Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

barneystinson · 22-04-2013 09:33PM

sharper wrote: »

You gave five examples:

1. Croke Park Agreement

2. pension levy

3. paycut

4. reduced scales for new entrants

5. reduced pension ENTITLEMENTS for new entrants...

#1 I don't know how to even interpret because it encompasses the rest of your examples..

No it doesn't - the paycut and pension levy happened prior to CP1, so it doesn't encompass them - see below.

sharper wrote: »

#2 and #3 are repeatedly argued by the public sector to be the same thing..

Yes, 2 iterations of the same thing, amounting to nearly 15% reduction in pay on average.

sharper wrote: »

#4 and #5 apply only to those that never had the entitlements in the first place and weaken rather than strengthen your argument..

They do neither - they simply indicate that into the future, PS workers' entitlements will be reduced.

sharper wrote: »

So essentially you have one example: The public sector had its pay cut.

Not very representative of the various entitlements afforded public sector workers now is it?.

It's had a paycut, another one in the form of pension levy (which the Govt have unequivocally stated is a pay cut), sick leave entitlements have been revised, annual leave entitlements revised, various other reforms/restructuring have taken place - I'm not going to list fully the implementation of CP1, it's all on the implementation body's website if you want to see (which I'm sure you don't).

sharper wrote: »

Traditionally also the public sector accepts a cost for that long term stability in the form of lower pay. In Ireland it's the reverse, greater stability, better conditions and better pay. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course we have a public debate where it's impossible to get even basic facts agreed upon - like the balance of risk enjoyed by the public and private sectors, one long recognised by banks when giving mortgages.

I never said working in the public sector is as risky as in the private sector - if you read my earlier posts on this thread you'll see me constantly talking about the trade-off I personally made a few years ago to join the PS - I net about 15% less than I was/would net in the private sector, but job security was a huge factor in my decision, having gone through redundancy once, and being the type of person who likes continuity rather than job-hopping to build a career.

So I'm proof that not everyone is "overpaid" in the PS, and you have conceded that PS entitlements aren't entirely risk-free, and the paycut, pension levy, reduced annual leave, reduced sick leave, revised rostering, restructuring, redeployment etc that are still ongoing, indicate that the PS is recently/currently far from risk-free.

But still, on average, less risky than the private sector.

sharper · 23-04-2013 07:44AM

barneystinson wrote: »

But still, on average, less risky than the private sector.

Then apparently I haven't explained myself too well because we're in agreement, or close to it.

I'd say that public sector entitlements only experience risk in the midst of economic crisis large enough to affect the state which can be expected to be uncommon.

In the private sector individual companies close down, go bust or change circumstances all the time. Even in the boom times people lost their jobs.

Or to put it another way, governments persist for decades or centuries. It's quite uncommon for a private company to last more than 5 to 10 years.

Going back to the original point - someone said that both public and private sector workers have entitlements and suggested these were therefore equivalent. My point is that that the understanding of an entitlement are quite different between the two sectors.

sarumite · 23-04-2013 08:48AM

Godge wrote: »

The information is slowly building up to confirm the evidence that there are more jobs in the private sector. Even IBEC agree:

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0422/383726-ibec-jobs-report/

"IBEC said that the private sector was a net contributor to job growth last year. There was a 2.3% fall in numbers working in the public sector over the last year, while employment in the private sector rose by almost 1%."

A bit of a non-sequitur, considering the post you are replying to.

As for pay, the 70 manufacturing companies/plants that have agreed pay increases in the last year include Abbott, Bausch & Lomb, Becton Dickinson, Bristol Myers, Dulux, GlaxoSmithKline, MeckSharpeDohme, Nestle, Pfizer, Proctor & Gamble, Bulmers, Dairygold, Glanbia, various co-ops, Lakeland Dairies, Monaghan Mushrooms, Analog Devices, Apple, Graingers Sawmill, SR Technics, Pepsico.

I have already documented the increases in retail companies earlier in the thread.

How much evidence do you need?

I note that you have now moved from using terms life 'FACT' to less assured terms like evidence. Ancedotal evidence of some employers giving payrises is certainly good news. According to the central bank the majority of Irish people in the private sector who do not work in agriculture or construction work for an SME and from what I have read in the papers and from press releases by ISME, the situation there is mixed at best. I think its somewhat spurious to say that 'the private sector are getting payrises' based on the ancedotal evidence that some organisations are giving payrises. It would be no different to someone arguing that 'The PS are getting payrises' because some in the PS get an incremental payrise, eventhough some are not getting incremental payrises.

That said the above point is somewhat moot as it really isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make, which it appears you completely missed. I am not looking for evidence of anything myself. However if someone is going to post something as a "FACT" it would be helpful if it was a FACT and not just their interpretation of a CSO statistic. This isn't the first time that I have noted that your rudimentary analysis of a CSO statistic is fundamentally flawed.

creedp · 23-04-2013 09:03AM

sarumite wrote: »

I think its somewhat spurious to say that 'the private sector are getting payrises' based on the ancedotal evidence that some organisations are giving payrises.

Go on admit it .. you're a politician .. Its spurious to say that people getting payrises in the private sector means that private sector prganisations are awardig pay rises .. priceless

sarumite · 23-04-2013 09:06AM

creedp wrote: »

Go on admit it .. you're a politician .. Its spurious to say that people getting payrises in the private sector means that private sector prganisations are awardig pay rises .. priceless

Try rereading my post....actually, just the part you quoted should be enough.

Riskymove · 23-04-2013 09:52AM

sarumite wrote: »

I think its somewhat spurious to say that 'the private sector are getting payrises' based on the ancedotal evidence that some organisations are giving payrises.

perhaps just as spurious as

"the PS get annual increments" or "the PS take 8 days sick leave per year" etc.

Godge · 23-04-2013 09:59AM

sarumite wrote: »

A bit of a non-sequitur, considering the post you are replying to.

I note that you have now moved from using terms life 'FACT' to less assured terms like evidence. Ancedotal evidence of some employers giving payrises is certainly good news. According to the central bank the majority of Irish people in the private sector who do not work in agriculture or construction work for an SME and from what I have read in the papers and from press releases by ISME, the situation there is mixed at best. I think its somewhat spurious to say that 'the private sector are getting payrises' based on the ancedotal evidence that some organisations are giving payrises. It would be no different to someone arguing that 'The PS are getting payrises' because some in the PS get an incremental payrise, eventhough some are not getting incremental payrises.

That said the above point is somewhat moot as it really isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make, which it appears you completely missed. I am not looking for evidence of anything myself. However if someone is going to post something as a "FACT" it would be helpful if it was a FACT and not just their interpretation of a CSO statistic. This isn't the first time that I have noted that your rudimentary analysis of a CSO statistic is fundamentally flawed.

You are grasping at straws now.

I have analysed the CSO statistics that indicate that pay rises are happening in the private sector. Remember that there are two reasons why average pay goes up - pay rises or changes in the type of jobs to have more higher paid jobs.

At the moment we know that employment is rising, as is typical in any recovery it is likely that this is initially likely to be an increase in low-paid jobs, either low-paid in nature or part-time in nature. Thus we should be seeing at best flat-lining of average pay. Instead the CSO statistics are somewhat ambiguous, depending on when you start and what statistic you look at, you can conclude that jobs are increasing and pay is rising for those already in work. To back up that analysis, I look outside of the CSO statistics as they do not provide the detail needed.

I find IBEC are also concluding that employment is rising in the private sector and that IRN (Industrial Relations News) - which is behind a pay wall so I can't quote from it - analyses of pay deals are showing pay rises in the private sector. I quoted from a retail one some months ago and the reference to 70 manufacturing companies/plants also comes from IRN. So I have other evidence from other independent bodies to back up my analysis while you have nothing.

As for SMEs, one of the biggest rip-offs in the boom came from Irish SMEs. From corner shops who sold produce at huge margins to small and medium-sized services who ripped people off to estate agents and small solicitor firms who charged outrageous fees, we had the biggest scam going. That those who ripped off the ordinary Irish person are getting stung is no surprise. The SMEs who have survived and now thrived and are now giving payrises are the ones who didn't rip us off.

Is it any wonder therefore that it is companies like Town of Monaghan Co-op (2.5% increase last year), Lakeland Dairies (4% over 2 years), North Cork Coop (4% over 21 months) are companies offering pay increases?

sarumite · 23-04-2013 10:14AM

Godge wrote: »

Remember that there are two reasons why average pay goes up - pay rises or changes in the type of jobs to have more higher paid jobs.

....Or fewer lower paid jobs.

If a company that pays high salaries hires new people all on the same salary as their peers, this will drive up the average salary for the private sector without any payrises being awarded.

Equally average pay can go down if we have fewer high paid jobs (say, higher paid people on the top of an increment scale retire en-masse and are replaced by people on the bottom of an incremental scale for instance).

sarumite · 23-04-2013 10:15AM

-deleted-

Riskymove · 23-04-2013 10:30AM

sarumite wrote: »

....Or fewer lower paid jobs.

If a company that pays high salaries hires new people all on the same salary as their peers, this will drive up the average salary for the private sector without any payrises being awarded.

Equally average pay can go down if we have fewer high paid jobs (say, higher paid people on the top of an increment scale retire en-masse and are replaced by people on the bottom of an incremental scale for instance).

I suppose the question would be how events like this would influence the overall average for what, 1.6m workers?

creedp · 23-04-2013 10:34AM

Riskymove wrote: »

I suppose the question would be how events like this would influence the overall average for what, 1.6m workers?

Don't worry about it .. it appears that the term spurious is exclusively reserved for statistics/information/evidence that suggests private sector pay is increasing .. anything else is a stone wall fact.

vinylbomb · 23-04-2013 10:57AM

The fact of the matter is - IT DOES NOT MATTER in this argument whether private sector employees are getting pay rises.

Simply put, the government is borrowing money to fulfill the terms of contract of public sector employees. Taxation is already a significant burden on ALL workers. The sums between outgoings and incomings do not balance.

Low hanging fruit is all gone. So where next to lower the outgoings?
I have nothing personally against public sector employees (I've contracted in the public sector in the past) but, to coin the watchword - "efficiencies" need to be found somewhere and the bill needs to come down.

Riskymove · 23-04-2013 11:07AM

vinylbomb wrote: »

Simply put, the government is borrowing money to fulfill the terms of contract of public sector employees.

not fully correct, though often the starting position for these arguments

Income is around twice the cost of PS pay Bill

we spend money on a lot more than PS pay

even then the pay bill is not evenly distributed - Health and Education cover the vast amount

sarumite · 23-04-2013 11:09AM

creedp wrote: »

Don't worry about it .. it appears that the term spurious is exclusively reserved for statistics/information/evidence that suggests private sector pay is increasing .. anything else is a stone wall fact.

You really ought to read what a person writes. You come across as non-nonsensical when you post stuff like this.

vinylbomb · 23-04-2013 11:13AM

Riskymove wrote: »

Income is around twice the cost of PS pay Bill

So you advocate cutting spending further outside of PS wages but retaining salaries and conditions as is?

Riskymove wrote: »

we spend money on a lot more than PS pay

OK - accepted. But PS pensions etc need to be covered also. Its not just wages.

Riskymove wrote: »

even then the pay bill is not evenly distributed - Health and Education cover the vast amount

OK - accepted. I feel that treating the PS homogeneously is a poor strategy, but that's where inter-union solidarity gets you.

Riskymove · 23-04-2013 12:08PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

So you advocate cutting spending further outside of PS wages but retaining salaries and conditions as is?

I wasn't advocating anything, simply reacting to your point. Its often used here to suit a particular agenda but we have a deficit on overall spending vs income - so the implication that we are only borrowing because of PS pay is often taken

On your question:

cutting spending outside of PS ...Yes

retaining salaries and conditions as is...no

also,
I meant pay and pensions in my post

noodler · 23-04-2013 12:24PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I wasn't advocating anything, simply reacting to your point. Its often used here to suit a particular agenda but we have a deficit on overall spending vs income - so the implication that we are only borrowing because of PS pay is often taken

In fairness, the vast majority of the adjustments since 2009 have taken place outside of public sector pay.

Also worth mentioning that social welfare, once cut, didn't increase again, ditto Child Benefit etc. PS pay for a huge number of workers will have increased despite the pension levy and pacy cut.

Riskymove · 23-04-2013 12:39PM

noodler wrote: »

In fairness, the vast majority of the adjustments since 2009 have taken place outside of public sector pay.

not really my point

Also worth mentioning that social welfare, once cut, didn't increase again, ditto Child Benefit etc. PS pay for a huge number of workers will have increased despite the pension levy and pacy cut.

"huge" heh?

perhaps the point here is that no PS worker would be earning what they would have been prior to the pay cut

The pension levy is also on net pay rather than gross so while gross pay of individual workers may increase due to increments - the actual net pay will still be lower than it was

on SW perhaps rates have not increased but overall cost has and is currently much higher than PS cost

Riskymove · 23-04-2013 12:52PM

just announced: Govt to try and negotiate again with Unions

http://www.thejournal.ie/public-sector-pay-savings-cuts-881536-Apr2013/

Larbre34 · 23-04-2013 01:15PM

Riskymove wrote: »

just announced: Govt to try and negotiate again with Unions

http://www.thejournal.ie/public-sector-pay-savings-cuts-881536-Apr2013/

An absolute and total victory for the PS unions. The Govt have just had their bluff called completely, their eye wiped, in a game of chicken they are currently wheels-up in a ditch

All their bluster and threats about unilateral action have proved to be entirely hollow. The emperor has no clothes.

If I were the unions, not only would I rule out any provision of CPII, Id be making hay about rowing back bits of CP I, such is the strength of their position now.

Very much looking forward to Coleman At Large on Newstalk tonight, his head will probably detach.

noodler · 23-04-2013 01:49PM

Riskymove wrote: »

not really my point

"huge" heh?

Huge yes. I would describe the proportion of PS workers who have received increments of some sort in 2008,2009,2010,2011,2012 and 2013 as huge.

What word would you use?

Riskymove wrote: »

perhaps the point here is that no PS worker would be earning what they would have been prior to the pay cut

No doubt. Of course, the tarck the Government finances were on prior to the pension levy was so unsustainable as to make the point moot.

Riskymove wrote: »

The pension levy is also on net pay rather than gross so while gross pay of individual workers may increase due to increments - the actual net pay will still be lower than it was

Thats not true, is it?

Surely the public sector pension levy is on gross income - that's been my understanding always.

Riskymove wrote: »

on SW perhaps rates have not increased but overall cost has and is currently much higher than PS cost

Of course, overall cost is higher. But it also affects a much larger number of people. 425,000 people claiming unemployment benefits. I don't even have the figures for how many receive child benefit.

Also, this is providing many of them a basic income which has been cut and (unlike PS pay) hasn't had any increases via increments to battle inflation over the last few years.

Godge · 23-04-2013 02:20PM

sarumite wrote: »

....Or fewer lower paid jobs.

If a company that pays high salaries hires new people all on the same salary as their peers, this will drive up the average salary for the private sector without any payrises being awarded.

Equally average pay can go down if we have fewer high paid jobs (say, higher paid people on the top of an increment scale retire en-masse and are replaced by people on the bottom of an incremental scale for instance).

Agreed, but as employment is going up and we are only coming out of a recession, it is both counter-intuitive and contrary to previous experience to expect that the jobs now being created will raise average pay. Therefore, the CSO data indicating higher average pay when considered in the context of the current stage of the labour market cycle can only mean increased pay for those in jobs. This is not surprising. As the economy crashed the private sector in general saw a lot of job losses but little in the way of pay cuts as individuals looked after themselves. They are just doing the same on the way up, tentative and fragile though the recovery is. The public sector was different with the pay cuts and pension levy preventing otherwise greater numbers of job losses.

When you add in supporting evidence from IBEC, IRN and many other sources, the picture of pay rising in the private sector is very difficult to refute.

P.S. I see nothing wrong with what happened in the private sector, I am ensuring my own financial security there.

Riskymove · 23-04-2013 02:25PM

noodler wrote: »

What word would you use?

you are presuming its huge

I wouldn't use a term like that without seeing actual data

Thats not true, is it?

Surely the public sector pension levy is on gross income - that's been my understanding always.

My point is that it does not reduce gross salary but has a major impact on net salary

so even if a PS was earning a higher gross salary now than when pay was cut, their net salary would be decreased significiantly

Of course, overall cost is higher.

both individual pay costs and the overall pay bill has reduced in the PS

Godge · 23-04-2013 02:26PM

noodler wrote: »

Huge yes. I would describe the proportion of PS workers who have received increments of some sort in 2008,2009,2010,2011,2012 and 2013 as huge.

What word would you use?

.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2521

"Huge" percentage could mean as little as 1% according to this link. What % do you mean?

You used the word "and" between 2012 and 2013 which suggests you are referring to people who got an increment in each and every year. Given that quite often over 50% of people are at the top of the scale, and that many scales have less than 6 points, "huge" in this case could be quite low, as low as 10% or even less. I don't know, do you have the figures to back up "huge" or is it just that no matter what the figure is, you will state that figure is "huge"?

creedp · 23-04-2013 02:28PM

Godge wrote: »

Agreed, but as employment is going up and we are only coming out of a recession, it is both counter-intuitive and contrary to previous experience to expect that the jobs now being created will raise average pay. Therefore, the CSO data indicating higher average pay when considered in the context of the current stage of the labour market cycle can only mean increased pay for those in jobs. This is not surprising. As the economy crashed the private sector in general saw a lot of job losses but little in the way of pay cuts as individuals looked after themselves. They are just doing the same on the way up, tentative and fragile though the recovery is. The public sector was different with the pay cuts and pension levy preventing otherwise greater numbers of job losses.

When you add in supporting evidence from IBEC, IRN and many other sources, the picture of pay rising in the private sector is very difficult to refute.

P.S. I see nothing wrong with what happened in the private sector, I am ensuring my own financial security there.

Pretty much supports my spurious anecdotal evidence of what is happening in the private sector. I agree with you I see nothing wrong with it per se as human nature means people try to look after their own interests and families. It seems however, that people expect the PS to be cut from a different cloth and not be a mé féiner [not my terminology - simply repeating mantra]. It looks like they are expected to move to the private sector to perfect that natural human tendency.

Godge · 23-04-2013 02:29PM

noodler wrote: »

In fairness, the vast majority of the adjustments since 2009 have taken place outside of public sector pay.

Also worth mentioning that social welfare, once cut, didn't increase again, ditto Child Benefit etc. PS pay for a huge number of workers will have increased despite the pension levy and pacy cut.

Pay Cut came into effect on 1 January 2010.
Pay Cut for new entrants came into effect on 1 January 2011.
Large exit of employees took place on 28 February 2012 reducing costs.
New pension scheme came into effect from 1 January 2013.

Yes, you are right, nothing happened with regard to public sector pay after 2009.

sean200 · 23-04-2013 08:27PM

There will be no croke park 2 and they will cut pay but it will be the most expensive 300 million they will have taken off the public sector.
I belive the unions will unite and they will strike take one sector out for a week at a time and rotate this across all the sectors untill it is settled
the unions leaders dont want a strike but their member want it.
It was the members that said no to croke park 2 and nurses and teachers are ready for the strike line.
Fg and labour know this and if it happens all bets are off on an election, bailout number 2 , higher unemployment and all the rest.
The question is what will the above cost the irish state if no deal is reached.

Tea drinker · 23-04-2013 11:52PM

Godge wrote: »

Pay Cut came into effect on 1 January 2010.
Pay Cut for new entrants came into effect on 1 January 2011.
Large exit of employees took place on 28 February 2012 reducing costs.
New pension scheme came into effect from 1 January 2013.

Yes, you are right, nothing happened with regard to public sector pay after 2009.

Hmm sbp says PS layoff payoffs cost 2 billion past 5 years, so we might be a while waiting for an actual cost reduction.

Jack here reckons all your promissory note savings belong to PS.:

Mr O’Connor called for the wealthy to pay higher taxes, for a cap of €100,000 on all public sector pensions and for the government to use the savings from the promissory notes deal to avoid pay cuts.

Dreamertime · 24-04-2013 06:48AM

Howlin instigates CP II tweeking to commence to try and get SIPTU over the line and Jack O'Connor off the sticky wicket.

Well Minister, let me tell you, the CPSU will not be party to any such grubby deal...

StewartGriffin · 24-04-2013 08:19AM

sean200 wrote: »

There will be no croke park 2 and they will cut pay but it will be the most expensive 300 million they will have taken off the public sector.
I belive the unions will unite and they will strike take one sector out for a week at a time and rotate this across all the sectors untill it is settled
the unions leaders dont want a strike but their member want it.
It was the members that said no to croke park 2 and nurses and teachers are ready for the strike line.
Fg and labour know this and if it happens all bets are off on an election, bailout number 2 , higher unemployment and all the rest.
The question is what will the above cost the irish state if no deal is reached.

If there are strikes, the cost to the state will be more than financial. Bitter divides will open up all through communities. For example, at our school parents and teachers normally get on very well, but if Mrs X has to take days off work to mind her son during a teachers strike that will deteriorate rapidly.

I saw a graphic example of the cause of this tension in a newspaper cartoon recently - a teachers picket line with placards like "can't afford another cent", an irate parent drives past in a '99 banger while the strikers 2010 cars are neatly parked close by.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments