Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

kippy · 26-02-2013 01:09PM

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

The real cost of employing a public sector worker (for the state) is their net salary.
That bit should be obvious.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 01:15PM

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

no one is arguing that 15bn doesn't need to be raised

we are saying that reducing the cost of the PS pay bill by €1bn does not mean that only €14bn is then needed to be raised

it will €14bn plus whatever the loss in tax income is

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

the €15bn is for PS pay & pensions ONLY

costs of other things are covered elsewhere in the government accounts

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 01:16PM

iba wrote: »

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.

As senior managers though, isn't one of the reasons they are not "on the clock" because they don't work to the same level of hours as lower grades, i.e. they tend to have to work longer and be available fully throughout core time (ie. not leaving at 16:00 etc...)? They generally don't get paid overtime either if I remember rightly (though I am open to correction on that). Overall they probably work longer than their lower grade colleagues and don't always have the benefit of seeing those extra hours in either pay or flexi time

creedp · 26-02-2013 01:21PM

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 suppose in the same way that increasing taxes on all workers, thereby including PS workers, would close the deficit but not reduce expenditure. Or would it...

creedp · 26-02-2013 01:27PM

Uriel. wrote: »

As senior managers though, isn't one of the reasons they are not "on the clock" because they don't work to the same level of hours as lower grades, i.e. they tend to have to work longer and be available fully throughout core time (ie. not leaving at 16:00 etc...)? They generally don't get paid overtime either if I remember rightly (though I am open to correction on that). Overall they probably work longer than their lower grade colleagues and don't always have the benefit of seeing those extra hours in either pay or flexi time

You are also more likely to be out of the office at meetings etc both at home and abroad. Not much point trying to clock in in Brussels. I think its a little imbalanced to say that having to work extra hours is a pay cut for some people while working those extra hours without pay/OT/flexi is not an effective cut for others.

iba · 26-02-2013 01:33PM

Uriel. wrote: »

As senior managers though, isn't one of the reasons they are not "on the clock" because they don't work to the same level of hours as lower grades, i.e. they tend to have to work longer and be available fully throughout core time (ie. not leaving at 16:00 etc...)? They generally don't get paid overtime either if I remember rightly (though I am open to correction on that). Overall they probably work longer than their lower grade colleagues and don't always have the benefit of seeing those extra hours in either pay or flexi time

You are correct in what you say except that they dont 'have' to work longer but generally do. They do not get overtime nor flexi-time and they never leave at 4pm.

My point is that higher grade offiecrs will not now do an extra 2hrs 15 mins a week whereas lower grade ones will - and thus lower grade workers have taken a pay cut by effectively working an extra 108 hours extra a year for the same salary.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 01:36PM

iba wrote: »

My point is that higher grade offiecrs will not now do an extra 2hrs 15 mins a week whereas lower grade ones will - and thus lower grade workers have taken a pay cut by effectively working an extra 108 hours extra a year for the same salary.

the standard working week will will also go up for higher grades, who likely already work in excess of the scheduled hours

they will also have a paycut which lower grades wont get

I see little inequality (to the lower grades)

creedp · 26-02-2013 01:38PM

iba wrote: »

You are correct in what you say except that they dont 'have' to work longer but generally do. They do not get overtime nor flexi-time and they never leave at 4pm.

My point is that higher grade offiecrs will not now do an extra 2hrs 15 mins a week whereas lower grade ones will - and thus lower grade workers have taken a pay cut by effectively working an extra 108 hours extra a year for the same salary.

Not wanting to get into a tit-for-tat argument on this but I didn't think that the 'higher grade officers' job descriptions have been rewritten allowing them to work less hours. I don't think they were doing these extra hours because they loved their jobs so much - I think the element of choice didn't exist. So now the same hours or more for less pay which is what a pay cut normally result in.

I think ICTU have shot themselves in the foot here as they have created the breeding ground for resentment amongst PS colleagues. The public/private divide was conquered a long time ago .. we could now be seeing a public-public divide emerging. I wonder what it will do for Union membership. I don't see the added value of the subscription myself .. will await what others think

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 01:41PM

Riskymove wrote: »

no one is arguing that 15bn doesn't need to be raised

The problem is that anyone using the net argument is saying exactly that. They are saying that the cost of the ps is 15-deductions. Fine, if you want to use that argument quantify the amount of taxes that generated from PS pay across the board - including excise, VAT etc.

I'm pushing the gross because of the distorting effect of double booking the "income", the attempts to ignore it as a cost, and the fact that once money is paid to the exchequer, it doesn't matter whether it was taken from a nurse or a factory worker, it's all just tax.

Riskymove wrote: »

the €15bn is for PS pay & pensions ONLY

Actually that was just pay (including pension contributions), IIRC pensions (to retirees) was another 2-3bn on top of that.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 01:44PM

AlexisM wrote: »

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.

AlxisM - it's all a cost to the taxpayer, regardless of where it's spent. The "side" I'm on is trying to get people to stop pretending it's not.

Otherwise we can just suggest to Noonan that we drop the charade and stop notionally collecting taxes etc from PS workers income.

Btw - there are a few things in this that I'm not in agreement with e.g. the cut of the twilight premium for one. It's not particularly nice to be rostered to work when you'd rather be at home with family/out with friends, so I don't think that the payment is unreasonable (that and I actually got a higher one when I worked evenings in a factory).

creedp · 26-02-2013 01:46PM

antoobrien wrote: »

The problem is that anyone using the net argument is saying exactly that. They are saying that the cost of the ps is 15-deductions. Fine, if you want to use that argument quantify the amount of taxes that generated from PS pay across the board - including excise, VAT etc.

I'm pushing the gross because of the distorting effect of double booking the "income", the attempts to ignore it as a cost, and the fact that once money is paid to the exchequer, it doesn't matter whether it was taken from a nurse or a factory worker, it's all just tax.

Actually that was just pay (including pension contributions), IIRC pensions (to retirees) was another 2-3bn on top of that.

Don't worry public servants are right behind you on this! A 5.5% cut sounds worse than a 2% cur (5.5% x 37%)

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 01:49PM

antoobrien wrote: »

The problem is that anyone using the net argument is saying exactly that. They are saying that the cost of the ps is 15-deductions. Fine, if you want to use that argument quantify the amount of taxes that generated from PS pay across the board - including excise, VAT etc.

I'm pushing the gross because of the distorting effect of double booking the "income", the attempts to ignore it as a cost, and the fact that once money is paid to the exchequer, it doesn't matter whether it was taken from a nurse or a factory worker, it's all just tax.

there are two points here then,

firstly the one I have explained in my last couple of points which you seem to accept now.

the second one about net cost is one more open for debate. As you say the inital tax has to be raised to pay the gross cost

however, the tax deducted from PS wages can be used to pay for other things like SW, roads etc that otherwise you would (a) not spend on or (b) need to raise even more taxes to pay for

also, total tax revenue is not all about income tax from private sector either. there are a lot of transaction and other taxes which both PS and Private sector contribute to.

iba · 26-02-2013 01:52PM

Riskymove wrote: »

the standard working week will will also go up for higher grades, who likely already work in excess of the scheduled hours

they will also have a paycut which lower grades wont get

I see little inequality (to the lower grades)

Yes, technically the standard working week will go up for higher grades too but physically it will not.

Yes, I would say that 9 out of 10 persons of higher grades do more than the requisite hours anyway.

Sorry, the point Im making is a poster said that persons under 65K were not getting a pay cut - but Im saying effectivily by working an extra 108 hours a year for the same salary, they are.

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 01:53PM

iba wrote: »

You are correct in what you say except that they dont 'have' to work longer but generally do. They do not get overtime nor flexi-time and they never leave at 4pm.

My point is that higher grade offiecrs will not now do an extra 2hrs 15 mins a week whereas lower grade ones will - and thus lower grade workers have taken a pay cut by effectively working an extra 108 hours extra a year for the same salary.

I really don't get how you think the lower grade workers have been done a wrong in this deal in general and particularly in direct comparison to senior colleagues. Your post screams a general spite towards authority to me as well as a misplaced anger. If you are one of the lower grade workers, I genuinely don't see the basis of your anger. I think you should be largely relieved to be honest. But if you do have an anger over the situation, then it should be placed squarely at the door of Government rather than your senior colleagues.

You concede that Higher grade officers generally work longer hours with no benefits (flexi time or overtime). Higher grade workers got a pay cut for their troubles so less pay and already working additional hours and you think they are not being affected, in comparison to lower grades???

makes no sense to me

iba · 26-02-2013 01:58PM

creedp wrote: »

Not wanting to get into a tit-for-tat argument on this but I didn't think that the 'higher grade officers' job descriptions have been rewritten allowing them to work less hours. I don't think they were doing these extra hours because they loved their jobs so much - I think the element of choice didn't exist. So now the same hours or more for less pay which is what a pay cut normally result in.

I think ICTU have shot themselves in the foot here as they have created the breeding ground for resentment amongst PS colleagues. The public/private divide was conquered a long time ago .. we could now be seeing a public-public divide emerging. I wonder what it will do for Union membership. I don't see the added value of the subscription myself .. will await what others think

No No - Im not arguing with you either

Maybe everyone should be on the clock.

I think Lower (and Higher) paid civil servants understand that the Government needs to cut back salaries etc because they just dont have the money to pay them - but why get rid of the half-day flexi - this does not save anything and gets peoples back-ups.

I think the added value of the Union sub is probably just the income continunancy plan (which obviously is in addition to the sub).

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 01:58PM

Riskymove wrote: »

there are two points here then,

firstly the one I have explained in my last couple of points which you seem to accept now.

I don't know what you think I've accepted because the use of the word inital below makes it clear we're not on the same page:

Riskymove wrote: »

the second one about net cost is one more open for debate. As you say the inital tax has to be raised to pay the gross cost

I'll try this with a real world example - SAP sell a system that runs using IBM hardware & software under the hood. The customer buys a SAP system, paying A. SAP the pay B in royalties/reselling fees to IBM.

Does the customer care that SAP has to pay B to IBM when they've paid A to fund the cost of both the SAP & IBM components of the system or does it regard the cost of the system as A-B?

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 01:58PM

iba wrote: »

Sorry, the point Im making is a poster said that persons under 65K were not getting a pay cut - but Im saying effectivily by working an extra 108 hours a year for the same salary, they are.

I think the point is, bar some minor relatively minor tweaks, those under €65k have preserved their take home pay effectively no reduction in pay. I think that was the main aim of the Unions in negotiations, protect pay. Did you expect that those under €65k would be told that your take home pay will not be affected AND you will NOT need to do anything different to what you did last week? That was never going to happen. Considering the savings that the Gov were seeking I think people were lucky not to get a cut in take home pay (particularly those above €35k

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 02:00PM

iba wrote: »

- but why get rid of the half-day flexi - this does not save anything and gets peoples back-ups.

if you think that makes no sense how about that while no APs or above can now go onto flexisystem.... any APs who are already on flexi can stay on it....but cannot take ANY flexi leave

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 02:02PM

iba wrote: »

No No - Im not arguing with you either

Maybe everyone should be on the clock.

I think Lower (and Higher) paid civil servants understand that the Government needs to cut back salaries etc because they just dont have the money to pay them - but why get rid of the half-day flexi - this does not save anything and gets peoples back-ups.

I think the added value of the Union sub is probably just the income continunancy plan (which obviously is in addition to the sub).

As I have said before, I don't see any great value in the cut in half day flexi. I think, when managed correctly, flexi working arrangements are a great advantage to both employer and employee. I have worked on flexitime in the private sector previously and it worked relatively well.

Some positions aren't suited to flexi time though, particularly from the employer's side, those positions tend to fall into management roles on the admin side or as you can see, frontline staff typically can't avail of it.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 02:11PM

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't know what you think I've accepted because the use of the word inital below makes it clear we're not on the same page:

ok well here is a simply question to see if you accept what we said:

"if PS pay is 15bn and is reduced by €1bn, (and no other expenditure is) does this mean you only need to raise 14bn?"

Does the customer care that SAP has to pay B to IBM when they've paid A to fund the cost of both the SAP & IBM components of the system or does it regard the cost of the system as A-B?

no he doesn't care but your example is not the same situation at all

If the customer gave SAP A but then SAP gave him back B to spend on other things then yes he should care

SB2013 · 26-02-2013 02:16PM

Riskymove wrote: »

no it isn't an annual saving

If I earn 20k and am due an increment of 1k in June then

1. I earn 20k until June and then 21k until end of year

under the proposals I wait until september to get the increment so

2. I earn 20k until september then 21k until end of year

so three month saving

next year I earn 21k...where is the saving next year?

An increment isn't a one off thing. It happens each year, and not in June. So people who will be due increments in the latter half of the year will not get them until the following year and the same for the increment they would have gotten next year will also be deferred. And so on.

iba · 26-02-2013 02:29PM

Uriel. wrote: »

I really don't get how you think the lower grade workers have been done a wrong in this deal in general and particularly in direct comparison to senior colleagues. Your post screams a general spite towards authority to me as well as a misplaced anger. If you are one of the lower grade workers, I genuinely don't see the basis of your anger. I think you should be largely relieved to be honest. But if you do have an anger over the situation, then it should be placed squarely at the door of Government rather than your senior colleagues.

You concede that Higher grade officers generally work longer hours with no benefits (flexi time or overtime). Higher grade workers got a pay cut for their troubles so less pay and already working additional hours and you think they are not being affected, in comparison to lower grades??? makes no sense to me

Im sorry that you feel this way but I am not angry and I do not have spite.

Rightwing · 26-02-2013 02:32PM

Riskymove wrote: »

if you think that makes no sense how about that while no APs or above can now go onto flexisystem.... any APs who are already on flexi can stay on it....but cannot take ANY flexi leave

Did they abolish flexi-time?

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 02:35PM

SB2013 wrote: »

An increment isn't a one off thing. It happens each year, and not in June. So people who will be due increments in the latter half of the year will not get them until the following year and the same for the increment they would have gotten next year will also be deferred. And so on.

but only one increment is delayed for people <35k and 2 for those between 35k-65k

so there is not any ongoing saving just the inital (or 2) 3 months delay

so at best a 3 month saving on an increment for the next 2 years

a couple of hundred euro per person affected

creedp · 26-02-2013 02:35PM

antoobrien wrote: »

I don't know what you think I've accepted because the use of the word inital below makes it clear we're not on the same page:

I'll try this with a real world example - SAP sell a system that runs using IBM hardware & software under the hood. The customer buys a SAP system, paying A. SAP the pay B in royalties/reselling fees to IBM.

Does the customer care that SAP has to pay B to IBM when they've paid A to fund the cost of both the SAP & IBM components of the system or does it regard the cost of the system as A-B?

Listen Im not SAP/IBM - Im a simple taxpayer and will look at another analogy that better fits my pay grade! How about the private insurance premium argument. You get tax relief on the gross premium so do you as a consumer look at the gross premium or the net premium when factoring in the cost to yourself? If you are trying to reduce your expenditure and you look at alternative plans do you factor the gross premium into your budget or do you look at the net one? I know which one I look at!

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 02:36PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Did they abolish flexi-time?

flexi leave for highergrades - yes

flexi-time - no

Farmer Pudsey · 26-02-2013 02:39PM

Godge wrote: »

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.

Godge this is a bit of smoke and mirrors not all workers in the public service were already paying a pension contribution @6% and most of those on higher wages would be in the PS 20+ years. so woUld be on reduced PRSI. The other factor is that some PS's because were paying a bit of a private pension as well either for a spouse or a top up for themselves. Because it may noew be tax inefficient they may stop and even if they do not the savings accross the PS will more than likly average more than 50%.

Uriel. wrote: »

As senior managers though, isn't one of the reasons they are not "on the clock" because they don't work to the same level of hours as lower grades, i.e. they tend to have to work longer and be available fully throughout core time (ie. not leaving at 16:00 etc...)? They generally don't get paid overtime either if I remember rightly (though I am open to correction on that). Overall they probably work longer than their lower grade colleagues and don't always have the benefit of seeing those extra hours in either pay or flexi time

This is par for the course with all managers private or public sector. If you are a manager in any private company you are expected to row in if there is a problem.

iba wrote: »

You are correct in what you say except that they dont have to work longer but generally do. They do not get overtime nor flexi-time and they never leave at 4pm.

My point is that higher grade offiecrs will not now do an extra 2hrs 15 mins a week whereas lower grade ones will - and thus lower grade workers have taken a pay cut by effectively working an extra 108 hours extra a year for the same salary.

The low hour of some Admin staff on less than 35 hours was unstainable and considering there pay rates of some they got off very lightly

Rightwing · 26-02-2013 02:39PM

Riskymove wrote: »

flexi leave for highergrades - yes

flexi-time - no

I'd like to have seen that gone.

But it's positive to see that the young teachers and hopefully nurses etc aren't as affected as badly as the older ones....(not that I have anything against them!).

creedp · 26-02-2013 02:42PM

iba wrote: »

Maybe everyone should be on the clock.

By the way I'm not arguing the point I'm simply trying to explain it from a different perspective.

On the issue you raised above, I think there are are pros and cons to everything but if used properly it can generate 12 days extra leave a year. By the way Im not saying that is achieved illegitimally, Im simply saying that by working a longer day every now and again flexi allows you to take an extra day off once a month. Not a benefit to be sneezed at!

sean200 · 26-02-2013 02:48PM

so in this agreement a front-line worker who works 24/7 could loose over €3000 but a higher paid person like a lecture on 70 k would only lose 5.5 % of €5000 or 275 euro
the front line have to strike

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments