Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Public Service Pay Cut 2%

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    Why aren't the PS offered an opt out from the pension. Then levy those who do not opt out, the real cost.


  • Options
    #63
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Source? Or are you making things up?

    Considering somebody would need to be on 150k to pay 9%, I hope the average isn't 9%. 6% would be on wages of about 44k.

    http://www.agsi.ie/home.asp#table

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #64
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    smccarrick wrote: »
    The saving was through a deferment (indefinitely) of pay rises which had been agreed with government and with the unions via the Towards 2016 process. What is particularly galling to folk on all sides of the equation- is that it was paid to bank employees from bailout money, along with staff of some state bodies which are acknowledged to be benefitting from price gouging- such as ESB staff (we have the most expensive electricity in Europe).

    Obviously Towards 2016 needs to be revisited in light of the current turmoil the country finds itself in- but why on earth were the banks allowed pay increases to staff- after the mess they've left the country to deal with?

    Personally I don't see any point in striking- because I don't understand what the public sector unions hope to achieve. If they imagine that paycuts are not going to happen- they are deluded. If they would rather have a voice in how the cuts are implemented- standing outside a door waving a placcard- is hardly a good starting point- is it?

    Whats startling- is that there is strife and unrest over this 4 billion of cuts- this is only stage 1 in the process- we plan to cut another 5 billion next year, another 4 billion the next year and a further 4 billion the following year. We will still have a Debt:GDP ratio worse than Italy's by 2020 even with these savage cutbacks.

    People really don't comprehend just how severe the cuts coming down the road are going to be........

    The Bank officials got theirs awarded by the Labour Court. The Employers did contest it. The ESB are a law onto themselves!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #65
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    dny123456 wrote: »
    Why aren't the PS offered an opt out from the pension. Then levy those who do not opt out, the real cost.

    Those on under 25k don't benefit from it one way or the other- they only get the PRSI contributory OAP- the same as someone in the private sector gets. There is a valid argument for suggesting excluding the lower paid from the pension levy- as they are paying for something they don't benefit from.

    Most of the pension calculations done- do not diffrentiate between the Pre-1995 and the Post-1995 recruits to the public sector (nor do they recognise the dimunition in rights in the 2002 and 2004 acts). Pension rights have been reduced substantially in recent years- but the media prefer to focus on current pensioners- along with those due to retire in the near future- without ever recognising that changes have occurred.

    The mean (rather than average) salary in the public sector is just under 38k. Of this- 13k of the gross salary qualifies for consideration towards a public sector pension- the other 24,800 does not.

    Have you seen this explained by any media commentators?


  • Options
    #66
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    K-9 wrote: »
    The Bank officials got theirs awarded by the Labour Court. The Employers did contest it. The ESB are a law onto themselves!

    The civil service and most of the public sector are specifically excluded from using the labour court and its adjutant mechanisms. They accepted an offer from Management and their unions had their members vote on it and accept it. This has now been set aside- in most cases- other than the ESB etc (which I agree with you- are a total law unto themselves).

    It is not justifiable that the increases be awarded to any public sector employees, nor to employees of banks and other financial institutions which have benefitted from bank bail-out funds. It is confrontational to allow some employees benefit from an agreement which has been set aside.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    K-9 wrote: »
    Considering somebody would need to be on 150k to pay 9%, I hope the average isn't 9%. 6% would be on wages of about 44k.

    http://www.agsi.ie/home.asp#table

    So is the average pay for a public servant €44k?

    I asked irish_bob to back up his post, and I eagerly wait to see if he can.


  • Options
    #68
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Those on under 25k don't benefit from it one way or the other- they only get the PRSI contributory OAP- the same as someone in the private sector gets...

    Not quite true. They qualify for the lump sum, and also for a pension between the age of retirement and the age at which they are eligible for the contributory OAP.


  • Options
    #69
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Not quite true. They qualify for the lump sum, and also for a pension between the age of retirement and the age at which they are eligible for the contributory OAP.

    Its not a right- its at the discretion of a person's home department, and has to be sanctioned by Pensions Section in DoF on a case by case basis. The guidance actually suggests a personnel officer suggest the person claim social welfare assistance, if they are ineligible by age, to claim the contributory OAP.


  • Options
    #70
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    So is the average pay for a public servant €44k?

    I asked irish_bob to back up his post, and I eagerly wait to see if he can.

    i dont debate with those who make threats against me , you threatened to report me yesterday or the day before , you will become famous soon enough were your exact words


  • Options
    #71
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Riskymove wrote: »
    OMD wrote: »

    in my own opinion, unless they went crazy (10% +) I dont think strikes like we are having tomorrow are acceptable at all


    dont forget its actually 2,4 and 6% on top of an average 7.5% levy and 6% or so foregone from an agreed deal + reductions in allowances in many areas etc on top of income and health levies and prsi increases etc


    I believe that by not telling us what they are doing, they are allowing people to be stirred up and scared into acting in such a manner

    There should also be a change to benchmarking - what went up should come down.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Those on under 25k don't benefit from it one way or the other- they only get the PRSI contributory OAP- the same as someone in the private sector gets. There is a valid argument for suggesting excluding the lower paid from the pension levy- as they are paying for something they don't benefit from.

    Most of the pension calculations done- do not diffrentiate between the Pre-1995 and the Post-1995 recruits to the public sector (nor do they recognise the dimunition in rights in the 2002 and 2004 acts). Pension rights have been reduced substantially in recent years- but the media prefer to focus on current pensioners- along with those due to retire in the near future- without ever recognising that changes have occurred.

    The mean (rather than average) salary in the public sector is just under 38k. Of this- 13k of the gross salary qualifies for consideration towards a public sector pension- the other 24,800 does not.

    Have you seen this explained by any media commentators?

    I agree on the lower paid part and in fairness to the Govt., they did backtrack on the initial proposals. The Unions threw a hissy fit and walked out instead of negotiating.

    Of course your idea would mean the higher ups paying far more and I thinks its a non runner because of that.

    I accept your point on the state pension but every time I see this point brought up, the only solution is to reduce the state pension or maybe double PRSI contributions.
    smccarrick wrote: »
    The civil service and most of the public sector are specifically excluded from using the labour court and its adjutant mechanisms. They accepted an offer from Management and their unions had their members vote on it and accept it. This has now been set aside- in most cases- other than the ESB etc (which I agree with you- are a total law unto themselves).

    It is not justifiable that the increases be awarded to any public sector employees, nor to employees of banks and other financial institutions which have benefitted from bank bail-out funds. It is confrontational to allow some employees benefit from an agreement which has been set aside.

    It is, but the banks just used the mechanisms open to them. The Banks did oppose it. The Govt. should have stepped in but sure that would set a precedent for Mr. Drumm and his ilk!
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    So is the average pay for a public servant €44k?

    I asked irish_bob to back up his post, and I eagerly wait to see if he can.

    I've read it is that or higher. Using smccarricks' mean figure of 38k, it's 5.39%.

    PS. Somebody on 45k pays less Net, than the person on 38k due to the tax system.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #73
    BroomBurner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭BroomBurner


    Paycuts of 2% for those on the lower payscale wouldn't be a tremendously bad thing. However, to wonder why the PS is striking based on that is ridiculous. That 2% is heresay. The PS are striking to show their cards in the matter and win themselves some bargaining rights. It's the usual carry-on.


  • Options
    #74
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Its not a right- its at the discretion of a person's home department, and has to be sanctioned by Pensions Section in DoF on a case by case basis. The guidance actually suggests a personnel officer suggest the person claim social welfare assistance, if they are ineligible by age, to claim the contributory OAP.

    May I ask if it is accepted practice - so while in theory it may be at the discretion of personnel in practice -it may be granted automatically


  • Options
    #75
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Those on under 25k don't benefit from it one way or the other- they only get the PRSI contributory OAP- the same as someone in the private sector gets. There is a valid argument for suggesting excluding the lower paid from the pension levy- as they are paying for something they don't benefit from.

    Most of the pension calculations done- do not diffrentiate between the Pre-1995 and the Post-1995 recruits to the public sector (nor do they recognise the dimunition in rights in the 2002 and 2004 acts). Pension rights have been reduced substantially in recent years- but the media prefer to focus on current pensioners- along with those due to retire in the near future- without ever recognising that changes have occurred.

    The mean (rather than average) salary in the public sector is just under 38k. Of this- 13k of the gross salary qualifies for consideration towards a public sector pension- the other 24,800 does not.

    Have you seen this explained by any media commentators?

    No I haven't.

    So if they introduced another 11% levy, bringing it to 20% and offered you an opt out, would you opt out?

    Presuming those on under 25K as you say, do not benefit, surely they would be delighted with an opt out?


  • Options
    #76
    Absurdum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    smccarrick wrote: »
    The saving was through a deferment (indefinitely) of pay rises which had been agreed with government and with the unions via the Towards 2016 process. What is particularly galling to folk on all sides of the equation- is that it was paid to bank employees from bailout money, along with staff of some state bodies which are acknowledged to be benefitting from price gouging- such as ESB staff (we have the most expensive electricity in Europe).

    How are the ESB engaged in price gouging?


  • Options
    #77
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    irish_bob wrote: »
    i dont debate with those who make threats against me , you threatened to report me yesterday or the day before , you will become famous soon enough were your exact words

    Shoddy excuse. You can't back up what you say.

    I never threatened you.


  • Options
    #78
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    wandatowell wrote: »
    Im thinking around 6.5% pay cut

    The pay bill is about €20bn. 6.5% would come to €1.3bn, which was the figure being put about.

    Seems about right to me.


  • Options
    #79
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    smccarrick wrote:
    the public sector have had their net pay cut by 9%

    Got a link for that? It does not correspond with this: http://finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Publications/other/2009/pensiondedtablemay09.pdf


  • Options
    #80
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    dvpower wrote: »
    The pay bill is about €20bn. 6.5% would come to €1.3bn, which was the figure being put about.

    Seems about right to me.

    But you are ignoring the savings made by reductions in overtime, allowances and savings by the recruitment embargo. So cut will be definitely be less than 6.5%


  • Options
    #81
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    gurramok wrote: »
    Got a link for that? It does not correspond with this: http://finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Publications/other/2009/pensiondedtablemay09.pdf

    The Department of Finance link is solely related to the pension deduction. The PSEU statement referenced a fall in 'net' pay for its grades of 9%. This took into account other deductions (such as the increased PRSI and the income levy), but also the reductions in overtime and allowances that would have factored in the average net pay calculation for their grades.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    smccarrick wrote: »
    The Department of Finance link is solely related to the pension deduction. The PSEU statement referenced a fall in 'net' pay for its grades of 9%. This took into account other deductions (such as the increased PRSI and the income levy), but also the reductions in overtime and allowances that would have factored in the average net pay calculation for their grades.

    I'm not sure you can factor in cuts in overtime like that, sure if you loose overtime you loose money but since when does overtime become part of you base salary??


  • Options
    #83
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    I'm not sure you can factor in cuts in overtime like that, sure if you loose overtime you loose money but since when does overtime become part of you base salary??

    When you've been expected to do routine longterm?
    There has been a defacto embargo on recruitment since 2004 even before the official embargo, in certain sectors (normally implemented as 4 out- 1 in). Unfortunately no matter how you try to manage- overtime has become normal across many sectors. With the recent drive to 'encourage' staff to take early retirement- this is only going to increase (unless vast numbers of HSE staff agree to take up posts elsewhere in the public sector- something they have refused to do thus far- unless they are allowed keep their current salaries).


  • Options
    #84
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    smccarrick wrote: »
    The Department of Finance link is solely related to the pension deduction. The PSEU statement referenced a fall in 'net' pay for its grades of 9%. This took into account other deductions (such as the increased PRSI and the income levy), but also the reductions in overtime and allowances that would have factored in the average net pay calculation for their grades.

    Thats a union statement, its sceptical if its true. Where is the independent analysis?


  • Options
    #85
    BroomBurner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭BroomBurner


    smccarrick wrote: »
    (unless vast numbers of HSE staff agree to take up posts elsewhere in the public sector- something they have refused to do thus far- unless they are allowed keep their current salaries).

    My main gripe is why they aren't pushing to open the PS to be more flexible. This went from being a short-term plan, to being a medium-term plan for Cowen et al, which means that it may never happen.

    Being able to easily transfer people from over-staffed departments to under-staffed departments would greatly help the PS to function a little bit more efficiently (depending, of course, on the quality of those moved), so why isn't the government pushing this through?


  • Options
    #86
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    OMD wrote: »
    But you are ignoring the savings made by reductions in overtime, allowances and savings by the recruitment embargo. So cut will be definitely be less than 6.5%

    Absolutely. I'm also not factoring in the scaling of pay reductions.
    So lower paid public servants are likely to only take a very small hit.


  • Options
    #87
    _Kooli_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 347 ✭✭_Kooli_


    Riskymove wrote: »
    very little


    Very true.
    Would be much better adding 2% levy to all tax payers, not just public servants or well paid.
    That way, as you said, it would be very little. But it would result in a decent take at the end of the day.
    A hell of a lot more of a take than just reducing part of the workforces gross pay.
    Since it is all tax take and not just half of it.


  • Options
    #88
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    smccarrick wrote: »

    The mean (rather than average) salary in the public sector is just under 38k. Of this- 13k of the gross salary qualifies for consideration towards a public sector pension- the other 24,800 does not.

    Have you seen this explained by any media commentators?

    Very selective use of figures. Public service pension is based in final salary not average salary. So the figure you need to look at is the Median Final Salary which is a hell of a lot higher than 38k. Also you also get a lump sum of 1.5 times final salary. All of the salary is taken into account to get this figure.

    Have you ever seen this explained by any member of Public Service?


  • Options
    #89
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    OMD wrote: »
    Very selective use of figures. Public service pension is based in final salary not average salary. So the figure you need to look at is the Median Final Salary which is a hell of a lot higher than 38k. Also you also get a lump sum of 1.5 times final salary. All of the salary is taken into account to get this figure.

    Have you ever seen this explained by any member of Public Service?

    Median final salary is currently 38,899 (the top of the CO salary scale, allowing for two long service increments). Note- this is 'median' not average.

    Lumpsum of 1.5 times final salary is based on 40 years service, and not subject to topups. I get 25% of my private pension into my hand at age 65, I'm only obliged (along with everyone else) to purchase an annuity with the remaining 75%. I have to pay tax on the amount gross I withdraw- so there is equity in taxing the public sector lumpsum in a similar manner (given that both are based on income on which tax was not paid).

    ?


  • Options
    #90
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Median final salary is currently 38,899 (the top of the CO salary scale, allowing for two long service increments). Note- this is 'median' not average.

    Lumpsum of 1.5 times final salary is based on 40 years service, and not subject to topups. I get 25% of my private pension into my hand at age 65, I'm only obliged (along with everyone else) to purchase an annuity with the remaining 75%. I have to pay tax on the amount gross I withdraw- so there is equity in taxing the public sector lumpsum in a similar manner (given that both are based on income on which tax was not paid).

    ?

    Can you show me where you get median public service final salary is less than 39000. Considering all teachers, nurses, gardai, doctors and just about everyone in Civil Service above Grade 3 will have a final salary higher than this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    OMD wrote: »
    Can you show me where you get median public service final salary is less than 39000. Considering all teachers, nurses, gardai, doctors and just about everyone in Civil Service above Grade 3 will have a final salary higher than this.

    Thats from RTE news- it was a woman called Mary (or possibly Marie) Gibbons, she was talking about the possible recommencement of partnership talks, and issues outstanding. I believe she represents the CPSU. She stated that the vast majority of the staff in the civil service are at CO or SO grade and I got the scale from her website.

    I'm not familiar with what you mean by Grade 3 in the civil service- I've done a hunt on the IMPACT website which referred me to the PSEU website- but couldn't find any reference to Grade 3 civil service employees on either site. With google- the publicjobs.ie website infers that Grade 3 might be considered to be the equivalent of civil service CO grade (which is the scale I quoted from- LSI2 for a pre-1995 employee). Grade 4 might be considered the equivalent of SO or EO grade. They're not used however in the civil service (the coast guard and elsewhere might be different?) Max of Grade 3, inclusive of 2 long service increments- would be 38,899 according to this document (I am making an assumption that the towards 2016 pay rises referred to, were not in fact paid.)


Advertisement