Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

creedp · 26-02-2013 02:48PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone is arguing about this. I haven't seen any PS on here arguing that senior admin staff should get OT/allowances for extra hours. The same doesn't go for front line staff, e.g. Consultants on €200k plus get OT/allowances.

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

This has been done to death in my opinion - it is my understanding that the 35 hour week does not include a lunchtime - as the std lunchtime in the private sector is an hour so the std PS wk week is 35 + 5 = 40 hours. Nothing really to see here...

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 02:51PM

sean200 wrote: »

a higher paid person like a lecture on 70 k would only lose 5.5 % of €5000 or 275 euro

no, he would lose 5.5% of €70,000 = €3850

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 02:52PM

creedp wrote: »

as the std lunchtime in the private sector is an hour so the std PS wk week is 35 + 5 = 40 hours. ...

correct 35 hours net of breaks

now 37/39 net of breaks

iba · 26-02-2013 02:55PM

Rightwing wrote: »

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!).

Why do you not agree with Flexi-Leave?

iba · 26-02-2013 02:59PM

sean200 wrote: »

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

Which front-line worker are you referring to?

I dont know any front line worker who works 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

creedp · 26-02-2013 03:01PM

sean200 wrote: »

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

Take it a step further and a very highly paid PS on €200k loses about €14,650 or 7.3%. Is is reasonable that a person on €65k should be hit for 5.5% while someone on €200k is hit for 7.3%?

Godge · 26-02-2013 03:04PM

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.

antoobrien wrote: »

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.

If you weren't putting so much effort into your replies, I would be classing you as a troll.

It is amazing that you don't see this.

The cost of the deductions that are returned to the government doesn't have to be raised from the private sector taxpayer because they come from the public sector taxpayer.

Example: Tax rate is flat 20%. The government raised 100m from the private sector taxpayer. The government spends 125m on public sector wages and collects 25m taxes from public sector at 20%.

(1) Revenue: 125m
(2) Expenditure: 125m
(3) Budget deficit: 0
(4) Tax raised from private sector: 100m

For some reason you are equating (1) with (4). It is not smoke and mirrors, it is reality.

Godge · 26-02-2013 03:10PM

antoobrien wrote: »

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?

That is not a real world example of the transaction we are talking about.

This is getting quite bizarre.

Godge · 26-02-2013 03:18PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

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%.

Yes, you are right that not all pay 6.5%, however, those others still pay at least 1.5%. However, some sectors of the public service - education sector and local authorities - everyone pays the 6.5% so I reckon most of them will be paying 62.14% (or whatever it was I calculated). The loss of revenue from others because of the tax relief element will still be in the order of 60%. So if the reports that the cut to the higher paid will save €250m are true, the best that you can say on the saving to the budget deficit is €100m. This means that even if the rest of the deal is correct, the €1 bn falls short by €150m.

The rest of your post about added years (AVCs are paid to private providers so don't count either way) is meaningless in the context as there are relatively few paying them, believe it or not.

I can't believe that as someone who defends public sector pay, I am being criticised for pointing out that this deal will not save the amount that the Government says it will.

kippy · 26-02-2013 03:25PM

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?

That analogy doesn't work......
You don't even need an analogy to understand what goes on here.

A private sector employer is in a totally different position than the state as an employer when items such as salary and redundancy are being looked at.

If you told your private sector employer tomorrow that you were going to give over all of your PAYE/PRSI/USC etc to them instead of to the government they'd be delighted - why? Because they can do what they want then with that money you have given them. Essentially the cost of employing you has gone down.
In a similar manner if a private sector employer is looking to make empoyees redundant the cost to do that is fairly straightforward to work out.
If however the state wishes to make someone redundant it is a completely different ball game as the state itself has to support anyone via social welfare payments and any extra additions once they are redundant, so the redundancy costs are far higher to the state as an employer.

The point being argued here, as I see it, is that the ACTUAL savings to the state in deficit reduction is nowhere near the 1 billion being bandied about and in fairness for lots of people, myself included, it is just as well the state don't want to knock a billion of the deficit through this means as it would mean a real world cuts of almost 2 Billion from the pay bill in general.

Uriel. · 26-02-2013 03:25PM

sean200 wrote: »

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

where have you been? read some of the thread and the various reports from today and you will see that you are wrong

tayto lover · 26-02-2013 03:32PM

kippy wrote: »

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

They also pay VAT etc on all their purchases.

Godge · 26-02-2013 03:42PM

tayto lover wrote: »

They also pay VAT etc on all their purchases.

That aspect of the effect is hard to calculate.

The amount lost in direct taxation is easy enough to calculate as I have demonstrated. Above 65k, the amount lost by the government is between 60 and 63% depending on whether you are pre-1995 or post-1995.

The VAT argument is harder to sustain because of more complicated indirect effects. What is businesses and private sector taxpayers decided that the reduction in the budget deficit means they won't have to pay more tax in future and therefore loosen the purse-strings, stop saving as much and buy more goods thereby increasing VAT. The two could offset each other.

kippy · 26-02-2013 03:49PM

tayto lover wrote: »

They also pay VAT etc on all their purchases.

I realise that but it's not a direct employment tax and very hard to calculate.

backline2013 · 26-02-2013 03:50PM

Goodstuff on here thanks for the info.

Question: Im paid €67k a year a girl I work with does the same job (position and grade)
as me but is on a Pre-95 contract. Our scales are different shes on
around 62k. Because of stamps etc our take home pay is the same
roughly. So today Im down around €2500 and shes rubbing my
nose in it about giving up a couple of days hols a year.

How can that be allowed?:mad:

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 03:51PM

Godge wrote: »

That aspect of the effect is hard to calculate.

that's true

but it is also true that income tax is only one element in government income, often overstated on these threads

VAT, property tax, excise duties, stamp duty, VRT, Motor Tax etc etc are all also paid by PS workers in the circular flow of money

the reality is that most private and public workers spend their money and a large proportion goes into the government coffers

tayto lover · 26-02-2013 03:51PM

Godge wrote: »

That aspect of the effect is hard to calculate.

The amount lost in direct taxation is easy enough to calculate as I have demonstrated. Above 65k, the amount lost by the government is between 60 and 63% depending on whether you are pre-1995 or post-1995.

The VAT argument is harder to sustain because of more complicated indirect effects. What is businesses and private sector taxpayers decided that the reduction in the budget deficit means they won't have to pay more tax in future and therefore loosen the purse-strings, stop saving as much and buy more goods thereby increasing VAT. The two could offset each other.

Very few saving if you read these posts from the PS.
Many posters just keeping their heads above the water if not already in serious debt.
My sympathies go to the Frontline workers who have been seriously hit to the tune of 8%. They should strike.

Godge · 26-02-2013 03:52PM

backline2013 wrote: »

Goodstuff on here thanks for the info.

Question: Im paid €67k a year a girl I work with does the same job
as me but is on a Pre-95 contract. Our scales are different shes on
around 62k. Because of stamps etc our take home pay is the same
roughly. So today Im down the around €2500 while shes rubbing my
nose in it about giving up a couple of days hols a year.

How can that be allowed?:mad:

I am sure that this will be addressed in the implementation document. I would reckon that both of you will be cut.

Godge · 26-02-2013 03:55PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Very few saving if you read these posts from the PS.
Many posters just keeping their heads above the water if not already in serious debt.
My sympathies go to the Frontline workers who have been seriously hit to the tune of 8%. They should strike.

There is plenty of saving in the private sector - look at the savings ratios in CSO statistics.

How did you calculate the 8% cut to frontline workers? I am finding it hard to calculate as it depends on where you are on the scale and how often you work Sundays, whether you are paid extra for twilight hours etc.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 03:56PM

Godge wrote: »

If you weren't putting so much effort into your replies, I would be classing you as a troll.

Et tu brute.

Godge wrote: »

The cost of the deductions that are returned to the government doesn't have to be raised from the private sector taxpayer because they come from the public sector taxpayer.

On that wtf I'm just going to stop.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 03:59PM

Godge wrote: »

How did you calculate the 8% cut to frontline workers? I am finding it hard to calculate as it depends on where you are on the scale and how often you work Sundays, whether you are paid extra for twilight hours etc.

That comes directly from Liam Doran on last night's 6 - one news.

The only way I can figure that is if every nurse works every second week evenings or nights and is losing that allowance.

tayto lover · 26-02-2013 04:00PM

Godge wrote: »

There is plenty of saving in the private sector - look at the savings ratios in CSO statistics.

How did you calculate the 8% cut to frontline workers? I am finding it hard to calculate as it depends on where you are on the scale and how often you work Sundays, whether you are paid extra for twilight hours etc.

It was estimated at 8% on t.v last night for the Frontline staff..

Rightwing · 26-02-2013 04:02PM

backline2013 wrote: »

Goodstuff on here thanks for the info.

Question: Im paid €67k a year a girl I work with does the same job (position and grade)
as me but is on a Pre-95 contract. Our scales are different shes on
around 62k. Because of stamps etc our take home pay is the same
roughly. So today Im down around €2500 and shes rubbing my
nose in it about giving up a couple of days hols a year.

How can that be allowed?:mad:

Is it not the amount over €65K that is taxed? i.e. 5% * 2,000 in your case?

Godge · 26-02-2013 04:03PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Et tu brute.

On that wtf I'm just going to stop.

You just cannot accept that you are wrong. Look at the figures in the example I give and explain it.

Godge wrote: »

If you weren't putting so much effort into your replies, I would be classing you as a troll.

It is amazing that you don't see this.

The cost of the deductions that are returned to the government doesn't have to be raised from the private sector taxpayer because they come from the public sector taxpayer.

Example: Tax rate is flat 20%. The government raised 100m from the private sector taxpayer. The government spends 125m on public sector wages and collects 25m taxes from public sector at 20%.

(1) Revenue: 125m
(2) Expenditure: 125m
(3) Budget deficit: 0
(4) Tax raised from private sector: 100m

For some reason you are equating (1) with (4). It is not smoke and mirrors, it is reality.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 04:07PM

Godge wrote: »

You just cannot accept that you are wrong. Look at the figures in the example I give and explain it.

I know I'm not wrong, stop wasting electrons.

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 04:08PM

The union representing higher civil and public servants is to recommend that its members reject the proposed new Croke Park agreement in a ballot.

The executive of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants met to consider the proposals at lunchtime.

The union is the first to urge members to reject the proposed new deal.

www.irishtimes.ie

Godge · 26-02-2013 04:11PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Is it not the amount over €65K that is taxed? i.e. 5% * 2,000 in your case?

No it is on the whole 67k. He does raise an interesting point though.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ282009.pdf

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL

€65,185 €67,541 €69,884 €72,235 €74,581 €75,934 €78,302¹ €80,678

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL

€61,966 €64,257 €66,519 €68,748 €70,978 €72,268 €74,514¹ €76,768

Look at the two grades above. Because it is a promotion grade there are likely to be both pre- and post-1995 people on the grade depending on how long it has taken them to reach this grade. The first one is 20/19 the value of the second one because it is post-1995 while the other is pre-1995.

Applying the agreement would mean that the second point of the post-1995 grade would be cut by €2,541 while the second point of the pre-1995 grade would not be cut at all. In order to maintain the parity between the grades, they would both need to be cut by the same percentage amount or both left alone - that is the type of detail and anomaly for which clarification may not come until a circular is issued in a few weeks.

Godge · 26-02-2013 04:12PM

antoobrien wrote: »

I know I'm not wrong, stop wasting electrons.

King Canute knew he wasn't wrong too - he drowned.

antoobrien · 26-02-2013 04:14PM

backline2013 wrote: »

Goodstuff on here thanks for the info.

Question: Im paid €67k a year a girl I work with does the same job (position and grade)
as me but is on a Pre-95 contract. Our scales are different shes on
around 62k. Because of stamps etc our take home pay is the same
roughly. So today Im down around €2500 and shes rubbing my
nose in it about giving up a couple of days hols a year.

How can that be allowed?:mad:

According to what impact have on their site the most your salary can drop to is 65k.

For those with salaries of €65k and greater(including allowances in the nature of pay), their total remuneration is reduced by 5.5% subject to not falling below €65k.

I'd say your colleague was possibly calculating the drop using increments as this is how it will be implemented

These changes will be applied in the following way:

Salary scales for those earning more than €65,000 but less than €100,000 will not change. Staff at these pay levels will move back by the appropriate percentage to an off-scale point on their incremental scale. There will then be a three-year ‘increment freeze,’ after which they will begin to move back up the incremental scale.

http://www.impact.ie/Croke-Park-Agreement/Labour-Relations-Commission-proposals-on-an-extension-to-the-Croke-Park-agreement-.htm

Riskymove · 26-02-2013 04:18PM

Godge wrote: »

Applying the agreement would mean .

dont forget that we have not yet seen the actual terms

it is very unlikely that they will allow the 2 AP scales be so dramatically different

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments