Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

kippy · 12-04-2013 11:14AM

creedp wrote: »

I wonder what the Unions would say if the IBEC of this world demanded that private sector employees take one for the country and reduce thier pay by 10% so increase productivity/competiveness and get this country back on the rails as quickly as possible. Sure when we're sorted the pay cuts can be reversed. I mean how could the unions/empoyees morally continue to take their inflated pay while there are 400k on the dole. I'm sure they would universally back such a proposal.

AS I said earlier, if public sector workers think the grass is greener in the public sector they know where to go surely?

itzme · 12-04-2013 11:23AM

kippy wrote: »

Perhaps but the counter argument is if the sector needs more staff then there are two options:
1. Work smarter - review what is being done and see where it can be streamlined.
2. Cut wages and hire more people with the money "saved".
or I suppose
3. If you like neither, review your options.
I suppose there is a final option of demanding better policies from government (in general)

Well you say there are two options and then list four. I'd say take a look at the image I've attached. I haven't updated the figures but between this and implementation reports and plans it's quite clear there are three trends in education
1) Student numbers are increasing and will increase for the coming decade
2) Absolute Staff numbers are declining and are not expected to rise
3) Staff pay has declined rapidly and is expected to decline more

It's nowhere near as simple as 1) or 2) that you have above. First there has to be targets set. What is the standard of education we are trying to deliver? and how do we achieve that?
Right now all that is ever being talked about is pay and numbers, while our system (which only 5 years ago we were touting as one of the best in the world) is being eroded and destroyed.
We're in a race to the bottom in Ireland in services where most people (not accusing you of this) are hiding behind "we need more efficiency" but can't even quantify what they mean by that when what they really want is other people to take the hit more than them.

It's also worth pointing out that what I often personally find is that teachers are not interested in what I have said above. They are not fighting for standards in education, they are fighting for their paycheck and conditions and well who wouldn't.

kippy · 12-04-2013 11:44AM

itzme wrote: »

Well you say there are two options and then list four. I'd say take a look at the image I've attached. I haven't updated the figures but between this and implementation reports and plans it's quite clear there are three trends in education
1) Student numbers are increasing and will increase for the coming decade
2) Absolute Staff numbers are declining and are not expected to rise
3) Staff pay has declined rapidly and is expected to decline more

It's nowhere near as simple as 1) or 2) that you have above. First there has to be targets set. What is the standard of education we are trying to deliver? and how do we achieve that?
Right now all that is ever being talked about is pay and numbers, while our system (which only 5 years ago we were touting as one of the best in the world) is being eroded and destroyed.
We're in a race to the bottom in Ireland in services where most people (not accusing you of this) are hiding behind "we need more efficiency" but can't even quantify what they mean by that when what they really want is other people to take the hit more than them.

It's also worth pointing out that what I often personally find is that teachers are not interested in what I have said above. They are not fighting for standards in education, they are fighting for their paycheck and conditions and well who wouldn't.

Apologies for the two/four bit, that was an oversight on my part.

"We need more efficiency" is of course a very broad statement and of course, I and many like me havent defined it - because different areas would have different figures etc etc.
Education in general is a "tough" area, as you say there are pressures on areas of it and there are many outside influences on it, like many areas.

The main things that peev me are these.
What is the point of having people at managerial grades and paying managerial pay and pensions if:
1. Managers do not have the basic tools to manage people and performance of those people.
2. Managers, getting paid to make decisions and sign of on various things, suffer no repurcussions if those decisions go t1ts up.
amoung others that I have mentioned already.

Obviously there are other areas in the whole of government spending that need to be addressed further as well which impact on education etc.

creedp · 12-04-2013 11:44AM

kippy wrote: »

AS I said earlier, if public sector workers think the grass is greener in the public sector they know where to go surely?

By all means and that option is open to any worker at any time. What I don't understand though is why people think that any worker should continue to turn the other cheek and not utter a squeak when their terms and conditions are being continually eroded and instead meekly walk out of an organisation.

At this point it would seem that some people consider that some workers should have absolutely no protection whatsoever .. basically your employer should be entitled to kick you whenever it suits or in the Govt case when it is populous and the employees should just lie down and take it.

kippy · 12-04-2013 11:49AM

creedp wrote: »

By all means and that option is open to any worker at any time. What I don't understand though is why people think that any worker should continue to turn the other cheek and not utter a squeak when their terms and conditions are being continually eroded and instead meekly walk out of an organisation.

At this point it would seem that some people consider that some workers should have absolutely no protection whatsoever .. basically your employer should be entitled to kick you whenever it suits or in the Govt case when it is populous and the employees should just lie down and take it.

ANY organisation that has significant budget deficits is going to have to do what is being done right now.
Employees have plenty protection some would say public sector employees have had TOO MUCH protection and too safe terms and conditions up until this point.
No one is saying workers can have no protection but significantly straightened times are going to see changes like we have and are seeing right now and as I said if you want to work for the state you have to take the good times with the bad, in my opinion.

Farmer Pudsey · 12-04-2013 12:03PM

creedp wrote: »

I wonder what the Unions would say if the IBEC of this world demanded that private sector employees take one for the country and reduce thier pay by 10% so increase productivity/competiveness and get this country back on the rails as quickly as possible. Sure when we're sorted the pay cuts can be reversed. I mean how could the unions/empoyees morally continue to take their inflated pay while there are 400k on the dole. I'm sure they would universally back such a proposal.

They are saying that however Irish private sector wages are benchmarked from social welfare. So employers have to pay a wage that will entice lower paid workers off welfare. In reality these workers are little better off and maybe worse off than there European counterparts as they spend more on basis consumables. These are more expensive in Ireland due to high costs of public services to the private sector, little public service support of low paid workers vis a v social welfare compared to european average, higher basic commodities cost due to living on an low denesity populated island as opposed to UK or mainland Europe and excessive profit taking by shops and supermarkets.

It goes back to examples as to why we need 8+ fisheries boards, a fire chief in ever county and numerous assistant fire chiefs, 800 odd quango's, a government body to collect silage plastic, politicians the highes paid in Europe and more of them etc etc.

You do not need a link to understand that this is a fundemental problem in the economy

creedp · 12-04-2013 12:42PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

They are saying that however Irish private sector wages are benchmarked from social welfare.

So that's why they haven't reduced during the recession

So employers have to pay a wage that will entice lower paid workers off welfare. In reality these workers are little better off and maybe worse off than there European counterparts as they spend more on basis consumables.

Seems to me you are calling for social welfare reform to facilitate a reduction in pay levels

These are more expensive in Ireland due to high costs of public services to the private sector, little public service support of low paid workers vis a v social welfare compared to european average, higher basic commodities cost due to living on an low denesity populated island as opposed to UK or mainland Europe and excessive profit taking by shops and supermarkets.

So at least now we know that it not just high PS wages that are making the economy uncompetitive vis a vis its EU competitors

noodler · 12-04-2013 12:59PM

creedp wrote: »

So that's why they haven't reduced during the recession

Falls of about 100% for around 300,000 people in fairness.

Anyway, if you ae happy to use the CSO figures for that they you also have to acknowedlge that the gap between public and private average pay is 48%.

creedp wrote: »

So at least now we know that it not just high PS wages that are making the economy uncompetitive vis a vis its EU competitors

Eurostat figures release yesterday show Irish average hourly wage costs increased just 0.8% between 2008-2012, compared to EU increase of 8.6%.

Progress has been made even if we remain above the average in the EZ.

itzme · 12-04-2013 01:23PM

noodler wrote: »

Anyway, if you ae happy to use the CSO figures for that they you also have to acknowedlge that the gap between public and private average pay is 48%.

A figure which the CSO themselves say should not be used for comparing public and private sector wages as it will be misleading. From the first page of the report

Comparing pay in the public and private sectors is not a straightforward task. A range of different results can be derived depending on the methodology or model specification used to estimate pay differentials. Complexity also arises as the composition of the two sectors are heterogeneous, comprising of a variety of different industries, occupations and
workers who themselves come with a variety of education, experience and skill sets.
Using simple average mean (or median) hourly or weekly pay to compare earnings across the public and private sectors will therefore, most likely, be misleading.

sarumite · 12-04-2013 01:26PM

Godge wrote: »

Misinformed again.

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/conditions-of-work/supervision-and-substitution-scheme/

"A teacher may opt out of this agreement, but will forfeit pensionability. They will not be entitled to a refund of pension contributions paid in respect of supervision and substitution payments. "

A teacher may opt out = voluntary.

The government could not cope with a mass opt-out and there is nothing they could do, no sanction they could apply to stop it. It is a right of teachers to opt out.

Part of my response was a misunderstanding whereby I thought you were implying that a teacher volunteers their service, rather than volunteers to get paid for the service.

That said I wasn't aware that they could remove their service on a whim. I am big enough to publicly state when I am wrong, something you haven't done in that past when I have corrected your misinformed posts.

creedp · 12-04-2013 02:18PM

noodler wrote: »

Falls of about 100% for around 300,000 people in fairness.

I've seen that particular nugget quoted many a time ... what I can't fully understand is why private sector workers being made unemployed from private sector organisations to protect the wage rates of the surviving private sector workers is necessarily the responsibility of PS workers.

Anyway, if you ae happy to use the CSO figures for that they you also have to acknowedlge that the gap between public and private average pay is 48%.

I fully support the view that adding 2 + 2 should always get you 4. Problem is when you try to add 2 apples to 2 oranges what do you get? CSO data is very useful for analysing trends in a sector over time and less so (unless you are prepared to accept its limitations) for the comparative analysis of diverse sectors.

Each to their own and sure why not use data/statistics that are supportive of your argument!

noodler · 12-04-2013 02:35PM

creedp wrote: »

I've seen that particular nugget quoted many a time ... what I can't fully understand is why private sector workers being made unemployed from private sector organisations to protect the wage rates of the surviving private sector workers is necessarily the responsibility of PS workers.

Lol,

"Nugget"? Are you kidding me.

Why would 15% less private sector workers (and hency 15% extra claiming welfare supports) not have an effect on public sector pay?

Where do you think public money comes from?
Income tax is the largest source of tax revenue for the Government.

Nugget, brilliant tbh!

creedp wrote: »

I fully support the view that adding 2 + 2 should always get you 4. Problem is when you try to add 2 apples to 2 oranges what do you get? CSO data is very useful for analysing trends in a sector over time and less so (unless you are prepared to accept its limitations) for the comparative analysis of diverse sectors.

Each to their own and sure why not use data/statistics that are supportive of your argument!

I am sorry, are you now dismissing the data you used about 10 posts ago to say private sector wages increased 0.8% since the recession began because it can also be used to highlight a wage gap not explained by qualifications?

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1406.pdf
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2010/nes_0910supp.pdf

creedp · 12-04-2013 02:38PM

noodler wrote: »

Lol,

"Nugget"? Are you kidding me.

I'm delighted to be able to give a fellow citizen a laugh on a Friday pm. Hope you enjoy the rest of the weekend as much.

I am sorry, are you now dismissing the data you used about 10 posts ago to say private sector wages increased 0.8% since the recession began because it can also be used to highlight a wage gap not explained by qualifications?

Sorry not my quote so Im going to reserve the right not to comment.

noodler · 12-04-2013 02:46PM

creedp wrote: »

I'm delighted to be able to give a fellow citizen a laugh on a Friday pm. Hope you enjoy the rest of the weekend as much.

I don't understand how you can just brush off something that causes a massive drop in Government income and then say why should that effect public sector employees.

creedp wrote: »

Sorry not my quote so Im going to reserve the right not to comment.

If you are going to use statistics by other users to put forward an argument then it is a bit weak to then say "I am not commenting on them because I wasn't the original poster".

Boulevardier · 12-04-2013 02:50PM

I have just learned that Impact members in my workplace have narrowly voted in favour of accepting CP2.

I am actually surprised. My feeling was that it was going to be rejected by about 60/40.

If this result is repeated in Impact nationally then it might just save CP2 from what I thought was certain defeat.

molloyjh · 12-04-2013 03:15PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I have just learned that Impact members in my workplace have narrowly voted in favour of accepting CP2.

I am actually surprised. My feeling was that it was going to be rejected by about 60/40.

If this result is repeated in Impact nationally then it might just save CP2 from what I thought was certain defeat.

Which would be a shame tbh. The Government have failed to implement any real reforms in the public sector that could have genuinely made a difference to the quality of service and the costs. Instead they are now going to take a hack-saw to everyone in the public sector.

Public sector workers took a hit with the "pension levy", which was really just a pay cut, before taking an official pay cut. Now many will take a third pay cut, and everyone will be doing more hours than a lot of people in the private sector while losing most, if not all, of the day to day benefits that come with the job. The job itself is getting harder and harder because people who have left and need to be replaced have not been while the people who need to get the boot are still taking home stupid salaries.

As someone working in the public sector I'm incredibly pissed off. The pension contributions I've made over the years I can get back if/when I leave but the "pension levy" I can't. I've taken 2 pay cuts in effect. Where I work there are several people on large salaries that contribute a sum total of nothing or close to it which just makes my job even more difficult than it needs to be. I'll soon be working longer hours than my gf who is in the private sector who hasn't had a pay cut yet. Once CP2 is implemented the only benefits that I will have over her is job security and a pension. I don't intend on staying so the pension is irrelevant, but even if I did it's so far off as to be irrelevant right now anyway. The job security becomes nearly meaningless when you realise working there isn't worth your sanity, unless you choose to become one of the "sum total of nothing" people. And I've had to take 2 pay cuts for the privilege!? I'll also be taking another financial hit in CP2 just for being at the top of my scale.

Now I'm in a position where I can get work elsewhere. I'll have to spend some time looking but I should be ok longer term. And I am thankful for the income each month of course. The problem is that there was an opportunity for the Government to address real issues in the public sector. Instead they are just taking the lazy option of hitting everyone and leaving the crap where it is. We haven't solved anything in this except for, at best, a short-term financial issue. And even that is debatable given the amount of money the Government are sucking out of the economy in public sector pay cuts and all these new taxes.

While I do feel for anyone out of work the simple way to look at this CP2 agreement is that it is not giving us a better and more effective public service. It's giving us a cheaper one with all the same issues attached and more. And we could have used the last few years to at least try and get the former.

creedp · 12-04-2013 03:19PM

noodler wrote: »

I don't understand how you can just brush off something that causes a massive drop in Government income and then say why should that effect public sector employees.

Sorry I didn't realise I am required to take everything everybody say/thinks seriously when its brutally obvious the opinion they have of my opinion.

If you are going to use statistics by other users to put forward an argument then it is a bit weak to then say "I am not commenting on them because I wasn't the original poster".

As I said already its not my quote and I'm not going to go back and consider if I actually agree with it. You're the one who is quoting a so called CSO statistic so I assume you place great faith in all interpretations of their statistical publications or maybe its only when they suit.

Have a good weekend

noodler · 12-04-2013 03:46PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I have just learned that Impact members in my workplace have narrowly voted in favour of accepting CP2.

I am actually surprised. My feeling was that it was going to be rejected by about 60/40.

If this result is repeated in Impact nationally then it might just save CP2 from what I thought was certain defeat.

Is this common practice?

That the management would announce what the staff in their specific workplace have voted for?

Vizzy · 12-04-2013 05:03PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

During the boom we nearly closed down our farming and food and as good as closed down the tourism industry along the west coast to tourists from abroad as in the end only Irish people could afford the prices on borrowed money.

We lost compeditive as school leaver went and worked in well paying building sector and most school leavers would not consider courses in Science, IT or Engineering( except building related).

No it doesn't stop in 2008 but this give us an idea of how out of kilter with realit pay in the PS got in the boom years.

If farmers don't like the fact that they cannot afford a €200,000 tractor then surely they should get out of it and move to another job.?
Ecomomies of scale and all that .

tayto lover · 12-04-2013 05:27PM

Vizzy wrote: »

If farmers don't like the fact that they cannot afford a €200,000 tractor then surely they should get out of it and move to another job.?
Ecomomies of scale and all that .

Yes, farmers should not rely on P.A.Y.E. workers bailing them out all the time.
Let them sell the land and up-skill. As Kippy has said there are plenty of other better paying jobs out there.

Godge · 12-04-2013 05:42PM

noodler wrote: »

Is this common practice?

That the management would announce what the staff in their specific workplace have voted for?

Who said the management announced it? Where was that in his post?

woodoo · 12-04-2013 07:59PM

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

My frustration in a way is that I would support the deal but can't because I refuse to be in a union. So a load of union members are voting on my future pay, terms and conditions.

Without them your wages would be cut to shreds along with your terms and conditions.

woodoo · 12-04-2013 08:06PM

noodler wrote: »

Is this common practice?

That the management would announce what the staff in their specific workplace have voted for?

Management wouldn't have a clue, its none of their business. The votes go to impact.

Chris_5339762 · 12-04-2013 09:43PM

woodoo wrote: »

Without them your wages would be cut to shreds along with your terms and conditions.

I know. Unlikely as it would have been, would it have been better to poll the entire PS workforce on Croke Park 2, rather than the subset who choose to join the unions?

Farmer Pudsey · 12-04-2013 09:46PM

creedp wrote: »

So that's why they haven't reduced during the recession

Seems to me you are calling for social welfare reform to facilitate a reduction in pay levels

So at least now we know that it not just high PS wages that are making the economy uncompetitive vis a vis its EU competitors

Social welfare put a floor under wages. However if we reduce Social Welfare we will not see wages reduced as workers on low wages would be better of on welfare than working at present. It would take a massive cut in welfare to make a low paid unsecure job in the private sector a viable alternative. I cannot see a 10-15% cut in welfare causing a drop in wages.

Vizzy wrote: »

If farmers don't like the fact that they cannot afford a €200,000 tractor then surely they should get out of it and move to another job.?
Ecomomies of scale and all that .

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes, farmers should not rely on P.A.Y.E. workers bailing them out all the time.
Let them sell the land and up-skill. As Kippy has said there are plenty of other better paying jobs out there.

Farming is part of a 5 billion food industry. It provides cheap raw material to Irish processors. Irish farmers receive the among lowest price's for product in Europe. Would Kerry Group exist except for them. Would it if it were not an Irish company be building a plant that will provide 2000 well paid jobs. As well Glanbia is another big employer. We have a massive agri-engineering sector which provides a large number of jobs.

Vissy O do not think that there any 200K tractors in Ireland maybe a combine or two. However even in farming there are idiots.

Tayto how do farmers rely on PAYE workers, I am a PAYE worker as well as a farmer. And yes there are better paying jobs than farming. I have one as well as a farm which I am paying back for. We all have equal opportunity to a certain extent it is just case of being willing to make sacrifices to better your situation not just to sit back and expect to be handed everything on you lap. It is easy to sit back and be an angry man.

MMAGirl · 12-04-2013 09:56PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

No I am not but the extravagant wage increases were associated with the PS and with those sectors of the economy that were related to the building boom. In turn this caused wage inflation that has huge cost implication to other sections of Irish Industry farming tourism and multinational employment most of which is export driven. It is no accident as we now begining to get get costs under control that we are finding that multinational are again beginning very slowly mind you to begin expanding in this country while our tourism and agri sector are starting to recover. However these industries can ill afford continual cuts in services to there workers or tax hikes that will lead to it being more expensive for them to employ workers.

My salary increased by 200% from 2000 and 2008. And since 2008 another 100%. And thats not including any allowances I got or employers pension contributions.
Lots of people I know had similar increases. Nobody I know has had a decrease in the private sector. Fair enough some have lost their jobs, but they have nobody to blame for not having a job but themselves to be fair. Its up to them to make themselves employable.

Did anyone in the PS get salary increases anything like that, even including benchmarking?

barneystinson · 12-04-2013 10:07PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

My salary increased by 200% from 2000 and 2008. And since 2008 another 100%. And thats not including any allowances I got or employers pension contributions.
Lots of people I know had similar increases. Nobody I know has had a decrease in the private sector. Fair enough some have lost their jobs, but they have nobody to blame for not having a job but themselves to be fair. Its up to them to make themselves employable.

Did anyone in the PS get salary increases anything like that, even including benchmarking?

Are you talking about the salary for the same job increasing 300% since 2000, or have you been changing jobs? If so, then your point is meaningless - i.e. someone who was a clerical officer in the civil service in 2000 could have worked hard, done a degree and a masters, and been promoted once every 4 years and would now be an assistant principal earning nearly 4 times what they were on in 2000...

MMAGirl · 12-04-2013 10:30PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Are you talking about the salary for the same job increasing 300% since 2000, or have you been changing jobs? If so, then your point is meaningless - i.e. someone who was a clerical officer in the civil service in 2000 could have worked hard, done a degree and a masters, and been promoted once every 4 years and would now be an assistant principal earning nearly 4 times what they were on in 2000...

Hardly meaningless.
Over anyones career they gain experience and become better at their job, therefore being worth more.
PS workers seem to be getting less as they gain experience and become better at their job.
I remember having to point out to a colleague when she was banging on about benchmarking in the PS that she had actually got an increase of 50% over the previous 3 years in her salary. She said she deserved it but the PS didnt deserve what they were getting

Did you ever ask someone who is complaining about how much a PS worker gets paid to describe what the job entails that the PS worker is doing. They just make it up then so as not to give away the fact that they really dont even know what the person actually does in their job.

barneystinson · 12-04-2013 10:46PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Hardly meaningless.
Over anyones career they gain experience and become better at their job, therefore being worth more.
PS workers seem to be getting less as they gain experience and become better at their job.
I remember having to point out to a colleague when she was banging on about benchmarking in the PS that she had actually got an increase of 50% over the previous 3 years in her salary. She said she deserved it but the PS didnt deserve what they were getting

Did you ever ask someone who is complaining about how much a PS worker gets paid to describe what the job entails that the PS worker is doing. They just make it up then so as not to give away the fact that they really dont even know what the person actually does in their job.

Ummmm, you're preaching at the converted; I am a PS worker! And that's why we have an incremental scale - albeit not being properly used as a performance management tool.

My point was that if your personal example as cited is that you now earn 3 times what you used to but now have a completely different job in a different company to earn that money, then it is in no way comparable to the case of a PS worker who is still carrying out the same job at the same grade, regardless of how much better they are at it.

woodoo · 12-04-2013 10:50PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

My salary increased by 200% from 2000 and 2008. And since 2008 another 100%. And thats not including any allowances I got or employers pension contributions.
Lots of people I know had similar increases. Nobody I know has had a decrease in the private sector. Fair enough some have lost their jobs, but they have nobody to blame for not having a job but themselves to be fair. Its up to them to make themselves employable.

Did anyone in the PS get salary increases anything like that, even including benchmarking?

What line of business are you in?

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments