Public sector pay increase

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2015 08:07PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ya, the last thing you'ld want is to encourage someone with high expectations of a decent living into a job right?

50k base with bonuses for principle, vice principle etc. Is more than decent.

Uncle Ben · 02-05-2015 08:24PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Perhaps for accountants, engineers, solicitors or actuaries yes but teachers are not accountants, engineers, solicitors or actuaries.

Teachers have three months of the year off, excellent working conditions and they can't be sacked.These are perks that add to the desirability of the job and of course the more desirable a job the less the employer can pay to meet demand.

We know the teaching profession is over subscribed, many young teachers find it extremely hard to find a full time position, this is their fault for not researching their industry but it's also the governments fault as they have allowed the supply of new graduates to outmatch demand.

What I would propose is to continue to lower teachers wages (or keep the wage freeze, same thing only slower) until the supply of potential teaching candidates reaches the demand.

If schools are finding it hard to fill positions we can look at giving individual schools the right to pay more under certain circumstances.

You wouldn't have engineers, accountants solicitors and actuaries with out the teachers and as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

Icepick · 02-05-2015 08:32PM

Union-pleasing nonsense

PS needs to be properly managed and pay increases should go to those who deserve it. No automatic increments etc

Also it's better to cut income taxes and VAT so everybody benefits and government expenditure is not increasing.

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2015 08:32PM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You wouldn't have engineers, accountants solicitors and actuaries with out the teachers and as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

That's a nonsensical thing to say, you might as well say without accountants you wouldn't have teachers.

Our politicians shouldn't be getting 100k plus per annum but that's for another time.

Uncle Ben · 02-05-2015 08:39PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a nonsensical thing to say, you might as well say without accountants you wouldn't have teachers.

Our politicians shouldn't be getting 100k plus per annum but that's for another time.

You've answered your own post. You're the one who differentiated different professions and then selected the teachers for the pay cuts. Backed up with the reason that they have 3 months off.

Smacks of a little begrudgery.

Celticfire · 02-05-2015 08:41PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

50k base with bonuses for principle, vice principle etc. Is more than decent.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a nonsensical thing to say, you might as well say without accountants you wouldn't have teachers.

Our politicians shouldn't be getting 100k plus per annum but that's for another time.

You seem to think that nobody should be paid a decent wage in relation to the job they have and the responsibilities that come with it once they are members of the Public Sector.

Iwasfrozen · 02-05-2015 08:43PM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You've answered your own post. You're the one who differentiated different professions and then selected the teachers for the pay cuts. Backed up with the reason that they have 3 months off.

Smacks of a little begrudgery.

I knew I'd be accused of begrudgery. -_- Because clearly no one can have any criticisms of the public sector without being jealous.

I was pointing out how silly your "you wouldn't have x if it wasn't for y" statement was.

Uncle Ben · 02-05-2015 08:50PM

Icepick wrote: »

Union-pleasing nonsense

PS needs to be properly managed and pay increases should go to those who deserve it. No automatic increments etc

Also it's better to cut income taxes and VAT so everybody benefits and government expenditure is not increasing.

As someone on here or some other forum posted. 'who deserves it more, the nurse in a & e who for 12 hours tended 40 incidents or the nurse on the ward who for 12 hours tended the dying mother whilst her family watched on?' Who gets the pay increases and the increments. This measuring lark doesn't work.

barneystinson · 02-05-2015 08:58PM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

As someone on here or some other forum posted. 'who deserves it more, the nurse in a & e who for 12 hours tended 40 incidents or the nurse on the ward who for 12 hours tended the dying mother whilst her family watched on?' Who gets the pay increases and the increments. This measuring lark doesn't work.

It doesn't necessarily not work at all, but as the above example illustrates you need to be VERY careful if you're going to start linking PS workers' pay increments to specific performance indicators.

I.e. no point crying afterwards that X, Y & Z have suffered, when a system has been implemented whereby there's no incentive for delivering X, Y or Z.

Uncle Ben · 02-05-2015 09:05PM

barneystinson wrote: »

It doesn't necessarily not work at all, but as the above example illustrates you need to be VERY careful if you're going to start linking PS workers' pay increments to specific performance indicators.

I.e. no point crying afterwards that X, Y & Z have suffered, when a system has been implemented whereby there's no incentive for delivering X, Y or Z.

I agree. However there are some who believe that PS pay and conditions can simply be measured and a wage can then be calibrated against it. It doesn't work that way.

Mr. teddywinkles · 03-05-2015 09:35AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I knew I'd be accused of begrudgery. -_- Because clearly no one can have any criticisms of the public sector without being jealous.

I was pointing out how silly your "you wouldn't have x if it wasn't for y" statement was.

This thread is so funny. One minute people who work in the public sector are poor mouthing. Then everyone is told their jealous of them. Ffs
This public vrs private is farcical affair

The J Stands for Jay · 03-05-2015 09:39AM

Some of them deserve increases, some don't. It's hard to decide which is which.

Except the politicians, they don't need an increase. They are set for life once they are elected, even if they get voted out at the next election.

evolving_doors · 03-05-2015 09:41AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

50k base with bonuses for principle, vice principle etc. Is more than decent.

Ya I suppose,in the private sector 50k (with 'bonuses') would be wayyy to mych for a manager of a company with 30 staff and 700 odd children.

evolving_doors · 03-05-2015 09:43AM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

As someone on here or some other forum posted. 'who deserves it more, the nurse in a & e who for 12 hours tended 40 incidents or the nurse on the ward who for 12 hours tended the dying mother whilst her family watched on?' Who gets the pay increases and the increments. This measuring lark doesn't work.

Aye there were a few on here who said it could be done but it would be 'too complicated' to explain.

evolving_doors · 03-05-2015 09:52AM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

This thread is so funny. One minute people who work in the public sector are poor mouthing. Then everyone is told their jealous of them. Ffs
This public vrs private is farcical affair

Tis farcical allright but unfortunately people feed off the spin that someone is creaming it from their taxes, then when someone tries to defend their bread and butter they get accused of the poor mouth.

At no stage will these folk realise that they'll ALWAYS resent someone elses payslip. Dog in a manger.. if the dog can't eat the hay he'll try his damndest to make sure no one else can.

Monife · 03-05-2015 09:53AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.

There's accountants in my PS office on about 40k so what you say is not true.

suicide_circus · 03-05-2015 10:02AM

Can people please stop saying "PS"? Do I need to explain why it's confusing?

Mr. teddywinkles · 03-05-2015 10:07AM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Tis farcical allright but unfortunately people feed off the spin that someone is creaming it from their taxes, then when someone tries to defend their bread and butter they get accused of the poor mouth.

At no stage will these folk realise that they'll ALWAYS resent someone elses payslip. Dog in a manger.. if the dog can't eat the hay he'll try his damndest to make sure no one else can.

So your sayin it is jealousy.
It wouldn't be because of this so called upturn in the economy and I want what I'm entitled to type of mentality

evolving_doors · 03-05-2015 10:35AM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So your sayin it is jealousy.
It wouldn't be because of this so called upturn in the economy and I want what I'm entitled to type of mentality

Whats wrong wuth getting what you are entitled to?

Anyway I think we need to draw a distinction between pay restoration and a 'pay rise'. Iirc there was negotiations under CP1&2, then the govt. demanded more under Haddington Road.. so grand,cuts and increased workload with the understanding that it would be removed in 2016.. so either FEMPI is in play or its not'

Im not looking for a complete restoration..(obviously the unions have to ask for everything before negotiations).. Im the same as any other Joe in public or private sector trying to decide whether to stay or go.

Mr. teddywinkles · 03-05-2015 11:26AM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Whats wrong wuth getting what you are entitled to?

Anyway I think we need to draw a distinction between pay restoration and a 'pay rise'. Iirc there was negotiations under CP1&2, then the govt. demanded more under Haddington Road.. so grand,cuts and increased workload with the understanding that it would be removed in 2016.. so either FEMPI is in play or its not'

Im not looking for a complete restoration..(obviously the unions have to ask for everything before negotiations).. Im the same as any other Joe in public or private sector trying to decide whether to stay or go.

Would ya be up for hiring more staff instead of pay rise to relieve this massive workload?

jcon1913 · 03-05-2015 11:48AM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You wouldn't have engineers, accountants solicitors and actuaries with out the teachers and as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

QUOTE ....as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

Most of these are taxable

QUOTE .....When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

youre not comparing a TD with a schoolteacher surely?

Celticfire · 03-05-2015 11:50AM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Would ya be up for hiring more staff instead of pay rise to relieve this massive workload?

Would it not be cheaper to restore his pay and make him continue to do this extra work instead of hiring new employees? And anyhow why would you want more people hired ??? I thought the consensus is that the PS is bloated.

Mr. teddywinkles · 03-05-2015 12:20PM

Celticfire wrote: »

Would it not be cheaper to restore his pay and make him continue to do this extra work instead of hiring new employees? And anyhow why would you want more people hired ??? I thought the consensus is that the PS is bloated.

Well which is it. Its bloated or understaffed and overworked?

osarusan · 03-05-2015 12:21PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Well which is it. Its bloated or understaffed and overworked?

Which do you think?

Celticfire · 03-05-2015 12:26PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Well which is it. Its bloated or understaffed and overworked?

Perhaps if we engage our Brain for a second we can figure out that it's a combination of both. Overstaffed in some areas and understaffed in others. Not everything is black or white.

Mr. teddywinkles · 03-05-2015 12:44PM

Celticfire wrote: »

Perhaps if we engage our Brain for a second we can figure out that it's a combination of both. Overstaffed in some areas and understaffed in others. Not everything is black or white.

You said this not me. Why would you restore pay if this hasn't been achieved. To be honest if new blood entered this sector. Might shake it up a bit.

mikemac1 · 03-05-2015 12:55PM

The teacher here on 43k gets Christmas and Easter holidays, good for them.

Is she needs more and don't we all why not get a second job during June, July and August?

Or even just work two of these and you still have more time off then a private sector worker who gets 20 days annual leave or a clerical officer who does much the same.

Language schools, teach English abroad, leisure centers are just some examples.

Maybe teachers wages aren't great but a nurse or accountant or garda or whoever on the same salary cannot take months off to pull a second job. These holidays are a huge premium to the role.

+1 to the post above about PS. Makes no sense to use it

Celticfire · 03-05-2015 01:12PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

You said this not me. Why would you restore pay if this hasn't been achieved. To be honest if new blood entered this sector. Might shake it up a bit.

Because when The Government implemented the cuts it did so on the condition (which is written into law) that it would restore pay when the deficit is below 3% of GDP. They made blanket cuts to budgets and stopped all hiring of staff even in essential areas that needed it. That was their policy and the mess they created.

Geuze · 03-05-2015 03:35PM

Given that a Chartered accountant newly qualified in 2013 was earning nearly 50k on average in 2014, and given that Chartered Accountants earn nearly 90k on average in 2014, and given that as a society we want to attract high calibre candidates into teaching, then as a society, we must pay teachers well.

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

So a 40yr old teacher should be on 55-60k, with 10 yrs+ experience.

Iwasfrozen · 03-05-2015 03:45PM

Geuze wrote: »

Given that a Chartered accountant newly qualified in 2013 was earning nearly 50k on average in 2014, and given that Chartered Accountants earn nearly 90k on average in 2014, and given that as a society we want to attract high calibre candidates into teaching, then as a society, we must pay teachers well.

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

So a 40yr old teacher should be on 55-60k, with 10 yrs+ experience.

Chartered Accountants have to spend years doing professional exams outside college, it's not a fair comparison.

Also the teaching profession is over subscribed in this country, increasing wages will only lead to more congestion making it harder for new graduates to find jobs.

A 50k base cap with bonuses for principals, vice principals etc. is more than enough.

Public sector pay increase

Comments