Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

kippy · 20-01-2013 11:38PM

noodler wrote: »

Pathetic response. I hope the unions are making better arguments in the CP2 negotiations.

Um, it hasn't?

Are you confusing pay and pensions bill with just pay?

The gross deduction in the core pay and pensions bill is 4% over the 4 years.
Figures for the net saving to the government in this bill is not however available (unfortunately)
However I would estimate it to be a lot larger than the 4% outlined.

At this point I have no intention about getting into a debate about the differences in Gross and Net pay in relation to public sector workers (as a grouping) in order to quantify the ACTUAL COST to the state of employing them.

I have done so in the past and it is available on similiar threads to this (it may actually be on this thread)

noodler · 20-01-2013 11:48PM

kippy wrote: »

The gross deduction in the core pay and pensions bill is 4% over the 4 years.
Figures for the net saving to the government in this bill is not however available (unfortunately)
However I would estimate it to be a lot larger than the 4% outlined.

At this point I have no intention about getting into a debate about the differences in Gross and Net pay in relation to public sector workers (as a grouping) in order to quantify the ACTUAL COST to the state of employing them.

I have done so in the past and it is available on similiar threads to this (it may actually be on this thread)

I am very familiar with the pay bill, pensions bill, pay and pensions bill - gross/net etc.

A 4% reduction in the pay and pensions bill considering 30,000 staff have left is pretty pathetic. It is miniscule, tiny and could not be described as substantial.

The two components have been going in opposite directions as a result of the number of people leaving the PS with early retirement schemes etc which is fair enough but this lump sum nonsense is really something which needs to be curtailed.

kippy · 21-01-2013 12:06AM

noodler wrote: »

I am very familiar with the pay bill, pensions bill, pay and pensions bill - gross/net etc.

A 4% reduction in the pay and pensions bill considering 30,000 staff have left is pretty pathetic. It is miniscule, tiny and could not be described as substantial.

The two components have been going in opposite directions as a result of the number of people leaving the PS with early retirement schemes etc which is fair enough but this lump sum nonsense is really something which needs to be curtailed.

You evidently don't understand the relevance of gross and net in this context.
(I agree with you on the lump sum issue, this at the very least need to be taxed)
(I'd also add that it is also somewhat of a joke that the pensions of some of those that retired - a large number I would guess - are still tied to wage levels of the pre pay cut levels)
(Finally, as I stated earlier and elsewhere, the public pay and pensions bill still need to be reduced)

Paulzx · 21-01-2013 12:08AM

tenton wrote: »

great you are well enough off to have a choice. Lots of people would love to work 32 hours a week, with lots of paid holidays, in a well paid, secure and well pensioned job, if it just meant working the odd night or weekend shift. Some people I know love working those hours as it means they can sometimes look after their kids during the weekdays instead of paying full-time childcare fees, do sport during daylight hours or whatever.

I work a lot more than 32 hours a week.

I work 2 weekends out of every 4.

7 nights every 4 weeks

I've worked some part of Xmas day 8 out of the last 11 years.

I've no issue with that. It's my roster. I knew it when signed up. I also knew I'd get paid for it.

.......and will you stop making up imaginary "some people you know" and imaginary "friends" for every post you make.

Which one were you before?...Jimmmy or Giginio? Their posts were uncannily similar to your rubbish

tenton · 21-01-2013 12:21AM

Paulzx wrote: »

.......and will you stop making up imaginary "some people you know" and imaginary "friends" for every post you make.

I did not make up any "imaginary" friends but you cannot deny some people do like working hours outside Monday to Friday "office" hours. You are obviously one of them, and good luck to you, otherwise why would you choose to do it. Its the same in many other industries and countries , lots of people work weekends or night shifts ...but they do not all get 90k a year.

kippy · 21-01-2013 12:41AM

tenton wrote: »

I did not make up any "imaginary" friends but you cannot deny some people do like working hours outside Monday to Friday "office" hours. You are obviously one of them, and good luck to you, otherwise why would you choose to do it. Its the same in many other industries and countries , lots of people work weekends or night shifts ...but they do not all get 90k a year.

Are you suggesting anyone in the public service working unsociable hours is geting 90K a year?

I am making the assumption that, like the rest of your statements, you are able to back that claim up with solid evidence?

woodoo · 21-01-2013 12:55AM

tenton wrote: »

great you are well enough off to have a choice. Lots of people would love to work 32 hours a week, with lots of paid holidays, in a well paid, secure and well pensioned job, if it just meant working the odd night or weekend shift. Some people I know love working those hours as it means they can sometimes look after their kids during the weekdays instead of paying full-time childcare fees, do sport during daylight hours or whatever.

I do 9 to 5 and its plenty. I'm not sure where you are getting this 32 hrs from. For a man that loves averages why are you referring to the lowest figure you could find as if its the norm. .

tenton · 21-01-2013 01:15AM

woodoo wrote: »

I do 9 to 5 and its plenty. I'm not sure where you are getting this 32 hrs from.

Average approx. public sector working week is well known.

google is your friend. You should check your facts.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2011/earnlabcosts_q42011.pdf
"Average weekly paid hours fell to 31.6 in Q4 2011"

Itchianus · 21-01-2013 01:21AM

tenton wrote: »

Average approx. public sector working week is well known.

google is your friend. You should check your facts.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2011/earnlabcosts_q42011.pdf
"Average weekly paid hours fell to 31.6 in Q4 2011"

Which proves your ability to critically examine facts & figures and interpret their meaning is very limited - or else you're being deliberately selective and disingenuous in your posting... the full paragraph:

"In the public sector average weekly paid hours fell by 0.9% over the year from 31.9 hours to 31.6 hours.
Private sector average weekly paid hours decreased over the same period by 0.6% bringing paid hours to 31.6 in Q4 2011."

So what the figures show is that the average weekly paid hours is the same in both public and private sector - thanks for clearing that up Tenton.

And anyway, those averages quoted above include all people working part-time / jobsharing, hence the figure is lower in both sectors than a full-time working week (since you don't appear to have been able to figure that out for yourself).

Head The Wall · 21-01-2013 01:30AM

woodoo wrote: »

I agree with you on the allowances but i would not be willing to work any more time at all. Get everyone working hard while they are there would be more important.

So you are acknowledging that people in the PS don't work hard enough. Thought as much

Itchianus · 21-01-2013 08:00AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

So you are acknowledging that people in the PS don't work hard enough. Thought as much

Show me any cohort of nearly 300,000 employees where no-one is swinging the lead. I don't think anyone (except maybe Frankosw) would try to argue that a bit more productivity couldn't be wrung out of the PS.

Personally I don't think it would kill people to have to work a couple of extra hours a week, particularly if it means protecting/mitigating pay reductions (which I also believe could bear being trimmed by another few %) but that's only useful if it results in more output.

Celticfire · 21-01-2013 09:04AM

Paulzx wrote: »

Which one were you before?...Jimmmy or Giginio? Their posts were uncannily similar to your rubbish

Well he has been called Jimmy 3 times in this thread and Ginio as well and has not once questioned why he would be called that.
His posting style mirrors both and yes indeed he has a friend for every occasion.

Only a matter of time for the story about the laziest lad in class that became a Garda and retired at 45 with multiple properties.

Celticfire · 21-01-2013 09:05AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

So you are acknowledging that people in the PS don't work hard enough. Thought as much

* slow clap *

Silvio.Dante · 21-01-2013 09:10AM

Itchianus wrote: »

Personally I don't think it would kill people to have to work a couple of extra hours a week, particularly if it means protecting/mitigating pay reductions (which I also believe could bear being trimmed by another few %) but that's only useful if it results in more output.

If working an extra few hours a week would mean my deserved increments are secure then I'd accept that.

Despite the howling of derision from the Socialist Parrty wing of the CPSU (who are actually in An Post and aren't ever effected)...

noodler · 21-01-2013 09:35AM

kippy wrote: »

You evidently don't understand the relevance of gross and net in this context.

Jesus H Christ.

What are you talking about?

Yes, Gross is the gross cost, net is the net cost net of taxation, PRSI, pension contributions, pension levy.

You'd swear you were hiding some state secret.

Paulzx · 21-01-2013 09:36AM

tenton wrote: »

I did not make up any "imaginary" friends but you cannot deny some people do like working hours outside Monday to Friday "office" hours. You are obviously one of them, and good luck to you, otherwise why would you choose to do it. Its the same in many other industries and countries , lots of people work weekends or night shifts ...but they do not all get 90k a year.

Please point me in the direction of the 90 grand a year job and i'll apply for it.

You have zero credability throwing random, nonsense figures around.

Imaginary salaries, imaginary friends.................a running theme

kippy · 21-01-2013 09:40AM

noodler wrote: »

Jesus H Christ.

What are you talking about?

Yes, Gross is the gross cost, net is the net cost net of taxation, PRSI, pension contributions, pension levy.

You'd swear you were hiding some state secret.

So the gross saving is 4% yes?
I would suggest that the net saving would at least be in the region of 12-15% which, is substantial on a pay and pensions bill of that size.

noodler · 21-01-2013 09:49AM

kippy wrote: »

So the gross saving is 4% yes?
I would suggest that the net saving would at least be in the region of 12-15% which, is substantial on a pay and pensions bill of that size.

It is 4% NET decrease since 2007.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Page 9 Table 1

Farmer Pudsey · 21-01-2013 09:54AM

Paulzx wrote: »

Which one were you before?...Jimmmy or Giginio? Their posts were uncannily similar to your rubbish

Celticfire wrote: »

Well he has been called Jimmy 3 times in this thread and Ginio as well and has not once questioned why he would be called that.
His posting style mirrors both and yes indeed he has a friend for every occasion.

Only a matter of time for the story about the laziest lad in class that became a Garda and retired at 45 with multiple properties.

It is not the first time somebody has been accused of being a previously banned poster I was accused of being Giginio as well. It seems to be an acceptable put down by some contributors of anyone that sees that we have serious issues with PS pay'

Gumbo · 21-01-2013 09:58AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It is not the first time somebody has been accused of being a previously banned poster I was accused of being Giginio as well. It seems to be an acceptable put down by some contributors of anyone that sees that we have serious issues with PS pay'

Interesting..... That banned poster was also known for having more than one account in the go at the same time........

Anyway, it's seems that if you question PS pay cuts you are immediately put down as a ps employee on 50k per year too.......

God, doesn't assumptions work both ways.....

Paulzx · 21-01-2013 10:03AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It is not the first time somebody has been accused of being a previously banned poster I was accused of being Giginio as well. It seems to be an acceptable put down by some contributors of anyone that sees that we have serious issues with PS pay'

Seeing as you quoted me i'll respond for the record

I have never accused you of anything. Please don't attribute that to me when its untrue

Farmer Pudsey · 21-01-2013 10:19AM

kceire wrote: »

Interesting..... That banned poster was also known for having more than one account in the go at the same time........

Anyway, it's seems that if you question PS pay cuts you are immediately put down as a ps employee on 50k per year too.......

God, doesn't assumptions work both ways.....

Here we go again if you believe this please contact moderators/site admininstarors.

Read Carefully

I do not or did not contribute under another user name
I have only one account.
If you have an issue do as above

Paulzx wrote: »

Seeing as you quoted me i'll respond for the record

I have never accused you of anything. Please don't attribute that to me when its untrue

I did not atribute anything to you rather I made a point re posters accusing other posters of being some previous banned poster.

kippy · 21-01-2013 10:39AM

noodler wrote: »

It is 4% NET decrease since 2007.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Page 9 Table 1

Thanks for the link.
I'd have to question those figures being honest (despite it being from a reliable source).

Can anyone clarify what the "net" figure on that document takes into account?

There is no way in the world that the state pays out 18.4 billion and takes back 1.5 billion in PAYE, PRSI and pension contributions.

Paulzx · 21-01-2013 10:56AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Here we go again if you believe this please contact moderators/site admininstarors.

Read Carefully

I do not or did not contribute under another user name
I have only one account.
If you have an issue do as above

I did not atribute anything to you rather I made a point re posters accusing other posters of being some previous banned poster.

When you quote a post you are directly linking your reply to that quote.

If you say you are not connecting that comment to me that's fine but don't quote me if that's the case

noodler · 21-01-2013 10:59AM

kippy wrote: »

Thanks for the link.
I'd have to question those figures being honest (despite it being from a reliable source).

Can anyone clarify what the "net" figure on that document takes into account?

There is no way in the world that the state pays out 18.4 billion and takes back 1.5 billion in PAYE, PRSI and pension contributions.

These figures are shown in Table I
of this booklet but all other figures in the booklet are net figures, i.e. after deduction of
appropriation-in-aid (mainly pension contributions, ESF funding and pension related
deduction).

So not tax/PRSI/USC it seems.

kippy · 21-01-2013 11:05AM

noodler wrote: »

So not tax/PRSI/USC it seems.

Thanks for providing that clarification.

Godge · 21-01-2013 11:38AM

noodler wrote: »

It is 4% NET decrease since 2007.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Page 9 Table 1

As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, it all depends on your starting date. From your report:

"increases in the pay and pensions bill over the period 2007 to 2012 were due to general round pay increases totalling €975m (or 5.5%), the last of which was in 2008. These have been offset by the decreases imposed in 2009/10 and by other reductions in the period of €1,671m (or -9.5%) (Table III);"

"in 2012 the pay bill will amount to €14,402m, a decrease of 12.6% over the 2009 figure of €16,471m, a 1.6% decrease over the 2011 figure of €14,638m (Table V).

The decrease in the pay bill since 2009 is the result of the impact of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act, 2009 which directly reduced public service pay, the moratorium on recruitment and other measures taken to reduce public service numbers. The reduction in the pay bill has been partly offset by an increase in the pensions bill;"

kippy · 21-01-2013 11:53AM

noodler wrote: »

So not tax/PRSI/USC it seems.

Would you agree that the net savings have been substantially higher than the 4% quoted?

noodler · 21-01-2013 12:07PM

Godge wrote: »

As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, it all depends on your starting date. From your report:

"increases in the pay and pensions bill over the period 2007 to 2012 were due to general round pay increases totalling €975m (or 5.5%), the last of which was in 2008."

This is in addition to increments of course. Workers in the PS have recieved incremental salary increases since 2008.

kippy wrote: »

Would you agree that the net savings have been substantially higher than the 4% quoted?

?? If you have a point to make - then make it specifically rather than throw about open-ended questions.

I have already provided you with figures and a report which you seemed to know nothing about.

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 12:44PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

We are not borrowing 2 million per hour to pay PS wages, this is hyperbole and nothing else.

If you cannot make your case without having to resort to misinformation then I wont take your point seriously.

Firstly the correction the minister for Public expenditure is looking for from the public service over the whole lifetime of any deal is not even remotely near 2 million an hour.

If you look at what I said I say ps pay , pensions, services and social welfare so read my full posts before going off on one Robbie.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments