How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
Just got my gas bill for Dec - Jan, last year it was €592, this year it was €594
Your calculations are off there, because you're treating it as if the person doesn't pay any tax on their existing salary and will only pay it on the new part.
If you're trying to work out the net increase, you need to take account of the net pay in the first place.
Seeing as you have 0.085 for the USC, you are taking someone with gross income of over 70k/annum.
Using the example of an AP which I outlined a few pages back (Post #6307), an AP at Point 1 on the scale would have received €74737.46 (gross) in 2023. Under this new deal, they will earn €78175.97 (gross) in 2024. So this is an increase of 4.6% gross comparing 2023 to 2024. But what would the net pay be in each year? According to TaxCalc.ie (2023 Calculator), a public servant earning 74737 in 2023 would have had net income of 45836. According to TaxCalc.ie (2024 Calculator), a public servant earning €78175 (gross) in 2024 will have net income of 48053. This would represent an increase of 4.8% (or €2217).
Also, as people keep ignoring here, if you're going to compare with inflation, you need to compare with what someone (or more accurately, what the role) paid in 2023 vs what it will pay in 2024 under this deal, not what pay would have been in 2024 without a deal vs what it will pay in 2024 under this deal.
Edited to add URL to 2nd TaxCalc.ie (2024 calculator) link.
Thats honestly some of the most mental maths I’ve ever seen.
Yep...the longer you live you realise even otherwise intelligent people can be morons in some areas.
9.25% nominal rise / 2.5 years = 3.7% gross nominal pay rise
minus paye, usc, prsi, pension levy
3.7×(1−0.4−0.085−0.04−0.105) =
1.369% net nominal increase
less ECB hoped for inflation rate 2%
1.369 −2 =
minus 0.631% real terms pay decrease per year
We've talked about this....
There is a seperate inflation clause that covers inflationary related re-negotiations.
How exactly is anyone getting -0.5% less than they were last year "in real terms"?
Of course I am, since my first week in the CS, doesn't change the fact that it's full of those on the way out looking to shaft the next generation without a thought for the younger members of the PS/CS coming in...
Yeah I don't think they have thought out the finer details of this. They need to give a clear and concise breakdown of the actual rises that the different grades can expect.
I expect a minimum of 10.25 percent as was the headline figure given by Forsa. I don't pay my dues for misinformation.
Are you in the Union?
I see from Forsa that the local bargaining bit won't be decided until the end of June so we're expected to vote on the deal without knowing whether that 1% applies to us.
Clause 5.7.1 allows for a renegotiation if inflation spirals like before. That was the clause that was activated last time.
I am not sure if that’s what you’re referring to tho.
Scary is an odd word to use. But yeah it was the initial headline. Most aren’t like us weirdos on here who have more than a passive interest haha.
Yes we're getting screwed and those here 30+ years will happily accept every bit of it laughing their way to the bank with their golden pension when they let the union leave the rest of us with scraps!
Does the below mean that if inflation increases it's simply a case of tough ****? (Yet again...)
If the proposed agreement is accepted, unions will not be able to lodge any ‘cost-increasing’ claims for improvements in pay or conditions during the lifetime of the agreement
You'd only enjoy that.
Please tell me we don't have to try and explain the concept of inflation to you yet again?
Some providers starting to drop mortgage rates. With energy prices coming down and groceries also starting to fall this could turn out to be a really good deal.
most are getting about -0.5 to -0.7% per year in real terms after multiple deductions for paye, prsi, usc, pension levy and 2% base line inflation
The intricate details of the deal certainly need to be clarified before they can expect people to vote on it. It's possible the unions are seeking clarity themselves at this point.
Fine, you don't think its misleading, I do.
Especially with headlines like this:
Certainly a lot of confusion and questions amongst those I've spoken with about it.
They likely will though. If the application of the 1% last time is anything to go by
I don't see how it misleading. It's a range.
Local bargaining was given as flat increase where I work. I understand this was the case in the majority of cases but where it wasn't, I wouldn't begrudge sectoral issues/bottlenecks being addressed.
You always have to throw a dig in "colleagues who feel they can't be done without"
Or people just don't like work piling up because their teams are so understaffed that there is no hand off possible, so why bother taking 2 days here and 3 there.
I have no problem with the lower paid getting a higher percentage, I've been advocating for that since the start of the thread, when others were very against it.
I have a problem with the Union's lack of clarity on who exactly will be getting these figures of 17% and who exactly will be getting 10.25%. I feel they are misleading the members and the general public.
In particular, I don't know how many people I've now explained it to, that its 9.25% in general round increases, and 1% local bargaining, not 10.25% general round increases.
The amount of people I've spoken to in work who think they are getting 10.25 % is scary. All are higher grade union members.
If the deal applied 10.25% equally to everyone, the criticism would be that doesn't go far enough for the low paid.
It has built in mechanisms to ensure lower paid get more - it's the unions jobs to explain this? What on earth is the problem with that?
There are changes to the rules on carry over being introduced from this year.
The three year carry over rule is gone, and leave carried over, and must be used first.
Anyone I've spoken too, would prefer more money, than more leave.
So you've completely changed your statement and are now trying to pretend that's what you meant?
You gave CO's as an example as they are low paid workers, you did not confine your statement to CO's.
You accept cleaners on point 1 of the scale will see a 17% increase over the term of the agreement. That increments with the rises are not the only way as you previously stated. Your first statement was incorrect.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/196803dfa0698243a1e4321ab9efd141.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e54e8024b002427df3ce2953d22b721.svg)