Irish labour costs rise 0.4%

ardmacha

Labour costs in Ireland rose slightly, gaining 0.4 per cent in the three-month period to September 2009, but outstripped the average rise in both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) area and the EU

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0212/breaking124.htm

The greedy private sector pricing themselves out of business in a period when Irish prices fell significantly.

Sand

Those greedy private sector types, seeking enough wages to attempt to cover the taxation to cover the pay of those virtuous public sector types.

Jesus...

Private Sector = Serfs, scrabbling for the grubby coin in the till
Public Sector = Nobility, sacrificing material gain for purity in the eyes of heaven

Wonder how many private sector workers took 100% paycuts the last year or two...

silverharp

Need more info, the term they use is "unit", if productivity is falling and salaries stay constant, that would give you an increase in unit labour costs. might want to see if the vampire banks, hotels, aerlingus etc are included? Maybe he traffic controllers?

An increase in unit labour costs indicates that growth in average employee compensation exceeds growth in labour productivity

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/5/44587062.pdf

ardmacha

Wonder how many private sector workers took 100% paycuts the last year or two...

Some have. Some have had lesser cuts, most haven't had any significant cuts. The point is not that the public sector are all self sacrificing types, as a few of the are indeed wasters, but that they have all had cuts, while the extent of private sector cuts remains uneven. Contrary to many posts here it is not a case of the public sector being unaffected while the private sector suffers universally.

patwicklow

ardmacha wrote: »

Labour costs in Ireland rose slightly, gaining 0.4 per cent in the three-month period to September 2009, but outstripped the average rise in both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) area and the EU

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0212/breaking124.htm

The greedy private sector pricing themselves out of business in a period when Irish prices fell significantly.

id love to know how there rising as a painter and decorater iv dropped my prices
as low as they were in the 90.s just to get the work in...:pac:€:pac:€

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

Some have. Some have had lesser cuts, most haven't had any significant cuts. The point is not that the public sector are all self sacrificing types, as a few of the are indeed wasters, but that they have all had cuts, while the extent of private sector cuts remains uneven. Contrary to many posts here it is not a case of the public sector being unaffected while the private sector suffers universally.

I would imagine most private sector workers who employers are broke have taken a pay cut (or lost their jobs)... Public Sector workers... well their employer is beyond broke. So whats the difference?

Flex

ardmacha wrote: »

Some have. Some have had lesser cuts, most haven't had any significant cuts. The point is not that the public sector are all self sacrificing types, as a few of the are indeed wasters, but that they have all had cuts, while the extent of private sector cuts remains uneven. Contrary to many posts here it is not a case of the public sector being unaffected while the private sector suffers universally.

How many public sector workers are working for an employer facing bankruptcy? 100%? Not all private sector workers are working for employers facing bankruptcy, indeed some employers are still doing well at the moment. So if thats the case then why should they take any pay cut?

And in the article you posted it says labour costs in Ireland were up 0.6% against the same quarter last year, as opposed to the OECD average increase of 1.8% for the same period.

peasant

ardmacha wrote: »

The greedy private sector pricing themselves out of business in a period when Irish prices fell significantly.

Strangely enough, over the last few months my gross pay hasn't changed, my net pay has become less, yet I cost my employer more

I wonder ...might that have something to do with my employer having to keep the public sector in their cushy jobs?

Of course not :pac:

thebman

ardmacha wrote: »

Labour costs in Ireland rose slightly, gaining 0.4 per cent in the three-month period to September 2009, but outstripped the average rise in both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) area and the EU

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0212/breaking124.htm

The greedy private sector pricing themselves out of business in a period when Irish prices fell significantly.

Private sector employees don't determine their own wages :-/

Employers will pay what they can afford. What are Irish employee's doing that is greedy? Or employers? If a company can pay more and still make more profit then there is little reason to cut wages.

Some public sector workers just want all private sector workers to lose their job or get paid less to make them feel better about paying union fees or some other crazy reason it seems.

PJ Maybe

ardmacha wrote: »

The greedy private sector pricing themselves out of business in a period when Irish prices fell significantly.

The survey you reference is a Cost of Labour report. The cost to employ someone in the public sector could have increased (salary plus increment\point on scale) while that employees net income decreases (levys and taxes).

So how exactly are you drawing the conclusion that it's soley private companies causing the rise? Makes no odds to me but I'd like to know how you determined that.

nesf

Christ.

Seriously, this is the same mistake as is often made about average hourly wages in a sector. If you fire the lower paid and keep everyone else on the same wage then average wages, and unit labour costs, will increase despite there being fewer jobs and less being spent on wages etc. You can have wage cuts combined with job losses and still have higher average wages and higher unit labour costs.

ei.sdraob

PJ Maybe wrote: »

The survey you reference is a Cost of Labour report. The cost to employ someone in the public sector could have increased (salary plus increment\point on scale) while that employees net income decreases (levys and taxes).

So how exactly are you drawing the conclusion that it's soley private companies causing the rise? Makes no odds to me but I'd like to know how you determined that.

its not the first time he showed a failure at logic and math, and of course once again there are no references to backup his reasoning and conclusion

notice how anything tied to the public sector and govt went up

hiorta

Hmmmh. This looks a classic 'divide & rule' ploy.
If there ever was a time when Ireland had to pull together.......

Are the 'increased labour costs' entirely wage items, or are there, say. machinery rentals wrongly included?

ei.sdraob

@ardmacha made a classic mistake of picking one datapoint and extrapolating from it and coming to a daft conclusion in OP

theres lies damned lies and then theres statistics


i did some digging, references to all stats,data and publications are linked, check for yourselves

OECD does report a rise of 0.4% in total labor costs (thats all sectors now...)

you can explore their database here yourselves

heres what it looks like



unfortunately theres no detailed breakdown by sector


so now move onto a more interesting report from our own CSO last December (most recent available)

has a very detailed breakdown by industry and public/private, see page 8 and page 3

take a wild guess which sector is bucking the trend also take note of % of people made unemployed










@ardmacha from the available data its obvious who is responsible for our rising average labor cost

I hope next time you look deeper into matter before starting a thread that might backfire on your logic and agenda

ardmacha

@ardmacha made a classic mistake of picking one datapoint and extrapolating from it and coming to a daft conclusion in OP

Sorry about that. I thought that was the norm for this forum, I was just trying to fit in.

@ei.sdraob the screen shots of tables you show above are an admirable effort to get away from simplistic use of stats. However all of these show 2008 data or the first half of 2009 and so do not directly relate to the second quarter of 2009.

My point is that posters, notably yourself, have implied that the private sector has had universal hardship while the public sector has not be affected by the crisis. The reality is that some of the private sector has been affected, in some cases severely, and much of the private sector hasn't been affected, while all of the public sector has. I didn't say that this was inappropriate, just attempted to make clear that it has happened.

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

Sorry about that. I thought that was the norm for this forum, I was just trying to fit in.

@ei.sdraob the screen shots of tables you show above are an admirable effort to get away from simplistic use of stats. However all of these show 2008 data or the first half of 2009 and so do not directly relate to the second quarter of 2009.

My point is that posters, notably yourself, have implied that the private sector has had universal hardship while the public sector has not be affected by the crisis. The reality is that some of the private sector has been affected, in some cases severely, and much of the private sector hasn't been affected, while all of the public sector has. I didn't say that this was inappropriate, just attempted to make clear that it has happened.

yes it will be interesting to see when new data becomes available the effect of cuts in public sector in December right now we have nothing more than estimates and alot of hot air
the problem is that "labour cost" is an average of all sectors, and includes other costs beside direct wages as illustrated in CSO tables


averages are dangerous

"The average human has one breast and one testicle." ~Des McHale

ardmacha

yes it will be interesting to see when new data becomes available the effect of cuts in public sector in December right now we have nothing more than estimates and alot of hot air

As the public sector pay cuts are a matter of record at each pay level, the estimates are pretty informative and the only hot air is coming from people who suggest that there is something unclear or unsubstantiated about them.

As for increments, these only affect a proportion of people. The only increment that affects everyone occurs when they are 65 and they cease to be paid from the pay bill. This loss of relatively well paid senior people from the pay bill both reduces the numbers and the average pay.

ParkRunner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

notice how anything tied to the public sector and govt went up

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@ardmacha made a classic mistake of picking one datapoint and extrapolating from it and coming to a daft conclusion

You may have been a bit guilty yourself of coming to conclusions "anything tied to the public sector and government" without analysing the causes behind the CPI stats.

The CSO themselves for example stated that:

The main factors contributing to the monthly change were as follows:
Clothing & Footwear and Furnishings, Household Equipment &
Routine Household Maintenance prices fell due to the traditional
winter sales.
Health rose due to an increase in costs for dental and optical services.
Transport rose due to increases in petrol & diesel prices, which were
partially offset by a decrease in airfares.
Miscellaneous Goods & Services rose due to higher charges for
medical insurance.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/prices/current/cpi.pdf

In health for example the increases recorded for dental services and therapeutic
appliances & equipment are due to the withdrawal of certain PRSI
entitlements announced in the Budget, taking effect. http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/prices/current/pic.pdf

A common theme throughout the stats is a rise in insurance costs. Also of note is that Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas & Other Fuels costs increased
by 0.1% in the month and decreased by 15.2% in the year to
January 2010, the biggest decrease of all the sectors, even though most of the semi-state sector has not been hit by the pension levy and paycuts.

The impact of the carbon levy and car scarappage scheme seems to be reflected too in the price increases for petrol and diesel with a fall in price for cars.

The rise in education must be down to the increased capitation fee introduced for 3rd level students in preparation for university fees being introduced, as is common in many countries.

WalterMitty

Lower paid workers are being disproportionately let go as they have less experirience etc. These messes up the averages as higher paid people remain pushing up the average.

ei.sdraob

EF wrote: »

You may have been a bit guilty yourself of coming to conclusions "anything tied to the public sector and government" without analysing the causes behind the CPI stats.
.....

most of the price drops in energy are due to the gigantic drop last year in oil prices from 150 to 30 dollars, and similar drops in other fuel costs

it would have been "criminal" for the likes of ESB to not pass on these savings

tho the price of fuels is climbing up again now slowly...

evercloserunion

Sand wrote: »

Those greedy private sector types, seeking enough wages to attempt to cover the taxation to cover the pay of those virtuous public sector types.

Jesus...

Private Sector = Serfs, scrabbling for the grubby coin in the till
Public Sector = Nobility, sacrificing material gain for purity in the eyes of heaven

Wonder how many private sector workers took 100% paycuts the last year or two...

Nobody has taken a 100% pay cut, people get the dole which is paid for by public and private sector taxes.

Less would be on the dole if the private sector didn't want the public sector to take all the pain.

Welease

evercloserunion wrote: »

Less would be on the dole if the private sector didn't want the public sector to take all the pain.

Care to explain the maths/logic behind that statement?

evercloserunion

Welease wrote: »

Care to explain the maths/logic behind that statement?

Well, if the private sector were taking a bigger share of the "pain" (ie cuts to working conditions) the cost of Irish labour wouldn't be so high.

That's not that I am proposing that public sector workers be protected at the expense of private sector workers. I was kind of being tongue in cheek; I was just implying that it's all swings and roundabouts and that it's very easy for either side to demonise the other. But the main problem is with this ludicrous FF-made division between public and private sector workers in the first place. When deciding how to allocate "pain" the dividing lines should be along means, not public/private. the wealthy in the public and private sector should be made to cough up, while those on the lower end of the pay scale should be protected whether they are public or private.

nesf

evercloserunion wrote: »

But the main problem is with this ludicrous FF-made division between public and private sector workers in the first place.

It's actually ludicrous to put this at FF's door. The unions themselves created this divide with rhetoric about not accepting any pay cuts for their members in an economic climate where private sector workers are facing pay cuts and job losses. All FF did was run with the already present mood amongst the public, the divide was there before FF got involved tbh.

ardmacha

I think it is quite reasonable to put this at FFs door. Unions are inevitably bound to make noises about not accepting paycuts if the choice is presented as being between paycuts and taxing the rich. During the boom FF failed to put forward a proper analysis of the state of the economy, leading to pay rises which were excessive in retrospect. During the present recession FF have failed to present a proper analysis of the state of the economy, but have sought to portray the paycuts as a political process, with backbenchers appearing to have an influence after lobbying etc. FF have failed to present a clear analysis currently as this would be to admit their own mismanagement of the economy in the past.

GNP has declined for 3 reasons, a permanent loss after the inflated boom, price deflation and a cyclical boom. The government could have presented the pension levy as adjusting for the permanent loss in GDP and the recent cuts as maintaining the link between PS pay and prices. With this analysis the paycuts were technical rather than political and they hold out the principle that if GNP increases that pay will then rise. The final part of the jigsaw is to admit that the first benchmarking was a racket, to publish the data collected then and identify some process for having a proper review.

Instead we had the farce before Xmas where 3 days were given to talks, when the need for them was known for months and for the backbencher to be seen to have an influence after responding to pressure. I think FF have done further great damage to the country by unnecessarily politicising the process of adjusting to the recession. And it should be the business of government to reduce divides in society not exploit them for extremely short term political advantage.

AARRRGH

evercloserunion wrote: »

Less would be on the dole if the private sector didn't want the public sector to take all the pain.

Eh wha?

evercloserunion wrote: »

Well, if the private sector were taking a bigger share of the "pain" (ie cuts to working conditions) the cost of Irish labour wouldn't be so high.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

evercloserunion wrote: »

That's not that I am proposing that public sector workers be protected at the expense of private sector workers. I was kind of being tongue in cheek; I was just implying that it's all swings and roundabouts and that it's very easy for either side to demonise the other. But the main problem is with this ludicrous FF-made division between public and private sector workers in the first place. When deciding how to allocate "pain" the dividing lines should be along means, not public/private. the wealthy in the public and private sector should be made to cough up, while those on the lower end of the pay scale should be protected whether they are public or private.

This sort of simplistic thinking is why I hate boards.

Here's a reality 101 lesson for you:

The private sector and public sector are not comparable. The former exists in the real world (e.g. if your employer is nearly bankrupt you don't get angry about taking paycuts or maybe losing your job because you understand) whereas the latter exists in some sort of magical fairy land where you are entitled to a large wage and job security even though your employer can't afford either.

We already over-tax the rich. They are punished for being successful. Those on the lower end of the pay scale tend to pay little to no tax. This is unfair.

All this crap you read in the papers these days about Ireland having made the hard decisions to save itself is total inaccurate nonsense. Every day the country is adding nearly 100 million in new debt (excluding interest) to pay for it's inability to make any hard decisions. What hard decisions am I talking about? Mass redundancies in the public sector, halving the dole, taxing the lower paid, reducing the minimum wage, etc. Yes, these are very painful things, and will cause a lot of short term anguish, but medium to long term they will save the country billions and get us back on track.

nesf

ardmacha wrote: »

I think FF have done further great damage to the country by unnecessarily politicising the process of adjusting to the recession.

How can it not be politicised? I mean, adjusting to the recession necessarily involves major cutbacks in Government spending; be it through public sector wages, or services reductions. There's no possible way to do this without it becoming a political us versus them issue since every group will demand that the pain falls more on someone else etc.

ardmacha

There's no possible way to do this without it becoming a political us versus them issue since every group will demand that the pain falls more on someone else etc.

The way politicisation can be reduced is to link cuts to objective values. It is much less controversial to say the everyone should go back to 2005 values or use some other similar formula. This doesn't have to be absolutely rigid, but it provides a principle to work with.

nesf

ardmacha wrote: »

The way politicisation can be reduced is to link cuts to objective values. It is much less controversial to say the everyone should go back to 2005 values or use some other similar formula. This doesn't have to be absolutely rigid, but it provides a principle to work with.

Sure you can say "we need to go back to 2005 values" but then other people will turn around and put it in far more subjective terms since it suits their agenda to do so. That and many/most people aren't going to be very objective when it's their pay cheque that's being cut or their job being lost etc.

ardmacha

Sure you can say "we need to go back to 2005 values" but then other people will turn around and put it in far more subjective terms since it suits their agenda to do so.

Of course they will put it in subjective terms and it will hurt many people either way. However the government have not attempted to put forward the objective argument in a clear way, which means that subjective views are unchallenged. I just think that when people are going to hurt that you have to provide a clear and logical approach to avoid social division and complete demoralisation of the public service.

nesf

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course they will put it in subjective terms and it will hurt many people either way. However the government have not attempted to put forward the objective argument in a clear way, which means that subjective views are unchallenged. I just think that when people are going to hurt that you have to provide a clear and logical approach to avoid social division and complete demoralisation of the public service.

Yeah, my point is that demoralisation and social division are inevitable given the players and agendas involved.