Public sector pay increase

Jawgap · 27-04-2015 02:50PM

smash wrote: »

I wouldn't be one to encourage the threshold at which it becomes payable. This only benefits those on the lower end of the scale.

Well it benefits disproportionately those on the lower end of the scale - who, let's face it, would be on the sh1tt1est of sh1tty wages.

Plus it sends a message out that work pays.

27-04-2015 02:51PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Reduce USC or increase the threshold at which it becomes payable - I think I'd prefer the latter.

.......not so long ago I would have been more pre-disposed towards PS wage increases:D

I wouldn't increase the threshold and unfortunately its being discussed as being a possibility.

One of the few good things about USC is that it requires those on low incomes to contribute something where they are out of the net for most other things.

Galwayguy35 · 27-04-2015 03:00PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

I wouldn't increase the threshold and unfortunately its being discussed as being a possibility.

One of the few good things about USC is that it requires those on low incomes to contribute something where they are out of the net for most other things.

What do you call a low income and what are these "most other things" you think I am out of the net for?

27-04-2015 03:10PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

What do you call a low income and what are these "most other things" you think I am out of the net for?

Anyone earning over 10k a year pays a little USC but it takes up to about 18k before PAYE is paid, PRSI only kicks in after a certain income is reached etc also.

I'm no fan of USC it costs me nearly 2k a year but I'd either like it reduced across the board or totally abolished but I would not raise the threshold.

SMASH IRISH WATER · 27-04-2015 03:19PM

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

Quin_Dub · 27-04-2015 03:22PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

So.. 4 posts across 2 threads and your message is "I want everything for free and someone else should pay for it" ?

Interesting.

27-04-2015 03:22PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

You can't really believe that nonsense you just wrote there?

Galwayguy35 · 27-04-2015 03:23PM

When asked, Howlin didn't rule out a pay rise for TD's either in an article I was reading earlier on.

smash · 27-04-2015 03:24PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

You're a disgrace to your username! :mad:

Quin_Dub · 27-04-2015 03:27PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

When asked, Howlin didn't rule out a pay rise for TD's either in an article I was reading earlier on.

This is the problem with these blanket (union mandated) Pay rises/Pay cuts..

And it's the fundamental issue here. PS unions have, for years, resisted the introduction of meritocracy in the PS. They also fought against targeted redundancies/pay cuts during the Croke Park negotiations.

Until pay cut/rises etc. can be targeted at the most effective areas we wil never solve the fundamental issues..

The best people should be able to see a clear path to higher wages/promotion and the worst people should equally be able to see a clear path to the door....

That is not currently the case.

SMASH IRISH WATER · 27-04-2015 03:29PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So.. 4 posts across 2 threads and your message is "I want everything for free and someone else should pay for it" ?

Interesting.

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

smash · 27-04-2015 03:32PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

Ah.... so it's pure jealousy that guides your posts. To be very blunt with you, your husband is a labourer. It's a job that requires very little education and one that almost anyone can do, but it's the career path he decided to take. You can't blame people for doing well in life just because they decided to stay in school or go to college. I know labourers who had brand new cars and multiple holidays during the boom too. But that bubble was bound to burst.

Quin_Dub · 27-04-2015 03:35PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

So, you are a communist?

You believe that everyone should earn the same regardless of qualifications or job type?

The architect gets the same pay as the labourer on the building site?

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

You are confusing effort with value here - No doubt that working in manual labour is physically harder than an office job.. But the value returned by the 2 things are not necessarily the same, hence the difference in earnings...

Galwayguy35 · 27-04-2015 03:36PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

I suppose you think you pay for your water 3 times as well and believe in "peaceful protest".

27-04-2015 03:38PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

It would be unfair to not pay those in the public service a salary which they deserve because of their qualifications, experience and expertise just because others are struggling.

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

You cannot use how difficult work is physically as an argument for one person getting paid more than someone else. The woman in the office is most likely well educated and working in a role that requires certain skills which she possesses. I bet you have no idea at all what she does or how difficult or stressful her job is.

Sleepy · 27-04-2015 03:39PM

I'm not against public sector pay increases in principle but the reality is that the vast majority of the "lower paid" public sector workers are already over-paid by market standards and the more senior workers (who it could be argued are under-paid when you look at the salaries of those in equivalent positions in the private sector) don't have to live up to the same standards of accountability as those whose salaries they'd be compared against.

I'd love to see those Public Servants who deserve one given a pay raise. I know quite a few who have been "acting up" to positions two grades above their own for the past few years, I know teachers, guards and nurses who should be paid fortunes but I also know plenty of PS workers who, were you to replace them with a potted plant, you'd improve the output of their colleagues. So, as long as we're forced to pay the latter the same rates as the former, there's no case to be made for one (or at least until such point that the competent come to the realisation that unionisation harms, rather than benefits them and leave in sufficient droves that the incompetent can be fired and the unions told to take a hike).

Jawgap · 27-04-2015 03:41PM

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

That is not what I said!

I just believe in fairness and dignity for everyone. It is unfair that people in the public service can earn 6 figure salaries while people at the bottom struggle to feed their families and heat their homes.

My cousin works in some office job in the public sector. She has a new 151 car, a massive house in Dublin and takes 2 or 3 holidays a year. All this for going in and clicking buttons on a computer all day. My husband has worked hard his whole life on building sites and never earned close to that. There is no fairness or equality in this country. It's a joke.

www.publicjobs.ie

.......fill yer boots

My family is from Dublin's inner city - I was the first to go to Uni (on a grant) but I worked hard and paid for my Masters and PhD from own resources - if you want more take some responsibility for yourself, go out and work for it, instead of trying to drag everyone else down.

KomradeBishop · 27-04-2015 03:41PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not against public sector pay increases in principle but the reality is that the vast majority of the "lower paid" public sector workers are already over-paid by market standards and the senior management (who it could be argued are under-paid when you look at the salaries of those in equivalent positions in the private sector) don't have to live up to the same standards of accountability as those whose salaries they'd be compared against.

I'd love to see those Public Servants who deserve one given a pay raise. I know quite a few who have been "acting up" to positions two grades above their own for the past few years, I know teachers, guards and nurses who should be paid fortunes but I also know plenty of PS workers who, were you to replace them with a potted plant, you'd improve the output of their colleagues. So, as long as we're forced to pay the latter the same rates as the former, there's no case to be made for one (or at least until such point that the competent come to the realisation that unionisation harms, rather than benefits them and leave in sufficient droves that the incompetent can be fired and the unions told to take a hike).

So you want collective punishment, withholding deserved pay increases from the good workers, because of the few bad eggs?

JillyQ · 27-04-2015 03:44PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Because we can not afford it and it will damage the wealth creating private sector by hurting the competitiveness of the country.

Couldnt argee more. It would be different if we had a public sector that was at least efficient.

Sleepy · 27-04-2015 03:46PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you want collective punishment, withholding deserved pay increases from the good workers, because of the few bad eggs?

Not at all. I want those who deserve pay increases to get them, those who deserve decreases to get them and to see those who deserve to be sacked, replaced (if there's a need to do so).

The unions prevent this. They're the ones insisting on collective rewards/punishments.

BTW: you're also missing the point that a large number of public sector workers (typically those working in administrative roles) are already over-paid compared to their private sector equivalents.

Quin_Dub · 27-04-2015 03:47PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you want collective punishment, withholding deserved pay increases from the good workers, because of the few bad eggs?

No.. but the unions do...

Their utter refusal to countenance the introduction of true meritocracy is a huge barrier here...

Back in '08/'09 the cuts should have been targeted, there should have been specific redundancies etc..

The unions fought this tooth and nail and instead we got blanket pay cuts hitting the lower paid (or junior/new) PS staff the hardest.

As the cuts were universal, then the restoration should also be universal (although I'm not convinced that just now is the right time).

But, fundamentally the unions need to wake up to the real world and accept Meritocracy in the future as we'll never solve the funding and pay issues without it..

Jawgap · 27-04-2015 03:50PM

JillyQ wrote: »

Couldnt argee more. It would be different if we had a public sector that was at least efficient.

Define efficiency

Sleepy wrote: »

Not at all. I want those who deserve pay increases to get them, those who deserve decreases to get them and to see those who deserve to be sacked, replaced (if there's a need to do so).

The unions prevent this. They're the ones insisting on collective rewards/punishments.

Who decides who is deserving?

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Quin_Dub · 27-04-2015 03:56PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Define efficiency

Who decides who is deserving?

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Nobody is saying it's easy , but there has to be a mechanism whereby the best get rewarded more than the others...and that those that under-perform get more training or get shown the door.

I have no doubt that if you asked staff in a hospital to identify the "best" nurse/doctor/whatever they'd be able to do it..

Just because it'll be hard to do , doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do it...

JillyQ · 27-04-2015 04:01PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Define efficiency

Who decides who is deserving?

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Try running there departments within budget. If it dosent make the necessary cutbacks but encourage productivity & also for individuals to be held accountable for any mess ups they make. In other words run them like a private company.

Jawgap · 27-04-2015 04:03PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Nobody is saying it's easy , but there has to be a mechanism whereby the best get rewarded more than the others...and that those that under-perform get more training or get shown the door.

I have no doubt that if you asked staff in a hospital to identify the "best" nurse/doctor/whatever they'd be able to do it..

Just because it'll be hard to do , doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do it...

It does get tried and what you find is as soon as a system goes in it skews performance - no one wants to engage in any activity that is outside the performance indicator system.

In the place where I worked a PI was brought in that covered case clearance - immediately anything remotely difficult was long fingered and people looked for any excuse to dump a complicated case on someone else or reject it. So an 'index' was developed whereby cases were scored and you acquired 'points' for each case and people spent more time arguing over the score given to any given case - also no one wanted to work on tasks that weren't case related, so the time management system was altered to include a value - travel time was scored the lowest so guess what? No one wanted to travel meaning you couldn't get anyone to take a case on outside the M50 and on and on it went.....

Jawgap · 27-04-2015 04:09PM

JillyQ wrote: »

Try running there departments within budget. If it dosent make the necessary cutbacks but encourage productivity & also for individuals to be held accountable for any mess ups they make. In other words run them like a private company.

Again, how? If you're the Guards and the stations or squads are your cost centres what happens if there is a series of murders, a major incident, a significant public order event - do you get the bodies on deck, or protect the overtime budget?

If a bridge is damaged by s weather event do you leave it until the following year's budget is available or fix it - do you just fix it during sociable hours or aim to have fixed as quickly as possible by working around the clock?

etc

etc

27-04-2015 04:10PM

JillyQ wrote: »

Try running there departments within budget. If it dosent make the necessary cutbacks but encourage productivity & also for individuals to be held accountable for any mess ups they make. In other words run them like a private company.

You simply cant run many public service areas like a private company, its just not the way it works and it would be a very very dangerous road to go down.

Jawgap · 27-04-2015 04:19PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

You simply cant run many public service areas like a private company, its just not the way it works and it would be a very very dangerous road to go down.

The services that are comparable with commercial activity should be put out to be run, on a franchise or contractual basis, by commercial bodies - likewise certain business processes such as payroll, accounts payable and receivable etc.

But a lot of services - health, policing, firefighting, defence, regulatory and permissioning services, SW eligibility etc are not amenable to being done by the private sector

Sleepy · 27-04-2015 04:31PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Who decides who is deserving?

Their managers, who are in turn are judged by their managers, who in turn are judged by theirs, all the way up to the Minister with responsibility for that Department who are judged by the cabinet formed by (not necessarily of) representatives returned by the electorate.

Who is the better nurse, the one who sees 42 patients in an 12 hour shift or the one who comforts a dying one and their family for the duration of their shift?

Honestly? I'd be going for the former. I don't want tea and sympathy from the health system, I want them to effectively diagnose and treat me.

Of course some cases will require more interaction between practitioner and patient than others so the metric of patients seen per hour is meaningless but you gave a rather specific example and "comforting" is not something I see as an effective use of resources. Of course, I'd expect the nurse to be as considerate as possible but I'd also expect him/her to realise their time is better spent healing than empathising.

JillyQ · 27-04-2015 04:34PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

You simply cant run many public service areas like a private company, its just not the way it works and it would be a very very dangerous road to go down.

Sorry should have clarified it i was talking more about the administrative side of things. Obviously there are things that cant be.

Public sector pay increase

Comments