Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

comongethappy · 19-08-2014 11:51am

noodler wrote: »

Do they?

'JobsPlus' scheme.

Paid monthly over 2 years of employment.

7k for new-hires a year or more on the dole
10k for new-hires 2+ years on the dole.

Godge · 19-08-2014 11:55am

drumswan wrote: »

What percentage of these people are teachers and gardai?

It is not just teachers and gardai who hold specialist jobs. Nurses, prison officers, doctors, etc. are all careers where the main employer of the vast majority is the State.

It should also be pointed out that while the main employer is the State, many civil and public servants changed jobs, location and responsibility throughout their career. It is also true that you may work for many different schools but you will still get paid a pension by the state.

Head The Wall wrote: »

Really, so teachers only work for the govt. Never heard of private schools, diverge into another career path, teach English in another country.

And as for guards, well we all know loads that are landlords, security etc. Most of them find things to do after they retire at 50+

More rubbish from the usual suspect. Many of the caring professions - teaching, nursing etc. are considered vocations rather than careers. It takes a lot of courage to take a job like that, not suited to the many ignorant louts out there.

kippy wrote: »

Am not getting the point here. This came about because someone found it strange to work for the same employer all your life. I think the comment has been explained at this point. Are you just looking for an argument?

Yeah, and I keep falling for his rubbish.

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 12:08pm

getting rid of USC would be ridiculous, the low paid already pay very little in direct taxes, the entry point to the ridiculous marginal rate should increase and indeed the marginal rate should be brought to under 50%, even at 49% psychologically you would at least feel you were getting more than than half the money you earned, giving it to those parasites at that rate makes me feel sick. Public servants cant avoid that rate, but for people who can avoid it, the higher rate actually discourages being tax compliant, expansion, going for promotions, entrepreneurship etc.

Labour are an absolute sham, but reckon themselves and FG are eyeing up each other as bed buddies again, short of FG getting close enough to a majority that they could take on a few independents... This I will vote against X party as a protest vote, the alternatives are even worse!

noodler · 19-08-2014 12:39pm

comongethappy wrote: »

'JobsPlus' scheme.

Paid monthly over 2 years of employment.

7k for new-hires a year or more on the dole
10k for new-hires 2+ years on the dole.

I thought you had incorrectly said per year.

I see now you did not specify initially so my mistake.

Permabear · 19-08-2014 1:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Monife · 19-08-2014 1:23pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

All pension lump sums are tax free up to a limit of €200,000, for both private and public sector workers.

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 1:28pm

on the one hand you could say getting lump sums like those untaxed is outrageous, on the other hand the amount workers public and private are paying at the marginal rate is outrageous...

mirrorwall14 · 19-08-2014 1:30pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They were not teachers. In order to get that pension they had to have been management which the Irish times could have realised if they had bothered to do any research at all. Principals and deputy principals (which in a big school is a massive job) get an allowance on top of their teachers pay based on the size of the school they are managing. The Irish times neglected to actually check if they were standard classroom teachers (lump sum looks enormous) or managing a school including staff, students and parents (not as big since the job is management)

comongethappy · 19-08-2014 1:30pm

Monife wrote: »

All pension lump sums are tax free up to a limit of €200,000, for both private and public sector workers.

True.

The thrust of Permabears post is sound though.

After 5 years of bugetry adjustment (which the government intend to prolong by avoiding major cuts this year), the last priority for surplus cash should be PS pay increases.

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 1:31pm

I'll get my coat... (Ps 186 comments on the article on independent.ie so far)

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/public-sector-employees-are-8-an-hour-better-off-30513271.html

Public sector employees are €8 an hour better off
Employers hit out at Government's 'premature' plans to reverse cuts
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/public-sector-employees-are-8-an-hour-better-off-30513271.html#sthash.MvnyLwsv.dpuf

Public sector workers are, on average, €8 an hour better off than their private sector colleagues even after various pay cuts since the 2008 economic crash, new figures reveal.

The revelation comes amid growing criticism of the Government's plan to reverse public sector pay cuts.

An analysis of Central Statistics Office (CSO) figures since 2008 shows state employees earn on average €28.23 an hour while their private sector workers earn €20.21, a 39pc difference.

Last weekend, Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin announced cuts to public servants' pay will be reversed.

Unions subsequently confirmed they will begin tabling formal pay increase demands.

However, an analysis of  the impact on pay rates in  both the public and private  sectors from recession to recovery raises questions about  the validity of the unions' demands.

Using quarterly CSO Earnings, Hours and Employment Costs Survey data, we tracked average hourly and weekly pay rates in the first quarter of every year since 2008.

Puerto Carmen Hotels €21
Pay €26 or €21 - It's up to you! Compare Over 200 Booking Sites
trivago.ie/Cheap-PuertoCarmen-Hotel
Zurich Life Pensions
Your Future Starts Now With A Zurich Pension - Find An Advisor.
www.zurichlife.ie/Pensions
Ads by Google
The main findings include:

* Public sector workers have consistently remained better off per hour than their private sector colleagues, even after a host of cuts to their pay;

* Pay rates in the private sector have remained static, indicating many companies sacked people rather than reducing pay in order to cut costs during the recession; l Before Haddington Road cuts in 2013, the gap public workers enjoyed over their private sector colleagues peaked at €9 per hour;

* The benefit of tenure and pensions in the public sector are also not factored into assessing the gap;

* 250,000 low-paid workers in the private sector are dragging down average pay rates;

* The average weekly wage across all sectors is now €689.88, with the weekly public sector wage standing at €899 and €628 in the private sector.

Employers' group IBEC said any talk of reversing  the public sector cuts is "premature".

IBEC chief executive Danny McCoy said the focus must instead be on reducing "punitive" income tax rates, that all workers would benefit from.

He told the Sunday Independent: "The Haddington Road deal runs to 2016, so if we want to increase take- home pay, the immediate focus should be reducing tax. With the economy doing well, the resources are now available to reduce both income and consumer taxes."

To ensure our analysis was comparing like with like, we examined the pay rates in both the public and private sector in the first quarter of every year since 2008. We also examined the impact of inflation during this period, and tracked all government measures which have impacted on pay since 2008.

In that year, before the then Fianna Fail/Green government began any correction in the public finances, the average hourly rate in the public sector was €28.64, while it was €19.44 in the private sector.

In 2009, the first reduction to pay was a pension levy imposed on public sector workers, worth an average of 7.5pc. The second was a pay cut on a sliding scale, dependent on salary size, but worth an average of 6.5pc.

The impact of these measures caused a €40 drop in the average weekly earnings and a €1.30 drop in the hourly earnings of public servants in 2010. However, the continuation of the payments of increments, or length of service pay increases, which have cost the taxpayer €1.4bn since the crash, quickly offset some of the impact of those wage reductions.

By 2011, public sector pay rates were on the rise again and the average hourly rate rose from €28.68 to €28.90. The public sector hourly rates continued to surge as high as €29.04 by 2013, compared to €20.06 in the private sector at the same time, a gap of €8.98.

However, last year's Haddington Road deal saw another pay cut for higher paid public servants earning more than €65,000, pensioners on more than €32,500 and the suspension of increments.

The impact of those cuts caused a drop in the average hourly rate for public workers from €29.04 to €28.23. Despite the harsh cuts, today's figures show that the gap remains in excess of €8 an hour, as private sector workers are now earning €20.21 per hour on average.

Statisticians from state institutions such as the ERSI and the CSO and trade union think-tank, the Nevin Institute, warn that relying on average figures will give an overly simplistic picture, but all agree that the premium enjoyed by public sector workers exists. They also say the average hourly rate is a more accurate indicator than the weekly rate, which can be distorted.

Dr Eilish Kelly of the ESRI said the latest detailed analysis by the CSO, which related to 2010, showed the pay gap was as high as 18.9pc.

She conducted a further analysis based on that CSO data which concluded the gap was more like 17pc. She said most likely that gap has reduced somewhat given the Haddington Road cuts last year.

Speaking about Mr Howlin's plans to begin discussions aimed at restoring public sector pay levels, Dr Kelly said that any move on pay policy must be based on evidenced research.

The premium enjoyed by the public sector has been put down to the fact that public servants tend to be better educated and that there tends to be more managerial roles in state institutions.

However, a study published last October by economists at the European Commission found that of 26 EU countries, the unexplained pay gap was bigger in Ireland than in any other country.

Even when different education levels are accounted for, the pay gap is bigger in Ireland than anywhere else.

Sunday Independent
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/public-sector-employees-are-8-an-hour-better-off-30513271.html#sthash.MvnyLwsv.dpuf

Monife · 19-08-2014 1:34pm

comongethappy wrote: »

True.

The thrust of Permabears post is sound though.

After 5 years of bugetry adjustment (which the government intend to prolong by avoiding major cuts this year), the last priority for surplus cash should be PS pay increases.

I agree, where in my post did it say I didn't? I do think, however, that a little tax easing (reducing USC, increase tax credits a little etc) is needed for the morale of the country and to get spending to increase, thus improving the economy further.

Monife · 19-08-2014 1:36pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

* The average weekly wage across all sectors is now €689.88, with the weekly public sector wage standing at €899 and €628 in the private sector.

I would LOVE to be earning €899 a week. I don't even earn twice that in a month!

comongethappy · 19-08-2014 1:38pm

Monife wrote: »

I do think, however, that a little tax easing (reducing USC, increase tax credits a little etc) is needed for the morale of the country and to get spending to increase, thus improving the economy further.

Ditto.

So long as its offset by a matching reduction in expenditure.

Ireland has to get away from auction politics.

Permabear · 19-08-2014 1:56pm

This post has been deleted.

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 2:05pm

Labour are going to have to throw a dog a bone to use an analogy and will this be the one that FG allow? They have to give Labour something, Kenny has already said he sees Labour as a good fit for the next government. As much as some people would like to see it, I would be surprised if FG dont win the most seats come the next GE...

nice_guy80 · 19-08-2014 2:06pm

Monife wrote: »

I would LOVE to be earning €899 a week. I don't even earn twice that in a month!

what do they actually take home after deductions?
that is the stat that is never mentioned

there are far more people on lower salaries in the PS than the average, but the high earners bring up the average
The median would be a far better indicator

aliveandkicking · 19-08-2014 2:20pm

Monife wrote: »

Who said I would vote for FF? Never have and never will.

But what do you think will happen if neither FG or Lab get votes? SF are hardly going to get an overall majority are they? I don't particularly like the current government, I don't particularly agree with some of their policies but one thing I do know is they have slowly begun turning the country around from the absolute shambles they inherited from FF. Anyone who thinks we'd be better off with FF back at the helm after the next election needs their head examined. As far as I'm concerned anyone who explicitly states they will not vote for the current government is inexplicitly expressing a preference for a FF led government next time even if you're not voting for FF directly.

Permabear · 19-08-2014 2:32pm

This post has been deleted.

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 3:01pm

at least no one is banging on about increasing the world class welfare rates yet!

Godge · 19-08-2014 3:01pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is a bit more than that.

Contract law is very important and it is extremely difficult to resile from contracted agreements. However, that is what the Government did with the Financial Emergency Acts. At the time, there were fears that such cuts to contracted pay could be found to be unconstitutional because of the protection of contractual rights in the Constitution. This was never challenged fully in the Courts and the Government would have resisted a challenge anyway. The basis of any resistance would have been the public interest defence based on the financial challenge that faced the State and that these cuts were necessary to save the State from going bankrupt. It is likely, in my opinion, that the Government would have managed to defend any challenge. However, one of the main planks of their defence would have been the following legislative provision which was included in each of the Acts.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0005/sec0013.html#sec13

"Before 30 June in 2010 and every year after 2010, the Minister shall—

(a) carry out a review of the operation, effectiveness and impact of this Act, having regard to the overall economic conditions in the State and national competitiveness,

(b) consider whether or not any of the provisions of this Act continue to be necessary having regard to the purposes of this Act, the overall economic conditions in the State, national competitiveness and Exchequer commitments in respect of public service pensions,

(c) make such findings as he or she thinks appropriate consequent on such review and consideration, and

(d) cause a written report of his or her findings resulting from the review and consideration to be prepared and laid before each House of the Oireachtas."

The purpose of this Section was to demonstrate that the Government wasn't breaking contracts forever but was only doing so temporarily at a time when the country faced an unprecedented crisis and that the necessity for the cuts would be revisited in years to come.

What this does is create a legitimate expectation, maybe even a contractual right that once we are in a situation where the country's finances have eased, that the pay cuts and pension levy will be reversed. Yes, there are clauses to give the government some escape but if say, a public service union sought a judicial review in 2016 of tax cuts or extra payments to farmers on the basis of the provisions of this Act, the Minister would have to clearly justify why he wasn't giving the pay cut back. In the circumstances of a clearly improving financial situation, the union would have a very strong case.

This case would be supported by references to the Dail debates at the time in which such commitments were made clear.

To sum up, the cuts were never meant to be permanent (except possibly the pension levy), and the Acts and the Dail debates made that clear. In seeking the restoration, the unions are only acting on what was promised and agreed. And let us be clear, the unions are only seeking this on the basis that the deficit drops below 3%.

Monife · 19-08-2014 3:07pm

aliveandkicking wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned anyone who explicitly states they will not vote for the current government is inexplicitly expressing a preference for a FF led government next time even if you're not voting for FF directly.

That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. There are other options apart from FF. I personally, not that it is any of your business and for my own reasons, will vote SF and independents in the next GE.

comongethappy · 19-08-2014 3:08pm

Godge wrote: »

To sum up, the cuts were never meant to be permanent (except possibly the pension levy), and the Acts and the Dail debates made that clear. In seeking the restoration, the unions are only acting on what was promised and agreed. And let us be clear, the unions are only seeking this on the basis that the deficit drops below 3%.

We know it was never permanent.
Ive no issue with the PS being paid as per agreements made with their employer.

I just wish the government could summon a testicle between them when making the agreements in the first place.

Interesting that the reversal is based on a 3% GDP deficit..... Its currently around 6%-7%...

With an election soon & all parties in auction mode, it will be interesting to see how long it takes to reduce the final few percent.
....And that the government would agree to restore pay when still running a 3% deficit (ie: €5 billion) is insanity.

ezra_pound · 19-08-2014 3:11pm

Godge wrote: »

It is a bit more than that.

Contract law is very important and it is extremely difficult to resile from contracted agreements. However, that is what the Government did with the Financial Emergency Acts. At the time, there were fears that such cuts to contracted pay could be found to be unconstitutional because of the protection of contractual rights in the Constitution. This was never challenged fully in the Courts and the Government would have resisted a challenge anyway. The basis of any resistance would have been the public interest defence based on the financial challenge that faced the State and that these cuts were necessary to save the State from going bankrupt. It is likely, in my opinion, that the Government would have managed to defend any challenge. However, one of the main planks of their defence would have been the following legislative provision which was included in each of the Acts.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0005/sec0013.html#sec13

"Before 30 June in 2010 and every year after 2010, the Minister shall—

(a) carry out a review of the operation, effectiveness and impact of this Act, having regard to the overall economic conditions in the State and national competitiveness,

(b) consider whether or not any of the provisions of this Act continue to be necessary having regard to the purposes of this Act, the overall economic conditions in the State, national competitiveness and Exchequer commitments in respect of public service pensions,

(c) make such findings as he or she thinks appropriate consequent on such review and consideration, and

(d) cause a written report of his or her findings resulting from the review and consideration to be prepared and laid before each House of the Oireachtas."

The purpose of this Section was to demonstrate that the Government wasn't breaking contracts forever but was only doing so temporarily at a time when the country faced an unprecedented crisis and that the necessity for the cuts would be revisited in years to come.

What this does is create a legitimate expectation, maybe even a contractual right that once we are in a situation where the country's finances have eased, that the pay cuts and pension levy will be reversed. Yes, there are clauses to give the government some escape but if say, a public service union sought a judicial review in 2016 of tax cuts or extra payments to farmers on the basis of the provisions of this Act, the Minister would have to clearly justify why he wasn't giving the pay cut back. In the circumstances of a clearly improving financial situation, the union would have a very strong case.

This case would be supported by references to the Dail debates at the time in which such commitments were made clear.

To sum up, the cuts were never meant to be permanent (except possibly the pension levy), and the Acts and the Dail debates made that clear. In seeking the restoration, the unions are only acting on what was promised and agreed. And let us be clear, the unions are only seeking this on the basis that the deficit drops below 3%.

Great post

Godge · 19-08-2014 3:21pm

comongethappy wrote: »

We know it was never permanent.
Ive no issue with the PS being paid as per agreements made with their employer.

I just wish the government could summon a testicle between them when making the agreements in the first place.

Interesting that the reversal is based on a 3% GDP deficit..... Its currently around 6%-7%...

With an election soon & all parties in auction mode, it will be interesting to see how long it takes to reduce the final few percent.
....And that the government would agree to restore pay when still running a 3% deficit (ie: €5 billion) is insanity.

We will hit 3% next year.

Already this year, the finances for the first seven months have us €800m ahead of target (about €1.3 bn for a full year).

Add in the water charges of €300/440m and we are most of the way to the €2 bn needed to get us to 3%.

It is likely therefore that the question of restoring public service pay cuts will become a live issue this time next year and be a huge political football in the run-up to the next election.

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 3:26pm

they would have been far better off increasing water and property tax and using the increased revenue from this which will effect everyone and reducing income taxes on the workers i.e. the worthy! Let those who arent contributing, give something back to the the squeezed middle who have taken a major hit, so those on welfare and lower wages, have only had to take a minor hit. What goes around should come around...

comongethappy · 19-08-2014 3:26pm

Godge wrote: »

We will hit 3% next year.

Already this year, the finances for the first seven months have us €800m ahead of target (about €1.3 bn for a full year).

Add in the water charges of €300/440m and we are most of the way to the €2 bn needed to get us to 3%.

It is likely therefore that the question of restoring public service pay cuts will become a live issue this time next year and be a huge political football in the run-up to the next election.

There is a chance then in 2016 the GE campaign being the mother of all auctions.

Hopefully the governments new slight of hand of arbitrarily adding in made up figures for crime onto the GDP won't backfire & portray a rosier picture than is the reality.

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 3:28pm

There is a chance then in 2016 the GE campaign being the mother of all auctions.

Hopefully the governments new slight of hand of arbitrarily adding in made up figures for crime onto the GDP won't backfire & portray a rosier picture than is the reality.

you would wonder will this be the first election, where people would actually turn their noses up at the short term reckless auction politics, i.e. if a party decided to abolish the LPT or water charges (hypothetically)...

comongethappy · 19-08-2014 3:32pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

you would wonder will this be the first election, where people would actually turn their noses up at the short term reckless auction politics, i.e. if a party decided to abolish the LPT or water charges (hypothetically)...

Not even the slightest chance of that (to any substantial degree).

chopper6 · 19-08-2014 3:53pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

you would wonder will this be the first election, where people would actually turn their noses up at the short term reckless auction politics, i.e. if a party decided to abolish the LPT or water charges (hypothetically)...

Well it'd be the first time in history that happened...remember people voting for FF to avail of tax cuts?

Idbatterim · 19-08-2014 3:59pm

Well it'd be the first time in history that happened...remember people voting for FF to avail of tax cuts?

I do, but we can see just what damage these have done now. The several years of austerity has been head-wrecking, I think people are done with the boom - bust, auction politics sh*t. You can see from commentary after articles, that the level of awareness and knowledge on subjects of an economic and political matters are probably incomparable to where they were before the economy tanked. We never had a boom bust before, many other countries have particularly Germany, hence they crave stability, low inflation etc...

Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Comments