Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Godge · 26-02-2013 11:20AM

letsbet wrote: »

Even if it did come to €1bn, I assume they are not talking about net savings. This is especially important as most of the cuts are to the higher paid the governement will maybe only save half of what they are reporting due to the taxation (I assume they haven't taken this into account). Optics is the order of the day again. It's like the early retirement scheme, which will probably cost more money than it saves.

It is much less than half.

42% tax
4% PRSI
7% USC
6.5% pension contribution (3.77 after tax relief)
10.5% pension levy (6.09 after tax relief)

Total deductions: 62.86%

Means the government will only save 37% of the gross savings on higher earners.

gazzer · 26-02-2013 11:21AM

Man007 wrote: »

Or you could just grow up and realise that you're there to do a job and not just up and leave the minute the clock hits a certain time.

If I have a busy period in work I do extra hours at "no benefit" as I don't get paid however this should be what my bonus or potential pay increase or career progression should be based on. If you're seeing to be going the extra mile or flexible this will work in your favour this is the case in the majority of private companies were we have to be seen to be making an extra effort in order to get pay increases/increments

Plenty of Public Servants already work above and beyond their rostered hours though. A lot of them are at the top of their pay scale so dont get bonuses (we never got bonuses anyway even in the good times) or pay increases when they do this extra work. I know in the area I work none of the staff just up and leave because it is 5pm. The nature of the work means you stay until the job is complete. You often work in excess of the hours you can carry over for flexi so every month there are a number of hours that you lose because you dont get overtime and you have reached the limit in the hours you can carry over. Career Progression is not their either because of the embargo on promotions.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 11:22AM

Godge wrote: »

The system cannot be abused where it is managed properly.

Sure it can, that's the primary function of a union now.:P

The result was when he went home at 4, so did a few of the unscrupulous.

Godge wrote: »

If adjustments were needed it should have been to allow for tighter management of when and how time worked and time off happened.

That's what's happening. when the time can be taken is being tightened.

We have a flexitime agreement with our employers - core hours 10am-4pm work your normal hours around it. No working time in lieu, so no extra days to take and no overtime either.

Seriously any system can be abused, regardless of the management of it. If it's screwed down too tight nothing gets done and you revert to 9-5.

I know one manager who didn't trust his people to come in at 7.30am, so he started doing so to ensure that the hours were being worked (we don't have a clocking system). Besides you get really good at figuring out what's coming down the line when it's costing you your spare time.

Sympathy quotient: 0.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 11:29AM

Godge wrote: »

It is much less than half.

42% tax
4% PRSI
7% USC
6.5% pension contribution (3.77 after tax relief)
10.5% pension levy (6.09 after tax relief)

Total deductions: 62.86%

Means the government will only save 37% of the gross savings on higher earners.

Not this rubbish again.

The 1bn has to be raised regardless of whether it's paid into PS pockets because of the very existence of the PS. Or are you really trying to tell us that the union dues paid by nurses et al are not costs to the taxpayer because it never makes it into their pockets.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 11:32AM

antoobrien wrote: »

The 1bn has to be raised regardless of whether it's paid into PS pockets because of the very existence of the PS. Or are you really trying to tell us that the union dues paid by nurses et al are not costs to the taxpayer because it never makes it into their pockets.

I think the point is that while €1bn may be reduced from expenditure, we do not actually close the deficit by €1bn as you lose a lot of tax revenue

ardmacha · 26-02-2013 11:40AM

I think the point is that while €1bn may be reduced from expenditure, we do not actually close the deficit by €1bn as you lose a lot of tax revenue

And people will be posting here in a few months stating that the lack of growth in tax revenue is a sign that the government strategy isn't working.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 11:41AM

Riskymove wrote: »

I think the point is that while €1bn may be reduced from expenditure, we do not actually close the deficit by €1bn as you lose a lot of tax revenue

We pay the PS a gross wage not a net wage, so the tax requirements to pay them comes down by 1bn.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 11:45AM

antoobrien wrote: »

We pay the PS a gross wage not a net wage, so the tax requirements to pay them comes down by 1bn.

er...what??

PS pay taxes out of their gross wage and this tax revenue will now be reduced, so while GOVT expenditure is reduced so is GOVT income

therefore the deficit will not be reduced by €1bn

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 11:48AM

Uriel. wrote: »

Also, those figures given for savings seem very soft. €100m saving due to additional hours? How is that? Less overtime costs I suppose?

I'd say it would have to be that because if you work out the cost of adding 2 hours to the working week @the average hourly rate it's significantly more than 100m.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 11:53AM

Riskymove wrote: »

er...what??

PS pay taxes out of their gross wage and this tax revenue will now be reduced, so while GOVT expenditure is reduced so is GOVT income

therefore the deficit will not be reduced by €1bn

The target of this agreement isn't to reduce the deficit it's to reduce spending - not the same thing. The deficit could be reduced by say slapping another 20% tax on the PS meaning more "income" but that doesn't reduce the amount of tax that is required to fund the PS pay bill.

Get it yet?

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 11:59AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Get it yet?

:rolleyes:

as I said in my earlier post expenditure is reduced by €1bn so therefore yes I get it

However, closing the deficit and improving our situation is actually the point of most of the measures over the last few years. So i think the consequences for the deficit is an appropriate thing to clarify.

while less tax may be required to fund the overall cost of the PS, as you are losing some of the income you get from PS taxes, the economy must make this up out of their taxes anyway to pay for other items like SW etc

so therefore it is not a €1bn saving to the private sector

Farmer Pudsey · 26-02-2013 12:05PM

One of the biggest issue in PS is the failure of middle management to manahe staff. It is hard to know if this is becaue of the failure of high level managment to allow them or else just middle managment not wanting to confront staff not doing there job or abusing systems in place such as sick leave/annual leave/flexitime/attendance hours or just some staff not being willing to do there work.

Then you have the inability of the PS to move staff even short distances to fill a gap in services elsewhere. You also have the mess that are quango's. Recently the electrical recycling Quango WEE gave a presentation in a workplace that I am in and out of. There was six to seven staff down for the presentation to about 20 staff in attendance. It makes you wonder about the funding that is raised and wasted by quango's such as Repak and WEE.

All this adds to the cost of public services and then puts pressuire on wages. Maybe if staff put pressure through there unions to stop this long term there will be less pressure on wages and more scope for effencies in the PS.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 12:05PM

Riskymove wrote: »

so therefore it is not a €1bn saving to the private sector

I give up I really do. I don't care if the "income" double booked, it is a cost to the taxpayer regardless.

kippy · 26-02-2013 12:07PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

One of the biggest issue in PS is the failure of middle management to manahe staff. It is hard to know if this is becaue of the failure of high level managment to allow them or else just middle managment not wanting to confront staff not doing there job or abusing systems in place such as sick leave/annual leave/flexitime/attendance hours or just some staff not being willing to do there work.

Then you have the inability of the PS to move staff even short distances to fill a gap in services elsewhere. You also have the mess that are quango's. Recently the electrical recycling Quango WEE gave a presentation in a workplace that I am in and out of. There was six to seven staff down for the presentation to about 20 staff in attendance. It makes you wonder about the funding that is raised and wasted by quango's such as Repak and WEE.

All this adds to the cost of public services and then puts pressuire on wages. Maybe if staff put pressure through there unions to stop this long term there will be less pressure on wages and more scope for effencies in the PS.

I would agree whole heartly with your first paragraph in particular.

There is very little point in management at all in the PS in it's current guise.

The Clown Man · 26-02-2013 12:08PM

RTE last night but not today wrote:

Dismissal will also be "actively pursued" where agreed procedures for managing underperformers have been exhausted.

I think this was about the most interesting thing mentioned about the agreement, it was mentioned in the rte summary article yesterday but I can't find mention of it today.

It would be the most progressive part of the agreement so I hope it is still there and was not just some hopeful gun jumping by rte. It would signal to an intention to start managing waste in the PS and cut out budget mismanagement, golden handshakes and coasters for life in favour of p45s. Intention only mind. There would still be a long ways to go but this would be a clear step in the right direction.

Can someone please tell me this is still part of the agreement and not wishful thinking?

The Clown Man · 26-02-2013 12:17PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

One of the biggest issue in PS is the failure of middle management to manahe staff. It is hard to know if this is becaue of the failure of high level managment to allow them or else just middle managment not wanting to confront staff not doing there job or abusing systems in place such as sick leave/annual leave/flexitime/attendance hours or just some staff not being willing to do there work.

Totally agree. But in fairness to the middle management in situ, how is anyone supposed to manage a team of employees with no real power to punish or reward? It's not the staffs fault, rather the systems.

Man007 · 26-02-2013 12:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Two points,

(1) Glad to see the majority of private companies are still getting pay increases as I have pointed out.
(2) You would hardly be going the extra mile if there was an unavoidable pay cut no matter how well you performed.

Where did I say the majority of private companies are getting pay increases.

I said the majority have to go the extra mile just to be considered for one.

I'm not saying there are no increases in the private sector there obviously are I've witnessed it but it only happens if a company is

1) Doing well
2) Can afford to pay it

Neither of these points apply to the public sector so I fail to see the point you are trying to make by stating that there have been increases in the private sector.

If my employer was losing money every month I'm sure my pay would be cut fairly quickly.

Godge · 26-02-2013 12:37PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Not this rubbish again.

The 1bn has to be raised regardless of whether it's paid into PS pockets because of the very existence of the PS. Or are you really trying to tell us that the union dues paid by nurses et al are not costs to the taxpayer because it never makes it into their pockets.

antoobrien wrote: »

I give up I really do. I don't care if the "income" double booked, it is a cost to the taxpayer regardless.

Before you give up, you might like to look at my post again and think about some of the counter-arguments you have made.

Godge wrote: »

It is much less than half.

42% tax
4% PRSI
7% USC
6.5% pension contribution (3.77 after tax relief)
10.5% pension levy (6.09 after tax relief)

Total deductions: 62.86%

Means the government will only save 37% of the gross savings on higher earners.

(1) No mention of union dues, all deductions mentioned in my post go directly to the government, can you withdraw the remark about union dues?
(2) Objective is to close the budget deficit. The amount that spending comes down is Xm. The amount that the budget defict comes down is 37.14% of Xm. Can you agree with that?
(3) None of this has any bearing on what a public servant does or does not receive after deductions for VHI, union dues, income continuance plan or tax or anything else, we are not discussing that. Do you understand the point?

kippy · 26-02-2013 12:39PM

Godge wrote: »

Before you give up, you might like to look at my post again and think about some of the counter-arguments you have made.

(1) No mention of union dues, all deductions mentioned in my post go directly to the government, can you withdraw the remark about union dues?
(2) Objective is to close the budget deficit. The amount that spending comes down is Xm. The amount that the budget defict comes down is 37.14% of Xm. Can you agree with that?
(3) None of this has any bearing on what a public servant does or does not receive after deductions for VHI, union dues, income continuance plan or tax or anything else, we are not discussing that. Do you understand the point?

Some people just don't get this Godge.
I've attempted to clarify it many times in the past but to no avail in the majority of cases.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 12:41PM

Godge wrote: »

(1) No mention of union dues, all deductions mentioned in my post go directly to the government, can you withdraw the remark about union dues?

No, because it's merely another cost that has to be borne by the taxpayer, just like the rest of it. You can sell that net savings crap to the gullible if you want, I'm not buying.

hatrickpatrick · 26-02-2013 12:45PM

Godge wrote: »

Understanding is easier for those who have a bit of experience of the typical workplace. Speed in completing a task is not the only criterion, the quality of the task is also important.

Take the Revenue office, if you speeded up tax returns but had more errors costing the state money, you would be worse off. A system like you suggest would cost a fortune.

The saving gained from extra hours is actually one of the simplest things to comprehend. If you have 30 clerical officers working 35 hours you have a total of 1050 working hours. If you have 28 clerical officers working 37 hours you have a total of 1036 working hours, nearly the same but now with two surplus clerical officers who can be redeployed to vacancies elsewhere or the last two retirees need not be replaced. Net result, saving of the salary of two clerical officers and the numbers reduction is facilitated.

To put it even more simply, increasing hours means less people required means savings for taxpayer. Simple.

That doesn't make sense unless its accompanied by redundancies, which it isn't. They'll still have to pay the rest f the workforce which isn't being laid off so what difference does it make, more idle workers sittin in offices with nothing to do just to fill a quota of hours?
Seems incredibly inefficient to me.

Godge · 26-02-2013 12:46PM

antoobrien wrote: »

No, because it's merely another cost that has to be borne by the taxpayer, just like the rest of it. You can sell that net savings crap to the gullible if you want, I'm not buying.

You really are unable to understand. Have you a mental block or something? Let us get this straight one last time.

I agree with you that the reduction in expenditure for a cut on higher paid public servants is Xm. You are right on this, nobody disagrees with you. Why you think we do is beyond me.

However, as I have pointed out the reduction in the budget deficit of a cut on higher paid public servants is 37.14% of Xm, because before the cut 62.86% of the Xm was going straight back to the government which they are now not getting from tax revenues.

So no mention of union dues or anything else.

The only way your analysis makes sense is if public servants pay no tax.

none of the above is opinion, IT IS ALL FACTUAL.

iba · 26-02-2013 12:47PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Impact seem to be filling some of the gaps:

That seems to finally put the bed the scope of the pay cut.

You'd have to wonder the real savings (if any) in reducing the amount of flexi time available.

There is no saving whatsoever in getting rid of the half day flexi. What its about, in my opinion, is the Government can say that they have reduced Civil Servants extra holidays from 18 days to 12 days. Its all about publicity, headlines, marketing. etc etc and is extremely unwelcome by Civil servants as far as I can tell.

They thought that the whole thing was about bringing down costs but this is not bringing down any costs.

Godge · 26-02-2013 12:50PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That doesn't make sense unless its accompanied by redundancies, which it isn't. They'll still have to pay the rest f the workforce which isn't being laid off so what difference does it make, more idle workers sittin in offices with nothing to do just to fill a quota of hours?
Seems incredibly inefficient to me.

Here we go again. People leave the public service all the time. In the next few years, many will leave for better pay and conditions in the private sector (as I did some years ago). There are also lots of vacancies at the moment. With the increased hours, they won't need to be replaced and the vacancies won't need to be filled. Therefore the number of public servants will go down and cost will be reduced.

Have you not noticed that this has been happening already and is part of the reason why the public service pay bill is down to 14.7bn from 20bn.

The extra hours allow the numbers to be cut without service reduction. A child would understand that.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 12:56PM

antoobrien wrote: »

No, because it's merely another cost that has to be borne by the taxpayer, just like the rest of it. You can sell that net savings crap to the gullible if you want, I'm not buying.

I dont know why you are so agressive about this. It is simply factual.

a simple example:

lets say the total tax income is 100 - 90 private and 10 public

the total expenditure is 120, meaning a deficit of 20

of the 120 expenditure, 40 is the cost of the PS

we then reduce the cost of the PS through savings of 10 to 30 and therefore Expenditure is reduced to 110

however Tax income from Public goes from 10 to 5

so income is now 95 and expenditure 110, meaning a deficit of 15

a saving of 10 in the cost of PS results in only an actual saving of 5 to the private sector in taxes

iba · 26-02-2013 12:56PM

creedp wrote: »

Another way you could look at it is one person's flexi-time could be another person's OT depending on when the flexi-time is taken and whether OT is available. The problem with flexi time is it can be abused as it can be built up when things are quiet and taken when times are busy - unless managed properly. Flexi-time should only be available at the discretion of the manager but in reallity it can often be taken an ordinary leave, i.e. booked in advance and then taken irrespective of what is going on at the time. I'm not criticising flexi-leave per se, as I consider it very useful for both employeed and organisation so long as it is implemented reasonalby on bot hsides.

The issue with this deal is that it totally protects 9-5 workers earning up to €64,999. There are essentially no paycuts for this cohort. It creates a divide between staff doing the same job for no objective reason. Neither can I see how front-line staff earning less money but being hit with substantial cuts will be able to stomach that to be honest!

Why they couldn't have introduced a reduce pay cut for those earning €50k to €65k (even just 1%) is whay I can't fathom. This would have made the deal much more palatable for those over €65k and front line under €65k. Not that a pay cut is palatable at any time - I'm sure all workers can agree on that!

Most people under 65k (eg COs EOs AOs HEOs) are on the flexi-clock system/clock in clock out - whereas most people over 65K which would be mainly APs, POs, Asst Secs are not.

Now COs EOs AOs and HEOs will be working an extra 2hrs and 15 Mins a week for the same money which is effectively a pay cut (BTW that works out at 3 full working weeks a year approx). Now APs, POs not on the clock will just continue working the hours they already do - they are not being watched. They will just come and go as they do now.

iba · 26-02-2013 01:00PM

Godge wrote: »

Understanding is easier for those who have a bit of experience of the typical workplace. Speed in completing a task is not the only criterion, the quality of the task is also important.

Take the Revenue office, if you speeded up tax returns but had more errors costing the state money, you would be worse off. A system like you suggest would cost a fortune.

The saving gained from extra hours is actually one of the simplest things to comprehend. If you have 30 clerical officers working 35 hours you have a total of 1050 working hours. If you have 28 clerical officers working 37 hours you have a total of 1036 working hours, nearly the same but now with two surplus clerical officers who can be redeployed to vacancies elsewhere or the last two retirees need not be replaced. Net result, saving of the salary of two clerical officers and the numbers reduction is facilitated.

To put it even more simply, increasing hours means less people required means savings for taxpayer. Simple.

You are correct inwht you are aying but on the flip-side of teh coin, it will mean that there is less employment opportunities for people wishing to work in the Civil Service.

In France for example (and I could be a bit wrong) the general idea is pople work a 35 hour week and there is no overtime - the idea being that this will create employment opportunities for others.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 01:04PM

Godge wrote: »

The only way your analysis makes sense is if public servants pay no tax.

The only way that using the net costs makes sense if the PS pays no tax - because then we can ignore the deductions as a cost to the taxpayer as if they don't exist.

This is the reason why I equate the union dues with BIK & taxes - they are part of the cost that has to be paid for.

If we use the net figure, then we ignore the tax deductions, but we can't because the cost of those deductions has to be gathered regardless - making them the real cost of employing a PS worker.

I think you'd see it f the PS workers had to do their own tax returns.

All I see is a very disingenuous attempt to lower the apparent cost of the PS to the economy by a not particularly well constructed smoke and mirrors job.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 01:06PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I dont know why you are so agressive about this. It is simply factual.

I'm not being aggressive, I'm being persistent, something that the smoke & mirrors department around here don't like.

It's not factual, it's disingenuous for the simple reason that the private sector is paying both tax bills. No matter what way you try to cut it, it's 15bn (for 2012) that has to be raised in order to pay for the whole thing, including those taxes.

The argument would have merit - if the only cost we had in the PS was PS wages. Otherwise, it's just more smoke & mirrors.

AlexisM · 26-02-2013 01:08PM

antoobrien wrote: »

All I see is a very disingenuous attempt to lower the apparent cost of the PS to the economy by a not particularly well constructed smoke and mirrors job.

I find your views on this very strange given which 'side' you are on. The net argument is most often used by those looking for greater reductions to public sector pay - on the (correct) grounds that a headline 1B improvement will actually only deliver maybe 400M - so therefore we need 2.5B of PS adjustments to deliver a 1B improvement in the country's finances.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments