Benchmakring III without the comparison

Geuze · 19-05-2015 10:44AM

I repeat, it is the norm for employers to make conts towards their staff pensions, be they DB or DC.

In any public or private sector pension scheme, all across the world, employers contribute.

Often just employers, with no contribution from workers. Yes, that exists in the private sector. No contribution from workers.

Often, employers and employees both contribute.

But to suggest that the Irish PS should be the one of the few, if only, organisation in the world where the employer makes no cont at all towards their staff pensions, that is not plausable, and is not going to happen.

Now, if you suggest, abolish the DB pension and replace it with a DC scheme - yes, that may happen.

If you suggest higher staff conts to the DB pension - that has happened.

But what you suggest is a DC pension, with no employer cont at all - extremely unlikely.

fliball123 · 19-05-2015 10:58AM

Geuze wrote: »

We are constantly been told that there and labour and skills shortages in IT.

How come some IT staff got only 2 payrises in 12 years?

It looks like their wages will lag inflation, meaning a fall in real wages.

The employer is getting a very good deal here, employing scarce staff but paying them less in real terms

Well one was pre bust and one was last year so there was about an 8/9 year period of no payrises thoughout the company.

Maybe it will lag inflation but I enjoy working here as it offers flexibility and with having a 4 year old kid that is like golddust to me. I still do the same hours but I can log in from home at 8am and do an hour or 2 and then miss the heavy traffic on the way in. If my kid is sick I can work from home etc. So thats why I have not moved to another company.

The employer was not in a position to give pay rises it was not making much of a profit and thats how things are in the real world unfortunately.

fliball123 · 19-05-2015 11:06AM

Geuze wrote: »

I repeat, it is the norm for employers to make conts towards their staff pensions, be they DB or DC.

In any public or private sector pension scheme, all across the world, employers contribute.

Often just employers, with no contribution from workers. Yes, that exists in the private sector. No contribution from workers.

Often, employers and employees both contribute.

But to suggest that the Irish PS should be the one of the few, if only, organisation in the world where the employer makes no cont at all towards their staff pensions, that is not plausable, and is not going to happen.

Now, if you suggest, abolish the DB pension and replace it with a DC scheme - yes, that may happen.

If you suggest higher staff conts to the DB pension - that has happened.

But what you suggest is a DC pension, with no employer cont at all - extremely unlikely.

I have given you 2 links that disproves that this is the norm as you put it. Its the norm in the public sector alright but why should that not be challenged? LIke I say when over half the working population cannot afford to put money into their own pension it is an absolute scandal that they are forced to pay for the public servants to have one. If they wont one..let them pay it themselves and then give them their levy back.

Its not plausable to expect people to pay for this when they cant afford their own. its that simple. The public sector DB scheme is a ticking time bomb which over the next couple of decades will explode

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/the-timebomb-that-is-public-sector-pensions-is-still-ticking-away-31219757.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/public-sector-pensions-bill-for-next-60-years-will-be-116bn-28815056.html

http://campus.ie/surviving-college/taxpayers-will-pay-billions-avert-pension-time-bomb

http://campus.ie/surviving-college/howlin-rows-back-plan-defuse-pension-time-bomb

But by all means you think this is fricken normal. It will be more damaging to be on the hook for this than any bank ever was

PeteFalk78 · 19-05-2015 11:16AM

So fliball, other than the USC you haven't taken any paycuts?
In the past 7 years I've
1) Had a pay reduction of 6.3%
2) Added an extra 2.5hrs to my working week equating to a 6.8% paycut
3) Additional pension levy of 6.7%
4) USC charge of 8%

All above have effectively reduced my take home income by around 25%
Non pay related items include
1) Covering non-replaced retirees/sick leave/maternity leave work.
2) Reduction of annual leave
3) Reduction of sick leave entitlements

Now the bottom line is (regardless in whether you think the above was merited before or after cuts) that it is obvious that the majority of the public sector have paid and suffered alot during the past 7 years.

Its obvious which one of the two of us has suffered the most.

Sleepy · 19-05-2015 11:44AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't use the gross AND the pension both as supposed benefits.
Anyone I know who's started in Admin in the private sector is on a good bit more than minimum wage and I doubt you'll find too many people in an office job for 10+ years without getting a raise.

Of course you can, the employee doesn't pay anything close to the cost of the pension ergo it's a benefit.

Someone in an office job in the private sector for 10 years might get slight increases for cost of living or performance over that time period but they're not guaranteed them and any major increase will be the result of a promotion, not simply time served.

Geuze · 19-05-2015 12:03PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Under what do you consider the norm

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026530.shtml

While over 50% of the private sector cant pay for their own they should not have to pay for others to have theirs..Why should they. If you want a pension you bloody go and pay for it.

This first link tells us that half the workforce don't have a work pension.

The solution here is not to abolish the PS pension.

The solutions are:

introduce more targeted tax reliefs to encourage workers to join pension
[less tax reliefs for high earners, more for average earners]
massively reduce the fees charged by pension insurers
maybe go as far as auto-enrolment into work pensions

Geuze · 19-05-2015 12:10PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Its not plausable to expect people to pay for this when they cant afford their own. its that simple. The public sector DB scheme is a ticking time bomb which over the next couple of decades will explode

But by all means you think this is fricken normal. It will be more damaging to be on the hook for this than any bank ever was

I fully agree that future PS pension liabilities are high.

Here are some solutions:

reduce future benefits - this has happened
increase retirement ages - this has happened
increase cont rates - this has happened

I would go further and acknowledge that existing PS pensioners have done well, so I would not allow any rises in PS pensions in payment for maybe 10 years.

BoJack Horseman · 19-05-2015 01:14PM

Geuze wrote: »

I am a customer of Vodafone. Some of the price I pay goes to pay employer conts into the Vodafone staff pension scheme.

As a former employee I can say its a very tiny contribution.

Not much core staff left.
All functions have either some or total contract/outsourcing in place.

Spent 7 years there, no pension contributions paid.

In fact, I've yet to work anywhere where that is the case!

fliball123 · 19-05-2015 01:34PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

So fliball, other than the USC you haven't taken any paycuts?
In the past 7 years I've
1) Had a pay reduction of 6.3%
2) Added an extra 2.5hrs to my working week equating to a 6.8% paycut
3) Additional pension levy of 6.7%
4) USC charge of 8%

All above have effectively reduced my take home income by around 25%
Non pay related items include
1) Covering non-replaced retirees/sick leave/maternity leave work.
2) Reduction of annual leave
3) Reduction of sick leave entitlements

Now the bottom line is (regardless in whether you think the above was merited before or after cuts) that it is obvious that the majority of the public sector have paid and suffered alot during the past 7 years.

Its obvious which one of the two of us has suffered the most.

Ok lets look at the 7 years so

The PS in that 7 years have also had 7 bouts of increments (costing between 100m and 250m a year) and in the decade preceding the bust the amount we pay for ps pay and pensions more than doubled through stupid stupid ideas such as benchmarking.
They also still have a fricken pension be grateful for that over 50% of the private sector don't have that luxury yet they have the luxury of covering the cost of the public sectors pensions. There has been an analysis done 1 in 5 in the private sector stopped paying into a pension as they could not afford it.
In the 7 years the dole queue rose too 400k at its highest from 100k its now come down a fair bit from that but its still too high.. How many of those who joined were from the public sector? as there was not one forced redundancy through out the crash.
They have and take a hell of a lot more sick leave then their private sector counter parts same goes with annual leave. ..
Now that there may be some wiggle room you want payrises..why not spend that money on employing new recruits to share the burden you have pointed out.
Why not spend it on Health where there is a disgraceful and dangerous amount of mistakes being made.
Why not give tax cuts to all employees instead of just easing the burden on the public sector?

We all made sacrifices but the ps were largely removed from the firing line during the bust and should not be first in line for a hand out

Also the private sector in general work till the job is done not this 37.5 hours a week. Some weeks I put in 50/60/70 hours to get something over the line.

so while I accept you took cuts you were also shielded from the majority of the harshness that the last 7 years brought

fliball123 · 19-05-2015 01:37PM

Geuze wrote: »

This first link tells us that half the workforce don't have a work pension.

The solution here is not to abolish the PS pension.

The solutions are:
introduce more targeted tax reliefs to encourage workers to join pension

[less tax reliefs for high earners, more for average earners]

massively reduce the fees charged by pension insurers

maybe go as far as auto-enrolment into work pensions

The current solution currently takes money they pay in tax and is it used to pay for public sector employees pensions..how the hell is that right.

Why not change it going forward if ps employee wants a pension..ps employee pays the full cost of their pension..end of story, they can take their levy back and do what they like with it.
That would be the fairest solution as it solves the ps pensions timebomb going, it gives ps their levy back and the tax payer can have a tax cut (ps workers included) due to not having to cover this..its win win win

Geuze · 19-05-2015 02:46PM

You are suggesting a race to the bottom where no worker has an occupational pension.

I am suggesting we raise all workers up, by enrolling all of them into work pensions.

Geuze · 19-05-2015 02:48PM

fliball123 wrote: »

The current solution currently takes money they pay in tax and is it used to pay for public sector employees pensions..how the hell is that right.

In every country in the world, taxpayers help fund PS pensions, as well as the PS staff themselves.

That is the norm, everywhere.

In capitalist, right-wing societies, like the USA, the taxpayers contribute towards the PS pensions.

Like any progressive employer would do.

Many countries are moving towards auto-enrolment in work pensions.

Geuze · 19-05-2015 02:50PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Why not change it going forward if ps employee wants a pension..ps employee pays the full cost of their pension..end of story, they can take their levy back and do what they like with it.
That would be the fairest solution as it solves the ps pensions timebomb going, it gives ps their levy back and the tax payer can have a tax cut (ps workers included) due to not having to cover this..its win win win

Many PS, especially with kids and mortgages would probably agree to this.

Note that it would not lead to a tax cut.

The Govt would lose the PRD income and the pension cont income in the short-term.

But they would still be paying out pensions to existing pensioners.

19-05-2015 02:59PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Of course you can, the employee doesn't pay anything close to the cost of the pension ergo it's a benefit.

Someone in an office job in the private sector for 10 years might get slight increases for cost of living or performance over that time period but they're not guaranteed them and any major increase will be the result of a promotion, not simply time served.

Take off the levy they pay and they're being paid the equivalent of €20K. Not a single person I know who's started a job in the last 2 years (call centres, admin and the like) started on that or less, and all have had raises. The chances of progression (with or without a degree) have also been open to them, something lacking in the civil service for a good while now and new entrants will be squeezed out by the pent-up demand for a while to come.
Also how long does one have to stay to get a pension? Private sector workers have the advantage of moving around and taking their pension with them.

sarumite · 19-05-2015 04:29PM

Geuze wrote: »

In every country in the world, taxpayers help fund PS pensions, as well as the PS staff themselves.

However not every government in the world acts as pension provider. In Sweden, where I was working within the public sector, the government (as employer) makes a contribution to a pension fund that is operated by a private company.

Gumbo · 19-05-2015 05:11PM

sarumite wrote: »

However not every government in the world acts as pension provider. In Sweden, where I was working within the public sector, the government (as employer) makes a contribution to a pension fund that is operated by a private company.

DC Scheme.
ESB operate this since the late naughties.
Most private sector companies that do have a scheme would be DC I'd imagine.

fliball123 · 19-05-2015 05:13PM

Geuze wrote: »

You are suggesting a race to the bottom where no worker has an occupational pension.

I am suggesting we raise all workers up, by enrolling all of them into work pensions.

Fair enough then loosen the noose by giving private sector employees their money back by taking the tax they pay towards public sector pensions and allow them put it into their own

fliball123 · 19-05-2015 05:16PM

Geuze wrote: »

In every country in the world, taxpayers help fund PS pensions, as well as the PS staff themselves.

That is the norm, everywhere.

In capitalist, right-wing societies, like the USA, the taxpayers contribute towards the PS pensions.

Like any progressive employer would do.

Many countries are moving towards auto-enrolment in work pensions.

So what if they do why should a working populous pay towards someone elses pension when they cannot afford their own. If you want to go by other countries look at how much the likes of Germany pay their ps in comparison to the private sector. Just becasue the USA does it should we do it too. The US you get 6 months on the scratch/dole then your on your own would you be for that as well.

My main point is its unfair to ask people to pay for other peoples pensions when they cannot afford their own.

fliball123 · 19-05-2015 05:17PM

Geuze wrote: »

Many PS, especially with kids and mortgages would probably agree to this.

Note that it would not lead to a tax cut.

The Govt would lose the PRD income and the pension cont income in the short-term.

But they would still be paying out pensions to existing pensioners.

Well it has to start somewhere if there was a cut over to defined contribution and away from benefit and those on defined benefit would get a further levy to bring what they get down aswell and even the playing field

Private Joker · 19-05-2015 05:24PM

fliball, you have a serious issue with the public service in this country, we get it already. there is no need to start a new thread about it every few months .

how many times does the same argument need to be made? frankly i find your arguments are just rants better suited to after hours.

ardmacha · 19-05-2015 08:21PM

fliball123 wrote: »

So what if they do why should a working populous pay towards someone elses pension when they cannot afford their own. If you want to go by other countries look at how much the likes of Germany pay their ps in comparison to the private sector.

My main point is its unfair to ask people to pay for other peoples pensions when they cannot afford their own.

So, tell us, how are the civil service pensions in Germany? How much do they contribute?

glacial_pace71 · 19-05-2015 09:44PM

fliball123 wrote: »

I have given you 2 links that disproves that this is the norm as you put it. Its the norm in the public sector alright but why should that not be challenged? LIke I say when over half the working population cannot afford to put money into their own pension it is an absolute scandal that they are forced to pay for the public servants to have one. If they wont one..let them pay it themselves and then give them their levy back.

Its not plausable to expect people to pay for this when they cant afford their own. its that simple. The public sector DB scheme is a ticking time bomb which over the next couple of decades will explode

But by all means you think this is fricken normal. It will be more damaging to be on the hook for this than any bank ever was

Fliball, the poor Richard Curran chap thought that a public sector pension is 2/3 the value of final salary. (He's mixing up the scheme with that of certain financial institutions). The other article compares apples and oranges, being oblivious to the changes in 1995 (full PRSI, limited pension) and 2004 (restricted early retirement).

The scheme is generally 1/80 for every year of whole-time equivalent of service, plus 3/80 lump sum. For most scheme participants, the lump sum element is to cover the period between 65 and eligibility for the state pension at 68. For those who have moved between the public and private sector, and for those who have had reduced WTE years, e.g. job-sharers, it'd be unlikely that even a fraction of these would have the requisite years for their pension contributions to produce an amount over the value of the state pension.

Most private sector schemes offer a mix of employer and employee contributions. For example, AIB used to offer in the region of 15% of salary towards an employee's scheme, but found that this was atypical for certain specialists, e.g. IT personnel, who are better served by specific contractual arrangements. Still though, if you believe the Indo (which I take it you do, given that you refer to their articles on various matters), the AIB staff representatives continued to argue for ICT personnel to be included in the 15% scheme:
/business/irish/aib-workers-union-unite-threatens-industrial-action-over-pensions-dispute-30911159.html
However, another Indo source states that AIB offers on average an 18% employer contribution and that there are associated Labour Court rulings on the matter:
/business/irish/media-bites-aib-pension-contributions-above-average-30356538.html

The 140,000 existing public sector pensioners cost in the region of €19k per annum. Given that the state pension is €11k-12k per annum, i.e. if part of their pensions were eliminated in favour of the standard social welfare pension (contributory or non-contributory), then the actual pension received for their superannuation contributions is in the order of €7-8k per annum. Those who joined after 1995 already pay in the region of 6.5% in pension contributions. Even if the employer's share was 7.5%, i.e. half the 15% on offer in other major institutions, then I couldn't see an average return of €8k per annum for 20 years of retirement as matching 40 years of contributions during a career. (This is not even to mention the 7.5% levy which has applied for the past 7 years of their careers).

There are many trees up which to bark about the public service but the grumble about certain pensions is only encouraging some politician's lackey to take a petrol or matches to a hospice or retirement home. The constant "they must die now" vibe inevitably produces its own imperative: you'll recall "Big Ian" Paisley's rants and raves, and him being the first to wag the finger if some loyalist followed the logic of what was being said to a physical action conclusion. There are 140,000 who will eventually pass away. Of the 280,000 public servants there are some who have the same scheme as those you wish to see expire, but for the majority of the 280,000 the various revised arrangements apply. In fact the danger for the Government would be the loss of hundreds of millions in revenue per annum if it were to release employees to their own pension schemes.

Godge · 19-05-2015 11:51PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Fair enough then loosen the noose by giving private sector employees their money back by taking the tax they pay towards public sector pensions and allow them put it into their own

Fliball, as usual you are talking complete rubbish when you refer to the public sector.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-03-25a.76

As you can see, between 2009 and 2012, the cost of public service pensions dropped from €116 bn to €98 bn so public sector employees have already given back €18 bn to the private sector taxpayer over three years. How greedy are you?

Geuze · 20-05-2015 08:22AM

fliball123 wrote: »

The US you get 6 months on the scratch/dole then your on your own would you be for that as well.

Yes, I would be for the extension of JSB and the abolition of JSA, replacing it with optional paid work.

Geuze · 20-05-2015 08:24AM

glacial_pace71 wrote: »

Those who joined after 1995 already pay in the region of 6.5% in pension contributions.

Note that PS have ALWAYS paid 6.5% pension conts.

I repeat, to be clear, they have always paid 6.5% pension conts.

After April 95, new recruits began to pay full-rate PRSI.

fliball123 · 20-05-2015 09:44AM

Private Joker wrote: »

fliball, you have a serious issue with the public service in this country, we get it already. there is no need to start a new thread about it every few months .

how many times does the same argument need to be made? frankly i find your arguments are just rants better suited to after hours.

I have a serious issue when I see the state of our A&Es , our class rooms , our infrastructure and when I look at the amount of tax that I pay. The 2 dont add up what I pay I am certainly not getting any kind of value in return and now the people responsible for the above think that they are deserving of more from my back pocket. Like the thread name states this is benchmarking III without any measure just a pure blank cheque every little ps piggy gets a sup from the trough its actually embarrassing for any government to be entering talks about ps pay rises while we are borrowing 6 billion this year. Maybe a few days for Enda or Howlin in Beaumont hospital without a bed and sitting there in pain with no help would help focus their narrow minds on where any money should be going

fliball123 · 20-05-2015 09:44AM

ardmacha wrote: »

So, tell us, how are the civil service pensions in Germany? How much do they contribute?

What is the pay differential between public and private sectors in Germany??

fliball123 · 20-05-2015 09:46AM

Godge wrote: »

Fliball, as usual you are talking complete rubbish when you refer to the public sector.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-03-25a.76

As you can see, between 2009 and 2012, the cost of public service pensions dropped from €116 bn to €98 bn so public sector employees have already given back €18 bn to the private sector taxpayer over three years. How greedy are you?

How much did it go up in the decade before that..and have you figures their for 2013 - 2015?

fliball123 · 20-05-2015 09:50AM

Geuze wrote: »

Note that PS have ALWAYS paid 6.5% pension conts.

I repeat, to be clear, they have always paid 6.5% pension conts.

After April 95, new recruits began to pay full-rate PRSI.

Can you comfirm that what the public service pays in contributions, levies etc cover the full cost of their pension? The answer is NO there is a shortfall which has to be covered by people who quite simply cannot afford their own. I never said they didnt contribute..So I will bold and undeline and caps it for you

THE PS DO NOT PAY ENOUGH TO COVER THE FULL COST OF THEIR PENSIONS

fliball123 · 20-05-2015 09:53AM

glacial_pace71 wrote: »

Fliball, the poor Richard Curran chap thought that a public sector pension is 2/3 the value of final salary. (He's mixing up the scheme with that of certain financial institutions). The other article compares apples and oranges, being oblivious to the changes in 1995 (full PRSI, limited pension) and 2004 (restricted early retirement).

The scheme is generally 1/80 for every year of whole-time equivalent of service, plus 3/80 lump sum. For most scheme participants, the lump sum element is to cover the period between 65 and eligibility for the state pension at 68. For those who have moved between the public and private sector, and for those who have had reduced WTE years, e.g. job-sharers, it'd be unlikely that even a fraction of these would have the requisite years for their pension contributions to produce an amount over the value of the state pension.

Most private sector schemes offer a mix of employer and employee contributions. For example, AIB used to offer in the region of 15% of salary towards an employee's scheme, but found that this was atypical for certain specialists, e.g. IT personnel, who are better served by specific contractual arrangements. Still though, if you believe the Indo (which I take it you do, given that you refer to their articles on various matters), the AIB staff representatives continued to argue for ICT personnel to be included in the 15% scheme:
/business/irish/aib-workers-union-unite-threatens-industrial-action-over-pensions-dispute-30911159.html
However, another Indo source states that AIB offers on average an 18% employer contribution and that there are associated Labour Court rulings on the matter:
/business/irish/media-bites-aib-pension-contributions-above-average-30356538.html

The 140,000 existing public sector pensioners cost in the region of €19k per annum. Given that the state pension is €11k-12k per annum, i.e. if part of their pensions were eliminated in favour of the standard social welfare pension (contributory or non-contributory), then the actual pension received for their superannuation contributions is in the order of €7-8k per annum. Those who joined after 1995 already pay in the region of 6.5% in pension contributions. Even if the employer's share was 7.5%, i.e. half the 15% on offer in other major institutions, then I couldn't see an average return of €8k per annum for 20 years of retirement as matching 40 years of contributions during a career. (This is not even to mention the 7.5% levy which has applied for the past 7 years of their careers).

There are many trees up which to bark about the public service but the grumble about certain pensions is only encouraging some politician's lackey to take a petrol or matches to a hospice or retirement home. The constant "they must die now" vibe inevitably produces its own imperative: you'll recall "Big Ian" Paisley's rants and raves, and him being the first to wag the finger if some loyalist followed the logic of what was being said to a physical action conclusion. There are 140,000 who will eventually pass away. Of the 280,000 public servants there are some who have the same scheme as those you wish to see expire, but for the majority of the 280,000 the various revised arrangements apply. In fact the danger for the Government would be the loss of hundreds of millions in revenue per annum if it were to release employees to their own pension schemes.

I have pointed out that over 50% of private sector have no scheme and that 1 in 5 in the private sector over the bust stopped paying their pension, therefore they have no money and no pension bar the OAP which they pay in full via PRSI. Now I do accept there are private sector pensions out there and if you or anyone else bothered to read what I put up here. I have said defined contribution should be consigned to the past in both public and private sectors as when the pension goes belly up the the tax payer is asked to be the doorstop which is unfair.

Benchmakring III without the comparison

Comments