How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
WRC invites government and unions to resume talks. Interesting development given that both sides seemed poles apart in public commentary
A same percentage increase is grossly unfair on the lower grades. That means the gap widens, not stays the same.
If a CO on point 1 gets a 5% increase, a HEO on point 3 or higher is getting more money even if they only get a 2% increase.
Straight percentage increases across the board are a nonsense.
I think a lot of the public commentary was theatrics and muscle flexing. Talks continued informally behind the scenes and now we can see they were productive enough to allow the WRC to reconvene formal talks.
There will be a deal I'd say, the Government will not want industrial unrest going into what will be a difficult winter. Tax receipts have ballooned so the money is there irrespective of all the doom and gloom in discussions such as this. The State has been on the verge of catastrophe and economic collapse for well over two years now apparently.
But the gap has always been measured as a percentage. Otherwise there would be about a circa 1k difference between a CO and SG (as there presumably was at the foundation of the State).
In the reverse, while lower income are hit harder by inflation in percentage terms, in pure numbers the expenditure of the better paid increase more (as they have higher expenditure in the first place).
so how do you do it without discrimination?
I am middle grade in Public domain and the work I do is strategically more important than the lower grades. Thats just a fact not an ego thing.
Why should people who do less important work get a higher payrise?
Me too. I have 7 staff reporting to me currently. So their pay should get closer to mine without the added tasks or responsibilities. it's a strange one. It needs to be a percentage across the board and I don't think any grades should miss out just to give another grade more. I do however believe that they can look at restructuring the CO grades. Perhaps have increments every at a shorter period than 12 months. Just an idea.
My point is that percentages don't work as they are unfair. Simply give an increase so that the gap between richer and poorer doesn't expand.
I'm not arguing for a higher amount increase for COs, I'm arguing for a higher percentage increase for COs so that the gap remains the same.
A similar amount as opposed to a fixed percentage would be fairest. E.g. a 1500 euro increase for everyone. The higher ups need not worry. You'll still be paid 30k more than the CO.
That makes sense in fairness.
But there is a reason why they a remunerated more than a CO?
I started as a CO. Was a CO for 13 years. Worked my way up the ladder and am now on a decent wage.
There is a huge difference between my work now and the responsibilities I take on in comparison to when I was a CO.
My god you really don't understand percentages do you.
I wasnt saying that the gap should decrease. I was saying that COs need a higher percentage increase so that the gap remains the same. Not that the gap should decrease.
Hmm I think you're the one struggling with the concept of percentage increases.
My goodness.
Which amount is bigger:
4% of 25k or
2% of 55k?
In one sense I can sympathize, but in another I think a more dynamic incentive to perform with higher monetary gain from that(or additional time off, pension...).
I've seen it before in both private and public sector, I'm not talking just CO level, that once you hit a paid grade, they have tended to regress.
Strict pay scales make no sense to me. You want the best, then pay. Negotiation. Just my opinion, although I can understand the constraints to a certain level.
All I'm saying is that if both get the same percentage increase it's inequitable.
E.g.
5% for a HEO on 55k is 2750 euro.
But 5% for a CO on 25k is only 1250 euro even though he or she is the one who needs the money more.
Not to mention the gap between richer and poorer gets wider.
So at the moment a CO is at 25k and EO at 31k on the first points.
Lets imagine that from now on the Government does as you suggest and increase everyone by the same flat amount each time.
Lets say pay goes up 2% annually for the COs and the EOs get the same flat rate equivalent.
In 2122 COs would be paid 206k and EO's would be paid 211k.
Does that cause any problems or do you think it makes sense?
The HEO and CO will not have the same expenses.
For example, the HEO will almost certainly have a bigger mortgage and will therefore be harder hit (in raw terms) by interest rate rises.
Now let's flip your example in reverse and give pay increases in percentages for the next 100 years.
The gap between CO point 1 and HEO point 1 goes from 30k to something much larger very quickly. Is that fair?
All I'm saying is that with inflation the way it is right now, the same percentage increase across the board is not helping those who need it the most.
Not to mention the fact that, very soon, government departments in Dublin will not be able to find COs. 25k is pittance with the current cost of rent etc. It's only feasible for Dubs living in their parents house. There's no way that someone would move up from the country to work as a CO in Dublin.
And what does the take home pay work out as?
Yes, it would be completely fair if the across the board percentage increase tracked or was below inflation (therefore not giving the higher earner more discretionary income).
Will be good to see these pay talks end with an employer setting a fair wage for their employee. Anyone who doesn't want to see that for public servants alone are spiteful. I'm a private sector worker who has had my pay increased to help with the increased cost in living, public workers should be treated no different.
I think the main thing being said here is pour more money into junior grades. Whilst I think the money is too low the flip side of it is, what experience or responsibility do they have?
From reading this thread, some people don't have any idea how stressful it can be employed at a more senior grade. They don't count hours let alone minutes.
It won't get closer to you.
If you're a grade 8 on 70k a 5% raise gives you 3.5k
A grade 3 (4?) at 30k getting 10% only gets 3k.
You've still widened the gap between you both.
I'd be hit with the 5% in my scenario but it's more fair.
(Not that 5 and 10% would cut it in this inflationary period either)
It's really not, relatively, that stressful
Coming from private sector a few year ago, the only problem is understaffing
Understaffed happens in both sectors.
Who carries the can if something messes up. Not the junior.
Who makes decisions? Not the junior.
Who does way longer hours without pay...have a guess...
There are perks though.
Long hours, in the public sector? Give over
Vast majority of us never work over. And it's certainly not part of the culture like my previous employers
Depends on where you are. Ask anyone senior in Taoiseachs/Finance/DFA or Health about their hours and see what sort of response you get.
I used to work in one of those Depts and 50-60 hour weeks were the norm.
CO will be paying more, in rent, because their crappy salary isn't enough for a mortgage
Give over? I had a 70 hour week last week. Big issue. I worked until it got done.
Go away with yourself.
And I worked 37.5 hours. As did the entire department.
I'm on leave and no one is calling/texting/mailing.
It's a doddle compared to my old equivalent private role
I won't contradict you there.
I don't agree with excessive hours, but in the early stages of your career, going the extra can help in future.
I was more talking about minutes watchers. Grand at their job, reliable, but jaysus. Never going to go anywhere. Which is fine.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5dc0c82bb5d5c9e7a358d7971a18240f.svg)