How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
And they still tried to low-ball them with a poxy 5% offer.
The deal only runs until March of 2024, so I'm assuming they will be included in any new deal.
They desperately need these people to help keep services running - but they also need to remember they need all of us to help keep services running.
minimum wage increasing by 12.8% over 1 year plenty of money for new pay deal so
Oh and school secretaries now no longer have to sign on to the dole during the summer. Whoop. What a country.
That's in respect of the previous pay deal, which they didn't get (they got literally NOTHING)
The way the government uses "charities" (in reality funded by the taxpayer) to deliver services at arm's length is a disgrace. It cheats the workers but most of all it cheats the service users. Entitlements not charity. But the government has long known it can get away with treating the elderly, vulnerable, disabled etc. in such a fashion.
What???
This makes no sense whatsoever.
You know, you can take all the cheap shots at me you wish, but I won't apologise for not being a "mé féiner" who only considers the impact of pay deals on themselves, or their own grade.
The point here is, that if the Government can agree to an 8% increase over 1 year here, why are people talking of settling for a paltry 5%-6% spread over 2 or more years for themselves ?
And if the Unions, including Fórsa, can refuse the initial 5% offer that was made here, they damn well better be planning on refusing any similar low-ball, multi-year offers made for the public sector.
Sure 10 isnt enough for you. Oh no sorry not you , you speak for the COs lol.
8% ... after an initial offer of 5% rejected by the Unions.
1 year deal backdated to April of this year and runs until March of next year.
The people who backed the last deal were too compliant, and just accepted what scraps were thrown at them without any real fight for more.
The Unions clearly do need new membership, or else this pattern will just continue.
Even I know it's a foregone conclusion at this point that another crap deal will be offered, and will be accepted, because "no one wants to stand on a picket in January".
Why would hell would the government offer anything better, when they know this?
I'll say one thing for Gardai, Nurses, Teachers - at least when it comes to industrial action, they openly support each other. The Civil Service? You're on your own, mate.
Kippy, it is hard to take anything you say seriously after you tried to argue that any pay increase improves your disposable income irrespective of inflation.
I know many just look at the absolute payrise figure as that is how they have been conditioned with years of low inflation. I'd say the effects of the last couple of years of below inflation rises will have wised up quite a few.
I am not saying that they aren't.
I am just pointing out the flaws in what some people are saying.
In fairnes Dodge summed it up far better than I can/could.
and yet all workers are entitled to join their respective union
Sure, Jan.
I joined the union in our place (public service) prior to the last deal wanting to vote on the previous pay deal. Only then did I discover that we don't get a vote on the pay deal because we are not party to it. Left promptly. Employer does follow it and apply the same increases.
You are an outlier - the facts back that up - the world has changed and while you might suggest you are fighting for the lower paid worker I doub't very much that's the case in reality.
I was simply point out that Unions don't represent the average worker in any sector.
I don't disagree with the logic you've stated.
Bullshit.
I am one of those comfortable older workers, only a few years left until I will be retiring, and I'm not voting for these deals.
I'm the one here advocating for the lower paid, while folks like yourself couldn't give a crap about anyone else.
It's easy to point the finger at older staff when it's clearly the new breed the likes of which are posting here who don't have the same tenacity to stand up and take industrial action when it's needed, who are voting these deals in.
If people want to vote on the pay deal, they have to join a Union. From the governments perspective, negotiating with the Unions in one go is a practical solution instead of deal with it on an individual level/grade level. I should rephrase, Unions are representing the average union member in talks. The pay deal reflects this.
Since the sample size is large enough, the average union member = the average worker.
Nobody is saying the current structure is perfect, its not, but its certainly the most practical solution.
Absolutely. There is no way we can expect public pay to match private, there will be a gap.
Leting that gap grow, however, should not be accepted
Look at how the Armed Forces are treated (even AGS)
They have representative bodies but no unions.
The strong likelihood is that the take home pay of the private sector worker is more than the public sector worker (when pension, “additional” pension etc are included)
There are advantages to working in the public sector. Most of them aren’t financial. Most people understand this, and plenty are willing to accept some compromise here.
I’ve also enjoyed some of the more militant members on here backing Union membership when they themselves have argued the 90% who voted for the last deal were idiots.
I’ve similarly enjoyed the people who still think all public servants have golden pensions and should be paid the lowest possible salary.
And these are the reasons that the last pay deal got through - 90 percent of people who made the committment to be in a union, and exercised their right to vote, took the personal standpoint that the deal was good for them - while of course saying that it would have been nicer to get a higher percentage!
If the paydeals were about what is right for the "Average Worker" then all workers effected by it should be voting on it.
Generally you'll find that older people (and I am going to suggest these make up the majority of the Unions without defining older), who tend to be the better paid in the sector aren't on average effected as much by inflation as those who are on lower salaries, renting and usually younger etc.
These are the people that are voting for these pay deals - because as far as they are concerned they are better off than the were before and they generally are, whether that is because of a combination of changing spending habits, lifestyle changes (examples as you've given) and of course base salary increases.
Nobody can comment on any one specific person. Inflation may not have had a particularly big effect on you or any one specific person e.g. a child moves out of home, the cost of living goes up, but that person is better off then before because they now have more disposable income. However, in this example, there are two variables which isn't the point people are making. IF inflation was 0%, you would have had even more disposable income. Thats the point.
When taking about inflation, its easier to talk about the average person. On average, if a person receives a 5% pay rise but inflation is 7%, the average person sees a 2% decrease in their pay. If they move up a point on the scale, this may offset the 2% but again, that is a second variable. As you move up the scale, you expect your salary to increase in comparison to the cost of living.
For every example of you, there is likely someone in the exact opposite situation who has increased liabilities and inflation has further eroded their pay packet. Hence, talking about any one particularly person doesn't make sense. The average worker is what pay deals are about and the Unions may choose to target specific groups on top of that because inflation inequality is also a thing.
I agree with your point on voting in your own interests with regards any pay deal. If its good for you, why wouldn't you? I have echo'd the same opinion on this thread. People join Unions because it is in their interest. Collective bargaining is in individuals interest so we all join to make it every stronger. There is no "we are in this together" attitude.
According to this article from The Journal, numbers in employment in Q4 2012 were 1,848,900.
According to this publication on the CSO website, numbers in employment in Q4 2022 were 2,574,500.
That's a nearly 40% growth in numbers in employment.
The income tax/USC paid per person in employment would have needed to have risen by ~37.2% to give an increase of 91% overall (1.91 / (2574500/1848900)).
Using 2023's tax bands as an example, someone on 35000/year pays €4272 in income tax + USC, whereas someone on 30000/year pays €3047 in income tax + USC. This shows that a raise of 16.667% in gross salary can result in an increase of nearly 40% in income tax + USC paid.
According to the CSO, the median weekly earnings in 2012 were 518.69. Again, according to the CSO, the median weekly earnings in 2022 were 670.90, for a total increase between 2012 and 2022 of 29.3%.
Using a real life person I know, they started as a CO in 2016 (I'm using 2016 purely because this is a person I can actually talk to about it, rather than trying to find old pay scales without any starting point to work from). They started on about €22000/year (off the top of my head). According to this circular (page 8), the CO starting salary at the time was €21879/year, so that seems to check out. Currently, before any new deal, the CO starting salary is 534.34/week (according to Forsa), which would equate to 27785/year, representing an increase of 26.9% since 2016.
On an individualised basis - thats not true as I have displayed above.
I didn't make myself poorer by accepting a percentage increase in my base salary.
Say someone was earning 40K a year in the public sector. They move to a job in the private sector paying 41K a year. (Sectors are irrelevant here)
Would you look at them and tell them - well done mate, you've made yourself poorer......
Unemployment was 15%. The country was in austerity. Using 2012 as the base point of your argument completely skews it. You have to then go back further and look at public sector wages in the celtic tiger and compare how they changed with income tax receipts. You also have to compare just before the recession to 2012 to see did public sector wages go down by the same metric. You're cherry picking a stat without providing the wider context of it. Irelands population has also risen by 10% in the time and you have to consider population dynamics.
Finally, just because Irelands tax take has increased doesnt mean Public Sector workers should be paid more.
Thats not to say your conclusion is wrong. You could well do all of the above and arrive at the exact same answer. I genuinely don't know. Taking one data point never proves anything.
You're right, it's a complete BS argument with no basis whatsoever in reality. Without a union, the only weapon an employee has is to resign. If your career has no private sector equivalent, how's that supposed to work?
The effect of agreeing to a pay 'deal' which does not match inflation is to make oneself poorer. It's not hard to understand. If you were somehow offered a pay deal twice inflation and accepted it, have you not just voted to make yourself richer?
The problem for the public sector (and, ultimately, society which will suffer as a result) is that successive pay deals have failed to match inflation and the living standards of public servants have been quite significantly eroded. The public sector is now, mostly, no longer an attractive career.
Thatcherite utter rubbish
We all pay taxes.
Private sector cannot generate wealth without a nation state, law and order, education system... Just because the societal benefits provided by the public sector don't (usually) appear on a profit and loss statement doesn't mean they don't exist.
Interesting (that amid arguments of a rising public sector pay bill) to note that tax receipts from PAYE/USC have increased by 91% (nearly doubling) from the years 2012 to 2022.
Has your salary in the public sector nearly doubled? Why is emergency legislation like FEMPI still in existence? Why are millions of official unpaid hours still being provided to the state?
In contrast the public sector pay/pensions bill was €16.5bn in 2012 and €20.8bn in 2020 - a 26% increase.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/ee3bbaed7151f7c3b682bc3fc04ae67e.svg)
