Trade Unions will be crushed

ORLY?

Oh and to P.Breathnach, I just wanted to apologise and say that you were correct about the cars meeting.

ardmacha

Fair enough ORLY, we all rush in sometimes. However as P.Breathnach pointed out "public sector pay rose by 62% between 1998 and 2008; private sector bay rose by 71% in the same period". Consequently the lines are not parallel and private sector pay would eventually surpass public sector pay if this continued. Of course it hasn't continued and in any case both figures are misleading unless some account is taken of the nature and quantity of employment in each sector.

seclachi

Regarding public & privte sector pay levels, are we sure we are comparing like with like ? If the figures quoted here are averages across the entire industry then are we comparing like with like ?

The Government doesnt run any supermarkets or chippers, so its going to have less minimum wage workers. Lets take arbitrary figures, if 20% of the private sector is min wage, and 5% of the public sector is min wage, isnt this going to skew the figures ? I`m sure its also alot harder to get a job in the public sector for people with low qualifications, meaning you`ll find more of this class in the private sector.

ORLY?

ardmacha wrote: »

Fair enough ORLY, we all rush in sometimes. However as P.Breathnach pointed out "public sector pay rose by 62% between 1998 and 2008; private sector bay rose by 71% in the same period". Consequently the lines are not parallel and private sector pay would eventually surpass public sector pay if this continued. Of course it hasn't continued and in any case both figures are misleading unless some account is taken of the nature and quantity of employment in each sector.

The thing is though they wouldn't, that is what got me so riled up in the first place, the false assertion that they will meet and that the private sector line is steeper than the public sector one - it isn't. The average pay increase per year in the public sector was 1947 euro per year (slope of the line). The average increase in the private was 1536. It is obvious that public sector pay was rising faster and the gap would have continued to increase. The only reason that private pay increased more proportionately is because the number was so much lower than the ps figure initially. Please people, think about it - imagine the private sector line starts at the same point as the public sector line, at the end it would still be lower, how can it possibly be increasing faster than the public?

murphaph

ORLY? wrote: »

The thing is though they wouldn't, that is what got me so riled up in the first place, the false assertion that they will meet and that the private sector line is steeper than the public sector one - it isn't. The average pay increase per year in the public sector was 1947 euro per year (slope of the line). The average increase in the private was 1536. It is obvious that public sector pay was rising faster and the gap would have continued to increase. The only reason that private pay increased more proportionately is because the number was so much lower than the ps figure initially. Please people, think about it - imagine the private sector line starts at the same point as the public sector line, at the end it would still be lower, how can it possibly be increasing faster than the public?

This is what I've been trying to explain to certain people here. The public sector started out with enough of a headstart such that even though the percentage increase for the private sector is a few percent higher, they will NEVER catch the public sector as in any given year since 1998, the absolute value of a public sector pay rise will be higher than the absolute value of the private sector payrise, which means at the end of any given year, the gap between pay will have GROWN! Therefore (as the slopes of the lines on the graph show, simply) the private sector, given their lower start point and given current rates of increase in both sectors, will never earn more on average than the public sector. The lines diverge.

P. Breathnach

No matter how often a falsehood is repeated, it is still false.

Kidchameleon

Absurdum wrote: »

Cowen couldn't crush a paper cup.

WTF? Have you seen the size of the guy??

Scarab

murphaph wrote: »

This is what I've been trying to explain to certain people here. The public sector started out with enough of a headstart such that even though the percentage increase for the private sector is a few percent higher, they will NEVER catch the public sector as in any given year since 1998, the absolute value of a public sector pay rise will be higher than the absolute value of the private sector payrise, which means at the end of any given year, the gap between pay will have GROWN! Therefore (as the slopes of the lines on the graph show, simply) the private sector, given their lower start point and given current rates of increase in both sectors, will never earn more on average than the public sector. The lines diverge.

Can i try to clear up this argument for you all. You are quite right that the lines do diverge on the graph however you are incorrect in saying that the private sector will never overtake the public sector based on 71% growth versus 66% growth simply because you assume the trend to be linear. Compounded percentage growth will show an exponential distribution into the future, ie. a curved line. On this basis the curve for the private sector begins shallower than the private sector due to the lower absolute starting position however curves more steeply than the public sector line due to higher annual percentage rate rises. Given the completely unrealistic assumption of continued growth at the rates for the past 10 years the avg private sector wage would have surpassed the avg public sector wage in the year 2064 at an avg annual wage of €1.75 million!!

Of course most of this is largely academic, we would expect to see higher growth rates in the private sector in a period such as the last 10 years, however these rates are not sustainable as we are all currently witness to!

I think the real issue is that average public sector pay is higher than private sector pay when given an equal skills distribution - which is a big caveat - we should expect to see the opposite in order to compensate the private sector employees for lack of job security and pension benefits, higher productivity and worse terms and conditions.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To keep my response brief: that's a load of tosh. In particular, you are simply wrong about the rate of change: the purple line is actually steeper than the green line; it would be more obvious if Lyons were not trying to make a point, and showed things scaled from zero.

What falsehood? I was willing to admit that I made a mistake in the example I chose to show that the rate of change is greater in the public sector but have still shown that it is.

Can you not admit that when you said that the purple line is steeper you were wrong?

Do you deny that when wages are plotted against time that the rate of change is given by the slope is given by the slope?

Do you deny that if the purple line were left the same as it is in every way except shifted up so that it started at the same point as the green that it would still not overtake the green line and never would.

Are you interested in the truth? If so, show it by being unbiased and answering these questions.

You say you're about truth, that's all I care about, I have no politcal leanings, I will one day be a public service worker, I'm just about the data and the math. I'm really not trying to spin this.

Is the purple line or the green line steeper?

ORLY?

Scarab wrote: »

You are quite right that the lines do diverge on the graph however you are incorrect in saying that the private sector will never overtake the public sector based on 71% growth versus 66% growth simply because you assume the trend to be linear.

There is nothing to suggest that the trend is anything but linear, we can't extrapolate beyond the end of these data. Really, imagine that the private sector line started at the same point as the public sector, it would be seen that the public sector increase was a greater percentage of the starting wage. Really, the larger proportional increase is just incidental to the fact that the starting point in the private sector was that much smaller. It's not like anyone is suggesting that every 10 years the private sector will get a 71% increase while the public get 66%, then the private sector would eventually catch up, as was shown by my previously flawed example. It's just the way the percentages work out given the starting figure, it's the trend that's important. If it continued for another 10 years the percentage increase over 2008 in the private sector would be 41% while the percentage increase in the public would be 40%.

Scarab

ORLY? wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that the trend is anything but linear, we can't extrapolate beyond the end of these data. Really, imagine that the private sector line started at the same point as the public sector, it would be seen that the public sector increase was a greater percentage of the starting wage. Really, the large proportional increase is just incidental to the fact that the starting point in the private sector was that much smaller.

All i am doing is reconciling the fact that though the private sector have shown a greater percentage increase the lines on the graph appear to diverge. I can assure you that if growth continued at these rates it would form an exponential distribution based on the formula - current wages x (1 + annual growth rate) to the power of the number of years of growth.

You are attempting to extrapolate beyond the end of this data series by saying that the lines will never meet, however this is based on a linear or absolute amount of growth per year and not on a percentage growth rate. It's quite easy to extrapolate beyond the end of the series - just use the above formula or open an excel spreadsheet.

If the public sector and private sector started at the same point, of course it would be shown that the public sector growth was higher as a percentage as the Pub line though starting at the same point still has growth based on it's higher original value but this doesn't prove anything in relation to the graph.

I understand what you are saying about the trend, and of course if such absolute increases were continued it would show a linear distribution and increased divergence between the two lines. However most increases given in the public and private sectors are on the basis of percentage increases and hence tend towards an exponential distribution.

ORLY?

Scarab wrote: »

I can assure you that if growth continued at these rates it would form an exponential distribution based on the formula - current wages x (1 + annual growth rate) to the power of the number of years of growth.

Now we are getting somewhere, if the growth was occuring based on a percentage of wages each year, then what you have described is exactly what would happen, but is there evidence of that here? The graph would show exponential increases across the ten years - it doesn't, it's linear (pretty much). The yearly increments are fairly even.

Regardless, as myself and Murphaph were saying it is true that rate of change in the last 10 years was higher in the public sector? According to this grpah anyway. Now the uncertainty lies in whether the trend is linear or exponential. Is there evidence in the graph that suggests to you that it is exponential? I understand completely that the private graph could overtake the public if it were so but why does it not show evidence over the last 10 years?

tudlytops

gerry28 wrote: »

Don't forget this country is in the state its in because of the crazy property boom (helped on by FF) and rampant profiteering by sections of the private sector.

People feed the property boom, no one made them buy houses that weren't worth the money and well above their means.

And with the houses they wanted new furniture, new cars and still take their holiday.

People want want want, but no one want to save to get it, just borrow its a lot easier, now they cry about it.

Sorry I bought a small 2 bed cottage in need of repair, it took all i had, its not grand, but its mine, i saved for it a long long time.

P. Breathnach

I'm getting sick of this argument. Core fact: private sector pay rose by a greater percentage in the period recorded than did public sector pay. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that private sector pay was rising faster in that period.

Scarab

ORLY? wrote: »

Now we are getting somewhere, if the growth was occuring based on a percentage of wages each year, then what you have described is exactly what would happen, but is there evidence of that here? The graph would show exponential increases across the ten years - it doesn't, it's linear (pretty much). The yearly increments are fairly even.

Regardless, as myself and Murphaph were saying it is true that rate of change in the last 10 years was higher in the public sector? According to this grpah anyway. Now the uncertainty lies in whether the trend is linear or exponential. Is there evidence in the graph that suggests to you that it is exponential? I understand completely that the private graph could overtake the public if it were so but why does it not show evidence over the last 10 years?

Simply because for the rate of change involved the time period is not long enough. As i said in my first post the higher starting point for Pub Sec has a greater effect on the distribution in the early years which means the graph shows divergence, it would take many years before the graphs begin to curve and convergence begins. Here is what the graph would look like



I know it may be difficult to see but if you look at the first 10 years the graph looks linear despite being part of an exponential distribution, the first 10 years will also show divergence between the two lines.

The only reason i brought exponential growth into this is to reconcile people saying that the lines would not converge and people saying that the growth rate was higher in the private sector. Of course translated to the real world this becomes completely academic as future growth or currently decline rates will differ greatly from the last 10 years.

ORLY?

ORLY? wrote: »

What falsehood? I was willing to admit that I made a mistake in the example I chose to show that the rate of change is greater in the public sector but have still shown that it is.

Can you not admit that when you said that the purple line is steeper you were wrong?

Do you deny that when wages are plotted against time that the rate of change is given by the slope is given by the slope?

Is the purple line or the green line steeper?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm getting sick of this argument. Core fact: private sector pay rose by a greater percentage in the period recorded than did public sector pay. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that private sector pay was rising faster in that period.

So you won't answer any of these questions? Not so interested in the truth.

Scarab

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm getting sick of this argument. Core fact: private sector pay rose by a greater percentage in the period recorded than did public sector pay. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that private sector pay was rising faster in that period.

Yes it was rising faster and that is exactly what one would expect in a period such as the last ten years. But as i have said the difference in growth was so little that it would take another 50 years of unprecedented boom where private sector wages are expected to increase fast just to match public sector wages despite the differences in job security, hours, productivity, pensions and terms and conditions.

mikemac

I've skipped right to the end of this thread

You do realise that unions represent people in the private sector? And many employers in the private sector basically abuse their employees?
Ok, it's fine to say we have legislation and employees should fight for their rights without unions. But if you're a young, quiet worker with little self-confidence and working on a factory floor with bullying management then unions have a role to play for you.

I don't want to see unions crushed, they have a role to play in helping workers with bad working conditions.
But not with advocating strikes for workers in secure employment with good conditions

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

So you won't answer any of these questions? Not so interested in the truth.

Scarab is taking the trouble to give you maths lessons. Why don't you pay attention?

Having been offensive about my understanding of mathematics, and then having given an illustration that not only failed to prove your point but proved the opposite, I suggest that you stop trying to bug me until you get on top of the issue. I think we might be on to Leaving Certificate mathematics now: the changing slope along a curve. We can introduce calculus soon.

ORLY?

Scarab wrote: »

A beautiful graph.

I completely get what you're saying but there is an implicit assumption that the trend is exponential. You seem to be reasonably sure that in theory it should be and I believe you. you make the assumption that it is exponential because you know that it is wages we are talking about and you are basing the assumption on a particular model. But I think we're both agreed that in reality there is no knowing which way it will pan out, and from the graph alone all that we can be certain of is that according to the graph, the rate of change in the public sector pay was higher than in the private sector. One could theorize that it is following an exponential trend and the rate of increase would increase in the private sector eventually, but if it wasn't wages we were talking about nobody would do that. There is no way to deny that over the last 10 years the rate of change in the public sector was higher.

And thank you for bringing some reasoned and logical discussion into this.

Scarab

mikemac wrote: »

I've skipped right to the end of this thread

You do realise that unions represent people in the private sector? And many employers in the private sector basically abuse their employees?
Ok, it's fine to say we have legislation and employees should fight for their rights without unions. But if you're a young, quiet worker with little self-confidence and working on a factory floor with bullying management then unions have a role to play for you.

I don't want to see unions crushed, they have a role to play in helping workers with bad working conditions.
But not with advocating strikes for workers in secure employment with good conditions

You're absolutely right but i think what the thread refers to is the crushing of the unions with regard to their attempts to dictate the fiscal policy of this country through strikes and other disruptive actions.

You only have to look at their websites and see the action plans they have for the recovery of the economy which are completely outside their remit.

Unions should stick to resolving individual greivances employee's may have with their employers, collective bargaining has given unelected officials too much say in the running of this country.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Scarab is taking the trouble to give you maths lessons. Why don't you pay attention?

Want to have a go at answering a couple of simple questions? Yes/no replies will do.

I admitted my example was flawed and that you were correct on that point. It doesn't disprove in any way what I was saying about the rate of change or slope of the graphs. You said the private sector line was steeper than the public sector line. Is it?

P. Breathnach

Scarab wrote: »

Yes it was rising faster and that is exactly what one would expect in a period such as the last ten years. But as i have said the difference in growth was so little that it would take another 50 years of unprecedented boom where private sector wages are expected to increase fast just to match public sector wages despite the differences in job security, hours, productivity, pensions and terms and conditions.

I don't disagree with that, except that it is difficult to compare productivity across sectors because the activities differ so much.

You omit, however, some significant variables that could be counted in favour of the public service, most notably that the standard of education required is generally higher. The difference between public sector and private sector pay is smaller when you compare like with like (insofar as that is possible).

mikemac

Scarab wrote: »

You're absolutely right but i think what the thread refers to is the crushing of the unions with regard to their attempts to dictate the fiscal policy of this country through strikes and other disruptive actions.

You only have to look at their websites and see the action plans they have for the recovery of the economy which are completely outside their remit.

Unions should stick to resolving individual greivances employee's may have with their employers, collective bargaining has given unelected officials too much say in the running of this country.

I agree with you.
Unions have a role to play in modern Ireland and that's to help exploited employees. Yes, this does happen and will continue to happen. To give my own experience, it's rife in the hotel industry.
Finish work at 4am and want your minumum rest period? Lol, be here for 8am breakfast shift or never show up again

Unions do not have a role in dictating government policy. People elect their politicians to lead, not to take instructions from union leaders.
Congress can play a role in showing the overall role in workers conditions but it ends there.
They have no business in advising welfare rates, social housing schemes and government debt.
If David Begg wants a role in this then quit his post and stand as a backbencher TD.

Scarab

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't disagree with that, except that it is difficult to compare productivity across sectors because the activities differ so much.

You omit, however, some significant variables that could be counted in favour of the public service, most notably that the standard of education required is generally higher. The difference between public sector and private sector pay is smaller when you compare like with like (insofar as that is possible).

Scarab wrote: »

I think the real issue is that average public sector pay is higher than private sector pay when given an equal skills distribution - which is a big caveat - we should expect to see the opposite in order to compensate the private sector employees for lack of job security and pension benefits, higher productivity and worse terms and conditions.

Sorry i should probably have put that in my second post aswell. I agree it is very difficult to measure how private and public sector compare given probable unequal skills distribution however if we just take the area of health it would appear that the private sector is vastly more efficient than the public sector.

I don't think there is any need for this public sector / private sector divide. If the government acted like any other employer and the public sector were reorganised to terms similar to the private sector i think it would provide the most equitable way to run this country. Of course this would need the support of the grass roots in the PS to overcome the unions and the 'deadwood' employees.

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

... I admitted my example was flawed and that you were correct on that point. It doesn't disprove in any way what I was saying about the rate of change or slope of the graphs.

That's because you want to deal only in absolute values and presume that the graph is essentially a straight line. Simple fact: if private sector pay is rising faster than public sector pay (as it was in the period illustrated) and that is extrapolated, the lines will converge and eventually cross. Scarab has illustrated this very nicely.

I don't say that would inevitably have happened, and recent events have reminded us that the future is unpredictable. But it was the character of the graph that was produced for discussion.

You said the private sector line was steeper than the public sector line. Is it?

That was a brainfart. I was extrapolating. It wasn't steeper in that range.

K-9

mikemac wrote: »

I agree with you.
Unions have a role to play in modern Ireland and that's to help exploited employees. Yes, this does happen and will continue to happen. To give my own experience, it's rife in the hotel industry.
Finish work at 4am and want your minumum rest period? Lol, be here for 8am breakfast shift or never show up again

Unions do not have a role in dictating government policy. People elect their politicians to lead, not to take instructions from union leaders.
Congress can play a role in showing the overall role in workers conditions but it ends there.
They have no business in advising welfare rates, social housing schemes and government debt.
If David Begg wants a role in this then quit his post and stand as a backbencher TD.

Hammer on Nail.

Social Partnership started in the late 80's to avoid strikes and agree low or no wage increases.

It worked and was instrumental in the recovery from the late 80's on.

As strikes became less of a threat and no or low wage increases became less important, it started becoming talks on tax rates, Social Welfare rates etc. In return for lower wage agreements, Govt, promised lower taxes. No tax or PRSI on minimum wage being a good example.

The result of all that is that now, when we really need partnership, strikes and agreed pay deals are far more likely. Partnership got too big for its boots!

P. Breathnach

Scarab wrote: »

Sorry i should probably have put that in my second post aswell. I agree it is very difficult to measure how private and public sector compare given probable unequal skills distribution however if we just take the area of health it would appear that the private sector is vastly more efficient than the public sector.

I don't think there is any need for this public sector / private sector divide. If the government acted like any other employer and the public sector were reorganised to terms similar to the private sector i think it would provide the most equitable way to run this country. Of course this would need the support of the grass roots in the PS to overcome the unions and the 'deadwood' employees.

We are getting close to agreement. It's a bit late for me to have the energy to tease out the details -- not that it really matters, except as conversation. You and I will not be invited to impose our solutions.

Scarab

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We are getting close to agreement. It's a bit late for me to have the energy to tease out the details -- not that it really matters, except as conversation. You and I will not be invited to impose our solutions.

More's the shame!

dny123456

mikemac wrote: »

I don't want to see unions crushed, they have a role to play in helping workers with bad working conditions.
But not with advocating strikes for workers in secure employment with good conditions

Union membership should be outlawed for public sector? I know the gardai aren't allowed to strike, but are they allowed to be in a union?