How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
Nonsense
Why should I have to wait another year or two to be (partially) compensated for the price increases which took place last year and more than wiped out the last 'deal' ?
They seem determined to reward people who have never had a job.
THIS
An increase delayed is an increase denied.
100% agree. The merger with Fórsa was the worst thing that ever happened for the Civil Service.
Why do I have to wait 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 years to get compensation for price increases which happened last year?
Social welfare recipients wouldn't accept that - and they don't have to either.
They're trying to fool people and it worked last time, with a small backdated payment, I hope votes won't be so cheaply bought this time.
PSEU should never have merged, it wasn't a great union but Forsa does not give one shiny shyte about the civil service.
You might have the luxury of not caring, but you are ignoring the time value of money and the always substantial lag between price increases and wage increases (that's when they even attempt to match inflation, which is rarely).
^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^
With the example i give of 6% on day one or (3+4.5%) split over one year, you get the same money in your pocket over one year and a higher gross wage.
I'd prefer that and a higher pension. Your priorities are money today. Mine isn't.
Can we not have different opinions on how to allocate the money without it turning into a **** show? Or without people saying it's peddling government propoganda?
It's just how I believe the structure of the deal would benefit me and others the most. It's just a different opinion.
The gross wage may be higher but in purchasing power it's less. I couldn't give a fiddlers what my gross wage is, I'm looking at my energy and grocery bills and mortgage payments compared to what I'm taking in, and it's not looking good.
(a) They can afford more than €1.8 billion.
(b) A higher increase at of the end of the deal, will not help when trying to pay bills during the earlier part of the year.
This is all nonsense, that only benefits the employer.
Do you really believe allowing them to put a spin on it that "oh, but when you spread it out over the year, you get more" (even though the "more" is so miniscule it's negligible) and that it will put the employee on a better footing when it comes to negotiating the next deal?
Will it fcuk. If anything, it will weaken their position.
Its pure spin.
People are talking at cross purposes.
One set of folks are looking at what's best for one year's salary. Another are looking at longer-term. There's also a subset making a fair but minor point on compound interest.
Basically, if the government truly only has €1.8b for public sector wage increases this year, then it would be a better long-term strategy to seek structured / stepped increases over the year. This would allow a higher wage increase by the end of the year while keeping to the €1.8b budget.
So this year's pay would be lower, but every subsequent year would be higher, all else remaining equal.
Posters who are trolls should be banned.
Anything to contribute yourself?
Oh God this is so boring.......................
How on earth was that abuse lol
Complete waffle.
lads the govt have literally given away 14 billion to social welfare recipients the majority of which wont be voting for FG/FF no matter what they do ...
there better be something left in the pot for the actual workers
this business of 4 - 5 % so called pay rise over 2 years before massive Paye, Prsi, usc, pension levy deductions and rampant inflation would be simply laughable if it wasnt funny
the union reps better get their fingers out or the workers will vote no
Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong rather than just resorting to abuse.
Hahahah , there is definitely a pair of them in it.
Winner of the most ironic post of the day!!
There is a budget allocation for it. Yes. There isnt unlimited money. Its a negotiation.
If that's your view, fair enough. Thats not how I think the negotiations work but i wont imply youre a fool. Its just a different point of view.
I didn't go re-read your percentages because the point is that the basis of your calculations (that the sum of the staggered increase percentages would equal the single increase percentage offered) is faulty.
Also, your scenario was a flawed response to Bren's original point, so THAT is the scenario you should be addressing, not a different scenario you've made up.
The problem is you are using the wrong variables. Your calculations are not of use as a result.
You're saying 1 increase of 5% vs 2 increments of 3% and 2%.
That's not how these negotiations work.
If you're offered 3% and 2%, you won't get an offer of 5% in one go. You'll get an offer of 4% in one go.
So let's saying 50000 * 4% at Week 1 - That's 52000 over the year, and it gives you a starting base of 52000 next time around.
If we go for 50000 * 3% at Week 1 and then another 2% at Week 27, that would be 51500/year for the first 26 weeks (25750) and then 52530/year for the second 26 weeks (26262.50). So your pay received would be 52012.50 (so basically identical), but your starting point for the next deal would be ~1% higher.
I have over 30 years of public sector pay and public sector pay deals.
And you actually quoted the percentages I used incorrectly, so obviously you can't read tables either.
But, thanks for your input.
Sorry lad....not reading through this as you don't have a clue what you're posting. I gave you the Mathematics. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong.
Except that you didn't. You showed that 2+2 = 4, when the discussion was about 3+3.
It's not obscure mathematics and it's not nonsense. It appears you don't have experience with negotiating pay. It seems you don't understand it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
I said in scenario 1 that the end result to your annual salary at the end of the period is 3000 higher, while in scenario 2 the end result to your annual salary at the end of the period is 4000 higher.
I also said for the period in question (1 year in my example), the total pay received is identical in both scenarios (53000), but that scenario 2 sets you up better for future periods.
As for "that's not how it works", you'll find that it is. In both the private and public sectors, the "employer" has a budget figure (aka an actual number of euro) to work with. By staggering or not staggering the schedule of increases, you pay out the same amount but change the starting point for future deals.
You use a scenario of a one-off 5% increases vs two separate 2.5% increases, but those aren't the options that would be on the table. The options would be more like 3.75% up front or 2 separate 2.5% increases or 1 * 2.5% + 1 * 1.5% + 1 * 1%. A single upfront increase won't match the total of staggered increases.
Ultimately, would you rather receive 53000 this year and then negotiate from a starting base of 53000 next year, or would you rather receive 53000 this year and then negotiate from a starting base of 54000 next year?
Except that I did.
This is not how it works and is totally obscure Mathematics. You're claiming an incrase of €3000 overall in scenario 1 and then claiming its a €4000 increase in scenario 2 with it being 2 x €2000 increases over two six monthly periods. It's all nonsense I'm afraid as this is not what happens in the public sector and also not based on percentages.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
