Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

sharper · 07-05-2013 11:50AM

ardmacha wrote: »

A person in a professional job will often increase their real salary by 2 or 3 times as they become more experienced (in the PS they call this increments). They will also receive inflation related increases due to the entire workforce. Consequently, an individual will increase in salary faster than a sector, a 6% increase is exactly what any rational person would expect an employable person to get.

From a tax raising perspective, if people entering and leaving various experience bands are doing so at an unchanging level then there's no increase in tax revenue despite the individuals seeing an increase.

I find it interesting you consider this "mumbo jumbo" yet you're happy to see anecdotes thrown about as factual.

sharper · 07-05-2013 11:52AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Averages are only useful if you are dealing with small groups and have a disclaimer at the bottom of the figures which never happens round here, so averages on an internet forum are completely and utterly useless. Generally people use them to make a point but dont provide any context and can generally be shown to be pointless rather easily.

That's not true. Income taxes paid by the "average" worker therefore averages are useful in this context.

Yes you can construct many scenarios where averages are not useful and there certainly not useful for many things. For example job losses push up the average salary if they're lost at the lower level.

creedp · 07-05-2013 11:57AM

sharper wrote: »

Another strawman. I did not say this, I simply placed the increase in context i.e. that it's exceptional and far out of line with the average.

Your inability to deal with arguments as posted and your preference for dealing with made up ones instead says a lot about your position.

The factual state of affairs is that 6% alone is an incredible annual increase. 6% with more to come is beyond incredible.

In my book 'beyond incredible' is a little bit more than 'far out of line with the average', but hey lets talk about strawmen.

By the way I didn't make anything up ... anecdotal yes ... untrue no.

ardmacha · 07-05-2013 11:59AM

From a tax raising perspective, if people entering and leaving various experience bands are doing so at an unchanging level then there's no increase in tax revenue despite the individuals seeing an increase.

Of course. Likewise if persons in the PS enter and leave various experience bands and do so at an unchanging level, then there's no increase in expenditure despite the individuals seeing an increase due to experience.

I find it interesting you consider this "mumbo jumbo" yet you're happy to see anecdotes thrown about as factual.

The poster attempted to claim that the previous poster's salary increase was somehow incredible. I merely pointed out that 6% was about what you would expect. This doesn't prove the truth of the anecdote, but shows that is perfectly plausible.

sharper · 07-05-2013 12:06PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course. Likewise if persons in the PS enter and leave various experience bands and do so at an unchanging level, then there's no increase in expenditure despite the individuals seeing an increase due to experience.

Right and the public sector en masse has declared increments to not be payrises and ignores them in relation to the cuts they've taken. As I've pointed out an anecdote about a private sector worker changing job and getting a pay increase can be potentially be matched by one in the public sector doing the same.

The poster attempted to claim that the previous poster's salary increase was somehow incredible.

It is incredible. We know that overall few workers are seeing such increases and we know this because if the average person was seeing them...it would push up the average! Such activity cannot be easily masked by averages.

donalg1 · 07-05-2013 12:08PM

sharper wrote: »

That's not true. Income taxes paid by the "average" worker therefore averages are useful in this context.

Yes you can construct many scenarios where averages are not useful and there certainly not useful for many things. For example job losses push up the average salary if they're lost at the lower level.

So averages are useful if you mean average as in "normal" worker? Is that what you are saying? You are not talking about average figures but average workers?

sharper · 07-05-2013 12:19PM

donalg1 wrote: »

So averages are useful if you mean average as in "normal" worker? :

Averages are useful when you're discussing policy as it applies to the average worker.

ardmacha · 07-05-2013 12:55PM

It is incredible.

As I said what is incredible about it? In an organisation where 50 year old experienced people get 2.5 times that of a graduate, say 62500 as compared to 25000, this implies a 4% increase per year, assume a 2% rate of inflation and you need a 6% increase for the individual. There is nothing at all odd about this. Everyone may not get this at present, but it is perfectly usual and many sectors are unaffected by the recession.

vinylbomb · 07-05-2013 01:14PM

ardmacha wrote: »

As I said what is incredible about it? In an organisation where 50 year old experienced people get 2.5 times that of a graduate, say 62500 as compared to 25000, this implies a 4% increase per year, assume a 2% rate of inflation and you need a 6% increase for the individual. There is nothing at all odd about this. Everyone may not get this at present, but it is perfectly usual and many sectors are unaffected by the recession.

The first thing that strikes me as incredible is that you perceive every private sector company to automatically give wage increases in line with inflation.

I've worked in 4 private sector companies in Ireland, and a couple of semi-states on contract. I've never found increases like that to be the case.

vinylbomb · 07-05-2013 01:15PM

ardmacha wrote: »

you need a 6% increase for the individual.

And the idea of need in terms of a salary raise smacks of entitlement culture.

You gots to earn the dollars yo.

barneystinson · 07-05-2013 01:38PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

And the idea of need in terms of a salary raise smacks of entitlement culture.

You gots to earn the dollars yo.

Talk about a selective quotation to change the context of a statement!! Are you actually being serious?!

Previous poster was calculating what the annual rate of pay increase would be to result in a salary at a particular relative value to starting salary over time - "need" is used in the context of a calculation, not an entitlement.

barneystinson · 07-05-2013 01:44PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

The first thing that strikes me as incredible is that you perceive every private sector company to automatically give wage increases in line with inflation.

I've worked in 4 private sector companies in Ireland, and a couple of semi-states on contract. I've never found increases like that to be the case.

Proof is in the pudding - How long have you been working in your field and how much have your earnings increased in that period?

sharper · 07-05-2013 01:49PM

ardmacha wrote: »

As I said what is incredible about it? In an organisation where 50 year old experienced people get 2.5 times that of a graduate

Most people don't get to be on 2.5 times their graduate salary by staying at the same company, they get it by switching jobs. The increases they see are irregular and linked to those changes, not divided up over the career.

They move into either a new job created or one vacated by someone else.

If the new job is created then it pushes up the average. If it's simply vacated then it doesn't. Only in the former case is the tax take increasing.

A 6% increase not linked to a change in job is highly unusual especially in the current economy. If such changes were anything but unusual they'd be reflected in the averages.

Godge · 07-05-2013 02:05PM

sharper wrote: »

. For example job losses push up the average salary if they're lost at the lower level.

Just as equally, job gains lower the average salary if the new jobs are at the lower level.

Looking at the employment information for Ireland for the last year (IBEC and CSO data both confirm the trend), it suggests that private sector employment is rising while public sector employment is falling. At the same time private sector average salaries are rising slightly.

In the current phase of the economic cycle (coming out of a recession) you would expect new jobs to be at the lower end of the scale salary wise given the numbers available for work (in contrast, do you remember how people could name their salary at the peak of the economic cycle).

Common sense would suggest therefore that for those in private sector employment since 2011 or before (and who have not lost their jobs) are seeing rises in the order of around 2% per annum at the moment.

Again, using more common sense, this is backed up by information coming about union-brokered deals in the private sector across the retail, financial services and manufacturing sectors.

But don't let a common sense interpretation of the statistics and data interfere with the generally hysterical level of debate around here.

vinylbomb · 07-05-2013 02:29PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Proof is in the pudding - How long have you been working in your field and how much have your earnings increased in that period?

The proof of the pudding is in having gotten 2 masters degrees and 9 professional certifications in in the 8 years I've been working since graduation.

My wages have approximately trebled since then - albeit having started on a lower than average graduate salary.

vinylbomb · 07-05-2013 02:31PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Talk about a selective quotation to change the context of a statement!! Are you actually being serious?!

Previous poster was calculating what the annual rate of pay increase would be to result in a salary at a particular relative value to starting salary over time - "need" is used in the context of a calculation, not an entitlement.

OK - my apologies in misconstruing the original post.

However, no profit-driven employer will say - "We'll give you 4% and tack on 2% to cover inflation."

barneystinson · 07-05-2013 02:55PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

The proof of the pudding is in having gotten 2 masters degrees and 9 professional certifications in in the 8 years I've been working since graduation.

My wages have approximately trebled since then - albeit having started on a lower than average graduate salary.

Ahhh yes, it all becomes clear now! IMHO techy people tend to have very particular and strong views in these "debates", it's something of a trend on here based on this and previous PS-bashing threads. (I bet, if you ever partake of Star Trek, you have more than a passing admiration for the Borg...

Personally I'd rather live (and work) in a slightly inefficient world...)

tayto lover · 07-05-2013 02:58PM

This thread has become soooo soooo boring now.
Move along nothing new to see here.

sharper · 07-05-2013 03:28PM

Godge wrote: »

In the current phase of the economic cycle (coming out of a recession) you would expect new jobs to be at the lower end of the scale salary wise given the numbers available for work (in contrast, do you remember how people could name their salary at the peak of the economic cycle).

Why? This seems like a fairly critical assumption to your reasoning and I don't know why you think that would be so.

One of the strongest performing sectors has been IT which generates fairly well paying jobs (for well educated and ideally experienced people).

I agree the averages make it difficult if not impossible to determine how individuals are doing but my point is that how individuals are doing is irrelevant to policies which are applied to everyone. Unless you're creating a tax which applies to "People that started a new job in 2011" then it only matters in the context of overall economic growth. If growth is low, flat or negative then it means increases in one sector are being matched by decreases in others.

vinylbomb · 07-05-2013 03:54PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Ahhh yes, it all becomes clear now! IMHO techy people tend to have very particular and strong views in these "debates", it's something of a trend on here based on this and previous PS-bashing threads. (I bet, if you ever partake of Star Trek, you have more than a passing admiration for the Borg... Personally I'd rather live (and work) in a slightly inefficient world...)

What you do with your Spock costume on a Saturday night is no concern of mine.

What my taxes are spent on is.

You still haven't produced ANY argument as to why performance management is a bad idea.

Again, to reiterate - this is a CP2 thread, which advocated for introduction of performance management and extension of working hours in a contracts.

No Star Trek Please. I HATE that stuff

ardmacha · 07-05-2013 04:10PM

Again, to reiterate - this is a CP2 thread, which advocated for introduction of performance management and extension of working hours in a contracts.

So performance management, which is good and necessary thing if done well and if those who purport to conduct this performance management are also subject to performance management. But then you have an indiscriminate across the board increase in hours proposed which is the exact opposite of management. Howlin is making speeches talking about redundancies and then there is a need for people to work more, which is the exact opposite.

Godge · 07-05-2013 04:26PM

sharper wrote: »

Why? This seems like a fairly critical assumption to your reasoning and I don't know why you think that would be so.

One of the strongest performing sectors has been IT which generates fairly well paying jobs (for well educated and ideally experienced people).

.

(1) Fairly basic supply and demand. Small number of jobs, large number of unemployed people, market wage rate set at a low level (contrast with peak of economy).

(2) Employers careful about taking on new employees, look at part-time/low-wage first before committing long-term

I could go on and reference but can't be bothered, put it like this, it would be fairly unique to see an economy with 14% unemployed having new jobs coming on stream at above-average salary levels. Common sense.

sharper · 07-05-2013 06:02PM

Godge wrote: »

(1) Fairly basic supply and demand. Small number of jobs, large number of unemployed people, market wage rate set at a low level (contrast with peak of economy).

Basic supply and demand does not dominate in a regulated economy such as ours. We have a minimum wage, social welfare and various agreements (e.g. pay rate for electricians) keeping wage levels at levels which are artificial relative to their real demand.

Also remember why your assumption about wage levels for new jobs is so important: You're arguing that new jobs are pushing down the average and that increases are explained by wage increases for people in existing jobs.

I could go on and reference but can't be bothered, put it like this, it would be fairly unique to see an economy with 14% unemployed having new jobs coming on stream at above-average salary levels. Common sense.

Sorry but you can't simply label something "common sense" when you're talking about a complex topic and expect that to be the end of it.

I think you must have a very deficient view of how modern economies work if you think google are creating jobs at below average salary levels because there's a few hundred thousand with no skills google wants on the dole.

barneystinson · 07-05-2013 06:38PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

What you do with your Spock costume on a Saturday night is no concern of mine.

What my taxes are spent on is.

You still haven't produced ANY argument as to why performance management is a bad idea.

Again, to reiterate - this is a CP2 thread, which advocated for introduction of performance management and extension of working hours in a contracts

Think you must be mixing me up with someone else... :rolleyes:

A few of my previous posts on this thread:

barneystinson wrote: »

With respect, and I'm a PS worker who will see my income per hour worked reduced by about 10% over the next ten years under this deal, I see it as a case of agreeing to the least worst deal. The alternative to this deal is at least as unpalatable IMHO.

barneystinson wrote: »

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.

barneystinson wrote: »

But why should that [tax increases] be the answer, when the problem is the cost of the PS is too high, and since this is a requirement of the providers of our finance.
We already have an extremely progressive tax system, where 22% of the people paid 76% of the tax in 2011.

barneystinson wrote: »

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...

barneystinson wrote: »

True, but if our Unions steadfastly stand in the way of meaningful reform taking place, and one accepts the cost of delivering the services has to come down, it doesn't leave much room for anything other than pay cuts...

Godge · 07-05-2013 09:50PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

What you do with your Spock costume on a Saturday night is no concern of mine.

What my taxes are spent on is.

You still haven't produced ANY argument as to why performance management is a bad idea.

Again, to reiterate - this is a CP2 thread, which advocated for introduction of performance management and extension of working hours in a contracts.

No Star Trek Please. I HATE that stuff

ok, we will leave Star Trek out of it, but, "you know nothing, Jon Snow":D.

http://www.pmctraining.com/forms/index.asp?tid=122

have you read anything on performance management in the last ten years, have a look at the above link which demolishes the traditional performance management model.

It advocates a competency-based approach, guess what? That has been the basis of PMDS in the civil service for the last ten years.

Maybe it is not performance management you are thinking about, but performance pay.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_advantages_and_disadvantages_of_performance_related_pay

Even the simple wiki answers lists more disadvantages than advantages.
OK, let us ask the London School of Economics:

http://www.management-issues.com/2009/6/25/research/performance-related-pay-doesnt-encourage-performance.asp

Just look at UK and World Bank studies on the poor experience with public sector performance pay and maybe you will realise that it is not the simple solution to all our problems that so many on here believe.

Godge · 07-05-2013 09:58PM

sharper wrote: »

Basic supply and demand does not dominate in a regulated economy such as ours. We have a minimum wage, social welfare and various agreements (e.g. pay rate for electricians) keeping wage levels at levels which are artificial relative to their real demand.

Also remember why your assumption about wage levels for new jobs is so important: You're arguing that new jobs are pushing down the average and that increases are explained by wage increases for people in existing jobs.

Sorry but you can't simply label something "common sense" when you're talking about a complex topic and expect that to be the end of it.

I think you must have a very deficient view of how modern economies work if you think google are creating jobs at below average salary levels because there's a few hundred thousand with no skills google wants on the dole.

Where did I say google are creating the extra jobs? That is an assumption you made and maybe you can back it up by showing that highly-paid jobs in the IT industry are increasing rapidly to take up all of the new jobs.

If that is your argument it is very weak as numerous studies have shown that for every job created in a multi-national, 2-3 support and service jobs are created in the local economy. So, even if you are right about all the jobs being created by google, they are outweighed by the low-paid knock-on jobs being created.

My assumption is not just "common sense", it is a common sense explanation of the recent trends and data showing what is happening in the Labour Market (think Occam's razor).

Your explanation that all jobs are being created as high-paid positions in google (do they not need new cleaners for the extra offices) while the rest of the economy is not showing an increase in waiters, cleaners, McDonalds and Subway employees, hairdressers, shop assistants as these new highly-paid people spend their money does not make any sense whatsoever.

P.S. Hiring at the minimum wage would reduce the average so what that has to do with supporting your argument baffles me, but then this is not Vulcan so logic does not apply.

skafish · 08-05-2013 12:01AM

Godge wrote: »

Just as equally, job gains lower the average salary if the new jobs are at the lower level.

Looking at the employment information for Ireland for the last year (IBEC and CSO data both confirm the trend), it suggests that private sector employment is rising while public sector employment is falling. At the same time private sector average salaries are rising slightly.

In the current phase of the economic cycle (coming out of a recession) you would expect new jobs to be at the lower end of the scale salary wise given the numbers available for work (in contrast, do you remember how people could name their salary at the peak of the economic cycle).

Common sense would suggest therefore that for those in private sector employment since 2011 or before (and who have not lost their jobs) are seeing rises in the order of around 2% per annum at the moment.

Again, using more common sense, this is backed up by information coming about union-brokered deals in the private sector across the retail, financial services and manufacturing sectors.

But don't let a common sense interpretation of the statistics and data interfere with the generally hysterical level of debate around here.

Of course, the problem with common sense is that it isn't. Common that is. Particularly among certain PS bashers on this forum

sharper · 08-05-2013 08:43AM

Godge wrote: »

Where did I say google are creating the extra jobs? That is an assumption you made and maybe you can back it up by showing that highly-paid jobs in the IT industry are increasing rapidly to take up all of the new jobs.

I used google as an example because they've been hiring aggressively over the last few years. It highlights perfectly why it's difficult to make assumptions about where in the salary scale new jobs will be

Your explanation that all jobs are being created as high-paid positions in google (do they not need new cleaners for the extra offices) while the rest of the economy is not showing an increase in waiters, cleaners, McDonalds and Subway employees, hairdressers, shop assistants as these new highly-paid people spend their money does not make any sense whatsoever.

I am not arguing all jobs being created are at the higher level, I am arguing you cannot assume a new job created must be pushing the average down. I find it bizarre you're trying chastise me for making assumptions when I'm simply providing reasonable example which undercut the assumptions you've made in order to draw conclusions from data you cannot draw conclusions from.

P.S. Hiring at the minimum wage would reduce the average so what that has to do with supporting your argument baffles me, but then this is not Vulcan so logic does not apply.

You argued "basic supply and demand" and I used laws around minimum wage as an example which prevents "basic supply and demand" from applying. In a regulated economy such as ours there many laws and agreements which prevent wage levels responding quickly to underlying demand.

sharper · 08-05-2013 08:46AM

skafish wrote: »

Of course, the problem with common sense is that it isn't. Common that is. Particularly among certain PS bashers on this forum

Declaring something "common sense" is not an argument. Making a series of assumptions about what "must" be happening purely to make your figures add up is not an argument.

vinylbomb · 08-05-2013 09:52AM

skafish wrote: »

Of course, the problem with common sense is that it isn't. Common that is. Particularly among certain PS bashers on this forum

Common sense is not borrowing to pay for something you cannot afford and is unsustainable.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments