Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

24-01-2013 01:47PM

noodler wrote: »

Also a good point.

Name for me all the nations in debt?
Name for me all the nations last year that turned a profit?
Name for me nations that as a policy of Government plan to pay off their National debt?

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 01:50PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Name for me all the nations in debt?
Name for me all the nations last year that turned a profit?
Name for me nations that as a policy of Government plan to pay off their National debt?

Robbie Godge brought up the argument about how dunnes and other private sector companies are giving pay rises and how unfair it is that the PS are looking at pay cuts. It was just pointed out that he forgot about increments and the bare facts that all of the companies in question turned a profit not a loss. As a retort to your questions show me one nation more in debt and paying payrises to their public sector employees?

Kaylee · 24-01-2013 01:51PM

... one of the reasons why these shops managed to turn a profit and are in a position to pay their staff increases is that PS staff have enough money to buy stuff in their shops... no?

More pay cuts to PS = less money to spend in aforementioned retailers.

24-01-2013 01:52PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Robbie Godge brought up the argument about how dunnes and other private sector companies are giving pay rises and how unfair it is that the PS are looking at pay cuts. It was just pointed out that he forgot about increments and the bare facts that all of the companies in question turned a profit not a loss. As a retort to your questions show me one nation more in debt and paying payrises to their public sector employees?

Do you just want me to find one country with a larger debt?

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 01:53PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you just want me to find one country with a larger debt?

No the full equation is find a country more in debt aswell as borrowing as much paying increments or payrises ?

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 01:55PM

Kaylee wrote: »

... one of the reasons why these shops managed to turn a profit and are in a position to pay their staff increases is that PS staff have enough money to buy stuff in their shops... no?

More pay cuts to PS = less money to spend in aforementioned retailers.

Also more pay cuts to PS = less money to be got from increasing taxation therefore offsetting such cuts

creedp · 24-01-2013 01:56PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Robbie Godge brought up the argument about how dunnes and other private sector companies are giving pay rises and how unfair it is that the PS are looking at pay cuts. It was just pointed out that he forgot about increments and the bare facts that all of the companies in question turned a profit not a loss. As a retort to your questions show me one nation more in debt and paying payrises to their public sector employees?

Ah he must have forgot that there are no increments in the private sector ... silly error!

By the way as a customer of these retailer I would much prefer they slashed the pay of their staff so I wouldn't have to pay so much for their products. After all its my money that pays their wages.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 01:59PM

creedp wrote: »

Ah he must have forgot that there are no increments in the private sector ... silly error!

By the way as a customer of these retailer I would much prefer they slashed the pay of their staff so I wouldn't have to pay so much for their products. After all its my money that pays their wages.

well the difference is that there is competition just look at the market share that Aldi and Lidl have gained. So if they continuously fleece the public people will go to their competitors. We cannot do this with regards to our public sector or many of the quangos. Imagine for a minute if the gov turned around to CIE and said F You guys we are just going to open the market and let you guys loose no more state subsidy. How much would prices for bus fairs etc come down by?

sarumite · 24-01-2013 02:00PM

-deleted-

24-01-2013 02:01PM

fliball123 wrote: »

No the full equation is find a country more in debt aswell as borrowing as much paying increments or payrises ?

so more debt and more and more borrowing and paying pay rises (which is different to increments)

24-01-2013 02:06PM

Is there any point arguing back and forth on this no one is going to suddenly switch sides

The government have given the amount that needs to be cut, better off discussing how this figure may be achieved and what are the further savings likely to be needed after 2015 assuming the economy isn't improving any time soon.

noodler · 24-01-2013 02:19PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Name for me all the nations in debt?
Name for me all the nations last year that turned a profit?
Name for me nations that as a policy of Government plan to pay off their National debt?

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

How about not running a profit?

How about just not running the highest deficit in the Euro Zone?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-22102012-AP/EN/2-22102012-AP-EN.PDF

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 02:20PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

so more debt and more and more borrowing and paying pay rises (which is different to increments)

Robbie I asked you to show me one country as much in debt and borrowing as much as Ireland are and paying increments which are pay rises. Regardless of your semantics an increment means the tax payer has to pay more to that individual for the same amount of work they were doing

creedp · 24-01-2013 02:21PM

fliball123 wrote: »

well the difference is that there is competition just look at the market share that Aldi and Lidl have gained. So if they continuously fleece the public people will go to their competitors. We cannot do this with regards to our public sector or many of the quangos. Imagine for a minute if the gov turned around to CIE and said F You guys we are just going to open the market and let you guys loose no more state subsidy. How much would prices for bus fairs etc come down by?

The problem with the competition issue is that they all seem to be increasing their cost base at the same time .. you can't buy everything you want in Lidl you know!

Godge · 24-01-2013 02:23PM

noodler wrote: »

Ehh.....increments?

Strawman argument though and you know it.

The State first and foremost can only pay what it can afford.

The comparisons you choose are ridiculous.

(1) Actually increments are paid in most retail companies, based on experience, similar to the public service, in some cases these continued through the recession, in some there has been an increment freeze.

(2) Explain how it is a strawman argument? The "cuts" in the private sector have repeatedly been held up as a reason for cuts in the public sector by many posters, I didn't see that being dismissed as a strawman argument. I have actually spent a lot of time digging out statistics which show the cuts in the public sector were deeper. So how can it be a strawman argument if the situation in the private sector has reversed?

(3) The argument about what the State can afford is the ultimate strawman argument. The State could well afford to increase public sector pay for those earning over €60,000 by 40% if it cut social welfare payments by 20% and increased taxation by 20%. The affordability argument depends on public service pay being the only mechanism to close the budget deficit. It should be an argument about appropriate policy choices rather than we can't afford anything.

(4) Instead of comparing retail staff with 2% pay increases, should I compare what is happening in the multinational technological sector where payrises of 10% have been happening, albeit only sporadically and based on individual performance

(5) Finally, nowhere in my post (if you read it carefully) did I suggest that the Government should or should not cut public service pay or terms and conditions or numbers. I merely pointed out that the context of pay rises in the private sector would make it more difficult for the Government to justify and achieve its objectives and also more difficult for the unions in the face of pressure from their members who will also be aware of those pay increases their friends, neighbours and relations are getting. The hysterical reaction to my post from the usual suspects is a clear sign of the lack of a common sense analytical approach to the issue on here.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 02:25PM

creedp wrote: »

The problem with the competition issue is that they all seem to be increasing their cost base at the same time .. you can't buy everything you want in Lidl you know!

What cant you buy in Lidl.? All Dunnes , Tescos and the rest are doing deals on whats called lost leaders which they make a loss to get you into the store. If your prepared to go to all shops for your shopping there are great deals to be had for example Tescos do 3 lots of meat for 9 quid. Usually they have a variety of 4 pork chops, mince, Chicken breasts. So thats the makings of 3 dinners for a family right there... I can get everything I need in Aldi with regards to food. If you want something that is in a different store that tastes nicer thats your prerogative and if the store wishes to attach a premium to this item its your choice to buy it or not to buy it

Godge · 24-01-2013 02:25PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How would we know prior to the person taking redundancy.
Of course a portion of those made redundant would go on to welfare, as is their right and the right of all workers in Ireland.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/jobseekers_benefit.html

You forget that Class B, C, D public servants recruited before 1 April 1995 are not entitled to unemployment benefit.

noodler · 24-01-2013 02:33PM

Godge wrote: »

(1) Actually increments are paid in most retail companies, based on experience, similar to the public service, in some cases these continued through the recession, in some there has been an increment freeze.

I call absolute bull**** on this after I worked four years in retail on the same wage per hour.

I would need serious proof that there are annual increments for new starters which start off large but get smaller as time goes on in the same position ala the Public Service.

Godge wrote: »

(2) Explain how it is a strawman argument? The "cuts" in the private sector have repeatedly been held up as a reason for cuts in the public sector by many posters, I didn't see that being dismissed as a strawman argument. I have actually spent a lot of time digging out statistics which show the cuts in the public sector were deeper. So how can it be a strawman argument if the situation in the private sector has reversed?

Strawman argument, comparing a retail worker on close to minimum wage finally, after four years, recieving a pay increase of measly 3% as some sort of pathetic attempt to justify a lack of action in CP2.

Godge wrote: »

(3) The argument about what the State can afford is the ultimate strawman argument. The State could well afford to increase public sector pay for those earning over €60,000 by 40% if it cut social welfare payments by 20% and increased taxation by 20%. The affordability argument depends on public service pay being the only mechanism to close the budget deficit. It should be an argument about appropriate policy choices rather than we can't afford anything.

Another stupid argument considering we already pay our PS very well compared to international norms according to the OECD. Also stupid given the fact the PS and pensions bill doubled between 1999 and 2008.

Also stupid given there are 450,000 people claiming unemployment benefit in the country's worst unempployment crisis for decades.

Godge wrote: »

(4) Instead of comparing retail staff with 2% pay increases, should I compare what is happening in the multinational technological sector where payrises of 10% have been happening, albeit only sporadically and based on individual performance

If they increase the profits of the company then all power to them. It is not something that should concern the Irish State unless there are heavily, heavily qualified scientists working somewhere in the Government sector who have a mobile set of skills and could switch from public to private in an instant.

Also, the MNCs in question would not be paying such wages increases if they were currently as broke as the Irish State is.

Godge wrote: »

(5) Finally, nowhere in my post (if you read it carefully) did I suggest that the Government should or should not cut public service pay or terms and conditions or numbers. I merely pointed out that the context of pay rises in the private sector would make it more difficult for the Government to justify and achieve its objectives and also more difficult for the unions in the face of pressure from their members who will also be aware of those pay increases their friends, neighbours and relations are getting. The hysterical reaction to my post from the usual suspects is a clear sign of the lack of a common sense analytical approach to the issue on here.

No it wouldn't and it shouldn't

A periodic pay rise in the lowest paid sector of our economy whilst the majority of lower paid (although still much better paid than the same retail workers) public servant workers enjoy larger annual incremental increases is no argument whatsoever for not cutting the pay of higher earners which is being considered.

How do you even reconcile those two points with a straight face?

Godge · 24-01-2013 02:34PM

Here we go again:)

fliball123 wrote: »

Now list how all of these companies turned a profit last year and are not borrowing 2 million an hour to pay the bills?

And that is one of the arguments the Government should make in response when the unions undoubtedly raise this issue. But how does affect the truthfulness or accuracy of my post that the payrises in the retail sector make the government's objectives more difficult to achieve?

fliball123 wrote: »

Robbie Godge brought up the argument about how dunnes and other private sector companies are giving pay rises and how unfair it is that the PS are looking at pay cuts. It was just pointed out that he forgot about increments and the bare facts that all of the companies in question turned a profit not a loss. As a retort to your questions show me one nation more in debt and paying payrises to their public sector employees?

Where in my post did I say it was unfair? You are reading things into it that are not there.

fliball123 wrote: »

Also more pay cuts to PS = less money to be got from increasing taxation therefore offsetting such cuts

Those are policy choices. The unions would be well within their rights to say that an alternative policy choice is to give us the same pay increases and take the cost of that from everyone with increased taxation which then spreads the burden more evenly meaning those in the private sector who have got a pay increase share the burden. Without the pay increases in the private sector they wouldn't have that argument, that is my point. Not every post has to be aimed at either defending the public sector or bashing the public sector, this thread is about the Croke Park II talks and my post was just drawing attention to some contextual issues that would make the talks more difficult.

fliball123 wrote: »

well the difference is that there is competition just look at the market share that Aldi and Lidl have gained. So if they continuously fleece the public people will go to their competitors. We cannot do this with regards to our public sector or many of the quangos. Imagine for a minute if the gov turned around to CIE and said F You guys we are just going to open the market and let you guys loose no more state subsidy. How much would prices for bus fairs etc come down by?

Bus Eireann is already open to competition and EU rules mean that Dublin Bus will be open to competition from 2016 - it is happening all ready, didn't you know?

Tim Robbins · 24-01-2013 02:34PM

Godge wrote: »

Getting back on topic:), it will be interesting to see how the Government will be able to proceed with an agenda that reduces pay. I have just been reading an article in Industrial Relations News (behind paywall so can't provide link) that states that:

Dunnes Stores will increase pay by 3% from 1 Feb 2013
Tesco will increase pay by 2% from 1 Jan 2013
M&S have increased pay by 2.5% from 1 April 2012
Debenhams will increase pay by 2% from 1 September 2013

There are about 32,000 people employed in these companies affected by these increases.

It also says about other retail companies that "A decision on a 3% claim at Penneys is expected to be reached next month, while a meeting is to take place this week regarding the processing of the pay claim at Boots.
At Brown Thomas a 2% pay increase proposal is expected to be furnished shortly; management and union representatives convened at the LRC last week on the matter. A pay and increments freeze has been extended three times at Brown Thomas since 2009"

Most of the retail companies froze pay at the start of the crisis - they did not cut pay or impose a pension levy as in the public sector. In a climate of pay rises resuming in the private sector where only pay freezes were in place, the public sector unions will be under pressure from their members who have suffered a pay cut and the pension levy not to make further concessions. These talks may have a long way to go yet.

Did it say in this same article that the public sector have received 670 million in increments since Croke Park 1? Pretty incredible when no-one will lend us any money. We are in administration.

Gumbo · 24-01-2013 02:35PM

noodler wrote: »

I call absolute bull**** on this after I worked four years in retail on the same wage per hour.

I would need serious proof that there are annual increments for new starters which start off large but get smaller as time goes on in the same position ala the Public Service.

my mam has been getting annual increments from Dunnes Stores since she started there in 2008.

I've pointed this out many times in many threads. Molloys Liquor Stores pay staff annual increments too.

noodler wrote: »

A periodic pay rise in the lowest paid sector of our economy whilst the majority of lower paid (although still much better paid than the same retail workers) public servant workers enjoy larger annual incremental increases is no argument whatsoever for not cutting the pay of higher earners which is being considered.

How do you even reconcile those two points with a straight face?

% wise her increments are much more than mine in the PS. My last increment was €6 per pay day (fortnight), her 2012 increment was 90 odd cent per hour.

24-01-2013 02:36PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Robbie I asked you to show me one country as much in debt and borrowing as much as Ireland are and paying increments which are pay rises. Regardless of your semantics an increment means the tax payer has to pay more to that individual for the same amount of work they were doing

Germany last year paid pay increases to public servants after strike action.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/germany/120331/german-public-sector-workers-pay-rise-strikes

Last year Germany borrowed €22.5 billion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10612033

German national debt is roughly €2,195,325,000,000
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany

So that is exactly what you asked for with no semantics.
It is not what you want but it is exactly what you asked for.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 02:37PM

Godge wrote: »

(1) Actually increments are paid in most retail companies, based on experience, similar to the public service, in some cases these continued through the recession, in some there has been an increment freeze.

(2) Explain how it is a strawman argument? The "cuts" in the private sector have repeatedly been held up as a reason for cuts in the public sector by many posters, I didn't see that being dismissed as a strawman argument. I have actually spent a lot of time digging out statistics which show the cuts in the public sector were deeper. So how can it be a strawman argument if the situation in the private sector has reversed?

(3) The argument about what the State can afford is the ultimate strawman argument. The State could well afford to increase public sector pay for those earning over €60,000 by 40% if it cut social welfare payments by 20% and increased taxation by 20%. The affordability argument depends on public service pay being the only mechanism to close the budget deficit. It should be an argument about appropriate policy choices rather than we can't afford anything.

(4) Instead of comparing retail staff with 2% pay increases, should I compare what is happening in the multinational technological sector where payrises of 10% have been happening, albeit only sporadically and based on individual performance

(5) Finally, nowhere in my post (if you read it carefully) did I suggest that the Government should or should not cut public service pay or terms and conditions or numbers. I merely pointed out that the context of pay rises in the private sector would make it more difficult for the Government to justify and achieve its objectives and also more difficult for the unions in the face of pressure from their members who will also be aware of those pay increases their friends, neighbours and relations are getting. The hysterical reaction to my post from the usual suspects is a clear sign of the lack of a common sense analytical approach to the issue on here.

Ok lets break this down by your own points.

Point 1
I believe the likes of Dunnes and others this will be the first pay rise for any staff in the last number of years and if Dunnes or any of these other stores where not making a profit you can damn well expect that pay rises would not be paid.

Point 2
How has the situation in the private sector reversed. There are still 3/4 private companies going to the wall every week. These people end up on the dole the only reason why this number is not been shown in the nett emigration of 30k people every year that most of which a large % would of joined the dole queue.

Point 3
So more taxes even do we have had 5 years of tax increases. With property tax and the new water charges and the next 2 /3 years of further taxation via direct and indirect taxes we will be on top of the oced by a country mile in paying taxes. As it is we are up near the top. Social welfare has also seen decreases in the last 3 years..Where have the decreases in the public sector pay been..Oh wait it was the exercise of moving expenses from column A ps pay to column B ps pensions and column C social welfare. From the outside looking in everyone knows the social welfare will be cut, you can be damn sure taxes will increase..and yet the union leaders still want pay rises so that one part of our expenditure can increase..REALLY?

Point 4
No point arguing this until you show how much of a profit these companies are making. If a company is raking it in..Its only right that they reward hard working staff

Point 5
Just on your slight about the private sector getting a pay rise. This is not the case in all sectors and in the last 5 years the ps continued to get uninterrupted pay increments, where as Dunnes in particular did not pay pay rises until this year. So you could say they are just catching up on their ps counter parts

24-01-2013 02:38PM

Godge wrote: »

You forget that Class B, C, D public servants recruited before 1 April 1995 are not entitled to unemployment benefit.

Most pre 1995 are unlikely to meet the criteria for redundancy(Max 2 year of salary) if we use the 2010 terms as the base of our discussion. Although it is still a valid point.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 02:41PM

Godge wrote: »

Here we go again:)

And that is one of the arguments the Government should make in response when the unions undoubtedly raise this issue. But how does affect the truthfulness or accuracy of my post that the payrises in the retail sector make the government's objectives more difficult to achieve?

Where in my post did I say it was unfair? You are reading things into it that are not there.

Those are policy choices. The unions would be well within their rights to say that an alternative policy choice is to give us the same pay increases and take the cost of that from everyone with increased taxation which then spreads the burden more evenly meaning those in the private sector who have got a pay increase share the burden. Without the pay increases in the private sector they wouldn't have that argument, that is my point. Not every post has to be aimed at either defending the public sector or bashing the public sector, this thread is about the Croke Park II talks and my post was just drawing attention to some contextual issues that would make the talks more difficult.

Bus Eireann is already open to competition and EU rules mean that Dublin Bus will be open to competition from 2016 - it is happening all ready, didn't you know?

How long do you think we can continue to fleece tax payers? Also I didnt know about the Bus competition its about time

Tim Robbins · 24-01-2013 02:42PM

kceire wrote: »

my mam has been getting annual increments from Dunnes Stores since she started there in 2008.

Forgive my ignorance but are the workers there unionised?

I have never worked in a PS job where you just got an annual increment. It was always performance related and a lot of the time you get nothing. They are pretty scabby.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 02:43PM

kceire wrote: »

my mam has been getting annual increments from Dunnes Stores since she started there in 2008.

I've pointed this out many times in many threads. Molloys Liquor Stores pay staff annual increments too.

% wise her increments are much more than mine in the PS. My last increment was €6 per pay day (fortnight), her 2012 increment was 90 odd cent per hour.

Once again where these companies profitable. Look any argument here is show me a company in debt and borrowing and paying pay rises and I will show you a pig that can fly

24-01-2013 02:44PM

fliball123 wrote: »

How long do you think we can continue to fleece tax payers? Also I didnt know about the Bus competition its about time

That is emotive language fliball.
Are you accusing Public servants of robbing the tax payer?

Rabidlamb · 24-01-2013 02:47PM

All mudslinging & wasted arguments aside I for one am delighted to see the government finally putting it up to the unions.
Based on their success here they may regain my vote for the next election.

If they pull a Bertie I'll never forgive them.

fliball123 · 24-01-2013 02:50PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Germany last year paid pay increases to public servants after strike action.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/germany/120331/german-public-sector-workers-pay-rise-strikes

Last year Germany borrowed €22.5 billion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10612033

German national debt is roughly €2,195,325,000,000
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany

that is exactly what you asked for with no semantics.
It is not what you want but it is exactly what you asked for.

ok on you got what I asked first link it shows that the German PS are underpaid in comparison to the rest of the economy in Geramany, which is the reverse of Ireland

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments