Croke Park Agreement beyond 2014

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

even those 300k odd that have taken 100% pay cut to join the dole queue over the last 3/4 years...I do agree that the gov need to introduce more competition in order to start getting prices lower for the average joe

Nobody has taken a 100% paycut. They get SW, FIS, OPFP, Medical Card etc etc etc and in some case earn more from that system that some workers full time.

My mate in my previous job was cut to 3 days and with the SW benefits he only earnsa couple of euro less than me working 5 days.

Theboinkmaster

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS have had greater cuts in pay than the average for the private sector in Ireland.

That is absolutely incorrect, can you post some evidence or a source? What about the hundreds of thousands who have taken a 100% by joining the dole queue? Anyway it is actually irrelevant the government can't afford it so cuts are required.

ardmacha wrote: »

People want these services but want someone else to pay for them.

No people want to protect services by not cutting numbers but by cutting pay. Cut 10% pay across the PS and services remain the same.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS have had greater cuts in pay than the average for the private sector in Ireland. Some parts of the private sector have experienced job losses, as demand for their services have disappeared. Demand for public services has not disappeared and any attempt to reduce these services leads to widespread objections. People want these services but want someone else to pay for them.

No, we want services and we are prepared to pay for them. We are not prepared to pay a 25% (very conservative IMO, but it's at least this) premium to the service providers when that same premium in the UK is a mere 7%.

Nobody has been able to justify this difference in premium for the PS. It is cost of living and currency fluctuation independent. Can you explain it?

Do you not see that there's a difference between paying for services and paying any price for those services?

ardmacha

What about the hundreds of thousands who have taken a 100% by joining the dole queue?

What about them?

Cut 10% pay across the PS and services remain the same.

Are you happy to take a 10% pay cut so that prices may fall to vulnerable people or that government may receive services more cheaply so cutting the deficit?

Gumbo

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

What about the hundreds of thousands who have taken a 100% by joining the dole queue?

they didnt take a 100% paycut.
My GF was let go in 2009, and was just as cash happy when on SW plus the extras such as medical card, FIS, OPFP, OPFA etc etc

RobbieTheRobber

ncdadam wrote: »

You've plenty of time to be on here so have a read yourself.

What does that mean? :rolleyes:

Theboinkmaster

ardmacha wrote: »

What about them?



Are you happy to take a 10% pay cut so that prices may fall to vulnerable people or that government may receive services more cheaply so cutting the deficit?

That post doens't really make sense. Also you said PS have taken greater paycuts than private sector - complete nonsense with no supporting evidence.

Theboinkmaster

kceire wrote: »

they didnt take a 100% paycut.
My GF was let go in 2009, and was just as cash happy when on SW plus the extras such as medical card, FIS, OPFP, OPFA etc etc

My point is relevant when comparing paycuts in PS versus private sector.

Those people took a 100% paycut but then increased social welfare payments obviously.

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS have had greater cuts in pay than the average for the private sector in Ireland. Some parts of the private sector have experienced job losses, as demand for their services have disappeared. Demand for public services has not disappeared and any attempt to reduce these services leads to widespread objections. People want these services but want someone else to pay for them.

Really who many of them compared to the private sector got a 100% (or what ever the % is of receiving the dole is) pay cut to join the dole..when you take those numbers in account they are no where near in seeing the same cuts

Can the people here in the ps not sit up and take notice of the decisions the gov are trying to force on people like James Reilly cutting home help and all because pay cannot be touched...No one is saying the PS should take all the pain..and the majority on here are saying leave anyone under 50k alone...yet its like trying to the wall and any talk of the cpa being torn up the unions are on offensive straight away..

Godge

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

That is absolutely incorrect, can you post some evidence or a source? What about the hundreds of thousands who have taken a 100% by joining the dole queue? Anyway it is actually irrelevant the government can't afford it so cuts are required.


No people want to protect services by not cutting numbers but by cutting pay. Cut 10% pay across the PS and services remain the same.

Not only have some private sector employees not got a pay-cut, they are now getting pay rises, even if after five years. I am not talking about well-heeled financiers down the docks or even those engaged in export-related multinationals such as Intel or IBM. I am talking about Tesco, a company in one of the worst-hit sectors - retail.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0630/1224319037274.html


By the way, I understand that others such as Dunnes and marks&Spencer have done similar deals.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments.

Theboinkmaster

Godge wrote: »

Not only have some private sector employees not got a pay-cut, they are now getting pay rises, even if after five years. I am not talking about well-heeled financiers down the docks or even those engaged in export-related multinationals such as Intel or IBM. I am talking about Tesco, a company in one of the worst-hit sectors - retail.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0630/1224319037274.html


By the way, I understand that others such as Dunnes and marks&Spencer have done similar deals.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments.

Yes some parts of private sector have had no cuts and some have had increases.

Like public sector - some parts have had increases ie increments.

But overall there is no chance in hell PS have had more paycuts than private sector and nobody has provided any evidence of this. So as you say don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

There is lies, damn lies and statistics all right but that is what you are relying on by quoting the CSO.

If the public service requires a lawyer, then compare his salary to a lawyer employed by a solicitor's firm and compare him to the average salary rather than the Arthur Cox or Goodbody salary. That is what benchmarking does.

Now if the mix of people is different, say more labourers and less lawyers in the private sector than in the public sector then yes, the statistic you quote will show public servants earning more than private sector even if people in the same jobs are being paid exactly the same salary. It is exactly for situations such as one you use that the phrase was originally constructed.

Head The Wall wrote: »

I'll stick to the CSO figures because in the real world nobody uses net figures when comparing their salary.

From the CSO QNHS average private wage is €611 and average public wage is €918, it seems we have been to generous a the difference is actually 50%.

Post 410 on page 28 of this thread, repeated above shows how little value there is in using those CSO statistics.

I also gave the example of many schools that have contracted out cleaning and other low-paid services. The only employees being paid by the school are professional qualified teachers with five years in college.

If you compare a public sector 20-teacher school with a private sector 20-person cleaning company, you would expect at least a 50% difference in average pay, especially when the owner of the cleaning company (who is probably getting a lot more than anyone in the two situations) is excluded from the CSO data as he is considered self-employed.

The CSO statistics are not worth the paper they are written on for comparing public sector pay rates with private sector pay rates but that doesn't stop rags like the Independent and the Mail using them, I just expect a higher level of analysis here.

BTW, I am not saying that nobody in the public sector is underpaid or isn't overpaid, I am just saying that the CSO statistics are useless in trying to argue the point.

RobbieTheRobber

Godge wrote: »

Post 410 on page 28 of this thread, repeated above shows how little value there is in using those CSO statistics.

I also gave the example of many schools that have contracted out cleaning and other low-paid services. The only employees being paid by the school are professional qualified teachers with five years in college.

If you compare a public sector 20-teacher school with a private sector 20-person cleaning company, you would expect at least a 50% difference in average pay, especially when the owner of the cleaning company (who is probably getting a lot more than anyone in the two situations) is excluded from the CSO data as he is considered self-employed.

The CSO statistics are not worth the paper they are written on for comparing public sector pay rates with private sector pay rates but that doesn't stop rags like the Independent and the Mail using them, I just expect a higher level of analysis here.

BTW, I am not saying that nobody in the public sector is underpaid, I am just saying that the CSO statistics are useless in trying to argue the point.

Even when we use those CSO stats dropped into this thread and look at the section regarding organisational size and pay, we see a large jump in the average when looking at organisations over 250 staff to much closer to the PS average.
Now correct me if Im wrong but most bodies that make up the PS are over 250 staff and if we want to lump the entire PS together as one body it is most definetly over 250 staff.

Godge

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Yes some parts of private sector have had no cuts and some have had increases.

Like public sector - some parts have had increases ie increments.

But overall there is no chance in hell PS have had more paycuts than private sector and nobody has provided any evidence of this. So as you say don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0509.pdf

Financial Emergency Measures Act that applied the pension levy to all public servants, cutting their pay.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0041/index.html

The second Financial Emergency Measures Act that directly cut their pay.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0038/print.html

The 2010 Act that cut public service pensions.


I haven't found the Act that cut the pay of new entrants by another 10% from the start of 2011 but all of the above demonstrates the fact that all public servants have taken a pay cut.

Now, the link I showed about Tesco said that their had been no increase for five years, but nowhere did it mention any pay cuts.

The reality of the private sector is that companies such as Tesco, Dunnes, Marks&Spencer, Primark, Champion Sports, Atlantic Homecare, Guinness etc. have not cut pay. Where pay cuts have happened, they have been largely confined to small businesses and to certain sectors such as construction.

so I have provided evidence, in the form of links to show that all public sector employees have had pay cuts, and I have shown that a large part of the private sector has been insulated from pay cuts. Maybe, just maybe, you could provided some proof or links or back-up that shows that the cuts in the private sector are greater than the public sector?

golden lane

kceire wrote: »

but what can we do about these bankers and property developers?

if they have broken the law......then they should suffer the consequences....

you cannot allow people to do things, then complain it is wrong....

when the banks were guarenteed.....it was done in good faith......

it will not be done again...i hope...

Farmer Pudsey

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS have had greater cuts in pay than the average for the private sector in Ireland. Some parts of the private sector have experienced job losses, as demand for their services have disappeared. Demand for public services has not disappeared and any attempt to reduce these services leads to widespread objections. People want these services but want someone else to pay for them.

Ardmacha the PS did not have greater cuts in pay as thousands of our young (and not so young) Adults ahve to go abraod. Also we have the hidden cuts in pay that are not picked up in the self employed sector I know a few personnelly who after having lived on there saving's for the last four years are at there wit's end. Nobody expected that after four years we would still be looking at austerity budgets of 3.5 billion a year.

Yes demand for Public Services is still high however these services are being cut because the wages of PS is scarcroant. It amazes me that PS are often on about waste that will save 10-20 million but refuse to accept the logic that 1 billion pay cut in there wages is a significant budget option as it will only save 500million.

Earlier in this thread I stated that 3.5-4 billion reductionwas needed in the public service paybill through wage cuts and job reductions in the public service. Some posters believe that this will achieve 50% of this in savings this is not true it would be more like 70% benifit to government spending.

Like I said earlier the PS unions are being very two faces by wringing there hands about cut in services and then refusing to contenance the reversal of the two benchmarking which disapportionally benifited the higher paid in the public service. Also I believe that pay cutsshould be targated at the higher paid in the PS. Also we have about 800 quangos with boards, CEO, deputy CEO's deputy to the deputy CEO's if these were cut in half how much would be saved.

For example I always taught that we had about 40 local authourity I was shocked to learn we had way over 100 when you consider local town councils etc. 8-10 LA would be sufficient in this country. This is the type of waste that needs to be eliminated.

Most county managers are on between 100-145K (I believe) there is no justification to this a wage scale there might be if there was only 8-10LA. Consulatnts on around 200K and allowed a private practise in Germany Consultants in the PS earn around 80K this could be halved. Solicitors/Barristers que up to get jobs as Judges so there pay could be reduced as well if we need a vote on it get it done. CEO on Semi-state bodies are vastly overpaid how many would run off to the private sector if there top rate was reduced to above 100K you could have exceptions for the ESB etc however you should try to recruit without breaching the ceiling.

If PS servants knew that too much waste within the PS would lead to reduction in their wages you would see a vast improvement and less of a lassiz-faire attitude to what goes on.

ardmacha

But overall there is no chance in hell PS have had more paycuts than private sector and nobody has provided any evidence of this. So as you say don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments.

Everyone is a great admirer of the CSO, perhaps you'd care to look here where you can see that hourly labour rates in Q2 2012 are fractionally higher than in Q1 2008. And pay is tending to increase this year.

Another interesting thing in the CSO stats is that public service rates have fallen by almost 10% (not counting the pension levy which would be another 6.5%), but that semi-state rates have only fractionally decreased.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

If you compare a public sector 20-teacher school with a private sector 20-person cleaning company, you would expect at least a 50% difference in average pay, especially when the owner of the cleaning company (who is probably getting a lot more than anyone in the two situations) is excluded from the CSO data as he is considered self-employed.

The CSO statistics are not worth the paper they are written on for comparing public sector pay rates with private sector pay rates but that doesn't stop rags like the Independent and the Mail using them, I just expect a higher level of analysis here.

But surely the UK figures will have the same coloration more or less, or are you saying that Ireland's private sector is made up of cleaners and the UK's is made up of bankers?

Theboinkmaster

Godge wrote: »

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0509.pdf

Financial Emergency Measures Act that applied the pension levy to all public servants, cutting their pay.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0041/index.html

The second Financial Emergency Measures Act that directly cut their pay.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0038/print.html

The 2010 Act that cut public service pensions.


I haven't found the Act that cut the pay of new entrants by another 10% from the start of 2011 but all of the above demonstrates the fact that all public servants have taken a pay cut.

Now, the link I showed about Tesco said that their had been no increase for five years, but nowhere did it mention any pay cuts.

The reality of the private sector is that companies such as Tesco, Dunnes, Marks&Spencer, Primark, Champion Sports, Atlantic Homecare, Guinness etc. have not cut pay. Where pay cuts have happened, they have been largely confined to small businesses and to certain sectors such as construction.

so I have provided evidence, in the form of links to show that all public sector employees have had pay cuts, and I have shown that a large part of the private sector has been insulated from pay cuts. Maybe, just maybe, you could provided some proof or links or back-up that shows that the cuts in the private sector are greater than the public sector?

All irrelevant as the OP suggested PS paycuts were higher than public sector which i refuted and asked for evidence. No such evidence has been provided - because it's so obviously incorrect.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS have had greater cuts in pay than the average for the private sector in Ireland.

I think its not really possible to say that. If a company chooses to make job cuts over pay cuts (which happens in the private sector bu not the public sector), then this reduction should be taken into account.

Theboinkmaster

ardmacha wrote: »

Everyone is a great admirer of the CSO, perhaps you'd care to look here where you can see that hourly labour rates in Q2 2012 are fractionally higher than in Q1 2008. And pay is tending to increase this year.

Another interesting thing in the CSO stats is that public service rates have fallen by almost 10% (not counting the pension levy which would be another 6.5%), but that semi-state rates have only fractionally decreased.

What does that link prove? Also we're getting off topic here - government is broke therefore PS pay needs to be cut. That's the bottom line.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Not only have some private sector employees not got a pay-cut, they are now getting pay rises, even if after five years. I am not talking about well-heeled financiers down the docks or even those engaged in export-related multinationals such as Intel or IBM. I am talking about Tesco, a company in one of the worst-hit sectors - retail.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0630/1224319037274.html


By the way, I understand that others such as Dunnes and marks&Spencer have done similar deals.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments.

While the above is true, other companies such as many as 2/3 of SME's (which can be defined as a business with up to 250employees) keeping pay rates unchanged.

http://www.businesswings.co.uk/articles/Irish-SME-pay-rates-stagnating

ardmacha

What does that link prove?

It proves that private sector wages rates have not declined. Consequently this proves my contention that public sector rates have declined more than private ones. Given that you said that that this was "nonsense", "obviously incorrect" and "there was not a hope of hell of it being true", an apology would be nice. :rolleyes:

Gumbo

found this funny :

Here is a story about statistics I made up for my son:
Once there was a boy who asked his parents to double his pocket money to €40 a month. When his parents laughed, he got angry. “The average guys in my class get a month is ten times that”, he said.

His parents were gobsmacked, but suspicious. They asked their friends and all of their kids were getting €20 a month too. When they quizzed their son further he owned up that he had included the teachers after tax salary in his average: €503 [15,000+(30x€20) divided by 31].

This highlights the difference between the average (or mean) and other measures. If the son had reported the mode (most common figure) or the median (the figure at which half the set got more & half got less), both of those would have been €20. But the mean can get skewed by a small number of more highly paid individuals.

And it also, incidentally, shows that pay can be fair and yet averages vary between groups. Imagine that there were another class with an identically paid teacher and only ten pupils. Instead of an average of €503 [15,000+(30x€20) divided by 31] the average for that class would be €1,381 [15,000+(10x€20) divided by 11]. Both teachers are paid the same, all students are paid the same, but the average for one class is almost three times the other.
And that is why the mix of employment means average public sector pay and average private sector pay will always be different. There are more doctors in the public sector; more retail staff in the private. You might argue retail staff should be paid more, you might argue public sector workers are paid more here than in other countries – those are separate questions. While the mix is different the averages can’t be usefully compared, any more than the two class averages above can.

That is why every month the CSO says average pay for the public sector and private sector cannot be directly compared.
Now let us never speak of this again.

just put all PS staff on the average industrial wage of €41,806.96. I'd be well happy with the big pay rise

Head The Wall

donalg1 wrote: »

So stick to the gross figures then and never mind the actual figures, well ok then. Not to mention those figures include semi-state companies whose employees arent actually paid by the government. Plus you also have to consider the fact the averages in the private sector would contain the likes of summer students and those without any qualifications working minimum wage jobs which would clearly drag the private sector figures way down in comparison to the public sector, where the higher paid drag their figures way up.

These are all issues that would be relevant to the UK, it still doesn't explain 7% vs 50%

deise blue

kceire wrote: »

he says he never gets a refund. the gym was paid directly buy AIB in Jan 2012. He still has a membership until the end of 2013 as he took up a 2 year subscription.

He says he he still gets his discount from his mortage rate and pays 5% BIK on the discounted portion of the mortgage rate. Just because current/new staff dont get these allownaces and extra perks doesnt mean that the older staff dont get them. Similer to the mege pensions that a tiny portion of PS staff get and indeed bankers. New entrant will of course not get these, but those currently on them, still remain to get them.

He still gets his DB pension paid into by AIB and he tops it up also, although the DB scheme is gone to new entrants, the DC scheme similar to ESB new entrants is available to them now. he is there since 2001 and has enjoyed these extras since then. He used his well being allowance to go on group day outs, paint balling (group bonding :rolleyes:) and for treatments in hotels overnight during the years. One year he joined Holystown Golf Club using the scheme!
But he also used it some years for courses and part time study so all was not wasted

Let me first of all state that I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that what your friend says is correct.

Your friend could not be a member of the AIB Defined Benefit scheme if he joined in 2001 - the scheme was closed to new entrants in 1997.

It doesn't matter if he joined a gym for 2 or 10 years - he can only claim a portion of these gym fees in any one given year - he has to submit a receipt to payroll who apply the refund to his gross salary , he then pays tax on the refund at his highest applicable rate. - as I say this refund scheme has now been terminated.

As he joined in 2001 there is no way he has received a discounted staff mortgage -I have no doubt that he is on a very beneficial tracker mortgage ( as would be every Bank Official with an ounce of cop ) - that tracker mortgage , however , was at the time available to the general public.

The well being scheme is a health awareness scheme not a vehicle to to garner bonuse , golf club memberships etc.

You should sit down & lightly interrogate your friend - anyone that believes that he is a member of a DB scheme that was closed to new entrants in 1997 & yet he joined in 2001 is either deluded or telling you porkies , a large grain of salt is required I fear !

Gumbo

deise blue wrote: »

Your friend could not be a member of the AIB Defined Benefit scheme if he joined in 2001 - the scheme was closed to new entrants in 1997.

you are 100% correct, thats a typo on my side. It should be DC on all counts, hence why i mentioned that he tops it up himself, which we know that you cannot do on a DB scheme.

deise blue wrote: »

As he joined in 2001 there is no way he has received a discounted staff mortgage -I have no doubt that he is on a very beneficial tracker mortgage ( as would be every Bank Official with an ounce of cop ) - that tracker mortgage , however , was at the time available to the general public.

dont know if they are on trackers or not, but they deffo get discounted staff rates on the mortgage and pay 5% BIK on the discounted portion. I seen the figures a few years ago when he was buying but no way of remembering them now. Its not mega money per month but still a benefit all the same.

deise blue wrote: »

The well being scheme is a health awareness scheme not a vehicle to to garner bonuse , golf club memberships etc.

He could spend the money on almost anything aslong as it could be remotely associated with the well being of himself or work / life balance theory.

Idbatterim

It proves that private sector wages rates have not declined. Consequently this proves my contention that public sector rates have declined more than private ones. Given that you said that that this was "nonsense", "obviously incorrect" and "there was not a hope of hell of it being true", an apology would be nice.

rubbish! in some cases this may be true, some have had no pay cuts, some one or more pay cuts and some 100% pay cuts, but one thing is for sure the vast majority of us are working a hell of a lot longer and harder for the same or worse money than before...

sarumite

kceire wrote: »

He could spend the money on almost anything aslong as it could be remotely associated with the well being of himself or work / life balance theory.

They have a similar scheme in my workplace as well. It is pretty restrictive on what it can be used for.

ardmacha

rubbish!

One hopes that when rubbishing the CSO that other CSO data will be treated in the same way.

but one thing is for sure the vast majority of us are working a hell of a lot longer and harder for the same or worse money than before...

Of course, this is true of the public and private sectors.

Count Dooku

ardmacha wrote: »

What does that link prove?

It proves that private sector wages rates have not declined. Consequently this proves my contention that public sector rates have declined more than private ones.:

Mostly because PS unions refused to cut waste through compulsory redundancies

alastair

Idbatterim wrote: »

rubbish! in some cases this may be true, some have had no pay cuts, some one or more pay cuts and some 100% pay cuts, but one thing is for sure the vast majority of us are working a hell of a lot longer and harder for the same or worse money than before...

The average income CSO figure (with all the problems of averaging income) points to a fall in both public and private sector incomes since 2008 - "In the three years to Q2 2012 public sector earnings have fallen by €27.10 (-2.9%). This compares with a decrease of €24.95 (-3.9%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the four years since Q2 2008."

So - while everyone in public sector employment had a salary cut, whereas this isn't true of the private sector, the average income cut (as a percentage) is slightly higher for the private sector.

Geuze

ardmacha wrote: »

It proves that private sector wages rates have not declined. Consequently this proves my contention that public sector rates have declined more than private ones. . :rolleyes:

Yes, correct, there is not a lot of evidence of widespread falls in basic pay in the private sector.

Bonuses cut, overtime cut, work practice changes, 3-day weeks, etc., yes.

So overall labour costs and earnings may have fallen.

But employers have been very reluctant to reduce basic pay.

This was confirmed by a senior LRC official, I think the head of the LRC.

There may be certain firms or sectors where basic pay was cut, but it's not widespread.

Geuze

Note that earnings are not the same as basic pay rates.

If overtime and hours are cut, then average earnings fall, while the base hourly pay remains static.

Idbatterim

The average income CSO figure (with all the problems of averaging income) points to a fall in both public and private sector incomes since 2008 - "In the three years to Q2 2012 public sector earnings have fallen by €27.10 (-2.9%). This compares with a decrease of €24.95 (-3.9%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the four years since Q2 2008."

are these figures for those remaining in the workforce or do they also include those private sector workers that have been made redundant?

donalg1

Head The Wall wrote: »

These are all issues that would be relevant to the UK, it still doesn't explain 7% vs 50%

But its not 50% its closer to 25% so its best to use the actual figures when discussing it otherwise the discussion is pointless.

murphaph

Also not to forget is that mayn private sector workers will have had no salary reduction but will be working longer hours to keep their employer afloat and keep their jobs.

These are material reductions in pay, but are likely never recorded as they are salaried employees.

alastair

Idbatterim wrote: »

are these figures for those remaining in the workforce or do they also include those private sector workers that have been made redundant?

If you're redundant, you're clearly not within the private or public sector workforces.

alastair

murphaph wrote: »

Also not to forget is that mayn private sector workers will have had no salary reduction but will be working longer hours to keep their employer afloat and keep their jobs.

The same is true of some public service workers too - under the CPA.

Idbatterim

If you're redundant, you're clearly not within the private or public sector workforces.

so how do you work this into your equation and can you factor the job security and ridiculous pensions too?

Idbatterim

The same is true of some public service workers too - under the CPA.

it may be, but I can guarantee that the ones in private sector will be putting in far more extra hours, from what I saw under the CPA, the extra hours the PS were asked to do was a joke, was it 1 or so hours per week?

fliball123

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Yes some parts of private sector have had no cuts and some have had increases.

Like public sector - some parts have had increases ie increments.

But overall there is no chance in hell PS have had more paycuts than private sector and nobody has provided any evidence of this. So as you say don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments.

the majority of these in the private sector who have had no cuts or increases the company has been profitable and not borrowing at a rate of 55million a day

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

it may be, but I can guarantee that the ones in private sector will be putting in far more extra hours

how can you make a guarantee for 1.5M people?

alastair

Idbatterim wrote: »

it may be, but I can guarantee that the ones in private sector will be putting in far more extra hours, from what I saw under the CPA, the extra hours the PS were asked to do was a joke, was it 1 or so hours per week?

And some private sector workers are on no overtime, or have previous overtime reduced on account of the economic downturn - and likewise there's many public sector workers doing their best to compensate for reduced employee numbers on the back of the public service employment embargo - no monopoly on hardship in any quarter tbh.

fliball123

alastair wrote: »

The average income CSO figure (with all the problems of averaging income) points to a fall in both public and private sector incomes since 2008 - "In the three years to Q2 2012 public sector earnings have fallen by €27.10 (-2.9%). This compares with a decrease of €24.95 (-3.9%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the four years since Q2 2008."

So - while everyone in public sector employment had a salary cut, whereas this isn't true of the private sector, the average income cut (as a percentage) is slightly higher for the private sector.

Once again its a redundant argument any company that is broke and borrowing and not being able to borrow due to the banks stopping lending has gone bust...This is what happens in the private sector..the company will try to reduce costs, cut wages , overtime etc before going to the wall...Any company in the private sector who are making a profit should be giving their employees a pay rise for doing a good job...Now compare that to the public sector..you get a pay rise for length of service and ok you have had a pay cut but still not one forced redundancy..So if you take into account and bring in the 300k people who where once employed and now on the dole I still say the private sector has taken more of a hit than the public sector..

sarumite

Going back to the OP, I suspect (or at least hope) that the CPA will be followed by benchmarking. If necessary, there should also be compulsory redundancies where the position is no longer required however any savings made from these will hopefully be re-invested in hiring staff in other areas where they may be needed.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

Also not to forget is that mayn private sector workers will have had no salary reduction but will be working longer hours to keep their employer afloat and keep their jobs.

These are material reductions in pay, but are likely never recorded as they are salaried employees.

As well as their salary cuts, various public servants have seen their hours increased:

- civil servants lost their half-hour a week for bank time
- teachers work an extra hour under the Croke Park Agreement
- university lecturers work an extra hour
- technology institute lecturers are timetabled for an extra two hours


no increase in hours in Tesco, only pay increase.

Your point is?

Godge

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

All irrelevant as the OP suggested PS paycuts were higher than public sector which i refuted and asked for evidence. No such evidence has been provided - because it's so obviously incorrect.

Did you read the links - I provided evidence of cuts in public service pay of up to 20% for some people and more for the few at the top.

I also provided links to newspaper reports of pay increases in the private sector where there had been a pay freeze for five years and no pay cuts.

That is plenty of evidence. Nobody has produced any evidence to show that there have been cuts in pay in the private sector.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

Going back to the OP, I suspect (or at least hope) that the CPA will be followed by benchmarking. If necessary, there should also be compulsory redundancies where the position is no longer required however any savings made from these will hopefully be re-invested in hiring staff in other areas where they may be needed.

I would assume that as was detailed in the Croke park agreement, we would look at redeployment before any compulsory redundancies were undertaken.

If staff can be redployed rather than having to be made redundant surely there would be better value there than trying to agree a redundancy package.

Staff numbers are continuing to drop within the PS and once the government finalises it plans for departments\sectors under the review process by Minister Howlins Department surely there will be more scope to move staff to areas where they are needed.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

Nobody has produced any evidence to show that there have been cuts in pay in the private sector.

They have produced evidence to show that average earnings are down in both private and public sectors. Again:

"In the three years to Q2 2012 public sector earnings have fallen by €27.10 (-2.9%). This compares with a decrease of €24.95 (-3.9%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the four years since Q2 2008."