How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
None of it is government propoganda. I've shown the maths and rationale behind it. If you want to argue my "fact" then where is the flaw in the maths? The government have a pot of money and the unions can negotiate the size of the pot and how it's distributed. Distributing it linearly is worse for your pocket.
Leaving aside that we should be compensated for the discrepancy between the last pay deal and inflation which should be given in day 1, inflation over the next 12 months doesn't hit your pocket on day one either. Spreading out the deal over 12 months to offset rising prices month on month also makes sense.
Are you (and others) honestly suggesting that if the pay deal is 10% we should get that on day one? That's not a reasonable position imo.
This thread is just an echo chamber. If you have a different perspective you're just shouted at that your wrong. Point out the flaw in the logic, there isn't one. You might not agree with it and have your own sound logic.
Because we are already hearing the inflation rate for a single moment in time.
Our employers use projected lower single moment rates when inflation is high and current single rates when it has been constantly high. They try to have their cake and eat it too.
What I want to know is why you constantly seem to throw out government negotiation propaganda as hard fact.
Kinda glad boards isn't the powerhouse it once was because you know they have consultants reading social media like this
By structuring and getting a higher overall percentage instead of a smaller at the start, your pension increases.
It literally benefits everyone to structure the deal. The government only have a certain figure to play with, you want to spread that out over the course of the agreement because that leads to a higher gross wage when you negotiate the next agreement. Long term you benefit.
6% on January first is worse then 7.5% spread over 12 months. Both cost the government the same amount of money (not suggesting 6 or 7.5% should be accepted, the figure is 10% and yes the figures are theoretical. It's the ratio that is important).
The maths speaks for itself. It's blindingly obvious but people want it all on day one. That doesn't make sense.
Of course, the pay deal should be compared to cumulative inflation over two years if it's a two year deal. Why wouldn't it be?
I don't see how it's a scam at all.
It benefits nobody, will you give over with such nonsense.
All I'm seeing from recent pay 'deals' is permanent decreases which will also make my pension smaller... I have no social welfare pension (always matches or beats inflation) to fall back on.
The moment it goes over 2 years it's no longer the headline figure and the way it's sold is a bit of a scam
We don't ever combine inflation. Although if we get offered a 2 year deal the projected cumulative inflation hit should be advertised.
I'm saying structuring deals is in people's interest. The poster was saying structuring is a scam. It's not.
I'm not saying 5% is something we should accept. We shouldnt accept that.
I've set my stall out in this thread. 10% is the figure I'll accept over one year. I'll vote to reject anything less.
And after deductions and inflation, how much of that 5% is left to offset towards the rising costs of living?
Basically nothing.
Your basic salary may be higher on paper, but your purchasing power has not improved, and may in fact have worsened.
Your spending power - basically how far your money will go - has already been drastically reduced due to inflation as high as 15/16% over the last two years or so.
It's not difficult to understand, and what you're consistently ignoring.
If I'm on 100k in Janurary 2024, I'd be on 105k by October 2025. Last time I checked, that's a 5% increase "by the end of the deal" and in 2026, that's what your pay will be.
Really struggling where the maths is breaking down differently or where my poor grasp of mathematics is. People really need to stop just insulting people.
Structuring means less money in your pocket today but more money in your pocket long term. Its bizarre you can't see the logic to that.
If the government have a budget of 1.8 billion (and let's say total pay is $30 billion, yes the actual number is lower but that's irrelevant it's the concept and not the figures that matter) and offered me a 6% increase on January first or a 4% increase in January first and another 3.5% increase on July first, id take the second because my wage has increased by 7.5% by the end of the deal. Over the course of the year, both deals cost the government the same amount of money. That's one reason why deals are structured. It makes sense for everyone.
I think the actual figure is 18.7 billion but you can play around with percentages yourself to see how structuring works. I just picked a nice number to make the maths easier.
I'm not making any statement about 5%, a percentage increase over two years like that would be crap. I'm stating structuring a deal into several increments is in the employees interest as it allows the government's budget to be spread out allowing for a higher perccentage increase by the end of the deal which is permanent.
It makes sense from the governments perspective from a cash flow perspective.
There's a reason unions also like this structure. That's the reason. People really have no clue how these deals actually work.
"Your pay would be 5% higher by the end of the deal. i really struggle to see how it's a scam."
Then you've a poor grasp of Mathematics.
Over 2 years? Just stop will you
Your pay would be 5% higher by the end of the deal. i really struggle to see how it's a scam.
Structuring a deal like that benefits you. If the government has a $2 billion budget, spreading it out over several increases means we can get a higher percentage which is permanent rather then a lower percentage which may appear bigger but isn't.
What emergency legislation is remaining that the unions are seeking to have undone?
I meant 5 percent if it was a 1 year deal. Hard to see much more than that being realistic.
A FF/FG/Official Ireland 5% is like 1% on 1st January, 1% on October 1st 2024, 2% on April 1st 2025 and 1% on October 1st 2025.
In other words it's a total scam and not anywhere near 5%.
This is presumably FEMPI - which is nothing more than fascist legislation designed to entirely neutralise the unions and make them irrelevant.
FAR too much uncertainty over inflation to agree a multi-year deal. Also the loss of earnings caused by the last deal must be addressed immediately as part of any new deal.
Why should we take 5%? Seriously
Government won't agree to a one year deal. It'll be two minimum.
So what do we think will happen from here. The unions have stated a multi year deal won't be possible without the removal of the emergency industrial action clauses introduced during the financial crisis. Is there any chance they will stick to this and it will be a 1 year deal? If so what percentage do we need? 5% at least surely.
Probably because they have absolutely no say on building improvements, student numbers etc. lack of accommodation is fixed with more money/moving. The average PS/CS worker can do sweet FA about systemic issues.
They are also comparing teachers' pay with that of non-graduate and indeed entirely unskilled occupations.
Disingenuous in the extreme.
wheres your evidence teachers dont want these issues addressed
ultimately this is public pay talks thread so of course posters are discussing concerns about below inflation pay rises
In fairness , they are going to mainly to tax free havens. That is not something we can compete with. It is a fact they are in the top 20% of earners.
I think we all know the reasons teaching is seen as unattractive, which is all the more baffling to people like me to hear teachers, those actually at the coalface, only refer to pay.
Paperwork, student behaviour, part time work, lack of accommodation - teachers can't wfh. Start tackling these issues would go along way to address the shortage. But teachers don't want these addressed, they want more pay.
That is a union survey.
Yes, a lot of it is about schools not being able to offer full hours alright. Even the list of survey questions at the end doesn't make distinction between posts offered for full hours and those not, which I find a bit strange.
well documented staffing crisis - some schools considering sending students home certain days if crisis persists
Are they crying out for full time staff?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/ee3bbaed7151f7c3b682bc3fc04ae67e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
