Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

06-02-2013 12:34AM

not yet wrote: »

So in my humble opinion there will be no cuts in PS pay below 50-60k,
.

€50 -60K by any standard or country is an excellent wage(average wage in Ireland is €35768). That accounts for probably over 90% of the PS.

So if all those earning less than €60K are to remain untouched who in your humble opinion should pay the 6 or 7 billion in budget adjustments required over the next two years ?

K-9 · 06-02-2013 12:50AM

Just a reminder yet again that the thread is about the Croke Park talks, not a discussion about budgetary cuts you'd like or fanciful suggestions about what the Government or unions should do.

kippy · 06-02-2013 01:18AM

Deleted User wrote: »

€50 -60K by any standard or country is an excellent wage(average wage in Ireland is €35768). That accounts for probably over 90% of the PS.

So if all those earning less than €60K are to remain untouched who in your humble opinion should pay the 6 or 7 billion in budget adjustments required over the next two years ?

Look back a few pages.
You'll see a few suggestions.

I'd start here:
1. Reduce the numbers of elected reps at all levels. Half the size of the Dail, half the size of the Seanad. Reduce the number of city and county councils and elected representatives sitting on them. (Not going to save much money but its a change in attitude and a realistic outlook on the numbers of elected representatives needed)
Coupled with this reform the pension arrangements for politicians. Getting a ministerial pension of crazy proportions having only sat as a minister for a couple of years is crazy, same goes for ex taoisigh and presidents.
2. Cut and merge ALL state funded Quangos. This was supposed to happen, I dont think it is. Even if there aren't many cost savings the reduction in boards and board members that are associated with these quangos will be a good thing for the country.
3. Ensure all current public sector pensioners pensions are linked to existing payscales and not payscales as they were at the height.
4. Introduce a higher rate of tax on ex politicians pensions, indeed a higher rate of tax on any state funded pension(including those of formers bankers currently owned by the state) over a 100K per annum. Indeed expand this out to cover ANY public sector worker who is on over 100K per annum pension.
5. Tax ANY public sector lump sum pension payments at standard rates.
6. Increase the hourly working week in the public sector.
7. Reduce the social welfare rates (I would have to look a bit more into this area as it would need to be a "fair" reduction by 1.5-2.5%
8. Change child benefit payment to a tax credit or additional social welfare payment that is means tested on either side.
9. Investigate and curtail the issues around social housing and subsidised rents when there are allegedly so many NAMA owned places in the country.
10. Reduce rent allowances.
11. Reduce foreign aid by at least 60%
13. Investigate and change laws around "upward only" rent reviews for business.
14. Get this insolvency bill up and running.
16. Reduce the interest paid on debt (projected to reach 8 billion per annum next year I believe)

Theres lots of other stuff that could be looked at "around the edges" so to speak, such as the budgets given to certain state agencies, such as FAS and the likes.

EDIT: my numbering sucks.

06-02-2013 01:23AM

Oooooh, now it's game on. AGSI and GRA out, well that's no surprise. INMO trying to be both inside and outside the tent at the same time. SIPTU and IMPACT playing the centrist card. I guess we have all the usual actors lining up to play the roles we'd expect of them.

So what happens next? Does the government threaten or cajole? Threatening sounds like a clever move, doesn't it? Will the government say to the unions "give us our money or we'll take even more off you"? Can this coalition say that? More importantly, can it mean that and sound convincing? Even more importantly, will it work? Would a tactic like that scare the unions into agreeing a deal, or would it get them more willing for the fight? Is there even a cajole option? Doesn't look like it. Or maybe there is - but maybe it's an option available to the unions rather than the government.

What would you advise the government, as it tries to maximise its gains?

What would you advise the unions, as they try to minimise their losses?

woodoo · 06-02-2013 01:33AM

Deleted User wrote: »

A start, One thing i would cut is foreign aid, and switch it to domestic aid. €650 million, we are a bankrupt country and not in a financial state to be the 2nd highest/capita aid donor in the world. Only behind a mineral rich Australia.

Neither would i be giving child benefit to non resident children. That's close to 1 Billion that will not have a negative effect on the cash registers of the service sector of this country, and by spending the aid domestically it would improve the economy here, increasing jobs and tax intake. Unfortunately too many "do gooders" (that are obviously not been effected) for that to happen here.

I totally agree with you. Its maddening to think we are fighting for pennies here yet handing out 650 million like good catholics.

Good loser · 06-02-2013 01:41AM

I notice Impact and ITGWU are prepping their members for a fall.

This is smart and sensible as the dam cannot hold any longer.

To me the real issue is whether €1 bn in cuts, over three years, will be enough. The net saving to the exchequer could be down around €750 m.
It should definitely be done over two years rather than three.

The pensioners will have to contribute; presume that can be done as a straight cut.

Amazing how those that reject pay cuts also reject additional hours. They are effectively saying, as Doran says continuously, we are outside the loop of this crisis. To the public they are saying your function is to remunerate us on the terms we consider fair.

doc_17 · 06-02-2013 08:56AM

The government wan to reduce pay by roughly 7% and say they are going to do it with or without agreement.

With agreement seems to mean extra hours and more "reform", as well as maybe an accelerated reduction in numbers.

Without agreement means no extra hours, but maybe some redundancies also.

This the government want the unions in they should probably realise that it must be worth their while.

In or out the outcomes in terms of pay would appear to be the same. So PS workers are reluctant to agree to more work and still have their pay cut anyway.

not yet · 06-02-2013 09:15AM

Deleted User wrote: »

€50 -60K by any standard or country is an excellent wage(average wage in Ireland is €35768). That accounts for probably over 90% of the PS.

So if all those earning less than €60K are to remain untouched who in your humble opinion should pay the 6 or 7 billion in budget adjustments required over the next two years ?

Everyone,Simple.
And by everyone I mean everyone who has an interest in this state, anyone who made huge profits during the boom, Each and every person needs to contrubute. The PS worker has already taken up to 20% pay cut. Very,very few people have taken that hit. Now we can rabbit on about ''we cant continue to borrow to pay PS wages'' etc but PS PAY IS ONLY 10-15% Of this problem.

I for one am sick to death of people whom made huge money in the boom and bought properties in exotic places like Bulgaria trying to destroy a ordinary PS worker.

majimbo · 06-02-2013 02:34PM

Well done Kippy.

I can't understand why this famous troika has not halved Dail Eireann and reformed local government (abolish or reduce or reform properly) but perhaps they are cut from the same cloth.

The problem is that a lot of PS workers cannot survive any further cuts on basic income, in fact the upcoming Property tax and water charges will push everyone to the wall. For most PS workers it is a case of income does not match expenditure despite making "lifestyle choices" to reduce costs.

As a norm all income including all welfare payments should be Tax assessable at the very least including Child benefit and using this method i believe it might ensure some clawback for those on high income that do not realistically need child benefit payments.

The property tax means that those who aspired to own their own homes have been caught whereas a Community Charge would have brought all those benefitting from Local services into the net for covering costs.

Paycuts in the public service is preferable for me because as a result i might pay less tax and prsi USC and pension levy, whereas the imposition of the infamous Pension levy meant i paid more for a pension that never improved 1cent in fact it was a devious pay cut on which i pay tax (Remember there are certain categories of PS workers paying a pension levy who do not qualify for a pension)

I'm amazed at the continued waste thats ocurring on work that should be sidelined til times improve and redirect the funding to urgent needs

So much for the trustees of the nation.

antoobrien · 06-02-2013 02:37PM

kippy wrote: »

EDIT: my numbering sucks.

So use the list function:

kippy wrote: »

Reduce the numbers of elected reps at all levels. Half the size of the Dail, half the size of the Seanad. Reduce the number of city and county councils and elected representatives sitting on them. (Not going to save much money but its a change in attitude and a realistic outlook on the numbers of elected representatives needed)
Coupled with this reform the pension arrangements for politicians. Getting a ministerial pension of crazy proportions having only sat as a minister for a couple of years is crazy, same goes for ex taoisigh and presidents.

Cut and merge ALL state funded Quangos. This was supposed to happen, I dont think it is. Even if there aren't many cost savings the reduction in boards and board members that are associated with these quangos will be a good thing for the country.

Ensure all current public sector pensioners pensions are linked to existing payscales and not payscales as they were at the height.

Introduce a higher rate of tax on ex politicians pensions, indeed a higher rate of tax on any state funded pension(including those of formers bankers currently owned by the state) over a 100K per annum. Indeed expand this out to cover ANY public sector worker who is on over 100K per annum pension.

Tax ANY public sector lump sum pension payments at standard rates.

Increase the hourly working week in the public sector.

Reduce the social welfare rates (I would have to look a bit more into this area as it would need to be a "fair" reduction by 1.5-2.5%

Change child benefit payment to a tax credit or additional social welfare payment that is means tested on either side.

Investigate and curtail the issues around social housing and subsidised rents when there are allegedly so many NAMA owned places in the country.

Reduce rent allowances.

Reduce foreign aid by at least 60%

Investigate and change laws around "upward only" rent reviews for business.

Get this insolvency bill up and running.

Reduce the interest paid on debt (projected to reach 8 billion per annum next year I believe)

Regarding #9 - a lot of the NAMA owned property are uncompleted. Then there's the social argument of possibly creating ghettos like the transplanting of the residents of the tenements did in the 50s.

#12 - The upward only rents have been made illegal in new contracts since 2009. It's not possible (constitutionally) to backdate laws, so were stuck with that for existing contracts. Woodies, B&Q and a few more have gone into examinership in order to renegotiate leases under the new laws.

I'd say something more practical would be to give a (strictly once off) tax break for any landlord willing to renegotiate an existing upwards only lease. Yes it will cost us tax income, but should help to retain jobs.

#3 - pensions should not be linked to payscales at all, they should be linked to inflation.

Oh yeah #4 is probably illegal.

majimbo · 06-02-2013 02:43PM

doc_17 wrote: »

The government wan to reduce pay by roughly 7% and say they are going to do it with or without agreement.

With agreement seems to mean extra hours and more "reform", as well as maybe an accelerated reduction in numbers.

...........

What many don't realise is that a lot of public servants (particularly the public spirited types) already work hours for free, 5 minutes here 15 minutes there 1 hour on a saturday etc etc. It has never been quantifiable, it has never been acknowledged or realised. Becoz the public servant often hid his lamp under the bushel and never looked for applause or recognition.

These little bits of goodwill and conscience are wearing thin these days.

Perhaps if Simon Coveneys staff didnt work 16 hours a day the government might understand something (the minister alluded to this a few weeks ago on national radio)

sean200 · 06-02-2013 03:27PM

road_high wrote: »

Default would signal automatic cuts to pay as you point out. Funnily enough, not heard the Unions looking for this one as they know damn well that's what would happen.

Not really as after the next budget we should only need to borrow around 10 billion and the cost of servicing the debt will be around 9 billion a year
So yes we would have a year or two tough but then the bond markets would be back in to Ireland like a shot.
You would hope to have a country with a growth rates and almost no debt
A default will have to be done but the timing of it has to be spot on

sean200 · 06-02-2013 04:11PM

Good loser wrote: »

I notice Impact and ITGWU are prepping their members for a fall.

This is smart and sensible as the dam cannot hold any longer.

To me the real issue is whether €1 bn in cuts, over three years, will be enough. The net saving to the exchequer could be down around €750 m.
It should definitely be done over two years rather than three.

The pensioners will have to contribute; presume that can be done as a straight cut.

Amazing how those that reject pay cuts also reject additional hours. They are effectively saying, as Doran says continuously, we are outside the loop of this crisis. To the public they are saying your function is to remunerate us on the terms we consider fair.

What worries me is that some people can't grasp an understanding of what is going on just like that post
Cut 1 billion would just save about 270 million after u allow for what would have gone back in
Tax,
PRSI,
Pension levy
Pension
VAT
Also when you allow for the loss of spending power in the economy and the jobs losses caused
The government does not and will not impose a pay cut. They require reform and a longer working week
if you take for example the 70000 frontline staff and get them to work 3 hours extra a week ( say they have to do 40 hour week) that =10960000 working man hours or is equal to employing 5250 more frontline staff.
If the average wage is 45k that is a saving of about 256 million and that involves only 70k staff so roll it out over the 280k staff and then you are talking big savings and this is just one issue on the table and no hit to consumer spending
That is what the government has to get out of the talks along with performance related pay and maybe increments stoped for 2 years

Bits_n_Bobs · 06-02-2013 04:43PM

sean200 wrote: »

They require reform and a longer working week
if you take for example the 70000 frontline staff and get them to work 3 hours extra a week ( say they have to do 40 hour week) that =10960000 working man hours or is equal to employing 5250 more frontline staff.
If the average wage is 45k that is a saving of about 256 million and that involves only 70k staff so roll it out over the 280k staff and then you are talking big savings and this is just one issue on the table and no hit to consumer spending
That is what the government has to get out of the talks along with performance related pay and maybe increments stoped for 2 years

Spending avoided in terms of hiring more people is not a saving. Plus have we not just spent serious money on a redundancy program????? Equating "reform" with an extra hour working per week is ridiculous.

We already have "performance" related pay within many areas of the public service - what we lack are competent managers to ensure it actually equates with "performance"... besides given much of the mess of our idiot banks can be laid firmly at the foot of "performance" related pay ( for the idiot banks that reads lashing out more loans) I think there's a question mark over the whole concept.

sarumite · 06-02-2013 04:51PM

sean200 wrote: »

What worries me is that some people can't grasp an understanding of what is going on just like that post
Cut 1 billion would just save about 270 million after u allow for what would have gone back in
Tax,
PRSI,
Pension levy
Pension
VAT

There would of course be reduction in expenditure on the government side in terms of paying out pensions, so really the pensions side of things is cost neutral to the government.

road_high · 06-02-2013 06:52PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Ireland INC is a nonsense, a red herring - countries are not corporations, they aren't run with a profit motive - they raise revenue (through taxes & borrowing) solely in order to spend it, on providing services and stimulating economic growth.

But they can't run indefinitely on huge deficits either like Ireland for the past 5/6 years....

tayto lover · 06-02-2013 08:22PM

not yet wrote: »

IBEC, ISME and ''some'' of the public seem to think the PS worker has no support..............lets look at the figures shall we.

290,000 PS workers, even assuming half are married, some with grown up kids, add to that brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc etc etc. I would take a rough guess that 1 million plus either rely on a PS wage or have a close relationship with someone who does. So in my humble opinion there will be no cuts in PS pay below 50-60k,

So this utter b0llocks that there is no support for the PS is wrong......

I support them too and i'm not a PS.

Vizzy · 06-02-2013 08:44PM

Another,more or less forgotten issue,is the fact that many PS(and private sector as well of course) work many hours "free of charge".
In my own case I am paid for a 37.5 hour week but I would work a minimum of 40 hours and most weeks 42+ hours.
I also regularly respond to phonecalls at the weekend(again unpaid)
Presently I don't expect to be paid for this cos a lot of the time it simply suits me to go in early in the morning or work late in the evening as the job is task based although there is no bonus if the task is successfully completed(or sanction if it is not).
However if there is a proposal to now cut my pay I would have to rethink whether I would be willing to give these "free" hours.

Farmer Pudsey · 06-02-2013 08:51PM

sean200 wrote: »

What worries me is that some people can't grasp an understanding of what is going on just like that post
Cut 1 billion would just save about 270 million after u allow for what would have gone back in
Tax,
PRSI,
Pension levy
Pension
VAT
Also when you allow for the loss of spending power in the economy and the jobs losses caused
The government does not and will not impose a pay cut. They require reform and a longer working week
if you take for example the 70000 frontline staff and get them to work 3 hours extra a week ( say they have to do 40 hour week) that =10960000 working man hours or is equal to employing 5250 more frontline staff.
If the average wage is 45k that is a saving of about 256 million and that involves only 70k staff so roll it out over the 280k staff and then you are talking big savings and this is just one issue on the table and no hit to consumer spending
That is what the government has to get out of the talks along with performance related pay and maybe increments stoped for 2 years

First of all msot front line staff work at or near the 39 hour week. Nurses 37.5 I think guards work a 39 hour week, fireman, ambalance staff and prosion officers are the same( I may be wrong) so not even the government would think of getting them to work more for there basic. Yes there is a move to get effeciencys in shift work etc.

The staff that mostly do not work 39 hour week weeks are admin staff in the PS and Local authorities.

This argument about money taken from PS effecting the economy the reality that no matter where money is taken from it effects the economy.

And lastly if the government do not get a deal it can and will impose a deal on PS.

Silentcorner · 06-02-2013 10:02PM

Vizzy wrote: »

Another,more or less forgotten issue,is the fact that many PS(and private sector as well of course) work many hours "free of charge".
In my own case I am paid for a 37.5 hour week but I would work a minimum of 40 hours and most weeks 42+ hours.
I also regularly respond to phonecalls at the weekend(again unpaid)
Presently I don't expect to be paid for this cos a lot of the time it simply suits me to go in early in the morning or work late in the evening as the job is task based although there is no bonus if the task is successfully completed(or sanction if it is not).
However if there is a proposal to now cut my pay I would have to rethink whether I would be willing to give these "free" hours.

I admire you're work ethic, I truly do, however if you do not like your T&Cs you can always leave...but you'll find the same working conditions in the private sector...I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people who are willing to do your job for less

tayto lover · 06-02-2013 10:06PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I admire you're work ethic, I truly do, however if you do not like your T&Cs you can always leave...but you'll find the same working conditions in the private sector...I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people who are willing to do your job for less

:D:D
Hilarious.
I worked in loads of places in the Private Sector. I'd say the PS is not much different in fairness to them. By the way there are many PS workers leaving as they won't accept the T&C's. The nurses didn't bit either I see for the 80%.

Vizzy · 06-02-2013 10:11PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I admire you're work ethic, I truly do, however if you do not like your T&Cs you can always leave...but you'll find the same working conditions in the private sector...I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people who are willing to do your job for less

You didn't really read my post,did you ?

I have no issue with my (current) terms and conditions.
It's the new ones that might create a problem though.

As regards the "lot of people who are willing to do your job for less",
are these the same people who were beating down the door during the boom to "do my job for less" or are they the ones that were earning twice my salary and I am expected to apologise to now cos I have a job and they don't ?

Paulzx · 06-02-2013 10:19PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

First of all msot front line staff work at or near the 39 hour week. Nurses 37.5 I think guards work a 39 hour week, fireman, ambalance staff and prosion officers are the same( I may be wrong) so not even the government would think of getting them to work more for there basic. .

They have stated that they want an hour a day extra plus cuts in shift allownaces from Gardai....................and people wonder why the Garda reps won't sit in the same room as them again

Silentcorner · 06-02-2013 10:22PM

tayto lover wrote: »

:D:D
Hilarious.
I worked in loads of places in the Private Sector. I'd say the PS is not much different in fairness to them. By the way there are many PS workers leaving as they won't accept the T&C's. The nurses didn't bit either I see for the 80%.

Hilarious????
I worked in loads of jobs in the private sector too, and the one's that are managed well are still trading, the one's that weren't aren't...I have no intention of getting into a petite argument about which sector is more difficult...good luck to the one's who are leaving...job hunting isn't easy at the moment (or for the last number of years)....great news for people looking for work tho, we all know people who have readjusted their living standards who would be thrilled at any job opportunity public or private

tayto lover · 06-02-2013 10:25PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Hilarious????
I worked in loads of jobs in the private sector too, and the one's that are managed well are still trading, the one's that weren't aren't...I have no intention of getting into a petite argument about which sector is more difficult...good luck to the one's who are leaving...job hunting isn't easy at the moment (or for the last number of years)....great news for people looking for work tho, we all know people who have readjusted their living standards who would be thrilled at any job opportunity public or private

Very few would take a job like the Garda or nurses do with the new T&C's they are looking for. A poster above says they want another hour a day of gardai while cutting their money as well. They have no chance of getting that i'd say. Plus we have been told here that workers in Dunnes Stores packing shelves are earning more than nurses. Madness.

Silentcorner · 06-02-2013 10:30PM

Vizzy wrote: »

You didn't really read my post,did you ?

I have no issue with my (current) terms and conditions.
It's the new ones that might create a problem though.

As regards the "lot of people who are willing to do your job for less",
are these the same people who were beating down the door during the boom to "do my job for less" or are they the ones that were earning twice my salary and I am expected to apologise to now cos I have a job and they don't ?

I did read your post, that is why I replied to it. I fully understand that you are currently happy, but let's be honest, there is a chance your T&Cs might change, which you indicated will prompt you to reconsider your commitment to your work...I merely suggested that if you are not happy you are free to leave....it wouldn't be right to operate a work to rule in the present state, (maybe you are comfortable doing that )particularly when so many people would jump at the chance of doing your job for less money...nobody is asking for an apology for anything...

Many of those people who would jump at those jobs now wouldn't have had back during the boom...but what of it...I know plenty of people (we all do) who are currently working in jobs they wouldn't have gone anywhere near during the boom...The labour market has changed, it often does, currently it is an employers market...swings and roundabouts...

kippy · 06-02-2013 10:39PM

antoobrien wrote: »

So use the list function:

Regarding #9 - a lot of the NAMA owned property are uncompleted. Then there's the social argument of possibly creating ghettos like the transplanting of the residents of the tenements did in the 50s.

#12 - The upward only rents have been made illegal in new contracts since 2009. It's not possible (constitutionally) to backdate laws, so were stuck with that for existing contracts. Woodies, B&Q and a few more have gone into examinership in order to renegotiate leases under the new laws.

I'd say something more practical would be to give a (strictly once off) tax break for any landlord willing to renegotiate an existing upwards only lease. Yes it will cost us tax income, but should help to retain jobs.

#3 - pensions should not be linked to payscales at all, they should be linked to inflation.

Oh yeah #4 is probably illegal.

Thanks for that, wasn't aware of the list function.

I assume they are planning on completing the property at some point (I also assume that there is a significant amount that is completed.
I did suggest that it be looked into - I've not idea of the feasibilty of it to be honest.

I'd agree with the once off tax break. Retaining jobs is key.

A better solution altogether, linked to inflation. I'd agree on that tweak.

Number 4 is as legal as:
The introduction of the pensions levy, public service pay cut, I would garner and if the will were there it could be achieved.

SPDUB · 06-02-2013 10:43PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

..it wouldn't be right to operate a work to rule in the present state, (maybe you are comfortable doing that )particularly when so many people would jump at the chance of doing your job for less money.
..

Where did he say he was going to work to rule ? He said he wouldn't give them "free" hours

As I can personally attest when actual work to rules happen you tend to spend more time at your workplace since you take every mandated break etc

Vizzy · 06-02-2013 10:49PM

I know that T&C's can and will change from time to time.I have been at this for 30 years now with 3 years in the Private sector before that.I have seen 3 recessions at this stage and TBH this one will pass as well.
Anyway,my simple point is that there is no recognition given for extra hours worked or targets met.
Some may believe that there is,but in reality the vast majority of the PS differs from the Private sector in that you cannot be "promoted overnight" because you did a good job.
As regards a work to rule,I am not advocating that at all.I am simply stating that I currently do extra hours for no extra pay and if CP 2 results in pay cuts and extra hours to be worked,that the good will that currently exists will be lost and unpaid things like "free hours",use of personal phones,use of your own car for work etc will cease.
Personnally I think that this would be a retrograde step but there are plenty within the PS who simply cannot afford to work extra hours and take a reduction in pay.

Silentcorner · 06-02-2013 11:12PM

Vizzy wrote: »

I know that T&C's can and will change from time to time.I have been at this for 30 years now with 3 years in the Private sector before that.I have seen 3 recessions at this stage and TBH this one will pass as well.
Anyway,my simple point is that there is no recognition given for extra hours worked or targets met.
Some may believe that there is,but in reality the vast majority of the PS differs from the Private sector in that you cannot be "promoted overnight" because you did a good job.
As regards a work to rule,I am not advocating that at all.I am simply stating that I currently do extra hours for no extra pay and if CP 2 results in pay cuts and extra hours to be worked,that the good will that currently exists will be lost and unpaid things like "free hours",use of personal phones,use of your own car for work etc will cease.
Personnally I think that this would be a retrograde step but there are plenty within the PS who simply cannot afford to work extra hours and take a reduction in pay.

Fair enough, I misinterpreted your comment, apologies.

I was merely pointing out that working extra hours for free is not restricted to the public sector.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments