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???
Fann Linn wrote: » I never really bother myself with what other people get paid.
daithi7 wrote: » You would if you were paying for it though
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.
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!!
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.
noodler wrote: » Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.
daithi7 wrote: » The latest one was 2%
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Not an increment, a partial restoration of pay cuts from over ten years ago
daithi7 wrote: » Oh, do you mean the totally unsustainable pay levels of the Celtic Tiger era, that were all to be paid with one off property transaction taxes!? How did that work out then!?
[Deleted User] wrote: » Google it.
Deleted User wrote: » 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"
Jim Root wrote: » That’ll be a no then.
Fred Cryton wrote: » No no, silly. This is Ireland. In Ireland, we don't "cut" anything. We instead identify the narrow band of hard working middle income private sector higher rate taxpayers (around 20% of the population), and we simply increase their taxes yet again. More welfare and more public sector pay, sure why not? Wouldn't it be cruel not to? Just identify those people, tax them once again, and then pat yourself on the back for reducing "inequality".
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/05/26/hanc-m26.html Well, you do have the UK, where Boris Johnson is killing nurses faster than ever, but still refuses to increase their pay. If that is what you want, you could move over there.
NovemberWren wrote: » the Accountants of that 20%; are you so sure that the private sector are always solvent.
never_mind wrote: » I thought covid would have given people the opportunity to reflect on its importance and try to support not demonise it.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » 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. Another spoof. Increments were postponed for most staff. Many things including OAP were not cut.
JimmyVik wrote: » Sometimes people just talk sh1t for the sake of arguing. You should see his posts in the Sweden covid thread about how Sweden are actually doing great with COVID. Totally off the wall
Treppen wrote: » I don't know is there?.. although the question is incorrect for starters because there's no pay rise , it was pay restoration from pay withheld.
daithi7 wrote: » You mean "Pay restoration" back up to the unsustainable Celtic Tiger levels is it? The ones that could only be funded by one off, unsustainable, property taxes.... tell me, how did that work out again?!? P.s. isn't it curious that we're being strong armed into 'restoring' PS pay (i.e. increasing it to previously unsustainable levels), while income taxes have not nearly been restored back down to Celtic Tiger levels (e.g. we're stuck with USC, & higher levels of income tax, etc). So one group of workers are quite clearly receiving preferential treatment, to the cost of others, that's unfair .......