generally? So whatever you do to the public sector on that front will apply equally to private sector people who pay into a private or occupational scheme.

https://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/lifecycle/tax/tax_on_lump_sums_at_retirement/