Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

Its not the unions decision if we go on strike, it's the members. We have to reject the pay deal and then be balloted for strike. The union decide to ballot or not.

Tax bands not indexed but pretty widely accepted that we will get massive tax band adjustments above inflation* right before the election showing the government putting money in your pocket.

*(The tax band adjustments will likely be in line with inflation across the the term of the government)

every political podcast i listened to post budget. Was discussed quite a bit on the Irish Times Political Podcast. It's Politics 101 stuff, it's one of the most basic plays the government has. Often forms part of the giveaway budgets pre election. Of course, it's speculation

It would start in 2 years time not 3 or 4 years away. 2023, 2024 and 2025 were all above inflation where 2022 and 2021 were losses (that's from a very quick Google)

Sorry for not reading the whole thread, but what is the story with the 1% local bargaining, in the education sector?

Thanks.

You are engaging under false pretenses

You haven’t identified a single thing I’ve said that’s false or misleading. If you can’t point to something concrete, this is nothing but deflective rhetoric.

The argument that the PS and CS is getting poorer is pretty obvious, compare the last few Public Sector Pay Deals v Inflation. You'll see Inflation is faster than pay rises.

• 2021-2023: 8.5%
• 2024-2026: 9.25% (or 10.25% with the Local Bargaining but most have not received that yet)
• Total: 17.75% or 18.75% depending on how you could local bargaining.

From October 2021 - March 2026, inflation has run at 21.2%. The difference between the pay deals and inflation is likely to grow over the next few months as the current deal runs until July of this year.

Plenty of people don't get increments anymore, and in a number of career paths, the end of scale is still below market rates (every single technical role, for starters).

If wages grew slower than inflation, or general income growth, then that would contribute to a fall in the labour share.

I feel this has been happening in Ireland: profit incomes have been rising faster than wage incomes.

Nobody claimed there was a "rule", the claim was the sectors are getting poorer.

It seems you don't understand what inflation is. If the basket of goods costs €1 today and €2 next year, inflation is 100%. It doesn't matter what has happened to your wages, the purchasing power of money has reduced. €1 buys you less. If your wage increase matches inflation, it's still called inflation.

As for the "arithmetic" dig, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of an increment. An increment isn't a cost-of-living adjustment. It is a reflection of increased proficiency and value as you gain experience in a role. If the entire pay scale is being devalued by inflation, then every single rung on that ladder is worth less than it was two years ago.

The reality is that a person at "Point 4" on the scale today has significantly less purchasing power than someone at "Point 4" 15 years ago. That is the definition of a sector getting poorer. That was the point being made. This is also completely ignoring the thousands of staff at the top of their scales who receive no increments at all.

Claiming that individual career progression somehow cancels out systemic wage devaluation is what's actually disingenuous here. Hotblack Desiato is spot on, you're spouting rubbish.

Inflation in consumer prices is measured by the CPI.

The CPI is by no means perfect, it has three faults, two of which can be fixed over time.

I see you've come up with a nice list of blather to hand-wave away the fact that you were trying to rely on increments to also hand-wave away below inflation pay rises. You'd fail secondary school debating doing that. You cannot base an argument on something then decide it's not important.

You also don't really have any idea of the real world for those types of roles these days, if you think the PS has "generous employer pension contributions" compared to the private sector.

The absolutely insane reduction in salary I would have doing an equivalent role in the PS - even at top of scale - would eat away the small increase in mortgage lending available. I get more annual leave and effective full flexibility of working hours. Also, nearly all similar roles have bonuses (even in some semi states), something the PS does not have.

So yes, yes it is still below market rates; in the real world. Not whatever planet you inhabit.

Yes, I dismissed that ‘evidence’ the moment I saw the double‑digit pay rises, on top of increments, given to CS and PS staff. That completely undermines the notion that they somehow got poorer. Getting more money does not make you poorer. What each individual does with that extra money is up to them. They can either invest wisely or spend it in the pub. But it doesn't make them poorer.

I'm no PBP supporter, but a rising profit share and a falling labour share isn't healthy.

Profits can rise without a rising profit share.

An increasing profits share means that profits are rising faster than other types of income.

Profits are already maybe double wages in Ireland, although data on that isn't easy to get.

How low do you want the labour share to fall? For the domestic sector of the economy, it is at 53.5%, well below rates about 66-67% in the USA.

Nightbeacon is a certain rereg hahahah