Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

sharper · 14-05-2013 04:55PM

Riskymove wrote: »

PS had both early retirement and voluntary redundancy schemes

also had incentivised career break scheme

Those are all voluntary and were all incentivised which is an important distinction.

OT was severly reduced or stopped altogether in many PS areas

Overtime is reduced in some areas yes but nobody is being forced to work a 3 day week or take two weeks unpaid leave. In the public sector some lost the extra income they were making above their core pay whereas in the other their core income has reduced.

As mentioned already the latitude for reducing hours in many areas of the public sector is limited whereas a factory can close 4 days a week, or a shop can half the staff cover.

reduced PS salary scales (and new pension arrangments) were brought in for new staff

Yes though very limited hiring so fairly limited effect on the average.

Pay cut in 2010 and now second pay cut sought

also cuts to alowances etc

Cuts to allowances are good as non-existent.

donalg1 · 14-05-2013 04:56PM

creedp wrote: »

What has been missed as a result of the rabble rousing? That low paid PS workers on €64,999 remain untouched while someone on €65k plus is hit for 5.5% on all income and will have increments suspended? I'm glad you are fully in solidarity with low paid workers on over €60k a year.

In my opinion if graduated pay cuts were being proposed, something like say 1% up to €35k (maybe exempt 1st €15k?) 2% on income between €35k and €65k, 5% between €65k and €100k, €8% between €100k and €150k, and 10% on all income over €150k - I would be much more likely to support as I would perceive it as more equitable. Its not the cut that the real issue - not that I (or anybodt else for that matter) would welcome one of course - is the perceived inequity that is the real no, no for me. What are the chances of that being supported though?? Instead the rabble rousing you refer to it would be more accurate to say the rabble rousing is now about exempting even more PS workers from cuts with an even greater proportion of savings coming from those over €65k. The outomce of that is there's not a snowball in hell chance of the €300m a year being saved - who care though as FG and IBEC will be toasting champagne on the latest 'sucess'!

How many are on €64,999? I wouldnt think there are any at all, and lets be honest here someone on over €65k per year can more afford a pay cut than someone on less than €35k whatever percentage is applied.

Riskymove · 14-05-2013 05:02PM

sharper wrote: »

Those ......

I was just listing the measures in PS

PS is not a private company and cannot act in the same way but many measures have been put in place

beeno67 · 14-05-2013 05:03PM

donalg1 wrote: »

How many are on €64,999? I wouldnt think there are any at all, and lets be honest here someone on over €65k per year can more afford a pay cut than someone on less than €35k whatever percentage is applied.

Really. One earner in family 2 kids earning 65K can afford a bigger pay cut than a single worker earning 35K?

Riskymove · 14-05-2013 05:05PM

donalg1 wrote: »

How many are on €64,999? .

how many what?

nice_guy80 · 14-05-2013 05:46PM

Riskymove wrote: »

PS had both early retirement and voluntary redundancy schemes

also had incentivised career break scheme

OT was severly reduced or stopped altogether in many PS areas

reduced PS salary scales (and new pension arrangments) were brought in for new staff

Pay cut in 2010 and now second pay cut sought

also cuts to alowances etc

teachers career break conditions are very poor
it costs a teacher a good bit of money to take a year off

Godge · 14-05-2013 06:19PM

sharper wrote: »

We've discussed this - this is an assumption you have made. One of the best performing sectors is IT which rarely creates jobs at "low rates" relative to the Irish economy. You want other people to disprove your assumptions.

So when new jobs are created they are mostly higher-paid jobs?

antoobrien wrote: »

Unless there is specific targeting of higher paid employees when cutting jobs, any job losses will mean an increase in the average wage as the bulk of employees get paid lower amounts. This is borne out in the breakdown of the numbers of people in the various PS wage, as well as the revenue income distribution stats both of which were posted in various threads before.

So when old jobs are lost they are mostly lower-paid jobs?

That would mean most people returning to employment do so in a job that pays more than the one they previously lost. Something doesn't add up lads.

sharper · 14-05-2013 06:52PM

Godge wrote: »

So when new jobs are created they are mostly higher-paid jobs?

It's like you didn't even read the previous discussion.

No I said that you don't know if new jobs are above or below the average until you know which sector or sectors are the ones recovering.

You're the one that's made a blanket assumption that new jobs must be pushing down the average (because...reasons) and that other people must explain this (i.e. disprove something you have assumed, not proved yourself).

I have not stated new jobs are either above or below the average, just that need we need information about those new jobs before we can account for their impact.

So when old jobs are lost they are mostly lower-paid jobs?

It depends on the sector they're lost from.

That would mean most people returning to employment do so in a job that pays more than the one they previously lost.

If construction workers retrain en masse for IT then sure. Whether that's happening or not, requires data.

greenoverred · 14-05-2013 09:12PM

beeno67 wrote: »

Really. One earner in family 2 kids earning 65K can afford a bigger pay cut than a single worker earning 35K?

Yes obviously they can. Whats the take home pay of one compared to the other

beeno67 · 14-05-2013 09:30PM

greenoverred wrote: »

Yes obviously they can. Whats the take home pay of one compared to the other

The person earning 65k takes home about 45k for 4 people to live on

The single person earning 35k takes home 27k for one person to live on

The single person earning 35K would seem more able to take a cut to me to be honest.

ucd.1985 · 14-05-2013 09:36PM

beeno67 wrote: »

The person earning 65k takes home about 45k for 4 people to live on

The single person earning 35k takes home 27k for one person to live on

The single person earning 35K would seem more able to take a cut to me to be honest.

Why should the single person effectively have to subsidise the other worker, his wife and kids?

beeno67 · 14-05-2013 09:40PM

ucd.1985 wrote: »

Why should the single person effectively have to subsidise the other worker, his wife and kids?

Why should the person supporting a spouse and kids then also have to subsidise the wealthier single worker?

ardmacha · 14-05-2013 09:44PM

The single person earning 35K would seem more able to take a cut to me to be honest.

This is not the 1950s, who the employee lives with is not a proper basis for deciding how much they are paid. If someone inherits a few Euro from their Granny, do you then use that to cut their salary, as they can "afford it"? These issues are appropriate for the tax system or the welfare system, employees should be paid for the job, not how they spend their non working time.

greenoverred · 14-05-2013 09:50PM

beeno67 wrote: »

The person earning 65k takes home about 45k for 4 people to live on

The single person earning 35k takes home 27k for one person to live on

The single person earning 35K would seem more able to take a cut to me to be honest.

No. Its nearer 50,000. Also getting about 3 grand children's allowance. Do you think running a household with 2 adults and 2 kids is equal to four times the cost of one adult living alone.

ucd.1985 · 14-05-2013 09:57PM

beeno67 wrote: »

Why should the person supporting a spouse and kids then also have to subsidise the wealthier single worker?

He doesn't. They do the same amount of work.

Single person chooses not to have a family.

sharper · 14-05-2013 09:58PM

beeno67 wrote: »

Why should the person supporting a spouse and kids then also have to subsidise the wealthier single worker?

People are paid the market rate for their labour, or some approximation of it, which generally the minimum that someone with the skills necessary to do the job is willing and able to do it for.

In turn people take what they're paid and purchase goods and services for the minimum that someone is willing and able to provide what's needed.

You wouldn't buy a pint of inferior quality or more expensive milk just because the guy has a family to support when there's someone right next to him selling better/cheaper milk.

It would not be correct to say the guy selling the better or cheaper milk is being "subsidised" by the one with more overheads/more expenses.

It's not correct in this case either.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" devalues ability and subsidises need. Consequently you end up with a lot of the latter and less of the former.

Farmer Pudsey · 14-05-2013 09:58PM

Single person on 35K take home=27700

Married couple one earner 65K take home= 45600+ 3360CA.

You can make up Your own mind as to who can afford the cut.

barneystinson · 14-05-2013 10:09PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Single person on 35K take home=27700

Married couple one earner 65K take home= 45600+ 3360CA.

You can make up Your own mind as to who can afford the cut.

Actually if its PS we're talking about (and we are) the single person on 35k takes home 25,581, and the couple with 2 kids and one income of 65k take home 41,603.

Farmer Pudsey · 14-05-2013 10:22PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Actually if its PS we're talking about (and we are) the single person on 35k takes home 25,581, and the couple with 2 kids and one income of 65k take home 41,603.

If both of these are private sector workers they may well be taking home less if they are making private pension contributions, also if either worker gets sick they will only receive state sick benefit and more than likely work longer hours and have less holidays entitlements. If they work extra hours they may receive no extra pay and may have no security of employment.

greenoverred · 14-05-2013 10:31PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If both of these are private sector workers they may well be taking home less if they are making private pension contributions, also if either worker gets sick they will only receive state sick benefit and more than likely work longer hours and have less holidays entitlements. If they work extra hours they may receive no extra pay and may have no security of employment.

a lot of if's and maybe's for the private sector employees. But your definite that they will only receive state sick benefit

barneystinson · 14-05-2013 10:32PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If both of these are private sector workers they may well be taking home less if they are making private pension contributions, also if either worker gets sick they will only receive state sick benefit and more than likely work longer hours and have less holidays entitlements. If they work extra hours they may receive no extra pay and may have no security of employment.

What relevance does that have to a debate about which PS worker(s) can afford to take a paycut?

Try to keep up...

creedp · 14-05-2013 10:37PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If both of these are private sector workers they may well be taking home less if they are making private pension contributions, also if either worker gets sick they will only receive state sick benefit and more than likely work longer hours and have less holidays entitlements. If they work extra hours they may receive no extra pay and may have no security of employment.

Chr1st Farmer .. the issue being considered is whether a PS worker on say €60k should be fully protected from a pay cut while someone who is on €65k should be hit for 5.5%. It has nothing to do with whether a private sector is obviously earning less [more - freudian slip!!] and paying more for a pension working longer hours for no money and worried on a daily basis about being made unemployed. No matter what is being discussed .......

creedp · 14-05-2013 10:53PM

donalg1 wrote: »

How many are on €64,999? I wouldnt think there are any at all, and lets be honest here someone on over €65k per year can more afford a pay cut than someone on less than €35k whatever percentage is applied.

Im looking at this in the context than CP2 is asking the minority of PS workers to vote in favour of taking a substantial pay cut and an increment freeze for themselves so that low paid people who could be earning up to €64,999 are totally protected. The corrolary is that some low paid workers are fine with voting in favour of pay cuts for others so long as they get more favourable deals for themselves. So my view is 'turkey's dont vote for Christmas' so just go ahead and legislate for pay cuts and drop the charade of a so called deal.

Im waiting for the LRC to pull the same trick with Bus Eireann - ah yes you drivers will just agree to take a pay cut so the terms and conditions of the rest of your colleagues can be fully protected in this cost savings scheme.

Godge · 15-05-2013 12:28AM

sharper wrote: »

It's like you didn't even read the previous discussion.

No I said that you don't know if new jobs are above or below the average until you know which sector or sectors are the ones recovering.

You're the one that's made a blanket assumption that new jobs must be pushing down the average (because...reasons) and that other people must explain this (i.e. disprove something you have assumed, not proved yourself).

I have not stated new jobs are either above or below the average, just that need we need information about those new jobs before we can account for their impact.

It depends on the sector they're lost from.

If construction workers retrain en masse for IT then sure. Whether that's happening or not, requires data.

For the last time, call it common sense, call it something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Normally as economies exit recessions, new jobs are created at low wages. In Ireland we are seeing increasing employment coupled with increased average salaries. The hypothesis I put forward assumes that normal economic logic is applying and that new jobs are being created at low wages while people in existing jobs are seeing pay increases. That is the simple logical explanation.

Your alternative hypotheses make no sense whatsoever and quickly fall foul of the Occam's Razor principle as they are based on assumptions not empirically found anywhere and certainly not empirically found in today's Ireland.

Oh, and the anecdotal evidence backs up my hypothesis making it ever more unlikely that yours is true. But hey, keep pretending.

sharper · 15-05-2013 09:04AM

Godge wrote: »

For the last time, call it common sense, call it something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

You can call it whatever you want but you're simply projecting assumptions onto the situation without any supporting data and then insisting other people need to explain them.

You keep pointing to the figures about salaries increasing and claiming that this proves people are getting pay rises because of your assumption jobs are being created at below average levels.

Oh, and the anecdotal evidence backs up my hypothesis making it ever more unlikely that yours is true. But hey, keep pretending.

I'm not "pretending" anything, I'm asking for a discussion based on data not assumptions or "I heard someone got a pay rise". I have not claimed new jobs are being created at above or below average levels just that I don't know and neither do you. However you insist you do know and want to use that to further arguments about public sector pay levels.

donalg1 · 15-05-2013 09:08AM

beeno67 wrote: »

Really. One earner in family 2 kids earning 65K can afford a bigger pay cut than a single worker earning 35K?

Do you mean one earning 65k with 2 kids and one earning 35k with two kids, seriously, who do you think could afford the pay cut, I would say it was the person on 65k seeing as they earn a hell of a lot more.

The post I was replying to never specified anyones personal details neither did mine. So I dont know what your point or question is about at all.

donalg1 · 15-05-2013 09:14AM

creedp wrote: »

Im looking at this in the context than CP2 is asking the minority of PS workers to vote in favour of taking a substantial pay cut and an increment freeze for themselves so that low paid people who could be earning up to €64,999 are totally protected. The corrolary is that some low paid workers are fine with voting in favour of pay cuts for others so long as they get more favourable deals for themselves. So my view is 'turkey's dont vote for Christmas' so just go ahead and legislate for pay cuts and drop the charade of a so called deal.

Im waiting for the LRC to pull the same trick with Bus Eireann - ah yes you drivers will just agree to take a pay cut so the terms and conditions of the rest of your colleagues can be fully protected in this cost savings scheme.

The part highlighted above is the reason this 65k figure was chosen I would say as they know that by putting the line here the majority by some margin are under it thereby increasing the chances that it will be accepted.

And if it was reversed in that those above were protected and the majority below were to be given pay cuts then those above would be voting yes, they wouldnt then be too interested in standing together with their colleagues.

Riskymove · 15-05-2013 09:58AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Do you mean one earning 65k with 2 kids and one earning 35k with two kids, seriously, who do you think could afford the pay cut, I would say it was the person on 65k seeing as they earn a hell of a lot more.

The post I was replying to never specified anyones personal details neither did mine. So I dont know what your point or question is about at all.

he is saying that someone on 35k with no kids could better afford a paycut than someone on 65k and 2 kids - basically that context is everything

the amount you earn is not the only factor in how much you can afford to lose

some people have kids some dont
some have large mortgages some don't
and so on

at the end of the day we cannot analyse every individual case...but neither can we generalise about everyone over 65k

donalg1 · 15-05-2013 10:37AM

Riskymove wrote: »

he is saying that someone on 35k with no kids could better afford a paycut than someone on 65k and 2 kids - basically that context is everything

the amount you earn is not the only factor in how much you can afford to lose

some people have kids some dont
some have large mortgages some don't
and so on

at the end of the day we cannot analyse every individual case...but neither can we generalise about everyone over 65k

Ah now I get you, but I still am of the opinion that someone on the lower end should not be open to cuts under any new agreement but at the same time I do see how it can be unfair to cut someone on €67k 5.5% and someone on less than 65k 0%. The cuts above the line should have been staggered better, as in more %'s but starting at a lower rate, e.g. between 65 - 70k 1.5% and 70 - 75k 2% or something similiar.

I still dont think there should be any cuts whatsoever. They say they need to save €1bn over 3 years, yet there are so many other places this could be saved other than the PS pay bill. The troika themselves have even said they dont have any conditions stating that there has to be savings of €1bn in the PS pay bill, it is instead coming from the Government.

sharper · 15-05-2013 11:22AM

On the topic of the value of job security and "waving colleagues out the door"

Job fears at Pfizer's Cork plant as staff called to management meeting

Something workers in the public sector are completely unfamiliar with is the feeling that comes with being invited to a meeting in the morning and not knowing if you'll have a job by lunch time.

Compare and contrast with the long lasting national level discussions around single pay cuts.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments