Savings made by the Croke Park Agreement

Flex

Heard this on the radio on the way to work this morning and thought it was excellent news, genuinely very impressed and pleasantly surprised. Had three questions that I wanted to know though...

1. Did the €600m take into account the cost of redundancy payouts during the year and the increased cost of paying the pensions from those who took early retirement?
2. Were these actual savings or just increases in cost efficiency, ie. working extra hours for the same pay and so on? If so then it meant the cost efficiency was improving (which is good), but the actual cost wasnt. At the moment its the sheer size of the bill thats the problem, not the cost efficiency.
3. How much of the €600m was going to be wiped out by pay increases via increments (I recall Richard Bruton saying at one point incremental pay rises cost around ~€250m or so each year)?

Having read a bit and taken the above into account the actual savings dont amount to much unfortunately

bobbysands81

Flex wrote: »

Heard this on the radio on the way to work this morning and thought it was excellent news, genuinely very impressed and pleasantly surprised. Had three questions that I wanted to know though...

1. Did the €600m take into account the cost of redundancy payouts during the year and the increased cost of paying the pensions from those who took early retirement?
2. Were these actual savings or just increases in cost efficiency, ie. working extra hours for the same pay and so on? If so then it meant the cost efficiency was improving (which is good), but the actual cost wasnt. At the moment its the sheer size of the bill thats the problem, not the cost efficiency.
3. How much of the €600m was going to be wiped out by pay increases via increments (I recall Richard Bruton saying at one point incremental pay rises cost around ~€250m or so each year)?

Having read a bit and taken the above into account the actual savings dont amount to much unfortunately

See... no matter what we do it's not enough!

This 600m does not include the pay decrease I took, it does not include the pension levy I pay (which costs me €,000's yet might not return me a cent), it does not include the extra taxes that I pay etc...

In return for all these decreases I have to work harder and longer hours picking up the slack from all the folks that have moved on... yet every day I get attacked in the media for not doing my bit.

Time to re-focus elsewhere folks cos so far the public service are more than doing their bit.

spider guardian

bobbysands81 wrote: »

See... no matter what we do it's not enough!

This 600m does not include the pay decrease I took, it does not include the pension levy I pay (which costs me €,000's yet might not return me a cent), it does not include the extra taxes that I pay etc...

In return for all these decreases I have to work harder and longer hours picking up the slack from all the folks that have moved on... yet every day I get attacked in the media for not doing my bit.

Time to re-focus elsewhere folks cos so far the public service are more than doing their bit.

I am sure you are a very hard worker and that you are doing the best you can but this thread isn't solely about you, the fact is the country cannot afford to maintain the same size public service it did during the boom years, the money simply isn't there. It doesn't matter how efficient the service gets, or how much extra value is generated, the amount of money being spent has to go down. What is the alternative? Taxes have already gone up and more charges have been brought in. The government has no choice now but to cut.

The public sector has done very well so far to have lost only 6000 jobs, most of which were probably voluntary! Other sectors can only look on in envy!

bobbysands81

spider guardian wrote: »

I am sure you are a very hard worker and that you are doing the best you can but this thread isn't solely about you, the fact is the country cannot afford to maintain the same size public service it did during the boom years, the money simply isn't there. It doesn't matter how efficient the service gets, or how much extra value is generated, the amount of money being spent has to go down. What is the alternative? Taxes have already gone up and more charges have been brought in. The government has no choice now but to cut.

The public sector has done very well so far to have lost only 6000 jobs, most of which were probably voluntary! Other sectors can only look on in envy!

But we all agree that there has to be cuts - nobody is arguing against that.

However, we've gone further than agreeing cuts, we're €600m into implementing these cuts in the last year alone. We've been set unbelievably challenging targets and we've met them, yet in doing so we're still attacked by all and sundry (just look at the comments here!).

As I said, we're doing our bit, we're meeting our targets, time to re-focus elsewhere.

The beauty about public sector jobs is that they're open to all, if working in the public service was such a good job, so well paid, such good conditions then why didn't all our detractors get jobs there?

Maybe they weren't able to get in, often thousands of folk are going for just a handful of jobs...

Finally, only 6,000 of us have lost our jobs. How many more of us being made unemployed would make you happy?

sollar

spider guardian wrote: »

The public sector has done very well so far to have lost only 6000 jobs, most of which were probably voluntary! Other sectors can only look on in envy!

Don't forget that they still haven't even offered the redundancy package to the whole PS yet. And i'd imagine some more from the HSE would take the offer as the last one was very short notice. So there could be many thousands more to go. In addition to the 7000 who leave each year anyway (at the top of the incremental scale too).

I think the focus from the government and the media should seriously move to the social welfare bill (21 billion). Take a look at fraud, people working the black economy while claiming, rent allowance, cohabiting couples claiming to be living separate, adult children living at home getting the full dole, etc etc.

doc_17

So about 300mil in direct pay savings? But won't this saving be wiped out when all PS workers get our automatic increments this year?

Nijmegen

With all due respect, a large part of the reason for our current budget difficulties is because of the use of GDP instead of GNP as a measurement.

For other countries that don't have such a large transfer pricing industry as Ireland, this isn't an issue, but for Ireland, GNP is way below GDP. Unions purposely chose to use GDP when talking about School & health spending. This is because GDP is higher, and thus it helped strengthen their argument when their audience didn't know the difference between GDP and GNP.

While I don't subscribe fully to the idea of using GNI over GDP in all circumstances, to follow your line we have a tax take of 37%, versus an EU average (including poorer as well as richer countries) of 44.2%, and 48.7% for Belgium, 54.5% for Denmark (whom we are so often compared to....), 47.7% in France, 48.9% Austria.

That's still a thin wedge, 16% behind the average and a full third behind our oft cited doppelganger Denmark, or a quarter behind Austria, for example.

Heard this on the radio on the way to work this morning and thought it was excellent news, genuinely very impressed and pleasantly surprised. Had three questions that I wanted to know though...
Did the €600m take into account the cost of redundancy payouts during the year and the increased cost of paying the pensions from those who took early retirement?

Were these actual savings or just increases in cost efficiency, ie. working extra hours for the same pay and so on? If so then it meant the cost efficiency was improving (which is good), but the actual cost wasnt. At the moment its the sheer size of the bill thats the problem, not the cost efficiency.
How much of the €600m was going to be wiped out by pay increases via increments (I recall Richard Bruton saying at one point incremental pay rises cost around ~€250m or so each year)?

Having read a bit and taken the above into account the actual savings dont amount to much unfortunately

1. Actual pay related savings (€289m cited in report) are €144m net of pensions and lump sums.

2. Increases in cost efficiency in many instances. Cork saving €500,000 on travel expenses is real. A €44m gain from primary teachers working more hours is not a net decrease in spending.

3. This was answered by Minister Noonan in the Dail on 18 May this year:

It has been estimated that the annual cost in a full year of increments would be around €250 million.

So cut out your pension costs and then take a blowtorch to what's left with increments and the pay bill has been reduced increased by €106m.

Of course that's not a net figure, it'll be calculated into the pay bill they cite. Regardless, we're told there was a cut of €289m in pay when, in actual fact, accounting for pensions and increments there was an increase of €106m. There was "less of an increase than there would have been."

See... no matter what we do it's not enough!

This 600m does not include the pay decrease I took, it does not include the pension levy I pay (which costs me €,000's yet might not return me a cent), it does not include the extra taxes that I pay etc...

In return for all these decreases I have to work harder and longer hours picking up the slack from all the folks that have moved on... yet every day I get attacked in the media for not doing my bit.

Time to re-focus elsewhere folks cos so far the public service are more than doing their bit.

It's not about you as an individual, please understand that. The fact is, we need a smaller public service with more enforced redundancy.

spider guardian

bobbysands81 wrote: »

But we all agree that there has to be cuts - nobody is arguing against that.

However, we've gone further than agreeing cuts, we're €600m into implementing these cuts in the last year alone. We've been set unbelievably challenging targets and we've met them, yet in doing so we're still attacked by all and sundry (just look at the comments here!).

No, you are €298m into implementing cuts, some of which is going into funding pensions instead! Given that there is a deficit of €18bn it is nowhere near enough. Higher efficiency will not pay one cent off the deficit, it needs to be tackled now!

bobbysands81 wrote: »

As I said, we're doing our bit, we're meeting our targets, time to re-focus elsewhere.

You are meeting arbitrary targets set by a government in thrall to the unions. Targets that involve maintaining the highest-paid public sector in Europe during a bailout!

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The beauty about public sector jobs is that they're open to all, if working in the public service was such a good job, so well paid, such good conditions then why didn't all our detractors get jobs there?

The same reason why people didn't get jobs in the construction sector, because they saw it as a gravy train that had to come to a halt at some point? I'm being snide with that remark. Some jobs, no matter how good the conditions or pay are just not suitable for everyone.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Finally, only 6,000 of us have lost our jobs. How many more of us being made unemployed would make you happy?

As much as it takes to bring for the public sector to serve the people and private sector in the best way it can at a reasonable cost.

Nijmegen

sollar wrote: »

Don't forget that they still haven't even offered the redundancy package to the whole PS yet. And i'd imagine some more from the HSE would take the offer as the last one was very short notice. So there could be many thousands more to go. In addition to the 7000 who leave each year anyway (at the top of the incremental scale too).

I think the focus from the government and the media should seriously move to the social welfare bill (21 billion). Take a look at fraud, people working the black economy while claiming, rent allowance, cohabiting couples claiming to be living separate, adult children living at home getting the full dole, etc etc.

You are right that there is between €1 and €3bn to be saved through social welfare fraud reduction.

This would reduce our deficit to between €17 and €15bn per year.

We cannot exist in a one track world.

The €15.7bn public service needs to be reduced in size.

Count Dooku

Nijmegen wrote: »

The efficiency of government spending is poor, I agree. But for a welfare state we are low tax, about 30% of GDP, and income tax is also around 30% vs 60% for Denmark, 50% for Germany, 45%+ for most other European welfare states. All in, including consumption tax like VAT and excise, we are a low tax welfare state. Even during the worst of the economic times gone by we didn't breach much further than 35%.

1) GDP in Germany and GDP in Ireland have completely different meaning
2) Without low corporate tax ireland will lose 75% of GDP

Dannyboy83

Nijmegen wrote: »

Regardless, we're told there was a cut of €289m in pay when, in actual fact, accounting for pensions and increments there was an increase of €106m. There was "less of an increase than there would have been."

Disgusted, unsurprised.

spider guardian

sollar wrote: »

Don't forget that they still haven't even offered the redundancy package to the whole PS yet. And i'd imagine some more from the HSE would take the offer as the last one was very short notice. So there could be many thousands more to go. In addition to the 7000 who leave each year anyway (at the top of the incremental scale too).

I think the focus from the government and the media should seriously move to the social welfare bill (21 billion). Take a look at fraud, people working the black economy while claiming, rent allowance, cohabiting couples claiming to be living separate, adult children living at home getting the full dole, etc etc.

You are right about the social welfare bill, it is too high. The government needs to wield the knife in all areas, not just where the media is focusing its attention on at any given moment.

Nijmegen

Count Dooku wrote: »

1) GDP in Germany and GDP in Ireland have completely different meaning
2) Without low corporate tax ireland will lose 75% of GDP

I have addressed this point in a more recent post, looking at GNI excluding multinational involvement.

We would not lose 75% of GDP... Though I think that was hyperbole.

bobbysands81

spider guardian wrote: »

No, you are €298m into implementing cuts, some of which is going into funding pensions instead! Given that there is a deficit of €18bn it is nowhere near enough. Higher efficiency will not pay one cent off the deficit, it needs to be tackled now!

No, we're €600m into it, pick up any newspaper or turn on any news bulletin. Remember this doesn't include any of the 20% of my wages I handed back to the Exchequer - how much of your wages did you hand back to the Exchequer?

spider guardian wrote: »

You are meeting arbitrary targets set by a government in thrall to the unions. Targets that involve maintaining the highest-paid public sector in Europe during a bailout!

"Highest paid public sector" Groan... is that the strength of your argument? Give me the cost of living of comparable European countries and I'll take a corresponding pay cut no problem! The private sector has screwed this country and it's people, they've ridden us rotten with their disgusting profiteering... and now they're screaming at us to sort their mess and pay for their mistakes. We've done our bit...

spider guardian wrote: »

The same reason why people didn't get jobs in the construction sector, because they saw it as a gravy train that had to come to a halt at some point? I'm being snide with that remark. Some jobs, no matter how good the conditions or pay are just not suitable for everyone.

Huh? Senseless point. Yup, I agree that some jobs just don't suit some people... thus thousands of people going for jobs in the public sector and only a few getting them, couyld it be argued that the private sector get the cast-offs?

spider guardian wrote: »

As much as it takes to bring for the public sector to serve the people and private sector in the best way it can at a reasonable cost.

Let's ignore the fact that the OECD said that our public services "do more with less" when compared to our European neighbours... and that was back in 2007 at the height of our employment numbers!

I'm with you on tackling waste in the public service though.

Count Dooku

Nijmegen wrote: »

While I don't subscribe fully to the idea of using GNI over GDP in all circumstances, to follow your line we have a tax take of 37%, versus an EU average (including poorer as well as richer countries) of 44.2%, and 48.7% for Belgium, 54.5% for Denmark (whom we are so often compared to....), 47.7% in France, 48.9% Austria.

That's still a thin wedge, 16% behind the average and a full third behind our oft cited doppelganger Denmark, or a quarter behind Austria, for example.

Because Ireland doesn't have own labour intensive industry, the only way to keep unemployment on low level was to increase consumer power through low taxes and higher prices in shops
I mean that Germany, Denmark etc can allow high taxation without significant jump in unemployment, while in Ireland retail industry is just another way to redistribute wealth earned by MNC's in addition to standard ways of redistribution like PS pay or welfare

hmmm

Most of the savings in this document look like normal good management that should be happening anyway. Savings in rent as an example should be happening irrespective of whether Croke Park was signed or not. If Croke Park was not there we'd still have as many voluntary redundancies. The difference we were promised with CP was that work practice changes would lead to savings, and I see precious few examples of this.

A whitewash as usual.

sollar

Nijmegen wrote: »

The €15.7bn public service needs to be reduced in size.

It has been reducing, eaten bread is soon forgotten. Don't forget the pay cut and pension levy too. Savings are being made.

That 15.7bn you mention was quoted here often as 20 billion a couple of years ago.

For those calling for forced redundancies.. that is unlikely to happen before another vol redundancy package

bobbysands81

hmmm wrote: »

Most of the savings in this document look like normal good management that should be happening anyway. Savings in rent as an example should be happening irrespective of whether Croke Park was signed or not. If Croke Park was not there we'd still have as many voluntary redundancies. The difference we were promised with CP was that work practice changes would lead to savings, and I see precious few examples of this.

A whitewash as usual.

They are happening though, I see it every day in my job.

If you're saying they're not happening then you genuinely haven't a clue what you're talking about and really should reserve judgement instead of making ignorant and unfounded statements that feed into people's prejudices.

The_Thing

largepants wrote: »

.....I's actually quite amusing to see the same stuff being rehashed by the same people.

Seriously largepants, what else did you expect, didn't you know that all seems yellow to the jaundiced eye?

hmmm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

If you're saying they're not happening then you genuinely haven't a clue what you're talking about and really should reserve judgement instead of making ignorant and unfounded statements that feed into people's prejudices.

I don't have access to your workplace, I can only go on the document published today - and that is the only source we have of meaningful, costed, CP changes.

Nijmegen

No, we're €600m into it, pick up any newspaper or turn on any news bulletin.

With respect, we're not €600m into it in terms of reducing the deficit. A lot of those 'savings' are not net decreases in spending.

We need a smaller public sector, and a smaller state that does less, if we wish to continue with tax levels near what they are today. That means cutting jobs.

Because Ireland doesn't have own labour intensive industry, the only way to keep unemployment on low level was to increase consumer power through low taxes and higher prices in shops
I mean that Germany, Denmark etc can allow high taxation without significant jump in unemployment, while in Ireland retail industry is just another way to redistribute wealth earned by MNC's in addition to standard ways of redistribution like PS pay or welfare

That is a major generalization and is, in my view, incorrect. Being a low tax economy is not the only way for Ireland to survive. We were taking in enough to cover the €50+bn in spending pre-2008, just most of it was borrowed debt paid to the state as stamp duty on over inflated house prices.

However, regardless of our difference on whether or not Ireland needs to be low tax (and I'm of the view that it should be low tax), there is a 66% deficit that needs bridging between spending and tax take. So, we need to lower the size of the state.

Most Irish people I talk to seem to live in a duality, where they wish to keep their state and its benefits, without increasing tax.

bobbysands81

Nijmegen wrote: »

With respect, we're not €600m into it in terms of reducing the deficit.

I don't think I said we were, if I did then I never meant to.

We have created €600m in savings in merely 12 months though.

It's a good start - we intend on maintaining it.

spider guardian

bobbysands81 wrote: »

"Highest paid public sector" Groan... is that the strength of your argument? Give me the cost of living of comparable European countries and I'll take a corresponding pay cut no problem! The private sector has screwed this country and it's people, they've ridden us rotten with their disgusting profiteering... and now they're screaming at us to sort their mess and pay for their mistakes. We've done our bit...

No, the strength of that argument is that regardless of the cost of living the PS wage bill in this country is still very high during a period when we are being bailed out! The private sector is not entirely comprised of banks and property developers. It is private sector taxes that pay for the public sector. It is entirely fair that it should demand proper value for money. And was it not civil servants that advised the government to bail out the banks anyways?

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Huh? Senseless point. Yup, I agree that some jobs just don't suit some people... thus thousands of people going for jobs in the public sector and only a few getting them, couyld it be argued that the private sector get the cast-offs?

What argument are you tying to make here? That the private sector only employs public sector rejects?

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Let's ignore the fact that the OECD said that our public services "do more with less" when compared to our European neighbours... and that was back in 2007 at the height of our employment numbers!

And the ESRI also published a report in 2009 saying that public sector pay was 26% higher than the private sector. I somehow doubt the public sector was 26% more efficient back then.

bobbysands81

spider guardian wrote: »

No, the strength of that argument is that regardless of the cost of living the PS wage bill in this country is still very high during a period when we are being bailed out! The private sector is not entirely comprised of banks and property developers. It is private sector taxes that pay for the public sector. It is entirely fair that it should demand proper value for money. And was it not civil servants that advised the government to bail out the banks anyways?

It's the job of Civil Servants to provide a suite of advice for Ministers on a variety of topics, ONLY the Minister's make the decisions in conjunction with their phalanx of advisors (who are not Civil Servants but are paid by the public purse).

spider guardian wrote: »

What argument are you tying to make here? That the private sector only employs public sector rejects?

I asked a question, I didn't pose an argument.

spider guardian wrote: »

And the ESRI also published a report in 2009 saying that public sector pay was 26% higher than the private sector. I somehow doubt the public sector was 26% more efficient back then.

It's easy to get the "average pay" in the private sector. You take the wage bill (which often includes non-pay things such as Travel costs, Subsistence, Training etc...) and divide it by the total amount of workers. Every worker from the highest paid consultant to the lowest paid Clerical worker are included.

In the private sector the "average pay" is not calculated the same way. The highest earners and self-employed people are not included thus a huge amount of high earners are left out.

It must also be remembered that people in the public service are far more likely to be professionals, have far higher educational achievements etc... basically there no burger flippers in the public service...

There are no under the counter payments in the public sector, no slyly paid bonuses, no undeclared payments. Every job I have in the private sector before I joined the public sector paid people in this way to some extent.

Finally, the only proper like for like comparison in pay between the public and private sector found that the public sector were vastly underpaid.

bobbysands81

spider guardian wrote: »

You are meeting arbitrary targets set by a government in thrall to the unions. Targets that involve maintaining the highest-paid public sector in Europe during a bailout!

By the way the IMF are in agreement with the scale of the savings which the public sector were required to implement and have implemented. Are you seriously trying to claim that they are also "in thrall to the unions?"

spider guardian

bobbysands81 wrote: »

It's the job of Civil Servants to provide a suite of advice for Ministers on a variety of topics, ONLY the Minister's make the decisions in conjunction with their phalanx of advisors (who are not Civil Servants but are paid by the public purse).

I made a generalisation in response to your generalisation about how "The private sector has screwed this country and it's people, they've ridden us rotten with their disgusting profiteering...". Of course civil servants didn't cause the crash but it wasn't the fault of the entire private sector. Those who were paid from the public purse failed us too, including those with the "far higher educational achievements" that you mentioned two posts above.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Finally, the only proper like for like comparison in pay between the public and private sector found that the public sector were vastly underpaid.

Vastly underpaid?! Which report was this?

bobbysands81 wrote: »

By the way the IMF are in agreement with the scale of the savings which the public sector were required to implement and have implemented. Are you seriously trying to claim that they are also "in thrall to the unions?"

The IMF are in agreement that we need to get our budget deficit down to 3% by 2014. This will simply not happen if public sector costs are not cut.

bobbysands81

spider guardian wrote: »

Vastly underpaid?! Which report was this?



The IMF are in agreement that we need to get our budget deficit down to 3% by 2014. This will simply not happen if public sector costs are not cut.

The report was Benchmarking of which all gains have been completely wiped out... and then some.

The IMF have sanctioned and agreed the targets set, we have reached these targets but still get pilloried!!!

We will continue to step up to the plate and play our part... time to turn the focus elsewhere now because we're damn well succeeding and that really sticks in the gut of so many of you folks.

Nijmegen

bobbysands81 wrote: »

By the way the IMF are in agreement with the scale of the savings which the public sector were required to implement and have implemented. Are you seriously trying to claim that they are also "in thrall to the unions?"

The IMF doesn't care what policy you undertake to meet your deficit targets, so long as it's realistic to carry it out.

In Ireland, it's realistic to consider that the public sector - in terms of total numbers employed - will be left alone bar natural wastage, and savings be found elsewhere.

Fact is, if you look at our four year plan (that the IMF deal was based on) in detail you will see that spending falls from €54.8bn in 2010 to €48bn in 2014, a decrease of 12.4%

Tax increases from €34.2bn to €43.1bn

It's very clear that the plan is predicated on the state remaining much as it is, and the citizen paying a much larger wedge of tax.

bobbysands81

Nijmegen wrote: »

The IMF doesn't care what policy you undertake to meet your deficit targets, so long as it's realistic to carry it out.

In Ireland, it's realistic to consider that the public sector - in terms of total numbers employed - will be left alone bar natural wastage, and savings be found elsewhere.

Fact is, if you look at our four year plan (that the IMF deal was based on) in detail you will see that spending falls from €54.8bn in 2010 to €48bn in 2014, a decrease of 12.4%

Tax increases from €34.2bn to €43.1bn

It's very clear that the plan is predicated on the state remaining much as it is, and the citizen paying a much larger wedge of tax.

All the IMF want is their money back. If they weren't going to get their money back on the road we're currently going down then they'd come in and "slash and burn" - remember that threat?

And I agree about the tax increases, they do affect public sector workers too you know. We get the double whammy, many won't but many will get worse.

As I've said, we're doing our bit, meeting our targets, time to send the focus off to areas where we're failing.

Nijmegen

bobbysands81 wrote: »

All the IMF want is their money back. If they weren't going to get their money back on the road we're currently going down then they'd come in and "slash and burn" - remember that threat?

And I agree about the tax increases, they do affect public sector workers too you know. We get the double whammy, many won't but many will get worse.

As I've said, we're doing our bit, meeting our targets, time to send the focus off to areas where we're failing.

I'm sorry, this isn't about fairness. €15.7bn is too much to pay for public sector workers when we have a tax take that's €18bn in deficit to what we need to run the state each year.

PS pay is 50% of the tax we take in and 30% of what we spend.

There has to be major focus on this area.

We need to cut the size of the public sector.

bobbysands81

Nijmegen wrote: »

I'm sorry, this isn't about fairness. €15.7bn is too much to pay for public sector workers when we have a tax take that's €18bn in deficit to what we need to run the state each year.

PS pay is 50% of the tax we take in and 30% of what we spend.

There has to be major focus on this area.

We need to cut the size of the public sector.

Your post above could easily read:

"PS pay is 50% of the tax we take in and 30% of what we spend.

There is a major focus on this area

We are currently cutting the size of the public service..."

So why didn't it? The clue is what you posted even further above, "this isn't about fairness" - damn right it's not, it's about 80% of the population turning on the 20% knowing that if the 20% pay much more than they won't have to.

As a collective we (the public service) are on the road we need to be on going to the destination we need to go to, we're keeping the ruthless IMF happy, our plan and savings are working... but still folk aren't happy. We're doing, and will continue to step up to the plate, time for the negative focus to go elsewhere, we'll continue to implement all the changes we've agreed to and make all the savings we agreed to make.

spider guardian

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The report was Benchmarking of which all gains have been completely wiped out... and then some.

The IMF have sanctioned and agreed the targets set, we have reached these targets but still get pilloried!!!

We will continue to step up to the plate and play our part... time to turn the focus elsewhere now because we're damn well succeeding and that really sticks in the gut of so many of you folks.

Benchmarking was Bertie Ahern's way of keeping the unions quiet. it was nothing to do with performance. That's what sticks in the gut of so many 'folks'

tayto lover

spider guardian wrote: »

Benchmarking was Bertie Ahern's way of keeping the unions quiet. it was nothing to do with performance. That's what sticks in the gut of so many 'folks'

Would you give over and stop winding people up.
I bet you voted Fianna Fail when Bertie was in charge too.

Count Dooku

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I don't think I said we were, if I did then I never meant to.

We have created €600m in savings in merely 12 months though.

It's a good start - we intend on maintaining it.

What the report fails to take account of the overall public sector pay and pensions bill.


While more than 5,300 employees did leave the public sector pay bill, the greater majority of these retired and were added to the public sector pensions bill.

In 2009 the Exchequer pensions bill was €2,007m. For 2010 this had increased to €2,235m. The savings of €289m in the pay bill is more than three-quarters offset by the €228 million increase in the pensions bill.

CROKE PARK: This deal is only tinkering at the edges
:rolleyes:

bobbysands81

spider guardian wrote: »

Benchmarking was Bertie Ahern's way of keeping the unions quiet. it was nothing to do with performance. That's what sticks in the gut of so many 'folks'

No it wasn't. Once again you're completely misrepresenting facts based on lazy assumptions you read in the Irish(sic) Independent(sic).

The real reason Benchmarking happened was because people in the Civil Service were leaving hand over fist to join the private sector - the Civil Service could not compete as pay was useless in it. Benchmarking was an attempt to rectify this, it was an attempt to hold onto staff, Corporate Knowledge etc... Years of training and Corporate Knowledge were tied up in staff who could earn twice as much as an unskilled labourer on a building site, losing these people was costing the State a fortune.

Amazingly only these few short years ago my buddies would laugh at me for the job I did and the money I was earning, none of them would dream of working in the Civil Service and now the same folk are still bemoaning me, but for the complete opposite reasons now... even though my pay rate is back to before Benchmarking rates.

I still do not know of one single colleague that got a pay rise when they joined the Civil Service. I earned more as an assistant to a delivery man when I joined the Civil Service at Executive Officer grade (which is "considered" to be a management grade).

bobbysands81

Count Dooku wrote: »

:rolleyes:

2 things you should know about those figures.

1. The Govt is currently taking in MORE money from pension levy etc... than it is paying out. (Which begs the question as to how you consider this a negative?!)

2. This pension bill includes EVERY State pension, not just the public sector ones... so it includes ALL OAP pensions, not just public sector ones (which probably number only about 20% of them).

Flex

Nijmegen wrote: »

1. Actual pay related savings (€289m cited in report) are €144m net of pensions and lump sums.

2. Increases in cost efficiency in many instances. Cork saving €500,000 on travel expenses is real. A €44m gain from primary teachers working more hours is not a net decrease in spending.

3. This was answered by Minister Noonan in the Dail on 18 May this year:



So cut out your pension costs and then take a blowtorch to what's left with increments and the pay bill has been reduced increased by €106m.

Of course that's not a net figure, it'll be calculated into the pay bill they cite. Regardless, we're told there was a cut of €289m in pay when, in actual fact, accounting for pensions and increments there was an increase of €106m. There was "less of an increase than there would have been."

I figured as much... Very disappointing

Thanks for that info by the way

Inverse to the power of one!

So why didn't it? The clue is what you posted even further above, "this isn't about fairness" - damn right it's not, it's about 80% of the population turning on the 20% knowing that if the 20% pay much more than they won't have to.

NO!

It's about doing what is right, and what is right is not always fair!

We have a deficit, a deficit from one sector that has no deflationary mechanism to release the workers it hired during the boom time, unlike the private sector or the NZ govt. This is a serious problem

Lose the siege mentality! We need to do a lot more to get our budget in balance. To be honest, I'm not bothered about you, assuming your an average earner in the PS, there are some massive cuts that could be had just by tackling the quangos and the top paid, and before you mention the bankers......we have it in for them as well!

This is about us all, we can't afford people who are in a job for life! END OF STORY.

That said, we need people in the PS to agree with us. We need Civil Servants in public commentary openly stating what needs to be improved. We need to move forward.

So it would help if both sides could get their sh!t together and agree on what will make the damn country a better place.

Vizzy

Count Dooku wrote: »

CROKE PARK: This deal is only tinkering at the edges
:rolleyes:

Must say that I am surprised that such an eminent and credible paper that always is so supportive of the PS would run such a headline.
Oh no I forgot that they were the ones who championed the Celtic Tiger and all that entailed for as long as it lasted.
My bad.

Vizzy

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

NO!

This is a serious problem

Lose the siege mentality! We need to do a lot more to get our budget in balance. To be honest, I'm not bothered about you, assuming your an average earner in the PS, there are some massive cuts that could be had just by tackling the quangos and the top paid, and before you mention the bankers......we have it in for them as well!

This is about us all, we can't afford people who are in a job for life! END OF STORY.

That said, we need people in the PS to agree with us. We need Civil Servants in public commentary openly stating what needs to be improved. We need to move forward.

So it would help if both sides could get their sh!t together and agree on what will make the damn country a better place.

Couldn't agree with you more !
The siege mentality cuts both ways btw
Remember all the Private sector people( no not bankers) but builders blocklayers,estate agents etc who made a fortune during the boom.
Do you bemoan the fact that they are now unemployed(officially)?

As for PS/CS putting their head above the parapet and suggesting ways to make saving ? I don't know.
If they don't make savings they are castigated for not being commited to change and for hiding behind unions etc.
If they do make savings they are castigated because the savings are only "low hanging fruit" and were essentially waste before any change was made.
Read this thread and you will see what I mean.

Pity that!

bobbysands81

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

So it would help if both sides could get their sh!t together and agree on what will make the damn country a better place.

Once again you're ignoring the facts.

The plan is in place and we're on target to implement it.

If we don't implement the plan to the satisfaction of the IMF then they will come in, slash and burn and decimate our wages. The only thing they want is their money back, they're obviously happy that we're on track.

Nijmegen

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So why didn't it? The clue is what you posted even further above, "this isn't about fairness" - damn right it's not, it's about 80% of the population turning on the 20% knowing that if the 20% pay much more than they won't have to.

As a collective we (the public service) are on the road we need to be on going to the destination we need to go to, we're keeping the ruthless IMF happy, our plan and savings are working... but still folk aren't happy. We're doing, and will continue to step up to the plate, time for the negative focus to go elsewhere, we'll continue to implement all the changes we've agreed to and make all the savings we agreed to make.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact is that the state is only looking to trim itself from €54bn to €48bn over the course of its four year plan. A lot of that €6bn a year will be capital, not current, spending cuts.

I think we need to fundamentally look at public sector size and numbers. If it'd make you happy, I'm of the opinion that lower paid public sector worker pay as individuals could be left alone in this context.

1. The Govt is currently taking in MORE money from pension levy etc... than it is paying out. (Which begs the question as to how you consider this a negative?!)

2. This pension bill includes EVERY State pension, not just the public sector ones... so it includes ALL OAP pensions, not just public sector ones (which probably number only about 20% of them).

This is quite natural when you have an explosion in numbers: Both the PS, and the population at large, has a new 'young' population.

Difference is government pays out pensions from current spending. In actual fact what you ought to imagine is more being paid in now, to build up the pension pot for all those in the new, larger PS and wider population, who will be claiming it later.

The argument that the government should actually have this funded pot as opposed to taking pension contributions to current spending is quite a valid one.

We have a deficit. The size of government should be reduced. Not just public sector numbers. The whole thing. The size of the services it provisions to people at large.

bobbysands81

Nijmegen wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact is that the state is only looking to trim itself from €54bn to €48bn over the course of its four year plan. A lot of that €6bn a year will be capital, not current, spending cuts.

I think we need to fundamentally look at public sector size and numbers. If it'd make you happy, I'm of the opinion that lower paid public sector worker pay as individuals could be left alone in this context.



This is quite natural when you have an explosion in numbers: Both the PS, and the population at large, has a new 'young' population.

Difference is government pays out pensions from current spending. In actual fact what you ought to imagine is more being paid in now, to build up the pension pot for all those in the new, larger PS and wider population, who will be claiming it later.

The argument that the government should actually have this funded pot as opposed to taking pension contributions to current spending is quite a valid one.

We have a deficit. The size of government should be reduced. Not just public sector numbers. The whole thing. The size of the services it provisions to people at large.

This reduction in wages etc... that the public services in this country is currently going through has been described as the biggest adjustment of its sort in the world over the past 50 odds years, let's not belittle what's happening here.

Let's also remember that practically every single public servant, more than 99.999% have taken substantial paycuts. Many private sector workers have felt no pain, many are already getting back to pay rises. Let's also remember that public sector workers taking a 20% pay cut means that money goes straight back to the Exchequer to be redistributed to where it's needed msot, where does a private sector worker's pay cut go to?

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I have no problem with cuts, I agree that they're required in a planned and integrated way. That plan is in place, and is the Croke Park Agreement, and today we learned (what the overwhelming majority of public service workers already knew) that plan is working.

The plan will continue to work, we will continue to step to the plate despite the haters. Now without taking our eye off the ball let's switch the focus to areas where we are failing because right now the public sector has been given the thumbs up (so far) by the only people that count, the IMF.

Vizzy

Nijmegen wrote: »

We have a deficit. The size of government should be reduced. Not just public sector numbers. The whole thing. The size of the services it provisions to people at large.

Agreed,but how much reduction of services will people bear?
Look at the other threads on boards regarding not paying for water,not paying a houshold charge or not paying motor tax.
If these services are not provided by Government who will provide them?
Private sector ? and what will the cost be ? i.e will they drop.
As regards the savings under CPA,if people continue to deny that savings are being made and that reform is happening then we are going nowhere.
Dont forget that there are 6,000 fewer people working there than in 2009 and I would suspect many more will go( that is the equivalent of Navan being made redundant).
Remember the outcry when 1,900 were made redundant by Dell.

Nijmegen

bobbysands81, I see your pain in the pay cuts you have taken and agree, they are 'doing your bit' as an individual. I cannot, however, say that with an €18bn deficit to bridge on €32bn in tax receipts vs €50bn in spending that it is enough to say the €15.7bn PS pay bill has given enough, and savings of €600m (not all of which are real savings against the deficit), faces reality.

We are in agreement that the PS needs to be cut in a targeted manner. We are in agreement that it has given a fair account of itself in recent times. But the fact is, we might all need to give an even fairer share, and a pay bill that represents 50% of what we actually take in in tax is one big, big target.

It's a straw man argument re: private sector workers. They too have taken tax increases, more people have lost their jobs than are in the public sector (273,041 + 30,416 at local level, P12 of the report), and in Q4 2010 private sector average weekly income fell by 1%, so to say they are rising is a fallacy.

Besides which, if a company - say, in our growing export sector - is doing well, it is natural for incomes to rise.

The government, as an employer, continues to do woefully badly.

Agreed,but how much reduction of services will people bear?

How much tax increases will they bear?

It's a simple equation: We will reduce spending from €54bn to €48bn. The remaining €12bn must be made up in taxes - increased taxes and growth in the economy.

Interestingly, with growth being such an important factor - which, so far, has not been showing up, leading to the belief we'll need a second bailout - it's worth noting that tax increases do more to harm economic growth than cutting down the size of government.

Yes, you put public sector workers on the dole and they have less to spend.

But there's a lot more private sector workers who can do more with the money they're not taxed on, spending that in the economy to create jobs multipliers.

More tax and less cuts hampers growth, and we're already behind target on that.

Dannyboy83

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The real reason Benchmarking happened was because people in the Civil Service were leaving hand over fist to join the private sector - the Civil Service could not compete as pay was useless in it. Benchmarking was an attempt to rectify this, it was an attempt to hold onto staff, Corporate Knowledge etc... Years of training and Corporate Knowledge were tied up in staff who could earn twice as much as an unskilled labourer on a building site, losing these people was costing the State a fortune.

But now the same argument applies in reverse? No?
You can make twice as much starting out as teacher now, as you can with an IT degree.

Amazingly only these few short years ago my buddies would laugh at me for the job I did and the money I was earning, none of them would dream of working in the Civil Service and now the same folk are still bemoaning me, but for the complete opposite reasons now... even though my pay rate is back to before Benchmarking rates.

As I've written here, on many occassions before - in 2006, I went for the position of IT Administrative officer. The test was held in Croke Park.
The renumeration was 45k per year, and incomparably good benefits to anything available elsewhere.
People from every corner of the globe attended.
If your friends were laughing at you, it's safe to say they're fairly thick.

I still do not know of one single colleague that got a pay rise when they joined the Civil Service. I earned more as an assistant to a delivery man when I joined the Civil Service at Executive Officer grade (which is "considered" to be a management grade).

That may be true if you go back far enough, but that hasn't been the case since benchmarking.

Stories abound about people in the private sector being asked to work a year for free, to get 'work experience'.
By comparison, a new teacher, starting on Grade 3, will make 33k per year, which is in excess of the Average Industrial wage...............starting.

sarumite

bobbysands81 wrote: »

2 things you should know about those figures.

1. The Govt is currently taking in MORE money from pension levy etc... than it is paying out. (Which begs the question as to how you consider this a negative?!)

This point is made time and time again depsite the fact that it is a meaningless statistic that has no long term bearing on the situation. It was this short sighted thinking that the current status quo will remain that got us in the mess in the first place.

Count Dooku

bobbysands81 wrote: »

2 things you should know about those figures.

1. The Govt is currently taking in MORE money from pension levy etc... than it is paying out. (Which begs the question as to how you consider this a negative?!)

Pension levy take was 722 millions in 2009 and continue to fall
PS pensions was 2.2 Bn and continue to rise

bobbysands81 wrote: »

2. This pension bill includes EVERY State pension, not just the public sector ones... so it includes ALL OAP pensions, not just public sector ones (which probably number only about 20% of them).

EXCHEQUER PAY AND PENSIONS BILL includes only PS pensions

kippy

Count Dooku wrote: »

Pension levy take was 722 millions in 2009 and continue to fall
PS pensions was 2.2 Bn and continue to rise



EXCHEQUER PAY AND PENSIONS BILL includes only PS pensions

That was just the pension levy take - contrary to popular belief the public service have always made a contribution towards their own, and the spouse and children part of their pensions, as well as a contribution towards the COAP which obviously all workers man pay, but for Public Service workers, makes up a portion of their pension.
There is a fair "discussion" of pensions here where some myths were dispelled. I would recommend a read of the thread.
I have some details here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72151854&postcount=81
The main issues at the end of it were that public sector pensions were based on final salary - which makes no sense - this has since been changed for new entrants.

Now, the remainder of the NPRF (the pension pot the State set up for citizen oap,coap and public sector workers pensions to assist with future deficits) and which had grown to circa 20 Billion, has been pumped, primarily, into the banks, with 5 billion HOPEFULLY going to get some people back to work.
At the moment the pensions going out is above the pensions coming in and the NPRF was set up to ensure that continues into the future, with that fund gone something will have to be done.

kippy

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But now the same argument applies in reverse? No?
You can make twice as much starting out as teacher now, as you can with an IT degree.


As I've written here, on many occassions before - in 2006, I went for the position of IT Administrative officer. The test was held in Croke Park.
The renumeration was 45k per year, and incomparably good benefits to anything available elsewhere.
People from every corner of the globe attended.
If your friends were laughing at you, it's safe to say they're fairly thick.



That may be true if you go back far enough, but that hasn't been the case since benchmarking.

Stories abound about people in the private sector being asked to work a year for free, to get 'work experience'.
By comparison, a new teacher, starting on Grade 3, will make 33k per year, which is in excess of the Average Industrial wage...............starting.

I aint gonna argue that benchmarking was fair. It went too far in one direction and the main major issue with it - which is bitting us now, is that the efficiencies and changes promised under it were never anywhere near achieved, quite the opposite in fact. Public sector numbers increased during it, when in fairness, if efficiences were being achievd , they should have at least stayed static or at best reduced. Instead the management grades of the sector swelled.
An IT degree is a VERY broad spectrum of work/jobs and indeed level of people achieving it. There are people who get IT degrees who are starting on between 25K and 40K (depending on some variables) so it is a wide field.
There aren't that many new teachers starting at the moment however (a job that was safe up to a few years ago). Just ask the teachers having to manage larger classes and who have to work without the SNA's and various other supports out there that assist our children get a better start.