How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
It worries me that the article talks up abstract technicalities and how the union aims to futureproof quality jobs and services. Even repealing FEMPI - it's fine but it is not a significant win for most people.
I want large % increase in pay and would prefer the unions focus exclusively on that.
Why should a lower paid worker see a higher percentage increase than me?
I don’t want my purchasing power reduced. If they get X%, I see no reason why I don’t get X%. If their purchasing power stays the same, so should mine.
tax eats most of my increase anyway, for a lower paid worker, they get more money in their hand for any percentage increase.
Because the pay talks are not just solely around inflation and each persons purchasing power. There are many elements to it , one big element is the ability to hire staff.
Inflation disproportionately hits those on lower incomes because a greater proportion of their income goes on necessities they can't go without, relative to those on higher incomes.
There was a small recognition of this in the previous two deals.
In the last one, those on lower incomes got a slightly larger gross % increase - either 1.5% or €750, whichever was greater.
Does recruitment of staff only effect lower paid workers?
And a 5% increase for those on the lower rate of tax is worth more net than me on the higher rate. The people who would need it are those in the middle and they’re just being squeezed more.
The 1.5% or 750e didn’t bother me but I didn’t agree with it either. I’m sure there will be something like that in the next deal. At the end of the day, I’ll just be looking at myself and does the rise match inflation.
"tax eats most of my increase anyway, for a lower pad worker, they get more money in their hand for any percentage increase."
How do you figure that? Very rough figures -
Someone on €35k gets a 5% increase = €1750 gross. Less 20% tax = €1400 net.
Someone on €70k gets a 5% increase = €3500 gross. Less 40% tax = €2100 net.
So the opposite is true.
The higher paid person here ends up with approx 50% more into their hand, than the lower paid person from the same % increase.
This is why I favour a deal like the German one. A % increase, with a guaranteed minimum.
🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣
You know exactly what I meant, they see a higher percentage increase in their take home pay.
snipped
😂🤣
You might want to reread what I wrote. We agree with each other.
Plenty of people on this thread call what you've described as a pay increase. I don't. You don't.
The ability to hire staff is as much a problem with the recruitment process as it is with wages.
A huge problem is overqualified candidates topping entry level panels who then find out that wages are non-negotiable and decline the post.
Jeez you were quick on the draw there 😀 you weren't talking about what I thought you were talking about so I deleted the post.
Yeah it's completely bizarre that some are focused only on nominal wages. The most charitable explanation I can put on it is that they have only ever lived in a very low inflation environment until recently. There are others though.
So what? They just move on down the order of merit.
The very lengthy open recruitment process is a real problem. A lot of people will have moved on in their careers by the time they get a PS offer and that only increases the pay cut they'll have to take, and they decide it's not worth it.
Retention is as much of a problem though, loads of COs / EOs moving on within a couple of years to better paid private sector jobs.
They move down the panel to the second person and it's the same, then the third. I know of several panels that have either completely failed to hire anyone or failed to fill all the posts it intended to.
This is due to overqualified people topping panels with wage expectations that are not in line with the scale of the position they have applied for. The time it takes too to go through panels is a problem you rightly identify. By the time someone who would have taken the post is reached they are no longer interested as they've moved on.
No but anecdotally it’s harder at the lower paid levels. Admittedly I don’t know if that’s factually true.
Oh are you playing with the funny maths again that give magical extra percentages?
Enough said.
Very basic maths....?
Are you honestly telling me you don't understand that the percentage increase of net pay is higher for someone on the lower rate of tax compared to the higher rate for the same gross percentage increase???
Are you honestly claiming that someone who earns half of what you do, takes home more than you do into the hand, from the same percentage increase? Because that's rubbish.
Once someone goes over €40k, and into the higher tax band, the gap gets narrower. But anyone under €40k (i.e. low paid workers) are still taking home less than you who is on minimum €70k.
Buy yourself a new calculator out of your increase.
note there are also deductions for PRSI 4%, USC approx. 8% and ASC Levy 10.5%
He is claiming they get a bigger % increase net. Which is of course correct.
You know what, it's the begrudgery of someone earning €70k+ complaining about much lower paid workers potentially getting a bit more, that just disgusts me.
I honestly don't know what the fcuk is wrong with some people.
Precise figures would be as follows:
A 5% increase to those on €35k and €70k would result in an extra €1020 and €1323 into their hand per year, respectively. This is based on all deductions (tax, USC, pension etc).
I agree they should get a higher %. As someone said they spend a higher% on necessities that have gotten dearer. But the poster is still correct in terms of what they are saying about the increase.
I'll spell it out for you. Imagine a cut off point from 20% tax to 50% tax at €120.
Someone earns €100 and gets a 10% raise. Their take home pay goes from €80 to €88 i.e. a 10% increase in their take home pay.
Someone earns €200 and gets a 10% raise. Their take home pay goes from €136 to €146 i.e. a 7.35% increase in their take home pay.
Wheres my "magic maths" and whats so difficult to understand about that? For a gross increase, a lower paid worker gets a higher percentage increase. Where the highest imbalance is is around the cut off point. Its a further squeezing of the middle which I am sick of happening.
And yes, the maths stacks up with USC, ASC, and tax credits and all other deductions.
Not an unreasonable position to take and I would have held the same view for a long time but seeing first hand how hard it is to recruit entry level staff and even staff 1-2 positions up the ladder something needs to be done to make these roles more attractive (a Dublin allowance would help). Not everyone can enter the public sector on a high grade or move up the grades quickly and these jobs still need to get done. From a selfish perspective not being able to fill vacancies makes my life harder! I appreciate it's easy for me to say that as I am late career and well paid. Ten years ago I would have agreed fully with you.
I've absolutely no issue with that argument and position but it assumes everyone is a civil servant and that recruitment at the lower levels is equal across all areas affected by the public pay talks. I am not a civil servant and recruitment as the lower level isn't necessarily a problem where I work.
If teachers (not that they are low paid) or COs or other specific areas need to change the scale in order for recruitment, I understand and agree with that. Thats very different to a universal increase which, in this set of public pay talks, is largely about tackling the rising cost of living for everyone. A universal increase should be applied across all levels and, imo, theres far too much of this "we're in this together" in this thread. I am in it for myself.
Ah yes, back to your "anyone who disagrees with me is either A. wrong or B. a horrible person".
The big open competitions would have hundreds if not more on the panels.
Maybe you're talking about specific specialist posts, public sector as opposed to civil service?
I know of a post which was head of IT for an agency, they got no suitable applicants. They moved the salary up a grade level, the same. They had to move it up a grade level again.
But anyone who cares to read the circular for the post they're applying for will know what the salary is and what the deal is on negotiating pay (almost impossible, in the civil service anyway).
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
