Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

donalg1 · 15-05-2013 09:07PM

sharper wrote: »

The public sector enjoys a pay premium over the private sector, the numbers simply do not support what you're saying.

I'm simply saying many chose job security and a low salary I'm not making comparisons.

skafish · 15-05-2013 11:28PM

donalg1 wrote: »

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.

The highlight above show the truth of what is happening here.... FG are using the requirement to save €1B as an excuse to destroy the terms and conditions of the PS, while leaving their cronies alone.

Nobody has said the PS is perfect, in any organization there is room for improvement. Those measures proposed under CP2 will have the opposite effect; instead of improving things, it will result in the better people in the PS leaving for better paid jobs in the private industry (as have at least 7 of my colleagues in the last few months), and will do nothing to improve productivity. In fact, in most cases, it will reduce productivity as people will feel that if they are being paid less, they will do less.

creedp · 15-05-2013 11:40PM

sarumite wrote: »

I would have said more like 95% lower with weekly public floggings. :D:rolleyes:

I missed this beaut earlier! Maith an buachail - you have a such an afinity for comedy you should really consider a career in entertainment when you grow up.

skafish · 15-05-2013 11:43PM

If we had more of this:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-who-claimed-43k-in-welfare-payments-using-brothers-card-avoids-jail-594544.html and this:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-and-600-fine-for-man-guilty-of-22k-welfare-fraud-594486.html
with proper penalties (ie full repayment of the money obtained by fraud, with interest) there would be no need to cut PS salaries and conditions further

Godge · 15-05-2013 11:55PM

sharper wrote: »

It's quite clear that it doesn't.

The previous cuts also had extensive national debate. The simple point is that a public sector worker knows months in advance of any change to their terms and conditions while a private sector worker can come to work in the morning and learn their job is gone completely.

Your desire to distract from that point says plenty.

And you used Pfizer as an example when the whole world has known for years that the patents would run out and the company would be in trouble. The workers who didn't suspect anything must have been going around with fingers in their ears.

Godge · 16-05-2013 12:10AM

sharper wrote: »

The public sector enjoys a pay premium over the private sector, the numbers simply do not support what you're saying.

We have been through this before a million times.

(1) Most studies are from before 2009.
(2) Most studies don't take account of education, age and type of job
(3) Not one study takes into account the earnings of the self-employed in the private sector
(4) The public sector is not involved in low wage parts of the economy, very little retail and restaurant, most cleaning contracted out etc.
(5) The public sector is heavily involved and weighted towards jobs that require extensive education from teachers to doctors, nurses to lecturers etc.
(6) Studies only focus on earned income, there are any people out there in the private sector with substantial income from unearned sources.
(7) There has been little variation between pay increases over the last 25 years to public servants meaning that there are likely to be a significant group underpaid as well as a significant group overpaid but because nobody has done any proper comparison, nobody knows.

Having worked in both sectors I have seen a lot of the above up close. Show me a study that takes all of this into account and I will be interested.

antoobrien · 16-05-2013 08:59AM

tayto lover wrote: »

How would I have figures?
I played golf with a fireman and a garda on a regular basis and i was earning almost double what they got. They were open about it. I worked in a brewery then. I also didn't work nights.

What type of work were you doing at the time, manual work or some form of skilled work e.g. brewer, beancounting, employee harassment health & safety. Without that kind of information we may as well be complaining that a retail worker gets paid less than an AP. I could say that I get paid more than a receptionist, but then one would expect a software engineer to get paid more.

sarumite · 16-05-2013 09:14AM

Godge wrote: »

We have been through this before a million times.

(1) Most studies are from before 2009.
(2) Most studies don't take account of education, age and type of job
(3) Not one study takes into account the earnings of the self-employed in the private sector
(4) The public sector is not involved in low wage parts of the economy, very little retail and restaurant, most cleaning contracted out etc.
(5) The public sector is heavily involved and weighted towards jobs that require extensive education from teachers to doctors, nurses to lecturers etc.
(6) Studies only focus on earned income, there are any people out there in the private sector with substantial income from unearned sources.
(7) There has been little variation between pay increases over the last 25 years to public servants meaning that there are likely to be a significant group underpaid as well as a significant group overpaid but because nobody has done any proper comparison, nobody knows.

Having worked in both sectors I have seen a lot of the above up close. Show me a study that takes all of this into account and I will be interested.

I remember reading this article a few months ago....you may find it interesting.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/esri-disputes-cso-figures-on-public-and-private-pay-1.1255581

"The Central Statistics Office has significantly underestimated the premium public sector workers earn over their private sector counterparts, an ESRI paper has stated. Last October, the CSO found that, when adjusted for a host of factors – such as education levels and experience – public employees earned between 6-19 per cent more than their counterparts in the private sector in 2010."

"They find that average public sector worker pay was almost 17 per cent higher than in the private sector when relevant factors were taken into account."

"A year ago the European Central Bank attempted to compare public and private sector wages in a number of euro area countries. It found that in most northern European countries, public pay was lower than in the private sector, but in southern Europe and Ireland the opposite was the case."

sharper · 16-05-2013 09:45AM

Godge wrote: »

We have been through this before a million times.

You can invoke various factors to try and explain the pay premium but that doesn't dispute the existence of the pay premium.

donalg asserted people chose low wages as a trade for job security in the public sector. This is clearly not the case however you want to explain the higher public sector wages they still exist.

ardmacha · 16-05-2013 09:48AM

such as education levels and experience – public employees earned between 6-19 per cent more than their counterparts in the private sector in 2010."

Which of course means that those with a 6% gap then are now about par and will be 5% below in 2016 without paycuts.

"They find that average public sector worker pay was almost 17 per cent higher than in the private sector when relevant factors were taken into account."

This criticism was extremely suspect. It was based on the idea that teachers in small schools should be paid less than those in big schools. The corollary of that is that the government should close large Garda stations and schools and move staff to smaller ones! It also follows that researchers in the ESRI, a small organisation, should be paid less than those in other bodies like UCD or the Central Bank that are bigger!

sharper · 16-05-2013 09:48AM

Godge wrote: »

And you used Pfizer as an example when the whole world has known for years that the patents would run out and the company would be in trouble. The workers who didn't suspect anything must have been going around with fingers in their ears.

Let's compare and contrast here:

1. In the private sector you're supposed to be an expert on international patent law and the global pharmaceutical business and predict years in advance what the effect of global demand will have on your job in Cork in a company with a global presence. Not knowing your job is going to disappear in mid 2013 constitutes "fingers in your ears".

2. In the public sector any change whatsoever to your terms and conditions dominate the news cycle at a national for months in advance with extensive high level meetings to thrash it all out.

Larbre34 · 16-05-2013 11:39AM

sharper wrote: »

Let's compare and contrast here:

1. In the private sector you're supposed to be an expert on international patent law and the global pharmaceutical business and predict years in advance what the effect of global demand will have on your job in Cork in a company with a global presence. Not knowing your job is going to disappear in mid 2013 constitutes "fingers in your ears".

2. In the public sector any change whatsoever to your terms and conditions dominate the news cycle at a national for months in advance with extensive high level meetings to thrash it all out.

Thats about the size of it.

So long as the status quo keeps giving Marc Coleman a mickey-fit then we're on the right path IMO

Godge · 16-05-2013 12:54PM

sharper wrote: »

You can invoke various factors to try and explain the pay premium but that doesn't dispute the existence of the pay premium.

donalg asserted people chose low wages as a trade for job security in the public sector. This is clearly not the case however you want to explain the higher public sector wages they still exist.

Fair point but this goes back to an (admittedly unlikely) example you constantly use of where all the new jobs in the private sector are highly qualified in Google and paying huge wages pushing up the average wage. If all of the jobs old and new in the public sector are highly qualified then a pay premium is justified, it then becomes a question of how much that pay premium should be rather than railing about its existence?

Godge · 16-05-2013 12:59PM

sharper wrote: »

Let's compare and contrast here:

1. In the private sector you're supposed to be an expert on international patent law and the global pharmaceutical business and predict years in advance what the effect of global demand will have on your job in Cork in a company with a global presence. Not knowing your job is going to disappear in mid 2013 constitutes "fingers in your ears".

The patent cliff and its potential effects on Ireland have been known about for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_cliff

Here is an article from 2010 Business and Finance which is probably when I became aware of it.

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/bf/2010/9/interviewsfeatssept2010/pharmaceuticalindustryisthisth

Those in the industry will have known about it for years.

sharper wrote: »

2. In the public sector any change whatsoever to your terms and conditions dominate the news cycle at a national for months in advance with extensive high level meetings to thrash it all out.

On the other hand, in 2010, the Government was promising the public sector that they had seen an end to pay cuts. The 2013 discussions are a change to that and a change in relative recent times as the talk only started this year.

So to sum up, yes, somebody working in the pharma industry should have been well aware of the problem and the threat to their job for years.

sarumite · 16-05-2013 01:01PM

Godge wrote: »

Fair point but this goes back to an (admittedly unlikely) example you constantly use of where all the new jobs in the private sector are highly qualified in Google and paying huge wages pushing up the average wage. If all of the jobs old and new in the public sector are highly qualified then a pay premium is justified, it then becomes a question of how much that pay premium should be rather than railing about its existence?

My understanding of a pay premium is that it is the premium after education, experience, responsibilies etc have been accounted for.

sharper · 16-05-2013 01:07PM

Godge wrote: »

Fair point but this goes back to an (admittedly unlikely) example you constantly use of where all the new jobs in the private sector are highly qualified in Google and paying huge wages pushing up the average wage.

The example is purely to illustrate that you need to know where the new jobs are before you can even start to determine what their impact on the average might be.

If all of the jobs old and new in the public sector are highly qualified then a pay premium is justified, it then becomes a question of how much that pay premium should be rather than railing about its existence?

Other economies have no pay premium for their public sectors. In fact it's negatively correlated with economic health so it's a matter for concern.

Godge · 16-05-2013 01:08PM

sarumite wrote: »

I remember reading this article a few months ago....you may find it interesting.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/esri-disputes-cso-figures-on-public-and-private-pay-1.1255581

"The Central Statistics Office has significantly underestimated the premium public sector workers earn over their private sector counterparts, an ESRI paper has stated. Last October, the CSO found that, when adjusted for a host of factors – such as education levels and experience – public employees earned between 6-19 per cent more than their counterparts in the private sector in 2010."

"They find that average public sector worker pay was almost 17 per cent higher than in the private sector when relevant factors were taken into account."

"A year ago the European Central Bank attempted to compare public and private sector wages in a number of euro area countries. It found that in most northern European countries, public pay was lower than in the private sector, but in southern Europe and Ireland the opposite was the case."

The private sector economies of southern Europe and Ireland are very different to the northern European countries (e.g. high levels of small self-employed tax-dodging workers in southern Europe and Ireland who don't show up in the statistics while every Dane pays their taxes in full and on time) so the latter one is very hard.

Secondly, if you read gender studies the male/female earning gap is non-existent in the public sector but in southern Europe (and Ireland) it is still large in the private sector (again don't think you will see a gap like that in Scandanavia or Denmark). The public sector should not be importing the gender discrimination from the private sector (which I was surprised to see still existed when I left the public sector some years ago).

The ESRI work and the Maynooth work are both suspect and have flaws because of certain assumptions. The papers themselves set out the assumptions and the limitations of their work but funnily enough journalists, bloggers and boards posters never seem to read those bits (or maybe they don't understand them)

sharper · 16-05-2013 01:09PM

Godge wrote: »

The private sector economies of southern Europe and Ireland are very different to the northern European countries (e.g. high levels of small self-employed tax-dodging workers in southern Europe and Ireland who don't show up in the statistics while every Dane pays their taxes in full and on time) so the latter one is very hard.

Citation needed please.

sharper · 16-05-2013 01:14PM

Godge wrote: »

On the other hand, in 2010, the Government was promising the public sector that they had seen an end to pay cuts.

If you mean the Croke Park deal then it was end to cuts for the duration of the agreement. The duration of the agreement is now coming to an end.

The patent cliff and its potential effects on Ireland have been known about for years.

That's right Pfizer workers, you might have thought you had a permanent job but you had your silly little fingers stuck in your silly little ears and couldn't see the obvious.

None of their mortgage debt or plans for the future matter because they have known.

Meanwhile we have months of discussion about public sector worker's mortgage debts, their plans for the future and gosh darn it they just can't take a cut so could everyone else just pay some more tax so they don't have to.

Godge · 16-05-2013 01:14PM

sarumite wrote: »

My understanding of a pay premium is that it is the premium after education, experience, responsibilies etc have been accounted for.

Depends on the statistic used, the methodology and the assumptions made. It would be very difficult to do a study that takes all of the factors into account.

I mean, think about this. Clerical Workers in the public sector in Ireland are well-paid by comparison to their private sector counterparts, yet they are low-paid compared to their European counterparts, yet the pay premium in Ireland over the private sector is higher in Ireland than elsewhere.

The only logical conclusion if all of the above is true is that the private sector in Ireland are paid very low by European standards but again that is not backed up by other studies and by reports of Ireland having priced its labour out of FDI in the 2000s because of high wages when most of these studies were done.

A mess of claim and counter-claim which allows all on this thread to say they are right.

Godge · 16-05-2013 01:16PM

sharper wrote: »

If you mean the Croke Park deal then it was end to cuts for the duration of the agreement. The duration of the agreement is now coming to an end.

The promise of no pay cuts was until the middle of next year.

sharper wrote: »

That's right Pfizer workers, you might have thought you had a permanent job but you had your silly little fingers stuck in your silly little ears and couldn't see the obvious.

None of their mortgage debt or plans for the future matter because they have known.

Meanwhile we have months of discussion about public sector worker's mortgage debts, their plans for the future and gosh darn it they just can't take a cut so could everyone else just pay some more tax so they don't have to.

The only reason we have months of discussions about public sector workers is that we are all involved in their pay as taxpayers. If we owned Pfizer we would have the same discussion. Look at the way nobody cared about bankers pay until they ruined the country and we had to take them over and pay for them.

sharper · 16-05-2013 01:32PM

Godge wrote: »

The promise of no pay cuts was until the middle of next year.

And rather than wait for the agreement to expire before discussing the next one the negotiations began as the old one drew to a close, it's perfectly sensible.

The deal also protects public sector workers from compulsory redundancy. The end date for it is 2014 so the government could just as easily have interpreted that as Jan 1 2014 and let go the number of staff needed to meet its targets on Jan 2 2014.

Instead it took a far more reasonable (from a public sector worker benefit perspective) and negotiated for the next deal while workers still retained the protections of the old one.

sarumite · 16-05-2013 01:36PM

Godge wrote: »

The private sector economies of southern Europe and Ireland are very different to the northern European countries (e.g. high levels of small self-employed tax-dodging workers in southern Europe and Ireland who don't show up in the statistics while every Dane pays their taxes in full and on time) so the latter one is very hard.

Denmark isn't in the Eurozone,

Secondly, if you read gender studies the male/female earning gap is non-existent in the public sector but in southern Europe (and Ireland) it is still large in the private sector (again don't think you will see a gap like that in Scandanavia or Denmark). The public sector should not be importing the gender discrimination from the private sector (which I was surprised to see still existed when I left the public sector some years ago).

True, although that's a result government policy that is very much a characteristic of the nordic countries as opposed to northern europe as a whole.

The ESRI work and the Maynooth work are both suspect and have flaws because of certain assumptions. The papers themselves set out the assumptions and the limitations of their work but funnily enough journalists, bloggers and boards posters never seem to read those bits (or maybe they don't understand them)

Since you have obviously read the ESRI report and understand it and have drawn a conclusion based on this, perhaps you could oblige by giving your reasons for the work being suspect. I will admit when I was sitting on the DART reading that article, I didn't have the ESRI report readily available to read it myself.

sarumite · 16-05-2013 01:44PM

Godge wrote: »

I mean, think about this. Clerical Workers in the public sector in Ireland are well-paid by comparison to their private sector counterparts, yet they are low-paid compared to their European counterparts,

I assume you have a source to back this up.

itzme · 16-05-2013 02:01PM

sharper wrote: »

And rather than wait for the agreement to expire before discussing the next one the negotiations began as the old one drew to a close, it's perfectly sensible.

The deal also protects public sector workers from compulsory redundancy. The end date for it is 2014 so the government could just as easily have interpreted that as Jan 1 2014 and let go the number of staff needed to meet its targets on Jan 2 2014.

Instead it took a far more reasonable (from a public sector worker benefit perspective) and negotiated for the next deal while workers still retained the protections of the old one.

I draw your attention to Page 6 section "Public Service Pay Policy" of the croke park agreement http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Public-Service-Agreement-2010-2014-Final-for-print-June-2010.pdf
and then to the proposed start date of croke park 2 (page 2)
http://www.lrc.ie/documents/2013/LRC%20Proposals%20_FINAL.pdf

It's perfectly sensible to start negotiations on the next agreement during the current one. In fact it is by far the best course of action. However, the talks also included a re-negotiation of the current agreement as I've shown above. Your point on it being beneficial to re-negotiate while they still retained the protections of the old one is obviously false if the protections were being threatened with removal if they didn't agree to the new "agreement".

sharper · 16-05-2013 02:32PM

itzme wrote: »

It's perfectly sensible to start negotiations on the next agreement during the current one. In fact it is by far the best course of action. However, the talks also included a re-negotiation of the current agreement as I've shown above. Your point on it being beneficial to re-negotiate while they still retained the protections of the old one is obviously false if the protections were being threatened with removal if they didn't agree to the new "agreement".

The earlier the reductions kick in then the less that needs to be cut, it's again in the public sector worker's benefit for the next round of cuts to begin now. You can agree to a 4% cut starting this year or a 5% cut starting next year.

There are far far worse options (for public sector workers) which would be unambiguously permitted by the agreement (like firing a bunch of staff the day after it ends). Where the government has signaled it might act ambiguously outside the agreement (remember nothing actually been done yet and the agreement has only slightly over 6 months before it could be said to expire) it's been to workers benefit, not detriment.

As of today public sector workers are protected from compulsory redundancy and are being permitted to negotiate from a position where removal that is simply a threat which can be bargained for. As of next year the protection expires naturally and there's no need to bargain for anything or threaten anything, it's gone.

Paulzx · 16-05-2013 02:40PM

sharper wrote: »

And rather than wait for the agreement to expire before discussing the next one the negotiations began as the old one drew to a close, it's perfectly sensible.

The deal also protects public sector workers from compulsory redundancy. The end date for it is 2014 so the government could just as easily have interpreted that as Jan 1 2014 and let go the number of staff needed to meet its targets on Jan 2 2014.

Instead it took a far more reasonable (from a public sector worker benefit perspective) and negotiated for the next deal while workers still retained the protections of the old one.

That's a completely inaccurate post on the relationship between the existing Croke Park deal and the so called Croke Park 2 deal.

The Taoiseach is on record in the Dail saying that the existing Croke Park deal was to be unilaterally abolished (even though it ran until the middle of next year) if there was no agreement in the talks on CPA 2.

That's a completley different scenario to the one you have painted of planning a new deal before the exisiting one ran out. Entering negotiations and planning for when the deal ran out is a perfectly acceptable and intelligent thing to do but it's completely different to reneging on an agreement.

There was also provisions within the existing deal for the government to exit it early. None of these were used

sharper · 16-05-2013 02:56PM

Paulzx wrote: »

The Taoiseach is on record in the Dail saying that the existing Croke Park deal was to be unilaterally abolished (even though it ran until the middle of next year) if there was no agreement in the talks on CPA 2.

Which hasn't actually happened. The public sector unions are permitted to retain protections which will expire anyway as a bargaining chip, which is very much in their favour.

Public sector workers did not get called to an early morning meeting and suddenly learn their terms and conditions changed much less that their jobs were gone.

It's quite clear the government needs to secure an agreement on savings to get the next round of troika money, politicians are doing what politicians do which is talk a lot and do little. If the government does unilaterally cut pay or make staff redundant before the end of the year then you can say yes the agreement has been violated within a few months of its end.

Riskymove · 16-05-2013 03:09PM

sharper wrote: »

Public sector workers did not get called to an early morning meeting and suddenly learn their terms and conditions changed ..

they did for the last paycut and the pension levy

Godge · 16-05-2013 03:10PM

sarumite wrote: »

I assume you have a source to back this up.

The study relative to the private sector was done by the ESRI or CSO, the study relative to the rest of Europe was done by the OECD, both of which have been referenced on this site (and thread) many times. I don't keep bookmarks for these studies myself but a simple google search would find them for you.

I do provide a lot of citation and references to back up what I am saying but it seems the default position for many on this thread is not to do so.

P.S. I was only using them to illustrate a point that there are a number of contradictory findings out there. Incidentally both studies found the opposite was the case for senior management, better paid than the European counterparts but less paid than their Irish private sector counterparts but who knows?

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments