Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

ardmacha · 14-04-2013 12:44PM

I don't think people on the same salary as me in the PS should face much salary cuts, anyone on the lower scales should receive little or no salary cuts. There's a lot of guys and girls on higher salaries who can afford it and should get cuts. That's fair isn't it

Why should the level of your salary determine whether you should face salary cuts. Are you a Marxist? Should the value provided by the employee, the scarcity of skills etc no be the proper basis for an employer determining their stategy?

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 03:37PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Of course I know what the lay of the land is like, I made a calculated decision a few years ago to leave my profession and join the PS.

Thanks for the pep talk, now maybe tell me what the industry is that affords 300-500% pay increases for a particular role in a 13-year period? (Unless of course you are now willing to admit such an industry doesn't exist, and you achieved your pay increases through changing jobs and/or further education?)
I'm not worried about everyone else's career at all, I'm worried about my own, hence my curiosity about your wonder-job - I'm above average intelligence, so I reckon I could do another degree by night if it would mean I could quadruple my earning power in ten years.

Agreed, but I'm interested in the one that allows this, and also affords such massive pay increases.

Why would you say this? You said you got pay increases of 300-500% since 2000, and offered this as a comparison to PS pay. If you had to go abroad to get it then it's hardly a valid comparison, is it?

My job has good conditions of employment, and relative to the profession I came from in the private sector, would continue to do so even under CP2. Of course if I knew what your wonder-industry is, I might consider changing careers, but right now, even with CP2 on the table, I'm fairly happy where I am.

Dont be getting obsessed with my job. It doesnt really matter what I work at.
My job is not the only one where peoples salaries have gone up by 300% in 10 or 12 years. I think you'll find most have done if you go back and check out what all your friends were getting in 2000. And what they are getting now.

Time to do your own research for your own career. You cant expect everyone to do it for you. Its scary how much people cant cant take on the responsibility of carving out a career. Your career guidance teacher must have been pulling their hair out.

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 03:42PM

Tea drinker wrote: »

I don't think people on the same salary as me in the PS should face much salary cuts, anyone on the lower scales should receive little or no salary cuts. There's a lot of guys and girls on higher salaries who can afford it and should get cuts. That's fair isn't it. The PS is not a monoblock and neither is Private. I don't see an issue with saying the people with more cash should pay more cash. Are you saying this is an issue? Besides there will be further reforms to ensure we pay more tax or USC etc, so yeah I'm factoring that in.

As for MMAgirls and her representing the private sector and it's seedy raises, she doesn't speak for me. She is not the benchmark for PS or private. Pointlessly inferring the PS should get massive raises because she got same is not rational.
EDIT: I saw this post more fairly represents mmagirls view so I changed it:

previous quote confused me:

Dont be confused. One quote is what they have done and points out how if they wanted even that to be fairer what they could EASILY have done instead.

The other quote is what I think should have actually happened in the first place.

The bit i highlighted in bold seems to be one of the main arguments for the "cut the public sector and not me" brigade. They are constantly pointing out (wrongly) how much better paid the PS is and what better condidtions they have. You cant have it both ways.

barneystinson · 14-04-2013 04:13PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Dont be getting obsessed with my job. It doesnt really matter what I work at.
My job is not the only one where peoples salaries have gone up by 300% in 10 or 12 years. I think you'll find most have done if you go back and check out what all your friends were getting in 2000. And what they are getting now.

Time to do your own research for your own career. You cant expect everyone to do it for you. Its scary how much people cant cant take on the responsibility of carving out a career. Your career guidance teacher must have been pulling their hair out.

Most of my friends were in college in 2000, like myself, so we'll have to discount them.

Show me any person in any job in Ireland in 2000, who is now being paid >4 times as much in 2013 for doing the same job?

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not obsessed with your job, or anyone's job - I'm suggesting you're talking utter tripe when you suggest that your situation is comparable to that of a PS worker who has been doing the same job since 2000.

Your refusal to answer simple questions indicates you know full well your comparison was nonsense, but won't/can't admit it. But I'll try one more time:
Do you still work in the same job for the same employer as you were in 2000? If the answer is yes, I'm wrong and you're right. If the answer is no, then your situation bears no resemblance to a PS worker still at the same grade as they were in 2000.

Count Dooku · 14-04-2013 04:18PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

why. it was a condition of their job offer.
if anything if you want to remove it you must pay them to give it up.

if you want redundancies you can offer them redundancy packages that are good enough to tempt them. its easy.

i think the ps probably would have one giant constructive dismissal case at this stage.

so you saying that some animals have right to be more equal than others

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 04:39PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Most of my friends were in college in 2000, like myself, so we'll have to discount them.

Show me any person in any job in Ireland in 2000, who is now being paid >4 times as much in 2013 for doing the same job?

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not obsessed with your job, or anyone's job - I'm suggesting you're talking utter tripe when you suggest that your situation is comparable to that of a PS worker who has been doing the same job since 2000.

Your refusal to answer simple questions indicates you know full well your comparison was nonsense, but won't/can't admit it. But I'll try one more time:
Do you still work in the same job for the same employer as you were in 2000? If the answer is yes, I'm wrong and you're right. If the answer is no, then your situation bears no resemblance to a PS worker still at the same grade as they were in 2000.

I believe you are obsessed, so please stop asking about it if you are not obsessed.

Are you also trying to say that a person working in 2000 is going to be the same person today?
Im sure they are infinitely more experience, even if they were doing the exact same job and therefore worth a lot more. Probably 3 times more at least today.
Test it out. Go find a salary in any job in 2000 and then take that persons experience into account and see what they would get paid today.

Here is an example. My friend is an electrician. He had finished his apprenticeship in 1999 and was getting £200 per week. last year he told me he was getting paid €900 per week and was disappointed with it. Still an electrician. Just one with 13 more years experience now.

Around benchmarking time, another friend who works in advertising left his job to work for a rival company for 50% increase in salary. I remember it because in the same conversation he was complaining about how much the "lazy public sector workers" were getting in benchmarking. I could only laugh.

Im sure there are thousands of examples. I could give a fair few, but nothing like researching these things yourself. Go conquer.

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 04:41PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

so you saying that some animals have right to be more equal than others

Lord help us.

barneystinson · 14-04-2013 06:28PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

I believe you are obsessed, so please stop asking about it if you are not obsessed.

Are you also trying to say that a person working in 2000 is going to be the same person today?
Im sure they are infinitely more experience, even if they were doing the exact same job and therefore worth a lot more. Probably 3 times more at least today.
Test it out. Go find a salary in any job in 2000 and then take that persons experience into account and see what they would get paid today.

Here is an example. My friend is an electrician. He had finished his apprenticeship in 1999 and was getting £200 per week. last year he told me he was getting paid €900 per week and was disappointed with it. Still an electrician. Just one with 13 more years experience now.

Around benchmarking time, another friend who works in advertising left his job to work for a rival company for 50% increase in salary. I remember it because in the same conversation he was complaining about how much the "lazy public sector workers" were getting in benchmarking. I could only laugh.

Im sure there are thousands of examples. I could give a fair few, but nothing like researching these things yourself. Go conquer.

I'm genuinely starting to worry about your intelligence if you can't see the glaring difference, even in the examples you gave there.

Your buddy in advertising MOVED JOB to get a 50% pay increase. All this extra experience that you say enhances earning power only comes into play when the employee leverages it by either taking on more work and justifying a pay increase, or MOVING JOB.

In the PS people can sit and do the same job for 20 years, with very little change in output, and in the absence of proper performance management, with increments simply for showing up, it's little wonder this is the case.

So while there are certainly people in the private sector earning 4 times as much as they did in 2000, they will have had to justify the increase through their own individual hard work, and expanding their role/output, rather than by simply turning up and going through the motions for the last 13 years.

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 07:06PM

barneystinson wrote: »

I'm genuinely starting to worry about your intelligence if you can't see the glaring difference, even in the examples you gave there.

Your buddy in advertising MOVED JOB to get a 50% pay increase. All this extra experience that you say enhances earning power only comes into play when the employee leverages it by either taking on more work and justifying a pay increase, or MOVING JOB.

In the PS people can sit and do the same job for 20 years, with very little change in output, and in the absence of proper performance management, with increments simply for showing up, it's little wonder this is the case.

So while there are certainly people in the private sector earning 4 times as much as they did in 2000, they will have had to justify the increase through their own individual hard work, and expanding their role/output, rather than by simply turning up and going through the motions for the last 13 years.

so what if he moved job.
The point still stands.
You would think nobody in the public sector ever worked or gained experience over their career they way you are going on.
Making stupid assumptions about a whole sectors workers isnt helping your cause.

Farmer Pudsey · 14-04-2013 07:17PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Here is an example. My friend is an electrician. He had finished his apprenticeship in 1999 and was getting £200 per week. last year he told me he was getting paid €900 per week and was disappointed with it. Still an electrician. Just one with 13 more years experience now.
QUOTE]

In 1999 qualified electricians were on more than 200 pounds/week. As far as I remember when I was building a house in 1990 they were earning more than that.

thebman · 14-04-2013 07:23PM

The thing is that you never get paid significantly more unless you move job.

If your happy to stay there earning what they pay you then why would they suddenly pay you more?

Same in every private company, the only way people make more is to move job.

If you worked in a large multi-national you wouldn't get significant pay increases either unless they needed you and you were walking out the door.

tayto lover · 14-04-2013 07:23PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

MMAGirl wrote: »

Here is an example. My friend is an electrician. He had finished his apprenticeship in 1999 and was getting £200 per week. last year he told me he was getting paid €900 per week and was disappointed with it. Still an electrician. Just one with 13 more years experience now.
QUOTE]

In 1999 qualified electricians were on more than 200 pounds/week. As far as I remember when I was building a house in 1990 they were earning more than that.

A newly qualified lad often works for the bare bones to get himself known and to make a name for himself of not being too pricey. He will rise his charges as he goes on and his client list expands.
If he were working for a firm or company he would be on a standard rate.

sharper · 14-04-2013 07:32PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

The point still stands.

It doesn't. Let's imagine three people, persons A, B and C.

Person A: Private sector, starts work in 2000 but changes job several times, acquires new skills and takes on new responsibilities therefore experiences a pay rise of 300% upto 2013 (goes from a salary of 25k to 75k)

Person B: Private sector, remains in same job does not acquire new skills, does minimum required. Experiences a pay rise of a lot less than person A.

Person C: Public sector. Remains in same job and does not acquire new skills. Experiences an increase in pay comparable to person A.

It's pretty clear you need to make a like-for-like comparison. If you're talking about roles in the public sector have increased by then you need to compare to roles in the private sector have increased by.

If you're talking about what ambitious private sector individuals might have achieved then you need to talk about what ambitious public sector individuals might have achieved.

The entire problem is that many of the increases in government spending between 2000 and 2007 were non-productive i.e. extra money was handed over but no improvement in service was seen.

Post 2007 we're left in a position of having to borrow money to continue to fund non-productive uses of money. Debt has to be repaid from the productive economy (i.e. parts of the public and private sectors which jointly produce real wealth) which is an ever increasing burden.

The public sector never should have escaped compulsory redundancy. The first order of business should have been the creation of a proper performance management system (like the one already agreed to under benchmarking but somehow never properly enacted) with non-performers being made redundant with statutory payments only. Increments should be restricted to those that perform well, not those who show up.

Icepick · 14-04-2013 09:42PM

sharper wrote: »

The entire problem is that many of the increases in government spending between 2000 and 2007 were non-productive i.e. extra money was handed over but no improvement in service was seen.

Or they actually got worse.

creedp · 14-04-2013 11:02PM

sharper wrote: »

Person C: Public sector. Remains in same job and does not acquire new skills. Experiences an increase in pay comparable to person A.

Presumably you are including people who sought and earned promotion in this category do you? What do you mean does not acquire new skills? Such rubbish! Difference is person in Category C will have experienced a 20% reduction in pay while doing more work with less resources. What would the high performer in Cat 1 and the relaxed dude in Cat 2 think of that I wonder.

creedp · 14-04-2013 11:03PM

Icepick wrote: »

Or they actually got much much much worse.

Corrected that for you - you were being overly generous there

creedp · 14-04-2013 11:05PM

barneystinson wrote: »

In the PS people can sit and do the same job for 20 years, with very little change in output, and in the absence of proper performance management, with increments simply for showing up, it's little wonder this is the case.

So while there are certainly people in the private sector earning 4 times as much as they did in 2000, they will have had to justify the increase through their own individual hard work, and expanding their role/output, rather than by simply turning up and going through the motions for the last 13 years.

You seems to be a genuinely frustrated PS worker who is rotting away in the service .. wasting his vast potential. Q is why don't you leave and seek you fortune and fame elsewhere

Farmer Pudsey · 14-04-2013 11:13PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

A newly qualified lad often works for the bare bones to get himself known and to make a name for himself of not being too pricey. He will rise his charges as he goes on and his client list expands.
If he were working for a firm or company he would be on a standard rate.

This is not what she inferred MMA inferred that a newly qualified electrician was on 200 pounds/week in 1999 and 900 now. She inferred that in both situtations he was an employee not an sole trader.

Dreamertime · 15-04-2013 06:40AM

Union results come in today. I expect a 75+5 rejection by my CPSU colleagues.

If the PSEU were to reject, it would be a huge sea change. The PSEU leasdership have been in Howlin's pocket all the way through this process.

channelsurfer2 · 15-04-2013 08:12AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Union results come in today. I expect a 75+5 rejection by my CPSU colleagues.

If the PSEU were to reject, it would be a huge sea change. The PSEU leasdership have been in Howlin's pocket all the way through this process.

I am hearing that it will be tight. lots of branches recommended against including one of the biggest revenue.

Godge · 15-04-2013 09:05AM

sharper wrote: »

It doesn't. Let's imagine three people, persons A, B and C.

Person A: Private sector, starts work in 2000 but changes job several times, acquires new skills and takes on new responsibilities therefore experiences a pay rise of 300% upto 2013 (goes from a salary of 25k to 75k)

Person B: Private sector, remains in same job does not acquire new skills, does minimum required. Experiences a pay rise of a lot less than person A.

Person C: Public sector. Remains in same job and does not acquire new skills. Experiences an increase in pay comparable to person A.

It's pretty clear you need to make a like-for-like comparison. If you're talking about roles in the public sector have increased by then you need to compare to roles in the private sector have increased by.

If you're talking about what ambitious private sector individuals might have achieved then you need to talk about what ambitious public sector individuals might have achieved. .

The problem with your analogy is that it is completely fictitious and bears no relationship to the reality of what happened. There is no way that C got a pay increase comparable to A. They would be much closer to B.

I could make up hundreds of analogies like that but you would have to produce some statistics to back it up.

sharper wrote: »

The entire problem is that many of the increases in government spending between 2000 and 2007 were non-productive i.e. extra money was handed over but no improvement in service was seen.

Post 2007 we're left in a position of having to borrow money to continue to fund non-productive uses of money. Debt has to be repaid from the productive economy (i.e. parts of the public and private sectors which jointly produce real wealth) which is an ever increasing burden.

The public sector never should have escaped compulsory redundancy. The first order of business should have been the creation of a proper performance management system (like the one already agreed to under benchmarking but somehow never properly enacted) with non-performers being made redundant with statutory payments only. Increments should be restricted to those that perform well, not those who show up.

I keep hearing this mantra about public servants having to be made redundant with statutory payments only as this reflects the private sector. There I was at the weekend reading about the Diageo closure in Kilkenny. Now a large employer in the private sector comparable to the large public sector employer, closing a site outside Dublin to consolidate. Just like merging a quango? Does anyone know what the redundancy arrangements were?

"the impending brewery closure resulted in terms of eight weeks, capped at two years, plus statutory, plus enhanced closure payments of up to €20,050 and extra amounts to compensate for loss of VHI."

(can't provide link, behind paywall)
Wow, not bad.

What about the failed financial industry in recent months? Well, the banks owned by the taxpayer have been brought down to the public sector level. Aviva was offering more, six weeks inclusive of statutory with a cap of 2.5 years and Liberty Insurance (better known as Quinn) was offering four weeks plus statutory.

So even companies in trouble or shutting down complete sites are still paying generous redundancy.

Chris_5339762 · 15-04-2013 09:20AM

creedp wrote: »

You seems to be a genuinely frustrated PS worker who is rotting away in the service .. wasting his vast potential. Q is why don't you leave and seek you fortune and fame elsewhere

The 'permanent' job is a big thing. Even for a 30-40% increase in salery that I might get if I went for a private sector job right now, I would be reluctant to take it because it would be a temporary (or a 2 year rolling temporary) contract. Genuinely hard working people sometimes can get 'trapped' this way with little prospect for promotion in the public sector, when there are better private sector jobs out there. Its just not worth the risk of leaving.

Dreamertime · 15-04-2013 10:45AM

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

I am hearing that it will be tight. lots of branches recommended against including one of the biggest revenue.

Fingers crossed.

barneystinson · 15-04-2013 11:08AM

creedp wrote: »

You seems to be a genuinely frustrated PS worker who is rotting away in the service .. wasting his vast potential. Q is why don't you leave and seek you fortune and fame elsewhere

You must be mixing me up with another poster

I've only been in the PS a few years, I said a couple of posts ago that I'm happy where I am, and I made a calculated decision when I joined - I traded off earning potential for better conditions, shorter hours, pension, holidays, flexibility etc.

Even under CP2 that balance is still in favour of staying in the PS. If in the future I feel this is no longer the case then I might move on. I'm on a panel for promotion, so I'd hardly say I'm rotting away, I've worked hard since I started and its standing to me - on the other hand I see a minority of people who are marking off time til retirement. (So while we're making assumptions it seems to me you're probably one of that category.) They get the same increments I do though, but I wouldn't say it frustrates me much, I blame the unions and weak management for that culture being tolerated.

barneystinson · 15-04-2013 11:10AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Fingers crossed.

I'm going to come back and remind you of your posts on this thread when the proverbial really hits the fan and you end up worse off than you would have under CP2...

sharper · 15-04-2013 11:11AM

Godge wrote: »

The problem with your analogy is that it is completely fictitious and bears no relationship to the reality of what happened. There is no way that C got a pay increase comparable to A. They would be much closer to B.

The analogy is in relation to what's being discussed and exemplifies the comparisons being made, nothing more. MMaGirl continually compared A to C which is not correct, as outlined in my post.

I keep hearing this mantra about public servants having to be made redundant with statutory payments only as this reflects the private sector. There I was at the weekend reading about the Diageo closure in Kilkenny[...]

Wow, not bad.

Are Diageo bankrupt? The answer of course is no. Diageo can pay higher than statutory because they can afford to. In the current crisis there's no reason for the Irish government to be paying higher than the law dictates.

What about the failed financial industry in recent months? Well, the banks owned by the taxpayer have been brought down to the public sector level. [...]
So even companies in trouble or shutting down complete sites are still paying generous redundancy.

You mean the failed financial industry that's also propped up by the taxpayer? That industry?

Every Euro the Irish government pays out above statutory is a Euro taken from service provision to those that need it.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/target-express-cannot-pay-redundancy-says-liquidator-564929.html

The liquidator appointed to Target Express has said that there is no money left at the company to pay staff redundancy.

Describing the company as "hopelessly insolvent", Michael McAteer, head of recovery with liquidators Grant Thornton, said that staff will get statutory redundancy from the State. This is likely to take some time, however.

That's what redundancy in the private sector looks like when your employer goes bust.

Now why do public sector employees deserve a better redundancy payment (funded by the taxpayer) than Target employees do?

sharper · 15-04-2013 11:15AM

Dreamertime wrote: »

Fingers crossed.

Unless someone somewhere is willing to pay you a lot of money to cross your fingers then doing so isn't going to fix the problem. If the public sector rejects CP2 and an alternative which achieves the same savings isn't found then cuts will be imposed regardless of strike threats.

That's because the government simply lacks the ability to meet your demands. Even if you got every government minister and every TD to agree with everything you're asking for they haven't the ability to actually deliver it.

It may make you feel better to fight the inevitable rather than accept it but the people that rely on public services are the ones who will bear the cost of your satisfaction.

Dreamertime · 15-04-2013 11:24AM

sharper wrote: »

Unless someone somewhere is willing to pay you a lot of money to cross your fingers then doing so isn't going to fix the problem. If the public sector rejects CP2 and an alternative which achieves the same savings isn't found then cuts will be imposed regardless of strike threats.

That's because the government simply lacks the ability to meet your demands. Even if you got every government minister and every TD to agree with everything you're asking for they haven't the ability to actually deliver it.

It may make you feel better to fight the inevitable rather than accept it but the people that rely on public services are the ones who will bear the cost of your satisfaction.

Lets see Labour backbenchers vote for our paycut. Why should we make it easy for them and accept a deal that dismantles our conditions of employment?

ardmacha · 15-04-2013 11:26AM

but the people that rely on public services are the ones who will bear the cost of your satisfaction.

If citizens have ceased paying for services then presumably they won't object to their diminution.

creedp · 15-04-2013 11:27AM

sharper wrote: »

Unless someone somewhere is willing to pay you a lot of money to cross your fingers then doing so isn't going to fix the problem. If the public sector rejects CP2 and an alternative which achieves the same savings isn't found then cuts will be imposed regardless of strike threats.

That's because the government simply lacks the ability to meet your demands. Even if you got every government minister and every TD to agree with everything you're asking for they haven't the ability to actually deliver it.

It may make you feel better to fight the inevitable rather than accept it but the people that rely on public services are the ones who will bear the cost of your satisfaction.

That's fine then .. what's the problem? Why is everyone in such a flap that someone else (the PS) should vote for paycuts for itself? Let it be rejected and lets have the legislation .. that's what happenned the last 2 times so why are the private sector concerned that is should happen that way again? It absolutely amazes me the amount of people who think they should have a say in how other peoples pay is cut!

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments