Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

gazzer · 19-02-2013 10:00AM

itzme wrote: »

Probably because of basic maths. 12 hour shifts at double time
€417 / 12 = 34.75 / 2 = €17.375 an hour
€604 / 12 = 40.33 / 2 = €25.17

Clerical officer (bottom and top of standard scale
€23,177 / 52 = 445.712 / 32.5 = €13.714 an hour
€37,341 / 52 = 718.10 / 32.5 = €22.10

A qualified nurse getting paid between €3.1 and €3.5 an hour more than a clerical officer, I don't have a problem with that. Seems reasonable.
Seems your issue is with double time.

Surely though if you go into a profession like nursing you know that it is a 24 hour 7 day a week profession so the chances of you working weekends and unsociable hours are pretty high. So you shouldnt be getting double time for Sundays, an unsociable hours allowance yes, but not overtime. You should only be getting overtime if you work above your normal rostered hours imo.

I know in the civil service if you work out of the normal hours e.g Computer Operators working 3 different shifts over a 24 hours period afaik you get a 25% allowance on your wages.

SB2013 · 19-02-2013 10:00AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This again is a misconception we always get this about PS pay and about Welfare. If we do not cut these then everything will be rosy. In reality we have choices to make we need to get below the 3% defecit and to reduce down to around 1%.

If PS pay/pensions are protected then the cuts have to comes elsewhere. Either in the form of higher taxation or cuts in non pay services. Over the last few years the government have cut the capital investment budget to the bone it has cut non pay HSE costs, Education etc,etc.

This idea that PS are the only people that spend money in the economy is stupid and that cutting there pay will have a bigger effect than cuts elsewhere. In reality PS pay is nearly 50% more on average than private sector. Lower paid workers spend a higher percentage of there in the Irish Economy as do welfare recipents. Now I am not arguing not to reduce welfare as there is another thread on welfare.

The reality is that as a country we have to reduce costs, Godge you made the point that PS numbers have reduced by 10% over the last few years however from 2000-2008 PS numbers increased by 20% so all we are doing is trying to get back to a realistic level. The same can be said about PS pay we need to get it back to a realistic level versus what is paid in the private sector and what are comparable rates accross Europe

Reducing PS costs (and this is not just pay) should idealy lead to a cuts in costs to private sector companies and that would be a benifit to them and to the economy.

You'll never get frontline workers to accept the notion that cuts to their pay will benefit the nation. We see where the money is wasted on a regular basis. Take the simple situation of a junkie. His whole habit is funded by welfare. His house too. If he needs a solicitor it's funded by legal aid. If he needs medical attention it's done with his medical card. If he needs a prescription it costs him €1.50. Then you get told "sorry we can't afford to pay the Gardaí, nurses and ambulance crew that actually deal with this drunk because we have to put it all into his welfare payments." So stating that the cuts will have to come elsewhere is perfectly fine with me. I have quite a few suggestions.

noodler · 19-02-2013 10:06AM

creedp wrote: »

They may be higher but not to the extent of the 50% premium often quoted in the media and here tonight in this thread.

I was flicking through a EU Commission report recently "Economic Adjustment Programme for Ireland Autumn 2012 Review" (sorry haven't link as present) which referred to a 2012 CSO Report which said that the unexplained wage gap for full-time employees was about 14-17% in 2010, down from 18-20% in 2007. However if employer size is taken into account the gap is down to 7-8% in 2010 down from 12-14% in 2007. It also argues the gap is widest at the low income end of the distribution and gradually falls to zero or negative around the 80th or 90th percentile in 2010.

The report also refers to an ECB working paper (Dec 2011) which found a conditional wage premium in favour of public sector workers in a range of countries with Ireland displaying a relatively high premium. However, the study covers the period 2004-07, i.e. before the public pay cuts in Ireland. As a reminder, these pay cuts were between 5% and 15% in Jan 2010 and the pension levy between 0% and 10.5% in 09. Note how the lower income people were protected from the worst of the cuts so it could be argued that if the premium continues to exist it is most likely to do so at lower income levels.

This study kind of debunks the long held theory that Ireland is the only country in which public sector wages are higher than private sector wages. I think it might also mean that if public sector wages in Ireland are so much higher than those in other countries, this must mean that private sector wages are also higher than thier equivalent in these other countries.

Food for thought

CSO and ESRI have also found the premium exists in recent papers.

Godge wrote: »

What 25bn worth of adjustments? Please show me where (exclusive of banking costs) that there has been 25bn worth of adjustments.

You start at Budget 2009 and work from there.

It is the Government's own figures and Banking costs are not included.

Godge wrote: »

As for public sector pay these are the FACTS:

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

"in 2012 the pay bill will amount to €14,402m, a decrease of 12.6% over the 2009 figure of €16,471m."

Has any other area of public expenditure decreased by a factor of 12.6%?

Another classic example of Godge moving the goalposts.

There have been two cuts - the actual cut and then the Pension Levy. Those are the only cuts to salary in the last 5 years.

Why on earth are you showing me the pay bill? Why on earth are you trying to equate payroll savings from 40,000+ staff leaving the PS to public sector pay cuts?

The fact remains that there have only been two measures in any of the last 6 or so budgets which have reduced public sector wages for current workers and you know it. These measures accounted for about 2bn+ out of total adjustments of 25bn+ so far.

Godge wrote: »

Now the myth about the private sector losing jobs:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2012/qnhs_q32012.pdf

"There was an annual decrease in employment of 0.2% or 4,300 in the year to the third quarter of 2012, bringing total employment to 1,841,300"

Maybe there is something in this idea that the private sector is losing jobs. Oh but wait a minute, read on:

"The number of employees in the public sector declined by 16,200 (-4.1%) in the year to Q3 2012, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 377,900"

So if total employment went down 4,300 but public sector employment went down 16,200, this means private sector employment went up by 11,900. Wow, more jobs in the private sector - why aren't we singing from the rooftops?? Because it doesn't fit the narrative of bashing the public service.

Just a question, and feel free not to answer if you feel the response won't fit your point of view, but why on earth are you comparing the two most recent quarters?

How on earth is that relevant when the number of people working in the Private Sector is down nearly 300,000 since 2007?

The two quarters you use do not happen in a vaccum - I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make?

Are you trying to argue that because the numbers employed in the private sector have stabilised over the last year that there isn't still an absolutely massive unemployment problem?

Godge wrote: »

So employment has been absolutely shattered in the private sector but
I have shown in detail earlier in the thread how public sector average earnings have gone down but private sector average earnings have gone up but for those who missed it, here it is:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q32012.pdf

"In the three years to Q3 2012 public sector earnings have fallen by €38.25 (-4.0%), and this compares with an increase of €8.56 (+1.4%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the same period."

And remember this doesn't include the pension levy cut.

If you want to use those figures then you have to accept that they say PS pay is 50% higher than the private sector - are you willing to admit that?

Godge wrote: »

Now these are all official CSO reports and Department of Public Expenditure and Reform publications not ramblings and anecdotes of random posters on discussion boards. The FACTS show private sector pay increases over the last three years and private sector job increases over the last year.

Wow? A 0.2% increase in private sector employment over the last year?

So, basically stagnation? What on earth is the point you are trying to make there?

Godge wrote: »

Maybe the above could be made a stickie in the public/private sector earnings thread on the first page.

A multi-paragrah rant by somebody quoting statistics and making tenuous observations on them should absolutely not be stickied.

Why don't you reproduce the redundancy statistics we used earlier in the thread?

Godge wrote: »

Now to answer some of the deluded responses to my earlier posts. I do not begrudge anyone a pay increase, neither am I using private sector pay increases to justify public sector pay increases. I am merely pointing out that public servants are not stupid (in fact I would say that they are more informed about public policy issues than say, the average boards.ie poster in Irish economy) and that they will be aware of the facts as set out above and will not be happy with their unions if those unions come back to them with a deal that includes a pay cut and those unions will have a hard time selling any such deal to their members which means it will be very difficult to see how a deal can be done.

And for all those who suggest taking on the unions, can they name me an industrial dispute in the last 30 years that the government has won?

Why do you pretend that you are some sort of level headed impartial observer? You clearly have a vested interest or fixed point of view on the issue.

I mean, you continually misinterpret statistics or argue that the Government shouldn't ruffle the feathers of the unions.

Chips Lovell · 19-02-2013 10:11AM

not yet wrote: »

Well of course they do, What I am saying in response to the post above which gave the impression that PS workers only took a tiny amount of the pain is PS workers took paycuts on top of all the hidden charges so in fact gave more then the average private sector worker......

The discussion is about public sector pay though. Not tax. He didn't say a tiny proportion came from public sector workers. He said a tiny proportion came from the public sector pay.

Gumbo · 19-02-2013 10:11AM

noodler wrote: »

There have been two cuts - the actual cut and then the Pension Levy. Those are the only cuts to salary in the last 5 years.

Why on earth are you showing me the pay bill? Why on earth are you trying to equate payroll savings from 40,000+ staff leaving the PS to public sector pay cuts?

The fact remains that there have only been two measures in any of the last 6 or so budgets which have reduced public sector wages for current workers and you know it. These measures accounted for about 2bn+ out of total adjustments of 25bn+ so far.

So, lets get this right, you dont give a hoot about the economy or public finances, you just want to see PS pat cuts?

The typical irish attitude at present is begrudgery, "i got a cut, now lets cut them".

itzme · 19-02-2013 10:14AM

gazzer wrote: »

Surely though if you go into a profession like nursing you know that it is a 24 hour 7 day a week profession so the chances of you working weekends and unsociable hours are pretty high.

Yep, you're spot on there. I'd be surprised if you could find all that many trainee nurses who think they'll end up with a career doing a 9-5 Monday-Friday.

gazzer wrote: »

So you shouldnt be getting double time for Sundays, an unsociable hours allowance yes, but not overtime. You should only be getting overtime if you work above your normal rostered hours imo.

They are not getting overtime they are getting a Sunday premium as they are entitled to under Irish law. Where are you getting it from that they are getting overtime for it? It even says this in the article.

noodler · 19-02-2013 10:21AM

kceire wrote: »

So, lets get this right, you dont give a hoot about the economy or public finances, you just want to see PS pat cuts?

The typical irish attitude at present is begrudgery, "i got a cut, now lets cut them".

I have had to report this post.

It isn't the first time you have put words in other posters' mouths if something is said that harms your stance.

Gumbo · 19-02-2013 10:23AM

noodler wrote: »

I have had to report this post.

It isn't the first time you have put words in other posters' mouths if something is said that harms your stance.

Report away, its your right. I have not attacked you or anything remotely near it. If it touches a nerve, i apolagise.

You said you want PS cuts, true or false?
Do you want PS pay cuts or are you happy if we meet our targets by not cutting pay?

gazzer · 19-02-2013 10:23AM

itzme wrote: »

Yep, you're spot on there. I'd be surprised if you could find all that many trainee nurses who think they'll end up with a career doing a 9-5 Monday-Friday.

They are not getting overtime they are getting a Sunday premium as they are entitled to under Irish law. Where are you getting it from that they are getting overtime for it? It even says this in the article.

Fair enough so if it isnt overtime. It was just when you mentioned in your other post about double time. I equated that with overtime rates. So am I right in saying then that the Sunday pay is a premium payment that is calculated at double the normal hourly rate? If this is an entitlement that is under Irish law does this mean that anybody who works on a Sunday gets a premium payment of double their hourly rate?

Sorry for all the questions. I am genuinely interested.

Gumbo · 19-02-2013 10:27AM

gazzer wrote: »

Fair enough so if it isnt overtime. It was just when you mentioned in your other post about double time. I equated that with overtime rates. So am I right in saying then that the Sunday pay is a premium payment that is calculated at double the normal hourly rate? If this is an entitlement that is under Irish law does this mean that anybody who works on a Sunday gets a premium payment of double their hourly rate?

Sorry for all the questions. I am genuinely interested.

My mam gets premium pay for Sunday's and Bank Holidays in Dunnes Stores.

noodler · 19-02-2013 10:32AM

kceire wrote: »

Report away, its your right. I have not attacked you or anything remotely near it. If it touches a nerve, i apolagise.

You said you want PS cuts, true or false?
Do you want PS pay cuts or are you happy if we meet our targets by not cutting pay?

I think that pay cuts should have amounted to more than 2bn+ of the entire adjustment process so far.

Granted the pay bill has fallen also by staff leaving (even if this has the dual negative issues of less staffing in the service coupled with proportionate increases in the pensions bill).

When you ask about "want", I disagree with your leading question. Nobody wanted the spending cuts etc that have been introduced over the last 5 years but they have been necessary.

Regarding your post, basically 6 or 7 posts back I have outlined that I think the Government is correct to sit down with the unions and work out additional savings on the pat bill in an effort to find something a little less blunt than the two previous across-the-board cuts.

That is not a very extreme position yet you argue that anyone who could even hold such a position is a "begrduger".

gazzer · 19-02-2013 10:34AM

kceire wrote: »

My mam gets premium pay for Sunday's and Bank Holidays in Dunnes Stores.

I had heard about premium payments before but I didnt know what the extra percentage of your hourly rate it would be?

Using the Civil Service example from earlier I was under the impression that it was only a 25% allowance for working Sundays, bank holidays etc. Looks like I was wrong.

itzme · 19-02-2013 10:34AM

gazzer wrote: »

Fair enough so if it isnt overtime. It was just when you mentioned in your other post about double time. I equated that with overtime rates. So am I right in saying then that the Sunday pay is a premium payment that is calculated at double the normal hourly rate? If this is an entitlement that is under Irish law does this mean that anybody who works on a Sunday gets a premium payment of double their hourly rate?

Sorry for all the questions. I am genuinely interested.

No need for an apology, if you ask questions round here you will generally get great information. Hopefully I can do the same. Yep you're spot on, the sunday premium equates to double pay.

A good place to start is here
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/hours_of_work/working_week.html

Sunday premiums are negotiated between the employer and the employee, there is no longer any governmental setting of these rates. The Joint Labour Commission used to regulate some of this. The premium has to be one of the following

A reasonable allowance

A reasonable pay increase

Reasonable paid time off work Which of these is selected and the amount of a premium is determined between the employer and the employee. For Sunday premiums, the amount is negotiable. That's exactly what the government is trying to do, reduce the sunday premium from double time to time and a half. So the amount they get paid on a Sunday is completely dependent on their base pay multiplied by the sunday premium. So whether or not the total they get on a sunday seems high is irrelevant unless there is a problem with their base pay and/or sunday premium

itzme · 19-02-2013 10:40AM

gazzer wrote: »

I had heard about premium payments before but I didnt know what the extra percentage of your hourly rate it would be?

Using the Civil Service example from earlier I was under the impression that it was only a 25% allowance for working Sundays, bank holidays etc. Looks like I was wrong.

It completely depends on the position and role. For instance, I worked in McDonalds to get through college and as far as I can remember I got 25% on Sundays and 50% on Bank Holidays. I was happy enough to accept this low premium because it was unskilled work and they could replace me fairly quickly and get someone else to do the work. Also if I choose to take the job full time I wouldn't have to work many sundays.
Neither of these things is true in the case of nurses. As in, part of working a nurses job is working these unsociable hours. So to entice people to agree to this job requires adding a premium. Secondly, replacing them is not trivial, it was tried a couple of years ago to get in nurses from abroad and failed miserably. This puts them in a strong negotiating position when discussing premiums with the government. Hence double time.
Just so you know I personally think double time should be pretty much the highest premium you can get for Sunday work. Although I do believe nurses and other skilled workers who have no choice about working these hours should get the highest. If they don't who should?

Godge · 19-02-2013 10:48AM

noodler wrote: »

.

Just a question, and feel free not to answer if you feel the response won't fit your point of view, but why on earth are you comparing the two most recent quarters?

How on earth is that relevant when the number of people working in the Private Sector is down nearly 300,000 since 2007?

The two quarters you use do not happen in a vaccum - I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make?

Are you trying to argue that because the numbers employed in the private sector have stabilised over the last year that there isn't still an absolutely massive unemployment problem?

.

The Croke Park II talks are happening now, not in 2007. The public sector employees will look around at what is happening now, not what has happened since 2007.

At the moment, private sector wages and private sector employment are on the way up. In the same way that the pages of this forum have been fuelled by envy and anger at the perceived protections afforded to the public sector, the votes of the public sector employees will be influenced by their perceptions of what is happening now outside the public sector.

They won't be thinking about their old neighbour who has emigrated. They will be thinking about their new neighbour who has just moved in, bought the same house as them for half the money and is buying a new car on the back of his private sector pay increase. Rational or not, it doesn't matter, those are the things that will influence their vote.

I am not saying that all public servants will think like that but when the statistics for the current situation are showing what they are showing, then it is possible that enough of them will think like that which makes the Government's objective of getting a deal much more difficult.

noodler wrote: »

.

Why do you pretend that you are some sort of level headed impartial observer? You clearly have a vested interest or fixed point of view on the issue.

I mean, you continually misinterpret statistics or argue that the Government shouldn't ruffle the feathers of the unions.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am a former public servant, having worked in the education, civil service and local authority sectors. As such I have an entitlement to a preserved pension at 60. I also have family in the public sector.

I currently work in the private sector with a better salary and better perks. In fact, if my pension fund keeps performing as well as it has recently, I may even have a better pension.

Believe it or not, I hold the position that some public servants are overpaid, but not all and there are others who are now underpaid. I also hold the position that public servants as a whole have taken a greater burden than most as they have had to pay their share of taxes along with the rest of us. The burden has also been shared fairly across the public sector with pay cuts for all and voluntary job losses.

In contrast, the private sector has seen many (myself included) get decent pay rises and better conditions while others lose their livelihoods completely. Pay freezes have been more common than pay cuts but nearly as many have got pay rises.

tayto lover · 19-02-2013 11:09AM

Just heard an interview on the local radio about nurses who have to work on Christmas Day, Easter Sunday etc. In fairness to them days like this should be paid double time at least. I would not like to have to work a long shift on these days as they are family days. Any Private Sector who works these days should be paid double too.
No way would I work those days for 1.5 of a daily wage.
They are right to take action. The politicians wouldn't work on those days. In fact they should be looking at politicians long holidays and make appropriate cuts but they have exempted themselves from pain as per usual.

not yet · 19-02-2013 11:09AM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The discussion is about public sector pay though. Not tax. He didn't say a tiny proportion came from public sector workers. He said a tiny proportion came from the public sector pay.

My point still stands, Regardless of where it came from PS workers have contributed both in pay cuts and the ''other'' taxes people have paid.
And I don't think approx 3billion is a tiny amount when the adustment has been 14 billion so far.

Chips Lovell · 19-02-2013 11:13AM

I agree that €3 billion is not insignificant at all. But taxes are irrelevant to the issue of pay.

not yet · 19-02-2013 11:14AM

kceire wrote: »

My mam gets premium pay for Sunday's and Bank Holidays in Dunnes Stores.

As does my wife in M&S, Some of the older workers on good contract get 3x pay for bank holidays. My wife gets 1.5 for Sundays she is rostered and double if she is called in.

not yet · 19-02-2013 11:17AM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I agree that €3 billion is not insignificant at all. But taxes are irrelevant to the issue of pay.

No they are not..

When they are taken in context with paycuts it gives the bigger picture of how much PS workers have given on the whole.

Godge · 19-02-2013 11:20AM

not yet wrote: »

As does my wife in M&S, Some of the older workers on good contract get 3x pay for bank holidays. My wife gets 1.5 for Sundays she is rostered and double if she is called in.

In the construction industry, you get paid double time from lunchtime Saturday onwards.

http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/information.nsf/0/e2771e4911fec84980256a1c002c85ab/$FILE/Construction%20Industry%20Wages%20and%20Conditions%20of%20Employment%204th%20February%202011.pdf

"Overtime shall be at the rate of time and a half to midnight Monday to
Friday and thereafter at double time. On Saturday overtime shall be paid at
the rate of time and a half for the first four hours from normal starting time

and thereafter at double time until normal starting time on Monday morning."

noodler · 19-02-2013 11:21AM

Godge wrote: »

The Croke Park II talks are happening now, not in 2007. The public sector employees will look around at what is happening now, not what has happened since 2007.

If every point or argument you make is actually based on what "the unions will feel" rather than a more objective stance then why do you bother debating? Surely, every conclusion you will come to is preordained in that case.

Godge wrote: »

At the moment, private sector wages and private sector employment are on the way up. In the same way that the pages of this forum have been fuelled by envy and anger at the perceived protections afforded to the public sector, the votes of the public sector employees will be influenced by their perceptions of what is happening now outside the public sector.

I am sorry, but I am going to stop you again there.

Employment in Ireland is estimated to have fallen by 0.5% in 2012 (CBI latest QEB)

According to the latest QNHS from the CSO you rightly quote

"The number of employees in the public sector declined by 16,200 (-4.1%) in the year to Q3 2012, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 377,900"

Two points:

1) The first is the very obvious fact that we know there was a massive PS voluntary redundancy scheme which finished in Q1 2012. This would account for nearly halve of the PS jobs fall between Q3 2011 and Q3 2012.

My point here is obvious - this quarter's figures is not at all reflective of the trend and is clearly swayed by the clamour of PS workers leaving to maintain their preferential pension status.

2) The second point is that the CSO figures here state that PS workforce is 377,900 at the end of Q3. This is massively different to the DoF figures because the CSO report on a headcount basis and the DoF report on full-time equivalent basis.

I had a point on this that perhaps the CSO figures might be seem worse if more part-timers were leaving etc but I haven't enough to continue with it so I should have deleted it (I'll leave it in just to point out again the difference between the way the CSO and DoF report PS numbers).

Godge wrote: »

They won't be thinking about their old neighbour who has emigrated. They will be thinking about their new neighbour who has just moved in, bought the same house as them for half the money and is buying a new car on the back of his private sector pay increase. Rational or not, it doesn't matter, those are the things that will influence their vote.

I am not saying that all public servants will think like that but when the statistics for the current situation are showing what they are showing, then it is possible that enough of them will think like that which makes the Government's objective of getting a deal much more difficult.

I can make a counter argument for those who are unemployed.

Godge wrote: »

I have made no secret of the fact that I am a former public servant, having worked in the education, civil service and local authority sectors. As such I have an entitlement to a preserved pension at 60. I also have family in the public sector.

Fair play and I mean it.

Godge wrote: »

I currently work in the private sector with a better salary and better perks. In fact, if my pension fund keeps performing as well as it has recently, I may even have a better pension.

Again fair play.

Godge wrote: »

Believe it or not, I hold the position that some public servants are overpaid, but not all and there are others who are now underpaid.

Fair enough.

Godge wrote: »

I also hold the position that public servants as a whole have taken a greater burden than most as they have had to pay their share of taxes along with the rest of us.

I cannot agree with this at all, not even a little bit.

Pay increases haven't stopped once during the crisis, even the pension levy and 2010 pay cuts would have been outdone by incremental pay rises for the majority of staff below 40K (at least) at this stage.

How on earth could you claim that this, along with the retention of Define Benefit pension schemes could mean a PS worker has suffered more than those who are unemployed or an a salary below the industrial wage?

Godge wrote: »

In contrast, the private sector has seen many (myself included) get decent pay rises and better conditions while others lose their livelihoods completely. Pay freezes have been more common than pay cuts but nearly as many have got pay rises.

Two points:

1) Again, and I'll use the CSO Earnings and Labour Cost statistics to make the point about averages but you need to be really careful that you do not equate the clearly high skilled and high paying job you are in to the situation the majority of the private sector would find themselves in. All Public Sector workers have received pay rises (most more than one I would wager depending on scale) since the crisis.

2) It isn't a fair or truthful argument to point at some CEOs or management at highly successful companies and their earnings and then use it as some sort of argument against wage restraint in the public sector.

noodler · 19-02-2013 11:22AM

not yet wrote: »

My point still stands, Regardless of where it came from PS workers have contributed both in pay cuts and the ''other'' taxes people have paid.
And I don't think approx 3billion is a tiny amount when the adustment has been 14 billion so far.

How did you calculate 14bn may I ask?

The official Government line if 27bn.

not yet · 19-02-2013 11:24AM

As mentioned in a post above, most people agree that some PS workers are overpaid, but that is at the very top end of 100k-200k.

What we are looking at are staff who work Weekends,nights,bank holidays, Christmas etc etc....

I think it is shocking that these people are being asked to take futher cuts to a pay packet that already is considerably lighter then 4 years ago.

Chips Lovell · 19-02-2013 11:24AM

not yet wrote: »

No they are not..

When they are taken in context with paycuts it gives the bigger picture of how much PS workers have given on the whole.

But the taxes aren't unique to them. It would be quite a different story if the government had introduced a raft of public sector-only taxes, but what you're referring to applies to all workers and not just public sector ones.

not yet · 19-02-2013 11:27AM

noodler wrote: »

How did you calculate 14bn may I ask?

The official Government line if 27bn.

The key pharse is ''so far''

I worked on the basis of 4 budgets with approx 3.5 billion adjustment in each, give or take.

Chips Lovell · 19-02-2013 11:29AM

not yet wrote: »

As mentioned in a post above, most people agree that some PS workers are overpaid, but that is at the very top end of 100k-200k.

Unfortunately, the research doesn't back this up. It's been found that income disparity is greater at the lower levels and decreases once you move upwards.

The largest gap was among those on the lowest incomes but it decreased as workers in both sectors earned more, according to the Central Statistics Office.

not yet · 19-02-2013 11:29AM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

But the taxes aren't unique to them. It would be quite a different story if the government had introduced a raft of public sector-only taxes, but what you're referring to applies to all workers and not just public sector ones.

I know that, all I am trying to do is point out the cuts and extra taxes PS workers have endured, because if you listen to some people here they would have you believe PS workers have got off scot free and now have to take some of the pain.

Chips Lovell · 19-02-2013 11:30AM

not yet wrote: »

I know that, all I am trying to do is point out the cuts and extra taxes PS workers have endured, because if you listen to some people here they would have you believe PS workers have got off scot free and now have to take some of the pain.

In fairness, I don't think I've seen anyone claim that public sector has been immune to new taxes and tax increases.

noodler · 19-02-2013 11:38AM

not yet wrote: »

The key pharse is ''so far''

I worked on the basis of 4 budgets with approx 3.5 billion adjustment in each, give or take.

[HTML]July 2008 Budget
2009 February
2009 April 2009 Budget 2010 Budget 2011 Budget 2012 Budget 2013 Total
€1bn €2bn €2.1bn €5.4bn €4.1bn €6bn €3.8bn €3.5bn €24.4bn
(15% GDP)[/HTML]

Now, I have found one or two holes in the official line from the Gov (counting 1bn they were going to spend but now won't as an adjustment for example) but this is the official line.

edit: Okay, so I clearly cannot do tables in boards but you probably get the jist.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments