Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

road_high · 30-01-2013 10:06PM

enricoh wrote: »

what a fantastic country - pay increases in the form of increments and the country bankrupt!
my local authority havent reduced business rates 1% since the tiger, business' are pulling the plug over rates every week and they dole out increments to each other.

Have you not been reading the thread?? Apparently increments are not pay "increases"...despite the fact that their wages increases with them

As you say fantastic country

Godge · 30-01-2013 11:27PM

enricoh wrote: »

what a fantastic country - pay increases in the form of increments and the country bankrupt!
my local authority havent reduced business rates 1% since the tiger, business' are pulling the plug over rates every week and they dole out increments to each other.

Which local authority?

creedp · 31-01-2013 01:50AM

road_high wrote: »

Have you not been reading the thread?? Apparently increments are not pay "increases"...despite the fact that their wages increases with them

As you say fantastic country

I saw a headline today ..sorry no link .. which said that the rental return on commercial property increased by in excess of 10% last year. Imagine that, when businesses are on their knees. Presumably this can be blamed on councils as well. I wonder who benefited from this windfall - maybe public servants have bought up swathes of commercial property with their benchmarking bonanza and are now reaping the benefits of their entrepreneurial investments.

Fantastic colleagual solidarity amongst the private sector

K-9 · 31-01-2013 01:57AM

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Thanks for asking the question after I was banned! Do you really think that without the irresponsible behaviour of the banks that we would be where we are? Please!

Week ban for ignoring an on thread warning not to post again.

creedp one day ban and banned from posting again on this thread.

NAP123 · 31-01-2013 02:15AM

enricoh wrote: »

what a fantastic country - pay increases in the form of increments and the country bankrupt!
my local authority havent reduced business rates 1% since the tiger, business' are pulling the plug over rates every week and they dole out increments to each other.

What the PS do not like to admit is the division within their own ranks.

They like to blame the Private Sector for the criticism, but the fact is that they are trying to hide the fact their own Unions have only being representing the long term PS workers at the expence of the new PS workers.

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

This was a conscious decision by pre 1997 PS workers to shaft post 1997 workers, just like the post 1997 PS workers have decided to shaft new PS entrants.

Meanwhile the PS Union reps have their pay and conditions tied to the rates within the pre 1997 workers.

There is no Public, Private argument. The Public Sector are shafting one another.

PS Unions are a disgrace to the word, never mind the ideal.

Celticfire · 31-01-2013 10:39AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

I'm sure you just forgot to post up the proof of this, would you be so kind as to back this up with a little thing called evidence?

Paulzx · 31-01-2013 10:49AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

.

I've seen some mad claims on here re Public Service terms and conditions but that one takes the biscuit.

Pray tell me which part of the imaginary facts spectrum you pulled that one out of?

kippy · 31-01-2013 11:06AM

NAP123 wrote: »

What the PS do not like to admit is the division within their own ranks.

They like to blame the Private Sector for the criticism, but the fact is that they are trying to hide the fact their own Unions have only being representing the long term PS workers at the expence of the new PS workers.

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

This was a conscious decision by pre 1997 PS workers to shaft post 1997 workers, just like the post 1997 PS workers have decided to shaft new PS entrants.

Meanwhile the PS Union reps have their pay and conditions tied to the rates within the pre 1997 workers.

There is no Public, Private argument. The Public Sector are shafting one another.

PS Unions are a disgrace to the word, never mind the ideal.

So pre 1997 PS workers get 3% additional salary (on top of increments) every year for life?

I'd like to see the evidence for that one.

31-01-2013 11:29AM

woodoo wrote: »

I will give my car to charity if increments are done away with. Absolutely no chance they will be done away with. They may be deferred. But that will be a false saving in terms of the deficit as they will have to resume paying them eventually.

Anyway it would not be acceptable to 60% of the staff so there would be ongoing work to rule and industrial strife among the largely younger staff. Personally i would want to see industrial action even if there is a deferral as i wouldn't trust the government.

Would a work to rule not be counter productive, the less efficient and wasteful the PS is , the more dependent the government is on making the required savings through cutting pay.

Godge · 31-01-2013 12:43PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

.

You forgot to mention they are entitled to a new Merc every year paid by the State plus 18 weeks paid holidays, a retirement bonus (at 50) of 4 times salary plus a pension that increases by 15% p.a. Now that is only for clerical officers, if you are in a senior position, you can get a package similar to a bank's executive:D:D:D:D.

Seriously, this is more drivel and rubbish on what is supposed to be a serious debating forum.

Godge · 31-01-2013 12:48PM

jh79 wrote: »

Would a work to rule not be counter productive, the less efficient and wasteful the PS is , the more dependent the government is on making the required savings through cutting pay.

And if the government cuts pay, the work-to-rule increases, the service gets less efficient.

Remember everyone, including you, needs public services.

It is not like you can go to the next shop.

Public service work-to-rule, people suffer, complain to politicians, politicians get scared, cave in to public service unions.

That is the circle we have been on for years. Will a government with Labour sinking in the polls as the public service desert it have the balls to break that circule.

squod · 31-01-2013 01:17PM

Godge wrote: »

Remember everyone, including you, needs public services.

It is not like you can go to the next shop.

Public service work-to-rule, people suffer, complain to politicians, politicians get scared, cave in to public service unions.

Sounds very much like bullying.

31-01-2013 02:03PM

Godge wrote: »

And if the government cuts pay, the work-to-rule increases, the service gets less efficient.

Remember everyone, including you, needs public services.

It is not like you can go to the next shop.

Public service work-to-rule, people suffer, complain to politicians, politicians get scared, cave in to public service unions.

That is the circle we have been on for years. Will a government with Labour sinking in the polls as the public service desert it have the balls to break that circle.

We need public services but not at any cost. Will the private sector including those on welfare accept a downgrade in their financial situation to keep happy a section of society whose pay has increased in a lot of cases since CPA1 began.

With 450,000 unemployed and rising, exclusively form the private sector, not cutting PS pay could be seen as a risky political strategy. Were will the Labour votes go? ULA, Sinn Fein? Both FF / FG seem very similar in their attitudes to the PS.

murphaph · 31-01-2013 02:27PM

creedp wrote: »

I saw a headline today ..sorry no link .. which said that the rental return on commercial property increased by in excess of 10% last year. Imagine that, when businesses are on their knees. Presumably this can be blamed on councils as well. I wonder who benefited from this windfall - maybe public servants have bought up swathes of commercial property with their benchmarking bonanza and are now reaping the benefits of their entrepreneurial investments.

Fantastic colleagual solidarity amongst the private sector

Rental yield goes up when the cost of investment property falls (asuming rents hold firm or increase). Residential yields are also up in Dublin as prices have collapsed but lending is tight, so there's increased demand for rental property.

It doesn't mean the tenants are enjoying great business however.

The people who benefited would be anyone who was able to buy property without needing financing, but the yields could plummet again in the future, so nobody has benefited from this imaginary windfall just yet!

Vizzy · 31-01-2013 02:37PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

I'd have to say that there are some great posts here from the Private sector people seeking changes to the PS.(May not agree with them but there are some well thought out and well presented opinions/theories put forward)

When ye see the likes of the post above,ye must be kicking yourselves!!

kippy · 31-01-2013 03:02PM

jh79 wrote: »

We need public services but not at any cost. Will the private sector including those on welfare accept a downgrade in their financial situation to keep happy a section of society whose pay has increased in a lot of cases since CPA1 began.

With 450,000 unemployed and rising, exclusively form the private sector, not cutting PS pay could be seen as a risky political strategy. Were will the Labour votes go? ULA, Sinn Fein? Both FF / FG seem very similar in their attitudes to the PS.

The thing is, as I have stated here, it's not at "any" cost.
The cost is defined and indeed known (however it could and should be broken down better.

How exactly has public sector pay increased "in a lot of cases" since CPA1 began? Where exactly do you get this information from?

As also stated in a previous post, the public sector pay and pensions bill (on a gross level) has decreased since 2007(8) the net cost has decreased even more dramatically.
The major increases in government spending in the intervening period has been interest repayments and social welfare spending.
You tell me where the major savings should be made over the next three years (bearing in mind we need a public service)

sarumite · 31-01-2013 03:21PM

kippy wrote: »

How exactly has public sector pay increased "in a lot of cases" since CPA1 began? Where exactly do you get this information from?

It could be argued that public sector pay has increased "in a lot of cases" since CPA1 as there hasn't been any reduction in pay for most workers since CPA1 (I am aware new starters are on lower wages, though they currently account for a minority of workers) however there have been payrises (via increments) for many in the PS. That said, the overall public sector paybill has decreased. This has been through a decrease in the numbers working in the PS as opposed to a reduction in public sector pay.

Farmer Pudsey · 31-01-2013 03:26PM

creedp wrote: »

I saw a headline today ..sorry no link .. which said that the rental return on commercial property increased by in excess of 10% last year. Imagine that, when businesses are on their knees. Presumably this can be blamed on councils as well. I wonder who benefited from this windfall - maybe public servants have bought up swathes of commercial property with their benchmarking bonanza and are now reaping the benefits of their entrepreneurial investments.

Fantastic colleagual solidarity amongst the private sector

Rental yields going up by 10% would not equate to rents rising by 10%. In the last year property prices have fell including commercial property prices. This is really a problem with upward only rents, the same as welfare issue's most posters that relise that we need cuts in PS pay also have issue with Welfare expenditure and also want that cuts in property rents in the form of the removal of upward only rent reviews (UORR). While the government have banned UORR it have refused todo anything about existing one this is seeing buisness pull the plug on premises where they are paying excessive rents if possible.

Rental yields have also incresed in the accomdation sector again this is down to fall in property values rather than a rises in rent.

31-01-2013 03:38PM

kippy wrote: »

The thing is, as I have stated here, it's not at "any" cost.
The cost is defined and indeed known (however it could and should be broken down better.

How exactly has public sector pay increased "in a lot of cases" since CPA1 began? Where exactly do you get this information from?

As also stated in a previous post, the public sector pay and pensions bill (on a gross level) has decreased since 2007(8) the net cost has decreased even more dramatically.
The major increases in government spending in the intervening period has been interest repayments and social welfare spending.
You tell me where the major savings should be made over the next three years (bearing in mind we need a public service)

Increments, on the day an increment is awarded, would your following payslip not differ from the previous?

Social welfare is a safety net for the private sector. Which is fairer, person A recently laid-off sees a cut in his welfare payment of 186 euro or person B on the average PS wage of 49,000 with the protection of no compulsory redundancies see a cut of x% given that the troika report a premium in public sector pay of 17% without any justification. Cuts to both are probably going to be necessary anyways.

I know some will reply with the old why don't they get a job, but if It is that easy, that PS pay has been hit so hard and private sector paid is increasing, why not jump ship to the private sector? The PS consists of a lot more than just nurses and garda etc. Apart form Godge who has, what's keeping you in the PS? Not trying to be glib but in the private sector if you believe your pay and conditions are not fair you tend to go elsewhere.

kippy · 31-01-2013 03:46PM

jh79 wrote: »

Increments, on the day an increment is awarded, would your following payslip not differ from the previous?

Social welfare is a safety net for the private sector. Which is fairer, person A recently laid-off sees a cut in his welfare payment of 186 euro or person B on the average PS wage of 49,000 with the protection of no compulsory redundancies see a cut of x% given that the troika report a premium in public sector pay of 17% without any justification. Cuts to both are probably going to be necessary anyways.

I know some will reply with the old why don't they get a job, but if It is that easy, that PS pay has been hit so hard and private sector paid is increasing, why not jump ship to the private sector? The PS consists of a lot more than just nurses and garda etc. Apart form Godge who has, what's keeping you in the PS?

Oh, increments.
Back to the good aul increments again.
Out of a workforce of 300 odd thousand people how many do you think qualify for incremental payments?

On an individual basis in a number of cases, gross pay since 2010 may have gone up due to contractually agreed incremental payments. I'll give you that.

It is interesting that some, like yourself chose to take use the period 2010 to now to work out payroll and pensions costs as opposed to the 2007 - now period, which would be far more reflective of what savings to the public sector pay and pensions bill have been on a gross and net basis.
Again, that figure has come down substantially since then which social welfare continues to only go in one direction.

What's keeping me in the PS?
Right now fcuk all, I am actively looking for a role that would suit my experience in the private sector and have been since the middle of last year.

not yet · 31-01-2013 04:01PM

jh79 wrote: »

Increments, on the day an increment is awarded, would your following payslip not differ from the previous?

Social welfare is a safety net for the private sector. Which is fairer, person A recently laid-off sees a cut in his welfare payment of 186 euro or person B on the average PS wage of 49,000 with the protection of no compulsory redundancies see a cut of x% given that the troika report a premium in public sector pay of 17% without any justification. Cuts to both are probably going to be necessary anyways.

I know some will reply with the old why don't they get a job, but if It is that easy, that PS pay has been hit so hard and private sector paid is increasing, why not jump ship to the private sector? The PS consists of a lot more than just nurses and garda etc. Apart form Godge who has, what's keeping you in the PS? Not trying to be glib but in the private sector if you believe your pay and conditions are not fair you tend to go elsewhere.

This bull**** needs to be put to rest for once and for all.

IBEC ISME and the Eddie Hobbs of this world spin the line of ''average'' PS wage being 49k........

The average PS wage when being costed includes, Enda Kenny, TD's, All consultants on 250k, Professors and huge salaries etc etc.

The Private sector does not count for the same ''average' Bank managers, heads of multi-natiionals, The highest paid individuals in the Hi-tec sector or anyone on 100k plus.
Now when you take the real average in the PS, leaving out the High earners and include teachers, nurses, Gereral operatives,porters, Craftsmen, Army etc it comes in at closer to 35k.

not yet · 31-01-2013 04:06PM

NAP123 wrote: »

What the PS do not like to admit is the division within their own ranks.

They like to blame the Private Sector for the criticism, but the fact is that they are trying to hide the fact their own Unions have only being representing the long term PS workers at the expence of the new PS workers.

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

This was a conscious decision by pre 1997 PS workers to shaft post 1997 workers, just like the post 1997 PS workers have decided to shaft new PS entrants.

Meanwhile the PS Union reps have their pay and conditions tied to the rates within the pre 1997 workers.

There is no Public, Private argument. The Public Sector are shafting one another.

PS Unions are a disgrace to the word, never mind the ideal.

Horsesh1te.....

It is rubbish like this that the public take on board and believe. I would Like the unions for once to stand up for the average PS worker and show what the cuts in the past 5 years have really done to someone on 25-40k

31-01-2013 04:33PM

kippy wrote: »

Oh, increments.
Back to the good aul increments again.
Out of a workforce of 300 odd thousand people how many do you think qualify for incremental payments?

On an individual basis in a number of cases, gross pay since 2010 may have gone up due to contractually agreed incremental payments. I'll give you that.

It is interesting that some, like yourself chose to take use the period 2010 to now to work out payroll and pensions costs as opposed to the 2007 - now period, which would be far more reflective of what savings to the public sector pay and pensions bill have been on a gross and net basis.
Again, that figure has come down substantially since then which social welfare continues to only go in one direction.

What's keeping me in the PS?
Right now fcuk all, I am actively looking for a role that would suit my experience in the private sector and have been since the middle of last year.

The amount saved is not the important figure, it is the current spend and how realistic that outlay is. The PS wage spiralled out of control under FF its whether the savings have been sufficient that we in the private sector are questioning.

31-01-2013 04:45PM

not yet wrote: »

This bull**** needs to be put to rest for once and for all.

IBEC ISME and the Eddie Hobbs of this world spin the line of ''average'' PS wage being 49k........

The average PS wage when being costed includes, Enda Kenny, TD's, All consultants on 250k, Professors and huge salaries etc etc.

The Private sector does not count for the same ''average' Bank managers, heads of multi-natiionals, The highest paid individuals in the Hi-tec sector or anyone on 100k plus.
Now when you take the real average in the PS, leaving out the High earners and include teachers, nurses, Gereral operatives,porters, Craftsmen, Army etc it comes in at closer to 35k.

Just going on the figure that is out there but point taken.

I would like to see the pay of the individual roles in the PS put under independent assessment and then adjusted to a realistic figure that matches the private sector, minus a premium if compulsory redundancies are off the table. For me 2nd level teachers are one sector that are overpaid, clerical and executive officers too. The current scale for nurses / teachers is about right. The army is a mystery to me.

A more open PS would also be better, why not give managers more freedom in terms of hiring and firing and make them accountable in terms of pay / promotion if their area underperforms a la SUSI.

Scofflaw · 31-01-2013 05:34PM

NAP123 wrote: »

What the PS do not like to admit is the division within their own ranks.

They like to blame the Private Sector for the criticism, but the fact is that they are trying to hide the fact their own Unions have only being representing the long term PS workers at the expence of the new PS workers.

Pre 1997 PS workers are entitled to a 3% pay rise on the day of their birthday, every year.

This was a conscious decision by pre 1997 PS workers to shaft post 1997 workers, just like the post 1997 PS workers have decided to shaft new PS entrants.

Meanwhile the PS Union reps have their pay and conditions tied to the rates within the pre 1997 workers.

There is no Public, Private argument. The Public Sector are shafting one another.

PS Unions are a disgrace to the word, never mind the ideal.

This is the latest in a long series of claims you've made throughout the forum, for which you offer no proof at all. This needs to stop, because it's a waste of everybody's time and energy.

The next unfounded, unreferenced claim you make will result in sanctions, because it's evidently your m.o.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Godge · 31-01-2013 05:39PM

jh79 wrote: »

The amount saved is not the important figure, it is the current spend and how realistic that outlay is. The PS wage spiralled out of control under FF its whether the savings have been sufficient that we in the private sector are questioning.

It is the only part of Government current expenditure that has come down. The rest has gone up - social welfare, interest repayments, non-pay health costs such as medical cards, grants to the private sector such as jobbridge and payments to farmers. You cannot keep going back to the same well for water.

If all of the other areas of Government expenditure has matched the cuts achieved in public sector pay and capital expenditure, there wouldn't be a budget deficit problem.

31-01-2013 05:55PM

Godge wrote: »

It is the only part of Government current expenditure that has come down. The rest has gone up - social welfare, interest repayments, non-pay health costs such as medical cards, grants to the private sector such as jobbridge and payments to farmers. You cannot keep going back to the same well for water.

If all of the other areas of Government expenditure has matched the cuts achieved in public sector pay and capital expenditure, there wouldn't be a budget deficit problem.

The payments in welfare have not gone up its the number receiving them. Welfare should be kept at a level that provides a certain quality of life, especially if you have paid a fair bit in PRSI. Cuts to child benefit, Rent Allownace etc for the long term unemployed need to be done but the PRSI based payment should be left alone.

Re going back to the same well for water, it depends on whether you think enough water was taken out the previous time. Just as it is unfair to say that every one in the PS is overpaid it is equally unfair generalisation to say that all public servants have contributed enough. We just need to decide which can afford to give more.

Some of the non pay savings made by the PS came from reversing wastage / inefficiencies that shouldn't of been allowed happen in the first place.

31-01-2013 06:03PM

Godge wrote: »

It is the only part of Government current expenditure that has come down. The rest has gone up - social welfare, interest repayments, non-pay health costs such as medical cards, grants to the private sector such as jobbridge and payments to farmers. You cannot keep going back to the same well for water.

If all of the other areas of Government expenditure has matched the cuts achieved in public sector pay and capital expenditure, there wouldn't be a budget deficit problem.

The payments have not gone up but the numbers receiving them. The basic payment of 186 doesn't afford a great quality of life and should not be touched as it is a safety net for the private sector work for which redundancy is a genuine fear. Rent allowance, child benefit should be completely phased out.

Re going back to same well for water, that depends on whether you believe enough water was removed and if maybe the well is over-flowing! Seriously though, the generalisation that all public servants are over paid is just as false as the generalisation that every public servant has contributed his fair share in the current crisis imho. We need to decide which public servants should pay more and who should be left alone rather than treating the PS as a single entity.

31-01-2013 06:04PM

Sorry for the similar posts, didn't think the first one submitted correctly. Boards has been acting up for me today.

sarumite · 31-01-2013 07:31PM

Godge wrote: »

It is the only part of Government current expenditure that has come down. The rest has gone up - social welfare, interest repayments, non-pay health costs such as medical cards, grants to the private sector such as jobbridge and payments to farmers. You cannot keep going back to the same well for water.

If all of the other areas of Government expenditure has matched the cuts achieved in public sector pay and capital expenditure, there wouldn't be a budget deficit problem.

Unless you are suggesting the government should put a cap on the numbers in receipt of social welfare or should deny people healthcare, I am not entirely sure how valid your point is. This idea that we can compare the rising cost of social welfare to the decreasing cost of the public sector bill without providing any context for this increase or decrease is a fallacy that is usedAd nauseam by too many people on boards. If the government is paying too high a price for a particular service it owes it to the taxpayer to reduce the cost of providing that service. If it is paying too little, it owes it to the employee to properly renumerate them. Whats happening (and equally why its happening) in the social welfare bill is an irrelevant red herring.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments