Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

1…151152154156157…159

Comments

  • #4592
    barneystinson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,686 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Gryire wrote: »
    No core pay has been cut by 16%. Fact.

    Nope. Just one example is all I need, yeah?

    Take a senior civil servant (between 160k - 200k).

    Pay cut from 1 Jan 2010 of 12% on all salary.

    Pension levy, which IS a pay cut, of around 9%.

    That's combined pay cuts of about 20%.


  • #4593
    Gryire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 251 ✭✭Gryire


    barneystinson wrote: »
    Nope. Just one example is all I need, yeah?

    Take a senior civil servant (between 160k - 200k).

    Pay cut from 1 Jan 2010 of 12% on all salary.

    Pension levy, which IS a pay cut, of around 9%.

    That's combined pay cuts of about 20%.

    Pension levy is not a pay cut. It is a small contribution to a gold plated pension. My private pension which cost me 12.5% of my salary was halved in value as a result of an inept dept of finance and regulators (all public service employees). These are things we have to live with. The most overpaid public servants in the world got a 12% pay cut. It should have been 50%!


  • #4594
    Vizzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭Vizzy


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Obviously not
    barneystinson wrote: »
    I thought pretty much everyone had agreed that the pension levy is a pay cut..?


  • #4595
    Fizzical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 262 ✭✭Fizzical


    Gryire wrote: »
    Pension levy is not a pay cut. It is a small contribution to a gold plated pension. My private pension which cost me 12.5% of my salary was halved in value as a result of an inept dept of finance and regulators (all public service employees). These are things we have to live with. The most overpaid public servants in the world got a 12% pay cut. It should have been 50%!
    You obviously (a) don't know what the pension levy is and (b) didn't read ardmacha's links.

    From the Govt document on the pension-related levy:
    The purpose of this Act is to introduce a number of financial
    emergency measures in the public interest. These are the
    making of a new deduction from the remuneration of public
    servants who are members of a public service pension
    scheme...The Act
    provides that savings accruing from these measures will be
    remitted to the benefit of the Exchequer.
    The Regulations will stipulate that the
    deductions are not to be paid into a pension fund but
    remitted for the benefit of the Exchequer as provided for in
    section 4 of the Act.
    Additional pension benefits do not arise as a result of
    this deduction.
    The deduction applies to all public servants as defined in the
    Act, including those in funded (pension) schemes. However, the
    deduction must not be paid into the scheme fund, but
    remitted to the benefit of the Exchequer as provided by
    section 4 of the Act.

    Read the documentation.

    The government never pretended that the pension-related deduction had anything to do with contributing towards a pension. As above, they stated clearly that it was a new deduction from salary in order to make savings.

    Now, a deduction from salary so an employer can make savings, a deduction that occurs only on paper, the money not even being shifted from one dept to another but is just not paid out in the first place - I wonder what we should call that?


  • #4596
    Fizzical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 262 ✭✭Fizzical


    handlemaster wrote: »
    its a pity the teachers will aggree with the pay cuts in the end. It would be interesting to see the gov putting in legislation. Will the teachers hold out ? I dont think so. They must realise they are on a good number, especially the permanent ones.Easy hours , good money and lots of holidays.
    The govt has stated it will enact the legislation in any case.

    The legislation states that now and in the future if workers don't agree to deals produced during collective bargaining, that the minister will cut pay and change conditions anyway notwithstanding any previous agreements made, or any previous laws, or statutes, or verbal or written agreement or contractual arrangement.

    The legislation also states that the minister is cutting the pensions of people already retired notwithstanding any previous agreements made, or any previous laws, or statutes, or verbal or written agreement or contractual arrangement.

    Nothing to do with the Haddington Road proposals. Just the way the govt wants to govern. They say that this is how it must be in a democracy.


  • Advertisement
  • #4597
    Gryire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 251 ✭✭Gryire


    Fizzical wrote: »
    You obviously (a) don't know what the pension levy is and (b) didn't read ardmacha's links.

    From the Govt document on the pension-related levy:





    Read the documentation.

    The government never pretended that the pension-related deduction had anything to do with contributing towards a pension. As above, they stated clearly that it was a new deduction from salary in order to make savings.

    Now, a deduction from salary so an employer can make savings, a deduction that occurs only on paper, the money not even being shifted from one dept to another but is just not paid out in the first place - I wonder what we should call that?

    If it was a pay cut then future pensions based on final salary would also be cut. It is a levy on public service workers. The USC is also a levy. There will be an insurance levy as a result of the Quinn case. Pensions for the public service are paid from current expenditure (I.e. exchequer funds). The pension levy contributes to these payments.


  • #4598
    vinylbomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭vinylbomb


    Jawgap wrote: »
    No problem boss....

    255434.jpg

    Top figure are from January 2010, bottom are from January 2012. Those figures show a 30% decrease in salary, despite gross salary remaining the same - as you can see the amount deducted grew by just over 40%.

    I've had my pay cut(s).......


    Well now, if we're going to count tax increases as a pay cut then we've all had a 10-15% cut minimum, irrespective of public or private sector.


  • #4599
    earlyevening
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭earlyevening


    vinylbomb wrote: »
    Well now, if we're going to count tax increases as a pay cut then we've all had a 10-15% cut minimum, irrespective of public or private sector.

    A gross exaggeration.

    Income tax unchanged, PRSI rates are the same. USC is levied at 4 and 7% think. Tax changes have probably resulted in about a 5 or 6% cut in take home pay.


  • #4600
    barneystinson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,686 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    vinylbomb wrote: »
    Well now, if we're going to count tax increases as a pay cut then we've all had a 10-15% cut minimum, irrespective of public or private sector.
    earlyevening wrote: »
    A gross exaggeration.

    Income tax unchanged, PRSI rates are the same. USC is levied at 4 and 7% think. Tax changes have probably resulted in about a 5 or 6% cut in take home pay.

    Yep, looks pretty exaggerated alright.

    A single person (private or public sector) on 45k in 2008 took home 35,208.

    A single person in the private sector on 45k in 2013 is taking home 32,469 - a 6.6% fall in net pay.

    A single person in the public sector on 45k in 2013 is taking home 29,615 - a fall of 14.8% in net pay.


  • #4601
    Fizzical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 262 ✭✭Fizzical


    Gryire wrote: »
    If it was a pay cut then future pensions based on final salary would also be cut. It is a levy on public service workers. The USC is also a levy. There will be an insurance levy as a result of the Quinn case. Pensions for the public service are paid from current expenditure (I.e. exchequer funds). The pension levy contributes to these payments.
    As you say, it is a levy on public service workers only. As these workers are paid from the public purse and as the levy 'returns' to the public purse, this money is not actually paid out - i.e. a pay cut.

    This levy does not contribute to pensions as it never leaves the coffers in the first place. Loss of a negative is a neutral, not a positive.

    Present pensions have been cut already and are about to be cut again - they were supposed to be based on final salary but are now obviously not. Future pensions will not be based on final salary - this legislation has been passed for some time.

    The govt has already raided our pension fund to partly compensate for private sector losses.

    The other levies you mention will be levied on all workers. Levies on private sector workers are a positive contribution to the public purse.

    Thank you for now contributing to our pensions by paying your levies, offsetting in a small way the emptying of our pension fund.


  • Advertisement
  • #4602
    sharper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    Fizzical wrote: »
    The govt has already raided our pension fund to partly compensate for private sector losses.

    Please explain what you think "your" pension fund is.


  • #4603
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Gryire wrote: »
    Pension levy is not a pay cut. It is a small contribution to a gold plated pension. My private pension which cost me 12.5% of my salary was halved in value as a result of an inept dept of finance and regulators (all public service employees). These are things we have to live with. The most overpaid public servants in the world got a 12% pay cut. It should have been 50%!

    This is getting boring, really boring, I wish someone would put a link up on the main page to counter these urban myths/deliberate untruths that are repropogated every few pages.

    Here is Karl Whelan on the topic.

    http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/tag/pension-levy/

    It is actually hard to find an independent commentator who says it is not a pay cut (apart from many deluded internet boards posters).


    sharper wrote: »
    Please explain what you think "your" pension fund is.


    Come on, you can do better than that.


    http://www.nprf.ie/home.html


    "The National Pensions Reserve Fund was established in April 2001 to meet as much as possible of the costs of Ireland's social welfare and public service pensions from 2025 onwards, when these costs are projected to increase dramatically due to the ageing of the population."


  • #4604
    sharper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    Godge wrote: »
    Come on, you can do better than that.

    Do better than what?

    The NPRF was established to help fund all the pension costs of the state - the old age pension everyone gets and the public sector pensions.

    The value of the fund came from the sale of state assets and the exchequer, public servants made no special contribution to it in relation to any other taxpayer.

    So I'd like to know about "your" find that was raided to bailout "private sector losses".


  • #4605
    vinylbomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭vinylbomb


    barneystinson wrote: »
    Yep, looks pretty exaggerated alright.

    A single person (private or public sector) on 45k in 2008 took home 35,208.

    A single person in the private sector on 45k in 2013 is taking home 32,469 - a 6.6% fall in net pay.

    A single person in the public sector on 45k in 2013 is taking home 29,615 - a fall of 14.8% in net pay.


    Hmmm. Maybe my maths got a bit JawGap there for a minute.


  • #4606
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    vinylbomb wrote: »
    Hmmm. Maybe my maths got a bit JawGap there for a minute.

    I'm not the one who suggested my decrease in pay was due to taxes ;)


  • #4607
    Figerty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭Figerty


    I have been watching this thread off and on for the last while and truth be told 300 or so pages on it has achieved absolutely nothing only burning up energy and creating bad vibes towards each other.


  • #4608
    Gryire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 251 ✭✭Gryire


    vinylbomb wrote: »
    Hmmm. Maybe my maths got a bit JawGap there for a minute.

    They is a pretty good chance the private sector person is now on €188 per week.


  • #4609
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Gryire wrote: »
    They is a pretty good chance the private sector person is now on €188 per week.

    +1. And I know some self employed people who would love to be able to get that , but they cannot. Their business has faded away, got more competitive, nobody is buying, they have had bad debts or whatever and would like to get the dole, but cannot as they have a partner working or a partially paid for house from decades of hard work. Morale is very low. There should be an incentive in the economy to be enterprising, work hard , take risks, build value, contribute taxes to the government, instead of going for the safe option.


  • #4610
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Figerty wrote: »
    I have been watching this thread off and on for the last while and truth be told 300 or so pages on it has achieved absolutely nothing only burning up energy and creating bad vibes towards each other.

    As have I. It has not been all bad. The matter at issue is very important and, by now, pretty thoroughly discussed. Bad vibes may have to be endured to approach the truth.

    It is in the nature of things that the die-hards (ardmacha, godge) will not yield an inch. They don't even appreciate that they are extremists and have no conception of the resentment felt towards the PS by 'those who know'. Their defences essentially are based on (1) our pay has already been cut by x% (2) comparison with private sector pay levels/trends. Scaling up from these narrow bases (3) taxes should be raised more and (4) we support consumer spending with our incomes. Apart from (3) I would consider the others irrelevant - because of the deficit and the abscence of growth and, now, the threat to the multi nationals.

    Because large swathes of the general public have no detailed appreciation of the detail of the public finances and the significance of the pay (and pension) scales to the budget deficits.

    The Daniel McConnell article in today's Sunday Independant gives an accurate summary of the deal imo - essentially another supine capitulation by a political class devoid of moral courage. FFS they barely touched increments and overtime rates are unchanged and most cuts have a timetable for reversal.


  • #4611
    barneystinson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,686 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Good loser wrote: »
    FFS they barely touched increments and overtime rates are unchanged and most cuts have a timetable for reversal.

    To which I'd reply FFS what is this obsession with increments?!

    What is your alternative to having incremental pay scales? Maybe we should adopt the German model...?

    They don't need to do anything with increments except actually have the balls to implement proper performance management in the PS, so that poor performers don't get rewarded.


  • Advertisement
  • #4612
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Good loser wrote: »
    As have I. It has not been all bad. The matter at issue is very important and, by now, pretty thoroughly discussed. Bad vibes may have to be endured to approach the truth.

    It is in the nature of things that the die-hards (ardmacha, godge) will not yield an inch. They don't even appreciate that they are extremists and have no conception of the resentment felt towards the PS by 'those who know'. Their defences essentially are based on (1) our pay has already been cut by x% (2) comparison with private sector pay levels/trends. Scaling up from these narrow bases (3) taxes should be raised more and (4) we support consumer spending with our incomes. Apart from (3) I would consider the others irrelevant - because of the deficit and the abscence of growth and, now, the threat to the multi nationals.

    Because large swathes of the general public have no detailed appreciation of the detail of the public finances and the significance of the pay (and pension) scales to the budget deficits.

    The Daniel McConnell article in today's Sunday Independant gives an accurate summary of the deal imo - essentially another supine capitulation by a political class devoid of moral courage. FFS they barely touched increments and overtime rates are unchanged and most cuts have a timetable for reversal.

    Most of the people I know and work with in the PS accept the need for pay cuts - what drives resistance is the grossly unfair way the issue is being handled, but gross unfairness seems to be the watchwords for the coalition in everything they do.

    They are also failing to address fundamental issues of under and over-staffing, and bring in genuine reform to drag the PS into the 21st C.

    I'll summarise what I think is driving the perception of unfairness.

    First, CP1 still had about a year to run when the government unilaterally decided to throw it out and replace it with CP2, what guarantees are there that the now Haddington Road Agreement won't be tossed into the wind in 6 months if it is politically expedient to do so?

    Second, the measures do not appear to be part of a broader strategy to tackle the fiscal situation - it would be much more palatable if the pay cuts were couched as part of a wider programme involving modest tax increases (say 1% on the marginal rate), modest social welfare decreases (taxing child benefit) and some efforts made to limit the more egregious tax avoidance schemes.

    Third, that some acknowledgement is made of the less visible measures that have been imposed and largely overlooked by the media that have led to real cash savings.

    Fourth, the vindictive, ideologically-driven elements of the agreement need to be removed, especially as in nearly every case they generated zero savings (notional or otherwise) but huge ill will.

    On a final note, the whole CP2 / HRA process is being driven by former Eircom executives now working in DPER - people may want to look at Eircom and that organisation's history and decide if these are really the people to deliver fit for purpose services.


  • #4613
    creedp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,018 ✭✭✭creedp


    Good loser wrote: »
    It is in the nature of things that the die-hards (ardmacha, godge) will not yield an inch. They don't even appreciate that they are extremists and have no conception of the resentment felt towards the PS by 'those who know'. Their defences essentially are based on (1) our pay has already been cut by x% (2) comparison with private sector pay levels/trends. Scaling up from these narrow bases (3) taxes should be raised more and (4) we support consumer spending with our incomes. Apart from (3) I would consider the others irrelevant - because of the deficit and the abscence of growth and, now, the threat to the multi nationals.

    Because large swathes of the general public have no detailed appreciation of the detail of the public finances and the significance of the pay (and pension) scales to the budget deficits.


    I know its terrible that those pesky PS don't understand that all non-PS are concerned about is the greater good of society .. if only you could get through to them.. I mean everthing you say is 100% spot on as you are looking at the bigger picture.


  • #4614
    vinylbomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭vinylbomb


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I'm not the one who suggested my decrease in pay was due to taxes ;)


    That's EXACTLY what you said ;-)
    Jawgap wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned my 'pay' is what I get into my account each month.


  • #4615
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    sharper wrote: »
    Do better than what?

    The NPRF was established to help fund all the pension costs of the state - the old age pension everyone gets and the public sector pensions.

    The value of the fund came from the sale of state assets and the exchequer, public servants made no special contribution to it in relation to any other taxpayer.

    So I'd like to know about "your" find that was raided to bailout "private sector losses".

    What happens the 6.5% superannuation contribution made by public servants every year?

    Either

    (1) It partly funds the NPRF, which we should then all accept that the public sector pension fund was raided to save the private sector banks

    0r

    (2) It funds the current pensions of public servants, in which case when looking at the cost of the public service, we should only look at pay costs plus the pensions not funded by the 6.5% contribution.

    Which do you pick?


  • #4616
    Gryire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 251 ✭✭Gryire


    Why is there no real reform in the public service. Just to throw a few possibilities out the for debate which if introduced would eliminate the need for pay cuts.

    Do we need the number of TD's that we have?
    Do we need the number of County Councils and associated County Managers that we have?
    Do we need the number of Town Councils we have and associated councilors?
    Do we need the number of County Librarians that we have?
    Could we outsource some local council activities that could be done more efficiently by private contractors (e.g. Grass Cutting, Put hole repairing)?
    Do we need so many administrators and directors in the HSE?

    The problem is these positions are protected by the unions so hence instead of reform pay has to be cut. The positions mentioned are in the high end of the pay scale and need to be reduced.

    Reform and compulsory redundancies are required at the top end of the PS in order to maintain services at the front line.


  • #4617
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    vinylbomb wrote: »
    That's EXACTLY what you said ;-)

    Really? Where (exactly) did I say that?

    Here's what I said - as you can see nowhere did I mention taxes, let alone that taxes were to sole reason for reduced pay.

    I highlighted that in many instances other clawback measures have been applied to reduce pay in the PS, and no acknowledgement or account is made for these.


    .....but you go on reading what you want to read rather than what's actually written.


  • #4618
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Good loser wrote: »
    As have I. It has not been all bad. The matter at issue is very important and, by now, pretty thoroughly discussed. Bad vibes may have to be endured to approach the truth.

    It is in the nature of things that the die-hards (ardmacha, godge) will not yield an inch. They don't even appreciate that they are extremists and have no conception of the resentment felt towards the PS by 'those who know'. Their defences essentially are based on (1) our pay has already been cut by x% (2) comparison with private sector pay levels/trends. Scaling up from these narrow bases (3) taxes should be raised more and (4) we support consumer spending with our incomes. Apart from (3) I would consider the others irrelevant - because of the deficit and the abscence of growth and, now, the threat to the multi nationals.

    Because large swathes of the general public have no detailed appreciation of the detail of the public finances and the significance of the pay (and pension) scales to the budget deficits.

    The Daniel McConnell article in today's Sunday Independant gives an accurate summary of the deal imo - essentially another supine capitulation by a political class devoid of moral courage. FFS they barely touched increments and overtime rates are unchanged and most cuts have a timetable for reversal.

    I am not a public servant, though it would be true to state that my future preserved pension is affected by cuts in pay.

    As for McConnell, I have constantly stated that the first deal was ill-conceived and badly timed and predicted its failure. I also said early last week that the second deal represented a significant climb-down by the government which only some here are coming to realise.

    Agreements need agreement. As I have also constantly pointed out, the available information and statistics suggest that private sector employees took a "me fein" attitude and protected their own pay and conditions while their colleagues lost their jobs (and are now negotiating pay increases). Expecting patriotic responses from the public sector in that context is irrational.

    I have not used the "we support consumer spending with our incomes" argument but I have consistently pointed out that the headline savings sought €1bn, €300m this year etc., are not achievable as net savings off the budget deficit because of the secondary effects.

    What I have no time for is the simplistic rudimentary argument that "The country is broke so the only option is to cut public service pay" as it does not stand up to any scrutiny. It could equally apply to cutting social welfare, child benefit, sports grants, tax breaks for hotels, medical cards, tax credits, agricultural grants or increasing property taxes, business rates, corporation taxes, charges for services, excise duty, VAT etc.

    I am not necessarily arguing for any one (or all) of the above but pointing out that public policy decisions should be made on the basis of which is the best option both to save money and to maintain services. All of which is absent from this thread where not one poster has managed to post a convincing argument that the best way to save money is by cutting public service pay.

    When it comes to the public service, my view is that productivity measures and service improvements are the way forward with consideration to be given to a new detailed benchmarking approach that will have a European as well as private-sector dimension to it. Unfortunately, the danger in the latter, which would have to be accepted is that it could recommend pay increases as well as pay cuts (and the pay cuts may focus more on frontline staff, often protected by naive posters here). Such a benchmarking approach could well confirm that we are undertaxed rather than having an overpaid public sector.

    I am hardly a die-hard because I am prepared to take a nuanced approach, the die-hards are those who dig in and say there is no other option yet are unable to justify why that is so.


  • #4619
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Gryire wrote: »
    ......

    Reform and compulsory redundancies are required at the top end of the PS in order to maintain services at the front line.

    something which many public servants have no problem with - there is nothing as galling as seeing an under-worked wastrel get the same salary as you (or promoted to 'get rid' of them), when you're busting a nut to do a good job. However, the need for a proper redundancy scheme extends throughout the PS, beyond the top end.

    Senior managers should be on 3 to 5 year, renewable contracts - if they don't perform, off they go. I'd even go as far to say anyone at AP and above (including myself) should be on a maximum 5 year contract.

    there also needs to be a compulsory redeployment scheme - you go where the work is, and if it doesn't suit then - unfortunately - you go the redundancy route.

    The problem is we lack both the politicians with the will, and the senior managers with the imagination to implement such a programme.

    We could even take a leaf out of the Brits' book and start a programme of mutualisation of services to improve service delivery and reduce costs.


  • #4620
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I'm not the one who suggested my decrease in pay was due to taxes ;)
    vinylbomb wrote: »
    That's EXACTLY what you said ;-)

    I have a suspicion that jawgap works for the aviation regulator or the communications regulator or someone like that. In a scenario a bit like the judges, they have to be independent of the executive arm of the state and I think the Ministers do not control their pay. As a result they would originally have avoided the gross pay cuts and some other measure would have been found to cut their net pay which would explain the strangely high deductions on his payslip.

    This is merely speculation on my part but I cannot think of any other rational explanation (if it is a genuine payslip).


  • Advertisement
  • #4621
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    Figerty wrote: »
    I have been watching this thread off and on for the last while and truth be told 300 or so pages on it has achieved absolutely nothing only burning up energy and creating bad vibes towards each other.
    well that's something, we know where we stand against each other now.


Advertisement