Increments to be paid to highest earners

itzme

Head The Wall wrote: »

The pension pot for the PS is the current account, how hard is it for people to understand that.

Ah the ole chicken little argument
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"

itzme

Head The Wall wrote: »

The pension levy is deducted before PAYE tax is calculated. Therefore the net impact is reduced by whatever marginal rate of tax you're paying. On a salary of up to €15,000 you pay 3%, from €15,000 to €20,000 you pay 6%, on earnings over €20,000 you pay 10%.

So what you are saying here is that the pension levy is taken from gross. Income tax and all other taxes are calculated on this new reduced figure. (all of which is true)

So in short, the pension levy is a reduction in gross salary in every way apart from the figure on the contract. Is that not an admission that its a pay cut?

K-9

There already is a thread discussing public sector pensions, the CSO report thread, this one is about increments. Probably best posters keep it to that thread rather than have 2 discussing the same thing.

McTigs

itzme wrote: »

So in short, the pension levy is a reduction in gross salary in every way apart from the figure on the contract. Is that not an admission that its a pay cut?

I really can't see why they can't just give an opt out clause to the pension levy. It would end all the arguing. Give PS workers the option of not paying pension levy and instead look after their own pension privately.

I wonder how many complaining that it's a paycut would go for it?

Yeah, that would be roughly none i'd imagine

Mr. teddywinkles

woodoo wrote: »

The pension levy has absolutely no effect on Public service pensions. The final pension does not change one cent from before the pension levy to after the pension levy. It was just the government dipping their hand in and taking money of public servants (a fancy paycut). It has no effect on the overall pension.

E.g If a public servant was going to get 300 per week pension before the pension levy they will still only get 300 after the pension levy.

Do you not think people who pay into private pensions just dont have to pay in more over the course of working life or their pension entitlements drop yet still pay the same amount that they were always paying in?

And if it was a paycut then the government should have just called it that and be done with it then!

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

How many people are included in the "some"? I guarantee you not very many. I think you are also adding the average of the paycut and levy to arrive at the 15% so no it wasn't 15% on top of the paycut.


The pension levy is deducted before PAYE tax is calculated. Therefore the net impact is reduced by whatever marginal rate of tax you're paying. On a salary of up to €15,000 you pay 3%, from €15,000 to €20,000 you pay 6%, on earnings over €20,000 you pay 10%.


There's a good post here from Politics.ie explaining it



I really shouldn't have to be explaining how "your" pension scheme and levies work, that's something you should be doing yourself because payroll people and the taxman do make mistakes so you need to watch these things yourself


The relevant info is here in section 15.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/0509/b0509d.pdf





Theoretically by paying the pension levy you should still receive the same pension and by not paying it you would probably receive less of a pension so effectively you are receiving something for it.

You might also explain what private sector pension people are getting for their pension levy apart from the (cough cough) reduced unemployment numbers thanks to Jobsbridge and the jobs programme.

How do you know about my pension, i am young it doesn't interest me. I would rather eat a lemon than read up on someone elses pension entitlements. You are far too interested in these things head the wall and for a man living in another country its crazy. Go out and enjoy London

barneystinson

Just want to throw something out there to the anti-increment posters who can't wrap their heads around the idea that the full rate of pay for a given job is the top of the incremental scale, and (*in an environment where performance management is actually implemented*) you only get the full rate of pay after several years of improving performance...

I know a couple of instances of individuals who have been recently promoted / recruited - at AO/HEO grades, who are responsible for managing teams of staff at EO/CO grades. These individuals are managing staff who in some cases earn between 10% - 50% more than they do, by virtue of being at the top of their own salary scales. (I'm not exagerrating my % here, an AO starting in 2010 was on 32k while the top of the EO scale is 48k)

Just wondering how people in the private sector would feel about being expected to be the one responsible for managing and delivering performance for a team of people, where they are in fact substantially lower paid than many of their subordinate staff, and be told that no matter how well you do your job you can't even start to close that gap?

It's also worth bearing in mind that this anomaly only affects recently promoted / recruited people (who have won out in what is an increasingly competitive environment) - taking away their only means of obtaining pay parity with the people who they are responsible for managing would have a hugely demoralising effect on them, and probably at some point result in an outflux of the wrong people from the PS as this younger more employable class of PS worker bide their time and jump ship.

I've said it everytime the increment issue comes up; the ultimate cost of hitting increments outweighs the cost of continuing them. It yet again disproportionately affects the younger, (relatively) lower paid, and highest performing workers, and protects exactly the stereotypical PS worker that the PS bashers love to rant about - the lazy clockwatcher marking off the days til retirement, who has been in the same job for 25 years, vehemently resisting any kind of change. A pay cut across the board is cleaner and more fair, and could be brought to bear on existing PS pensioners (who have to my mind gotten off very lightly to date in this economic crisis).

woodoo

barneystinson wrote: »

I've said it everytime the increment issue comes up; the ultimate cost of hitting increments outweighs the cost of continuing them. It yet again disproportionately affects the younger, (relatively) lower paid, and highest performing workers, and protects exactly the stereotypical PS worker that the PS bashers love to rant about - the lazy clockwatcher marking off the days til retirement, who has been in the same job for 25 years, vehemently resisting any kind of change. A pay cut across the board is cleaner and more fair, and could be brought to bear on existing PS pensioners (who have to my mind gotten off very lightly to date in this economic crisis).

That is true, the last thing they need is to leave the younger staff disillusioned and disgruntled by cutting increments. The older staff will still be at the top of their scale.

Godge

McTigs wrote: »

I really can't see why they can't just give an opt out clause to the pension levy. It would end all the arguing. Give PS workers the option of not paying pension levy and instead look after their own pension privately.

I wonder how many complaining that it's a paycut would go for it?

Yeah, that would be roughly none i'd imagine

A little more complicated than that.

Would you give a one off option? Would that be fair on a 20-year old who is only thinking about drinking money and not about pension.

If you allow multiple outs, what about the guy who joins at 17, leaves the scheme at 57 when he has qualified for a full pension, but works until 65. At the moment he has to pay 8 years to get nothing but allowing him to opt out at 57 costs the Government money.

K-9

Increments are hardly just a public sector issue though?

I remember going for an interview and getting a job with Norwich Union nearly 20 years ago, Aviva these days I believe, and increments was part of their package. Alll I thought it was getting pay increases for staying at the same job for a certain length of time.

If I got a promotion within say 5 years I wouldn't have thought, I'll stay where I am because if I stay in my position, I'll have the same pay in 10 years time.

barneystinson

K-9 wrote: »

Increments are hardly just a public sector issue though?

I remember going for an interview and getting a job with Norwich Union nearly 20 years ago, Aviva these days I believe, and increments was part of their package. Alll I thought it was getting pay increases for staying at the same job for a certain length of time.

If I got a promotion within say 5 years I wouldn't have thought, I'll stay where I am because if I stay in my position, I'll have the same pay in 10 years time.

But if you got a promotion you moved onto a higher incremental scale surely? (after 10 years of which you'd be substantially better off than another 10 years at your original level)

And was there no performance related requirement for the increment?

K-9

barneystinson wrote: »

But if you got a promotion you moved onto a higher incremental scale surely? (after 10 years of which you'd be substantially better off than another 10 years at your original level)

And was there no performance related requirement for the increment?

I don't know, I didn't take the job as increments on promotion didn't really enter my mind. All I know is increments aren't just a public service thing.

barneystinson

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, I didn't take the job as increments on promotion didn't really enter my mind. All I know is increments aren't just a public service thing.

OK whatever you've been saying has gone over my head somehow, but I agree with you - increments are not only a public sector phenomenon, they're common to large hierarchical organisations in lots of the world.

sarumite

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, I didn't take the job as increments on promotion didn't really enter my mind. All I know is increments aren't just a public service thing.

Increments certainly are not purely a public sector thing. They do exist in many large organisations with management structures similar to the PS. I think the reason they are being discussed however is because everything else is off the table as a result of the CPA. This is a public sector thing. I disagree with suspending increments, however I can understand why they could be suspended considering that more appropriate measures to deal with the cost of runnning the PS are currently unavailable.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

Increments certainly are not purely a public sector thing. They do exist in many large organisations with management structures similar to the PS. I think the reason they are being discussed however is because everything else is off the table as a result of the CPA. This is a public sector thing. I disagree with suspending increments, however I can understand why they could be suspended considering that more appropriate measures to deal with the cost of runnning the PS are currently unavailable.

Brendan Howlin has taken legal advise which states that increments constitute basic pay & are thus protected by the Croke Park Agreement.

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

That is true, the last thing they need is to leave the younger staff disillusioned and disgruntled by cutting increments. The older staff will still be at the top of their scale.

Yeah so the ps can get their increments sure dont worry lads we will just take more off the blind and disabled...FFS when will you wake up that for every penny extra spent it has to be garnished or taken away from somewhere else...but unions and PS will not allow a freeze as the trough will be taken away soon

itzme

fliball123 wrote: »

Yeah so the ps can get their increments sure dont worry lads we will just take more off the blind and disabled...FFS when will you wake up that for every penny extra spent it has to be garnished or taken away from somewhere else...but unions and PS will not allow a freeze as the trough will be taken away soon

And every penny that has gone to the banks and to the bondholders is a penny we could be paying to the blind, the disabled....
That sort of emotive nonsense has no place in a serious debate.

fliball123

itzme wrote: »

And every penny that has gone to the banks and to the bondholders is a penny we could be paying to the blind, the disabled....
That sort of emotive nonsense has no place in a serious debate.

Yeah and we cant get a deal on this as the germans are laughing at us..
I can imagine the conversation between kenny and merkal when kenny asks for a deal on banking debt.

Enda : her love any chance of a deal on the bank debt we did this to stop contagion to the euro banks. its 64 billion

Angie : Yes Enda we know that but how much more do you owe besides and how much are you borrowing

Enda : about another 120billion on top of this due to what we spend as opposed to what we take in and we borrow about 2.5million an hour

Angie : Well tax more or cut and get your house in order and we will discuss your bank debt.

Enda: But the unions wont let us cut PS pay / pensions and we are overtaxed when we take both direct and indirect taxes in.

Angie: Not my problem if you rock the boat on this we will turn the taps off.

Enda: Better cut some more cash to the blind so..


Until you realise that we will not get a deal on our bank debt because the Gremans see us paying more to our public servants and paying more to our social welfare than theirs...Sure how would the bog standard German feel...They want us to bail them out of 64 billion of debt and their nurses get more than ours, there politicians get more than ours...The people on the dole are get a hell of a lot more than ours and yet it is Ireland who is in the bailout program...Until people join the dots and realise there is one sum in this what we take in and what we pay out its all linked and from the outside looking in and them seeing the public sector still getting pay rises, politicians still on an unvouched expense system, gardai who can retire after 30 years of service on a very lavish pension, people given allowances for making boxes...haha and you want to talk about the bank debt, don't get me wrong its a pain and it was wrong..but if you look at this from the outside looking in they think were acting the b0ll0x with regard to how we are dealing with things.

itzme

You kinda missed the whole point of my post there fliball, I was not trying to bring in the bank debt at all.
I was trying to show that dragging the debate down to silly emotive soundbites is divisive and won't progress any debate, which your response beautifully illustrates.

fliball123

itzme wrote: »

You kinda missed the whole point of my post there fliball, I was not trying to bring in the bank debt at all.
I was trying to show that dragging the debate down to silly emotive divisive soundbites, which your response beautifully illustrates.

Funny that because when pay cuts are talked about here..its usually the ps who bring up the usual "ah you work as a nurse in the hospital and put up with the crap that goes on"

And I am simply joining the dots up that the government due to the fact that we are at the point of diminishing returns to tax take and the way the country revolted over 100 euros extra in the property tax would suggest we cannot squeeze any more blood out of that stone..I think there may be scope to maybe bring more from the lower end of employees into the tax bands...up the current ones by a % or 2 and then a third rate for those earning over 100k..So where do we get the rest...We cannot continue to tax tax tax...This is already beginning to be counter productive..So cuts need to happen...and services has been the on the menu for the last 5 years barring the one pay cut to the public servants back in 2010...So do we continue to ask the tax payer to pay more for less services. or do we wake up to the fact that neither the current ps pay perks and pensions as well as the social welfare can be afforded in this country..So I am sorry if I came across as being emotive...I was just telling the truth as this is what has happened

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

How do you know about my pension, i am young it doesn't interest me. I would rather eat a lemon than read up on someone elses pension entitlements. You are far too interested in these things head the wall and for a man living in another country its crazy. Go out and enjoy London

Well it's obvious that you have outgoings from your payslip that you can't explain what they are for. That's naive and foolish if you ask me.

barneystinson wrote: »

Just want to throw something out there to the anti-increment posters who can't wrap their heads around the idea that the full rate of pay for a given job is the top of the incremental scale, and you only get the full rate of pay after several years of improving performance...

That's a bullsh1t statement. If that is the case well then why don't all clerical officers start off on 37,500 and be done with increments?

It's obvious that someone starting is getting paid the full clerical officer rate that is relevant to their experience. You are making the assumption that everyone will achieve the top of the incremental scale and until then they will not be paid properly. If there was a proper Performance system in place not everyone would achieve this level because frankly there's always useless staff.

I really find it hard to believe that people what you are stating, mind you it's just PS posters on here I have heard it from.

woodoo wrote: »

That is true, the last thing they need is to leave the younger staff disillusioned and disgruntled by cutting increments. The older staff will still be at the top of their scale.

Aren't they already currently on different wage rates, what's the problem with stopping them outright

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Brendan Howlin has taken legal advise which states that increments constitute basic pay & are thus protected by the Croke Park Agreement.

Not according to the chairman of the implementation body.

"Confirmation by chairman of the implementation body PJ Fitzpatrick to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that increments and allowances are not part of the Croke Park deal"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1015/breaking1.html

itzme

fliball123 wrote: »

Funny that because when pay cuts are talked about here..its usually the ps who bring up the usual "ah you work as a nurse in the hospital and put up with the crap that goes on"

And I am simply joining the dots up that the government due to the fact that we are at the point of diminishing returns to tax take and the way the country revolted over 100 euros extra in the property tax would suggest we cannot squeeze any more blood out of that stone..I think there may be scope to maybe bring more from the lower end of employees into the tax bands...up the current ones by a % or 2 and then a third rate for those earning over 100k..So where do we get the rest...We cannot continue to tax tax tax...This is already beginning to be counter productive..So cuts need to happen...and services has been the on the menu for the last 5 years barring the one pay cut to the public servants back in 2010...So do we continue to ask the tax payer to pay more for less services. or do we wake up to the fact that neither the current ps pay perks and pensions as well as the social welfare can be afforded in this country..So I am sorry if I came across as being emotive...I was just telling the truth as this is what has happened

The truth eh... you were implying that it because the PS has not frozen increments that this means money is being taken from the blind and the disabled. This either / or choice is blatantly not true and is obviously just an attempt to try and make the issue emotive. There are many options for increasing income to continue the services, the only option is not increments. To suggest otherwise is being intentionally disingenuous.

On the actual topic, just to be clear in my view are increments pay increases, yes. Are they something that needs addressing, yes. Should they be stopped today, no. Are they increasing the wage bill, yes. Should they be phased out for performance based increments, yes. Does this bring complications, yes.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

Not according to the chairman of the implementation body.

"Confirmation by chairman of the implementation body PJ Fitzpatrick to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that increments and allowances are not part of the Croke Park deal"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1015/breaking1.html

Mr Howlin stated on the 16th of this month & I quote " I can tell you , my legal advice and I've looked at this from the very beginning , is very clear - that increments constitute basic pay and represent part of the terms and conditions applicable to staff. "

I picked up this quote from the Irish Examiner of the 16th instant , it has been widely reported across the media.

Perhaps Mr. Fitzpatrick did not have the benefit of legal opinion ?

itzme

sarumite wrote: »

Not according to the chairman of the implementation body.

"Confirmation by chairman of the implementation body PJ Fitzpatrick to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that increments and allowances are not part of the Croke Park deal"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1015/breaking1.html

That is very interesting alright. Great link.
There are some allowances that are crazy and should be stopped but to claim all are not part of the deal surprises me. For instance, the principal/assistant principal "allowance" is clearly (to me) a pay increase for taking up a more senior position. What do you think?

sarumite

itzme wrote: »

That is very interesting alright. Great link.
There are some allowances that are crazy and should be stopped but to claim all are not part of the deal surprises me. For instance, the principal/assistant principal "allowance" is clearly (to me) a pay increase for taking up a more senior position. What do you think?

My opinion has been pretty consistent. The government and unions agreed with benchmarking and the public seemed satisfied with the general principle. A third round of benchmarking avoids the moral quagmire and inherent unfairness of the CPA. Benchmarking should take into account the position of being a principle or assistant principle etc and award a higher pay due to the increased responsibility.

Scofflaw

fliball123 banned for two weeks for persistently adding flame bait to PS threads. Feeling strongly about something does not give one licence to cast absolutely everything in emotively confrontational terms.

moderately,
Scofflaw

itzme

sarumite wrote: »

My opinion has been pretty consistent. The government and unions agreed with benchmarking and the public seemed satisfied with the general principle. A third round of benchmarking avoids the moral quagmire and inherent unfairness of the CPA. Benchmarking should take into account the position of being a principle or assistant principle etc and award a higher pay due to the increased responsibility.

Agree with all of that alright, a third round of benchmarking would be the obvious next step after the CPA.
Without taking the thread off-topic, it would need a re-addressing of allowances though and not in a get rid of them all but a re-classification of those that are actually core-pay (a minority of them), a creation of new positions (i.e. principal/assistant) and also the removal of the out of date and pointless ones.

deise blue

If a third round of benchmarking is a viable option it should be remembered that PS pensions have already been taken into account in the December 2007 report.

Other factors would obviously be the pay cuts suffered to date , increased transferability & the fact that services are expected to be maintained despite falling numbers of employees .

The latest CSO report also seems to have debunked the idea that there is a huge discrepancy between pay in the public & private sectors.

Of course , the major factor is that the Government as employers have not indicated that a further benchmarking exercise is a path that they wish to follow.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

If a third round of benchmarking is a viable option it should be remembered that PS pensions have already been taken into account in the December 2007 report.

Other factors would obviously be the pay cuts suffered to date , increased transferability & the fact that services are expected to be maintained despite falling numbers of employees .

Why? We are living in 2012 and not 2007, the pension landscape has changed and any benchmarking now should take that into account. Furthermore benchmarking should be based on the current salary so other than the pension levy, this would be reflected by the cuts. Increased transferability is good for the PS employee as well as the government. Rather then being made redundant and having to go out find another job, the government can transfer you to another department, thus they get to retain trained staff and the staff retain their job. the fact that services are being maintained also indicates the increased job security associated with those services which should also be considered.

The latest CSO report also seems to have debunked the idea that there is a huge discrepancy between pay in the public & private sectors.

Of course , the major factor is that the Government as employers have not indicated that a further benchmarking exercise is a path that they wish to follow.

Lets be honest with our selves. The government are are speaking as politicians and not employers. They are making political decisions not economic ones.

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

If a third round of benchmarking is a viable option it should be remembered that PS pensions have already been taken into account in the December 2007 report.

Other factors would obviously be the pay cuts suffered to date , increased transferability & the fact that services are expected to be maintained despite falling numbers of employees .

In fairness all those points you raise would be completely irrelevant to a new benchmarking process.

Benchmarking would look at their current remuneration, pension entitlements, job security etc and then compare it with an equivalent position in the private sector. How they have arrived at their current remuneration or whatever cuts they have received previously would have no bearing on the benchmarking process "if applied properly and transparently".

Idbatterim

Brendan Howlin has taken legal advise which states that increments constitute basic pay & are thus protected by the Croke Park Agreement.

total shocker there! :rolleyes:

In fairness all those points you raise would be completely irrelevant to a new benchmarking process.

Benchmarking would look at their current remuneration, pension entitlements, job security etc and then compare it with an equivalent position in the private sector. How they have arrived at their current remuneration or whatever cuts they have received previously would have no bearing on the benchmarking process "if applied properly and transparently".

totally agree!

Until you realise that we will not get a deal on our bank debt because the Gremans see us paying more to our public servants and paying more to our social welfare than theirs...Sure how would the bog standard German feel...They want us to bail them out of 64 billion of debt and their nurses get more than ours, there politicians get more than ours...

That is total speculation, who knows whether we will or wont get a deal, or whether there is already a secret or gentleman's agreement...

deise blue

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

The Unions will argue that the benefits of the PS pensions has already been dealt with in the 2007 report and is reflected in their current terms & conditions which terms & conditions is where any benchmarking exercise must start , people can argue all they want that we should start any new benchmarking report from scratch but that simply is not going to happen - the Unions will request clarification of certain parameters first.

They will also argue that any reforms made under the CPA must be included - transferability , increased volume of work due to falling numbers , the pay cuts suffered to date , increased hours & class sizes for teachers , nursing Unions will of course point out that many of their members have yet to benefit from the reduction in hours introduced some years ago in that many continue to work a 39 hour week as opposed to the 37.5 hour week agreed.

The recent CSO report is , of course , another card the Unions will be happy to play.

In the interest of fairness the Unions will demand & receive equal representation with Employers on any benchmarking body & the choice of Chairperson is likely to prove hugely problematic .

Both parties have a huge amount to lose depending on the findings of the Benchmarking body - if there is a reduction in pay Unions will be vilified by their members & equally if the status quo is maintained or pay is increased then the Government will be condemned by a large portion of the population .

Pragmatically I cannot see a further benchmarking exercise happening.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

The Unions will argue that the benefits of the PS pensions has already been dealt with in the 2007 report and is reflected in their current terms & conditions which terms & conditions is where any benchmarking exercise must start , people can argue all they want that we should start any new benchmarking report from scratch but that simply is not going to happen - the Unions will request clarification of certain parameters first.

They will also argue that any reforms made under the CPA must be included - transferability , increased volume of work due to falling numbers , the pay cuts suffered to date , increased hours & class sizes for teachers , nursing Unions will of course point out that many of their members have yet to benefit from the reduction in hours introduced some years ago in that many continue to work a 39 hour week as opposed to the 37.5 hour week agreed.

The recent CSO report is , of course , another card the Unions will be happy to play.

In the interest of fairness the Unions will demand & receive equal representation with Employers on any benchmarking body & the choice of Chairperson is likely to prove hugely problematic .


Both parties have a huge amount to lose depending on the findings of the Benchmarking body - if there is a reduction in pay Unions will be vilified by their members & equally if the status quo is maintained or pay is increased then the Government will be condemned by a large portion of the population .

Pragmatically I cannot see a further benchmarking exercise happening.

Most of you write is kind of irrelevant to a benchmarking process. For example if an employee is working 39 hours in the PS and their equivalent is working 39 hours in the private sector, what is the problem? As I mentioned already, the transferability is both a positive for the employer and employee and much of the other comments apply equally to the private sector. As per the pension comments, 2007 was 2007. The point of benchmarking now is to compare the PS to private sector in 2012 and not 2007. In terms of representation, I am sure the LRC can sort that out. As to the reaction to benchmarking, its a process that is several years old as we have already gone through two rounds of it. IF the unions are vilified by their members, then the unions shouldn't have agreed to benchmarking way back then. It is the complete lack of pragmatism that resulted in there not being a third round of benchmarking. As I said in another thread, it is funny how a word that was once shouted loud and proud by every union head in the country is now such a dirty term that dare not raise its ugly head.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Mr Howlin stated on the 16th of this month & I quote " I can tell you , my legal advice and I've looked at this from the very beginning , is very clear - that increments constitute basic pay and represent part of the terms and conditions applicable to staff. "

I picked up this quote from the Irish Examiner of the 16th instant , it has been widely reported across the media.

Perhaps Mr. Fitzpatrick did not have the benefit of legal opinion ?

I personally find it odd that Howlin looked for legal advice and not the advice of the Mr. Fitzpatrick. I mean who is going to know more about what is and is not protected by the CPA....some lawyer or the guy whos job is to chair the board that implements the actual agreement.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

I personally find it odd that Howlin looked for legal advice and not the advice of the Mr. Fitzpatrick. I mean who is going to know more about what is and is not protected by the CPA....some lawyer or the guy whos job is to chair the board that implements the actual agreement.

Minister Howlin is the person charged with overseeing public reform via the CPA & it is only natural that he would seek legal clarification.

Mr. Howlin further confirmed that increments could only be changed by negotiation or by legislation , such legislation he felt would not withstand a legal challenge.

It appears that Mr. Fitzpatrick may have been wrong in his pronouncement.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Minister Howlin is the person charged with overseeing public reform via the CPA & it is only natural that he would seek legal clarification.

Mr. Howlin further confirmed that increments could only be changed by negotiation or by legislation , such legislation he felt would not withstand a legal challenge.

It appears that Mr. Fitzpatrick may have been wrong in his pronouncement.

He is indeed the minister who is incharge with overseeing that the CPA is implemented. Mr. Fitzpatrick job is chair the board that implements it. I think it is only natural that he would seek clarification, though I would have thought the natural first port of call woudl have been to Mr. Fitzpatrick and no some lawyer. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

Most of you write is kind of irrelevant to a benchmarking process. For example if an employee is working 39 hours in the PS and their equivalent is working 39 hours in the private sector, what is the problem? As I mentioned already, the transferability is both a positive for the employer and employee and much of the other comments apply equally to the private sector. As per the pension comments, 2007 was 2007. The point of benchmarking now is to compare the PS to private sector in 2012 and not 2007. In terms of representation, I am sure the LRC can sort that out. As to the reaction to benchmarking, its a process that is several years old as we have already gone through two rounds of it. IF the unions are vilified by their members, then the unions shouldn't have agreed to benchmarking way back then. It is the complete lack of pragmatism that resulted in there not being a third round of benchmarking. As I said in another thread, it is funny how a word that was once shouted loud and proud by every union head in the country is now such a dirty term that dare not raise its ugly head.

Your view reflects how you believe Benchmarking should happen.

My comments reflect the way the Unions will approach the matter , their starting point will be that the question of PS pensions has been dealt with in the 2007 report & as such is currently reflected in their members current terms & conditions & is therefore off the table.

They will demand that pay cuts , longer working hours , increased class sizes , breaches of the agreement re nurses working hours , transferability ( notwithstanding your argument that this benefits both parties - the Union argument will be , of course , that transferability can be extremely disruptive & is a reform granted under the CPA ) are all taken into consideration

The latest CSO report shows that the gap between both sectors is now closing.

The formation of any Benchmarking body is going to be hugely difficult as the Unions will have equal representation with Employers , it is not a question that the LRC will be asked to adjudicate on - precedent & fairness will ensure equal representation .

Let me ask you - do you believe that we will see a Benchmarking process over the next few years ?

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Your view reflects how you believe Benchmarking should happen.

Let me ask you - do you believe that we will see a Benchmarking process over the next few years ?

It reflects the original intent of benchmarking. Back in 2007 there were no suggestion to compare the year 2002, I don't see why that should be any different in 2012.

As to your question. The answer is no. However, as I said my opinion has been consistent. There is not the political will the do what is right, instead they will do what is easy.

Good loser

deise blue wrote: »

Minister Howlin is the person charged with overseeing public reform via the CPA & it is only natural that he would seek legal clarification.

Mr. Howlin further confirmed that increments could only be changed by negotiation or by legislation , such legislation he felt would not withstand a legal challenge.

It appears that Mr. Fitzpatrick may have been wrong in his pronouncement.

How convenient that the advice of Mr Howlin's legal advisers coincides with his political interests!

He looks after his political base; that is clear from his approach to the allowances.

He should introduce any legislation necessary, drop the increments to all and await the court challange. The risks are low; for a €0.5m court action he would stand to gain €170 m per annum.

barneystinson

Good loser wrote: »

The risks are low; for a €0.5m court action he would stand to gain €170 m per annum.

There's also the cost of the resultant industrial action.

deise blue

Good loser wrote: »

How convenient that the advice of Mr Howlin's legal advisers coincides with his political interests!

He looks after his political base; that is clear from his approach to the allowances.

He should introduce any legislation necessary, drop the increments to all and await the court challange. The risks are low; for a €0.5m court action he would stand to gain €170 m per annum.

The Minister has declared that the Croke Park Agreement will be honoured , he has stated that Legal opinion indicates that increments are protected by the Agreement.

The chance that the Minister will introduce legislation in direct contradiction of the legal opinion he has solicited - none !

sarumite

barneystinson wrote: »

There's also the cost of the resultant industrial action.

While I agree with that, at some point a government has to stand up for something. It cannot always cave into the threat of industrial action. Its become almost comical at this stage how quickly Irish governments fold with the mere scent of industrial action.

barneystinson

sarumite wrote: »

While I agree with that, at some point a government has to stand up for something. It cannot always cave into the threat of industrial action. Its become almost comical at this stage how quickly Irish governments fold with the mere scent of industrial action.

Agreed, I was just pointing out a substantial risk that the previous poster was ignoring / overlooking.

I am no lefty, but freezing increments would have me out on a picket line whereas a 10% paycut or increased "pension" levy wouldn't.

woodoo

Good loser wrote: »

He should introduce any legislation necessary, drop the increments to all and await the court challange. The risks are low; for a €0.5m court action he would stand to gain €170 m per annum.

When all the truth and facts about increments would come out in a court i believe the increments would be left alone. I think a lot of people just don't really understand the incremental system.

Can you tell me good loser what you understand of increments in the PS?

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

Your view reflects how you believe Benchmarking should happen.

You seem to be under the illusion that the unions run the country and they tell the govt what to do. I hate to burst your bubble but that's not how it works and seeing as how Ireland is not improving and an ever growing deficit are going to force either them or someone else to make the decisions that need to be made.

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

You seem to be under the illusion that the unions run the country and they tell the govt what to do. I hate to burst your bubble but that's not how it works and seeing as how Ireland is not improving and an ever growing deficit are going to force either them or someone else to make the decisions that need to be made.

The CPA is the only format by which savings & reform can be delivered in a climate of industrial peace - the unions certainly do not run the country , the current Government were elected to govern & chose to honour the CPA ( indeed both parties in their pre election promises said that they would honour the Agreement ) - if the Government choose to involve Unions then they certainly have the mandate to do so.

And you seem to be under the illusion that views expressed on this forum somehow negate the fact that increments are protected by the CPA & the further fact that Benchmarking will never be introduced under the current Government.

I do feel however that once the CPA expires at the end of 2013 that the negotiations on any CPA 2 will be challenging to say the least.

Head The Wall

barneystinson wrote: »

I am no lefty, but freezing increments would have me out on a picket line whereas a 10% paycut or increased "pension" levy wouldn't.

Why would this be the case, considering that a 10% paycut or levy would have you worse off?

woodoo wrote: »

When all the truth and facts about increments would come out in a court i believe the increments would be left alone. I think a lot of people just don't really understand the incremental system.

Can you tell me good loser what you understand of increments in the PS?

What's to understand about them? A person with zero experience gets paid their salary at the bottom of the scale, as they progress through the system it is "presumed" that they are improving and gaining experience and via the mechanisms of the PMDS system they get an increment as a reward.

Because the PMDS system is such a sham and previously everyone received them people automatically expected to receive them just for turning up to work and we have ended up with the situation where both good and bad staff receive them which erodes the ambition and drive of people to do a good job.


Then We have the likes of yourself and other posters on here claiming the top of the scale is the actual correct pay rate for the job, this claim is fostered out of an expectation that everyone gets the increments automatically at the quickest opportunity. That should not be the case, there should always be people that cannot get to the top of the scale because they are not good enough and if people don't perform they should have to prove they perform before they get their increment.

Please do tell us what would come out in a court about increments?

sarumite

Head The Wall wrote: »

Why would this be the case, considering that a 10% paycut or levy would have you worse off?

I agree with Barneys position on this matter. If it was to be a 10% paycut, this will affect everyone equally whereas suspension of increments does not. One of the biggest "hang your head in shame" decision was when both the unions (via their members) and the government colluded to screw over the new entrants into the PS. The government should be setting a positive example to other employers, not actively creating inequality in its own workforce.

barneystinson

Head The Wall wrote: »

Why would this be the case, considering that a 10% paycut or levy would have you worse off?

Well for starters it wouldn't have me worse off over a 2 year period, I'm at a grade where the increments are proportionately greater than other grades (the reason being that it is a "graduate recruitment" grade with the expectation of high performance and rapid progression to higher management - albeit that the graduates in question nowadays are already fully qualified and seasoned professionals, a bargain at 30k, but they don't join for the 30k - they join for the 40k they'll be on in 3 years or the 50k in 6 years, which are rates that actually reflect their qualifications, assuming they don't get promoted by then).

But the reason would be the same as I posted previously, that freezing increments affects only those who have been most recently recruited (based on a competitive process) or promoted (the vast majority based on merit rather than seniority), and have no effect on people who are already earning more for the same role - how is that equitable.

I already spoke previously of the anomaly of (professionally qualified) managers earning less than their staff (whose highest qualification is the leaving cert), which is a bit nuts - I could live with that as long as I knew the situation is temporary and will be rectified by the operation of the payscale as long as I shut up and get on with my job, but it would be completely demoralising to be told this is how it is going to be until further notice.

I can only speak from my own personal experience in the PS which is less than a quarter of my working life. Performance management definitely needs to be addressed, and in the Dept I work in thanks to limited Open Recruitment in in the last couple of years, people have come in at management grades (AP / PO) who are experienced professionals in the relevant field and who can and do lead by example, and impose higher standards on staff, and have delivered results and improved performance in their teams. These are good quality professionals, and if you freeze their increments while continuing to pay their underperforming institutionalised colleagues 20-25% more than them, they'll be off back to the private sector at the earliest opportunity.

Basically to me the cost/benefit analysis of freezing increments simply doesn't add up - it's not the simple straightforward arithmetical exercise that so many people would like it to be.

You save much more money in a much fairer way by cutting everyone's pay, rather than only that of the performers.