Will the government ever grasp the nettle of public sector pay ?

gerry28

Can you not honestly see how irritating it could be to hear people complain about the pension levy (pay cut) but suddenly keep quiet about the increments (i.e. pay rise) they get in the same year?

I'll be down twice as much as i gain from the increment. I'm irritated by the non stop bashing us PS/CS workers get. Its non stop and indiscriminately targeted.

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

How are legal, bank & IT sector salaries these days?

Crashed on those who had them good. So should PS wages crash to match them as seen they increased in good times to so called match fictional high pay private sector salaries.

Its very simple, benchmark backwards so it would be fairer than an across the board paycut.

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

WE established some (VERY CONSIDERABLE) time ago that we ARE talking about a LEVY and NOT pay cuts. Sorry for shouting, but it appears that the message is being lost in the noise.

(It would have been far better if it had been a pay cut, as the pensions bill would have been cut, as well.)

OK, let's call it the PSEL (Public Sector Employee Levy) - how much in percentage terms is an average increment?

gurramok wrote:

Crashed on those who had them good.

Details?

dresden8

NewDubliner wrote: »

OK, let's call it the PSEL (Public Sector Employee Levy) - how much in percentage terms is an average increment?

Public Sector Envy Levy?

Hillel

gerry28 wrote: »

I'll be down twice as much as i gain from the increment. I'm irritated by the non stop bashing us PS/CS workers get. Its non stop and indiscriminately targeted.

You're extremely fortunate that you can recover half of what you lost through an increment. But, that means that the government made only half of the already small saving it was getting.
I can understand your irritation. Watching Dermot Ahearn on Q's & A's right now, I'm beginning to feel a right mug for taking a voluntary pay cut. These bozos have no intention of taking any real pain on behalf of the country. The clear message is look after number one, at all costs.:mad:

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

Details?

I'll give you quite a simple example.

About 200,000 extra people are out of a job in just over a year, the vast vast majority from the private sector, so thats 200,000 with less take home pay to benchmark on.

And then we have the ones like me who are lucky to still have a job who has been through 2 redundancy rounds but we still have uncertainty. We've had paycuts and pay freezes across all areas as well as firing on god knows how many contractors, and this is a major MNC based here which employs thousands.

Will you support a new benchmarking process then? Just don't be shocked at the results! (i'm afraid you might have high blood pressure )

NewDubliner

gurramok wrote: »

I'll give you quite a simple example.

That's not how it works. You compare similar jobs.

Hillel

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's not how it works. You compare similar jobs.

I get the drift. What we have we hold, and no matter what happens in the country we'll find a way to justify not contributing to turning the country around. :rolleyes:

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's not how it works. You compare similar jobs.

Proof is in the pudding, enjoy the read of the last benchmarking report.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewtxt.asp?DocID=5130&CatID=31

Are you honestly saying private sector wages have not decreased?

ixoy

gerry28 wrote: »

I'll be down twice as much as i gain from the increment.

How so? I'm curious about this one. I was looking at the pay scales in the CS earlier on and increments seem to generally be in and around the 1k mark. That's generally more than 1% of your wage. The levy bands don't jump in 1% increments so how does the increment make it worse for you? Genuinely curious.

I'm irritated by the non stop bashing us PS/CS workers get. Its non stop and indiscriminately targeted.

And other people are getting irritated by the PS/CS playing the "woe is us" card but many not willing to admit that they are getting off comparatively lightly.

I'd actually like to see the pension levy increased - not at the lower ends but at the higher. A CO losing 6.7% is one thing, but when a PO is only losing just over 9%.... Why not keep the 6.7% but bump up the reduction on the AP/PO+ scale? Other than the fact it would affect our dear old TDs...

ParkRunner

I personally would be willing to forego my increment this year and until the economy manages to stabilise itself, as prices are generally falling and I don't have a mortgage, children, debt..etc

What would deter me from foregoing my increment is:
1) the significant minority in both the public and private sector who are retiring on exorbitant pensions..millions of euro which could pay the wages of several workers
2) the significant minority involved in social welfare fraud (huge savings could be made here)
3) The Towards 2016 pay increase due is still alive and well in many private sector organisations, including BOI
4) Tax loopholes used and abused by the ultra wealthy

P. Breathnach

ixoy wrote: »

...I'd actually like to see the pension levy increased - not at the lower ends but at the higher. A CO losing 6.7% is one thing, but when a PO is only losing just over 9%.... Why not keep the 6.7% but bump up the reduction on the AP/PO+ scale? Other than the fact it would affect our dear old TDs...

That would make a nonsense out of the notion that the levy is what it is said to be: a payment related to pension. The pension scheme is broadly the same for most civil and public servants, and there is no rationale for requiring some people to pay a different percentage than others (there is a rationale for exempting an element of everybody's pay, corresponding with the COAP element of public service pensions). I recognise that the government has already lost sight of the principle, but the adjustment made in the recent budget went a little way towards getting it back to a rational base.

What, in effect, you are proposing is more akin to a progressive tax.

P. Breathnach

EF wrote: »

... What would deter me from foregoing my increment is:
1) the significant minority in both the public and private sector who are retiring on exorbitant pensions..millions of euro which could pay the wages of several workers
2) the significant minority involved in social welfare fraud (huge savings could be made here)
3) The Towards 2016 pay increase due is still alive and well in many private sector organisations, including BOI
4) Tax loopholes used and abused by the ultra wealthy

If everybody waits until everybody else behaves perfectly then nothing will ever happen.

There is no honour in making it a condition of doing what you believe is the right thing that everybody else must do what you believe is the right thing.

ParkRunner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If everybody waits until everybody else behaves perfectly then nothing will ever happen.

There is no honour in making it a condition of doing what you believe is the right thing that everybody else must do what you believe is the right thing.

I'd happily contribute my increment to something akin to a social solidarity fund without those conditions met. Me and every other civil/public servant foregoing the increment though will not save the economy.
We need jobs, simple as. Time to re-direct the energy from public sector bashing into something constructive like job creation in my opinion.

gurramok

EF wrote: »

We need jobs, simple as. Time to re-direct the energy from public sector bashing into something constructive like job creation in my opinion.

Its called contributing. There is feck all money for job creation, they have to use the money thats there to shore up the banking system or we all be out of a job! (yeh its sh1tty and corrupt, we know that but we need it fixed)

I have not had an answer to this question yet..

Do you agree we should benchmark backwards?

ixoy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That would make a nonsense out of the notion that the levy is what it is said to be: a payment related to pension. The pension scheme is broadly the same for most civil and public servants, and there is no rationale for requiring some people to pay a different percentage than others (there is a rationale for exempting an element of everybody's pay, corresponding with the COAP element of public service pensions). I recognise that the government has already lost sight of the principle, but the adjustment made in the recent budget went a little way towards getting it back to a rational base.

What, in effect, you are proposing is more akin to a progressive tax.

Well I'd reverse the notion that it's a pension levy and go directly for a pay cut and implement it in that manner and get rid of the painful semantics of levying a pension. That way the higher ups would take a bigger pay cut (and it'd be a pay cut, not a % levy) and I imagine those at the bottom would feel a little bit better if the percentage margin was higher at the top. As a rough example Eircom managers took a 10% pay cut whereas the lower rungs are being asked to take a 5% cut (oh and the odd 1.2k jobs).

zootroid

EF wrote: »

I'd happily contribute my increment to something akin to a social solidarity fund without those conditions met. Me and every other civil/public servant foregoing the increment though will not save the economy.
We need jobs, simple as. Time to re-direct the energy from public sector bashing into something constructive like job creation in my opinion.

All well and good, but when the government is borrowing to the hilt just to run the country, how can it borrow for meaningful investment?

ParkRunner

gurramok wrote: »

Its called contributing. There is feck all money for job creation, they have to use the money thats there to shore up the banking system or we all be out of a job! (yeh its sh1tty and corrupt, we know that but we need it fixed)

I have not had an answer to this question yet..

Do you agree we should benchmark backwards?

Well either we benchmark or we don't. Comparing like with like in public & private sector is quite difficult though. Also while a benchmark backwards will reduce government expenditure, it will also result in a significant loss of tax revenue for the government as private sector businesses have a decline in sales and possibly have to layoff more staff. A backwards benchmark will inevitably result in further job losses in the private sector as far as I can see.
A delicate balance has to be achieved. I don't envy the Minister for Finance for a second.

Hillel

EF wrote: »

I'd happily contribute my increment to something akin to a social solidarity fund without those conditions met. Me and every other civil/public servant foregoing the increment though will not save the economy.
We need jobs, simple as. Time to re-direct the energy from public sector bashing into something constructive like job creation in my opinion.

Yes we do need jobs, and lots of them. That will only happen if we can get the cost base down. That cost base is primarily driven by the cost of servicing the public sector. Unless we can reduce the cost of the public sector we are simply in no position to attract substantial inward investment. Without that investment we will not get new jobs.

This is NOT about public sector bashing, rather it is about trying to bring the country back on track. Every saving, big or small, will contribute to that end.:)

gurramok

EF wrote: »

Well either we benchmark or we don't. Comparing like with like in public & private sector is quite difficult though. Also while a benchmark backwards will reduce government expenditure, it will also result in a significant loss of tax revenue for the government as private sector businesses have a decline in sales and possibly have to layoff more staff. A backwards benchmark will inevitably result in further job losses in the private sector as far as I can see.
A delicate balance has to be achieved. I don't envy the Minister for Finance for a second.

But if they save money by benchmarking backwards, they could use that money to invest in export based industry jobs, shouldn't that make up for the shortfall?

ParkRunner

gurramok wrote: »

But if they save money by benchmarking backwards, they could use that money to invest in export based industry jobs, shouldn't that make up for the shortfall?

They could, but they won't :rolleyes:

ParkRunner

Hillel wrote: »

Yes we do need jobs, and lots of them. That will only happen if we can get the cost base down. That cost base is primarily driven by the cost of servicing the public sector. Unless we can reduce the cost of the public sector we are simply in no position to attract substantial inward investment. Without that investment we will not get new jobs.

Maybe the longterm focus should be on harnessing the indigenous resources we have and developing these into a significant export market, like we used to do, rather than relying on the redundancy/relocation happy inward investment companies.

zootroid

EF wrote: »

Well either we benchmark or we don't. Comparing like with like in public & private sector is quite difficult though. Also while a benchmark backwards will reduce government expenditure, it will also result in a significant loss of tax revenue for the government as private sector businesses have a decline in sales and possibly have to layoff more staff. A backwards benchmark will inevitably result in further job losses in the private sector as far as I can see.
A delicate balance has to be achieved. I don't envy the Minister for Finance for a second.

But the government is already paying interest on what it borrows to pay for the public sector. I can see what you are saying about it having a deflationary effect, but surely the money it saves can be put to better use?

Hillel

EF wrote: »

Maybe the longterm focus should be on harnessing the indigenous resources we have and developing these into a significant export market, like we used to do, rather than relying on the redundancy/relocation happy inward investment companies.

I agree that encouraging indigenous resources is part of the solution. I don't believe that it will be sufficient on its own.

gurramok

EF wrote: »

They could, but they won't :rolleyes:

Yes and cut out waste and reduce the excesses in welfare etc. The only other solution is to increase the national debt to pay the bills.

I can see a scenario where a well paid public sector employee refuses a paycut but when his child leaves school/college down the line and asks..

"daddy, why are there no jobs for me?"

"son, i wanted the money i was paid to do, thats why they put up tax rates to 60% to pay for my job as well as to service the national debt. I was sure to get you into the public service when you grew up but unfortunately that embargo is still there 20yrs on and I didnt expect industry outside the public service to stagnate so much for the last 20years, thats why there are no jobs for you."

ParkRunner

Hillel wrote: »

I agree that encouraging indigenous resources is part of the solution. I don't believe that it will be sufficient on its own.

Neither will a cut in public sector pay. We need leadership and a proper plan, not the kind of tabloid nonense that is dominating media and public attention.

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

... Its very simple, benchmark backwards so it would be fairer than an across the board paycut.

I think there is a strong case for another benchmarking exercise, and I am sure it would result in pay reductions for many in the public service (but, imaginably, not all). But if it is put forward as benchmarking backwards, then it is prejudged, and that would not be right.

I have seen research, and it has been cited in discussions here, that suggests that it is the lower grades in the public service who have the greatest premium over their equivalents in the private sector. That does not sit well with the general sentiment here that it is those on higher scales who should take the greatest proportional cuts.

I wonder how the new medical consultants' contracts would come through benchmarking?

ParkRunner

zootroid wrote: »

But the government is already paying interest on what it borrows to pay for the public sector. I can see what you are saying about it having a deflationary effect, but surely the money it saves can be put to better use?

It can indeed, I totally agree, but at the moment any savings being made are being offset by the crippling social welfare bill and the necessity to recapitalise the bankers pensions banks.

ParkRunner

gurramok wrote: »

Yes and cut out waste and reduce the excesses in welfare etc. The only other solution is to increase the national debt to pay the bills.

I can see a scenario where a well paid public sector employee refuses a paycut but when his child leaves school/college down the line and asks..

"daddy, why are there no jobs for me?"

"son, i wanted the money i was paid to do, thats why they put up tax rates to 60% to pay for my job as well as to service the national debt. I was sure to get you into the public service when you grew up but unfortunately that embargo is still there 20yrs on and I didnt expect industry outside the public service to stagnate so much for the last 20years, thats why there are no jobs for you."

Cut waste and welfare I agree. Nepotism is a thing of the past though, the best it would probably get you is a temp CO summer job these days.

gurramok

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think there is a strong case for another benchmarking exercise, and I am sure it would result in pay reductions for many in the public service (but, imaginably, not all). But if it is put forward as benchmarking backwards, then it is prejudged, and that would not be right.

I have seen research, and it has been cited in discussions here, that suggests that it is the lower grades in the public service who have the greatest premium over their equivalents in the private sector. That does not sit well with the general sentiment here that it is those on higher scales who should take the greatest proportional cuts.

I wonder how the new medical consultants' contracts would come through benchmarking?

I see where you come from, call it 'Benchmarking III'

Consultants and TD's, their salaries would be slashed in half by a new report.

And some public workers have a different view of what low pay actually is. I asked it before and managed to get an answer of about 30k as low pay from only one poster but as from another thread, it was established that 30k is probably the median wage of the country!!