Increments to be paid to highest earners

Head The Wall

barneystinson wrote: »

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).

PS use of the expectation word duly noted. It seems to me the govt can't afford the rates you "expect". It also sounds like you chose the role based on money, you may say otherwise but that's not how it comes across in your post. Basically any position is only worth what an employer is willing to pay for it, this is why builders that used to be earning 1k a week now get the dole. Job status and remuneration changes, it's something you may have to adjust to or else go where your expectations can be met.

barneystinson wrote: »

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.

People are already on different pay levels so stopping them wouldn't change that much, the reason for doing this is the govt's current financial situation. When things are in a better state then obviously the govt should look at all this alongside implementing a proper PMDS system.

barneystinson wrote: »

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.

Get on to your union (if you're a member)if you don't like what's going on. It's not your choice whether these people decide to take on these roles either. They obviously don't have a problem with doing it; otherwise they wouldn't have decided to do it so it's a bit disingenuous of you to use it as a reason to justify your increments.

barneystinson wrote: »

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.

Everyone agrees the system needs to be fixed but all we hear is people moaning about how unfair it is but everyone in the PS still seem happy to pay it lip service and keep riding the gravy train

barneystinson wrote: »

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

Oh no, but what about the poor, overpaid lower paid people. Don't you know a 10% paycut is going to hit them harder than 10% to someone on 100k

frankosw

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.

So he saves 170 m per anum?

Thats less than what half he spends on overseas aid.

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

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

Courts by their very nature are interested in natural justice and fairness. They would not stand over decisions made that would leave half the staff on permanently less money that the other staff. Particularly as they all signed the same contract. Doing away with increments would mid way through contracts would be unfair.

Head The Wall

Don't you realise that the govt changes your contracts every budget? You should look up the definition of pay freeze. It's a simple fact when there's no money things change.

Bloody PS act as if things are still fine and everything should go on as normal like before the boom.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

Bloody PS act as if things are still fine and everything should go on as normal like before the boom.

The only difference is that *everybody* in the PS has taken a compulsory pay cut and not everybody in teh private sector has.

The paycut was a reverse of the benchmarking that we got during the "boom"*


*I use the term lightly,the "boom" was a chimera based on record takes of Stamp Duty,unlimited credit and a profusion of people in the Private Sector working cash in hand.

sarumite

frankosw wrote: »

The only difference is that *everybody* in the PS has taken a compulsory pay cut and not everybody in teh private sector has.

The paycut was a reverse of the benchmarking that we got during the "boom"*


*I use the term lightly,the "boom" was a chimera based on record takes of Stamp Duty,unlimited credit and a profusion of people in the Private Sector working cash in hand.

everyone took a pay cut because no-one took a job cut.

avalon68

deise blue wrote: »

So going by the metrics stated by Clown Man of 2-3 years paid maternity leave your neighbour & good friend could have accumulated 8 - 12 years paid maternity leave if of course she planned it right .

I look forward with interest to her illuminating post & perhaps she would also kindly post details of the agreement with her employers that provides such largesse.

A previous boss of mine (3rd level uni) was on maternity for about 4 years. 2 kids and only back a couple of months after the 1st when she left again. My neighbour, a nurse....coming up on about 4 years now too ( 2 kids also). And a close friend, a teacher, just almost 2 years when she went back in sept, but preggers again and finishing up in nov. that's just people I know.....and I don't know that many people! I think if there was a database totting up extended leave people would be shocked!

deise blue

avalon68 wrote: »

A previous boss of mine (3rd level uni) was on maternity for about 4 years. 2 kids and only back a couple of months after the 1st when she left again. My neighbour, a nurse....coming up on about 4 years now too ( 2 kids also). And a close friend, a teacher, just almost 2 years when she went back in sept, but preggers again and finishing up in nov. that's just people I know.....and I don't know that many people! I think if there was a database totting up extended leave people would be shocked!

To finally put this argument to bed all that is required is for someone to post the details showing the agreement with the employers stating that 2-3 years PAID maternity leave for each child is the norm.

I await the details of such an Agreement with interest.

frankosw

sarumite wrote: »

everyone took a pay cut because no-one took a job cut.

Not true of course.

Nobody working a contract has been replaced once thier contract expired.

In addition nobody who retired at normal age,nobody who left and nobody who died has been replaced either.

For the extra work involved staff should be getting a pay increase and if it wernt for the PSA there would already be widespread industrial action.

Anybody who signed up for it signed away thier right to take industrial action..its not all about preserving pitiful rates of pay.

frankosw

avalon68 wrote: »

A previous boss of mine (3rd level uni) was on maternity for about 4 years. 2 kids and only back a couple of months after the 1st when she left again. My neighbour, a nurse....coming up on about 4 years now too ( 2 kids also). And a close friend, a teacher, just almost 2 years when she went back in sept, but preggers again and finishing up in nov. that's just people I know.....and I don't know that many people! I think if there was a database totting up extended leave people would be shocked!

Nobody anywhere gets two years maternity leave per child.

Reported for telling lies,

Scofflaw

avalon68 wrote: »

A previous boss of mine (3rd level uni) was on maternity for about 4 years. 2 kids and only back a couple of months after the 1st when she left again. My neighbour, a nurse....coming up on about 4 years now too ( 2 kids also). And a close friend, a teacher, just almost 2 years when she went back in sept, but preggers again and finishing up in nov. that's just people I know.....and I don't know that many people! I think if there was a database totting up extended leave people would be shocked!

Let's not have anecdotes, let's have some facts. If people are going to assert that a given level of maternity leave is applied, paid or unpaid, they should be able to back up those assertions with something better than their subjective impressions of some individual case they may or may not know all the relevant details of.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Godge

avalon68 wrote: »

A previous boss of mine (3rd level uni) was on maternity for about 4 years. 2 kids and only back a couple of months after the 1st when she left again. My neighbour, a nurse....coming up on about 4 years now too ( 2 kids also). And a close friend, a teacher, just almost 2 years when she went back in sept, but preggers again and finishing up in nov. that's just people I know.....and I don't know that many people! I think if there was a database totting up extended leave people would be shocked!

deise blue wrote: »

To finally put this argument to bed all that is required is for someone to post the details showing the agreement with the employers stating that 2-3 years PAID maternity leave for each child is the norm.

I await the details of such an Agreement with interest.

frankosw wrote: »

Nobody anywhere gets two years maternity leave per child.

Reported for telling lies,

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's not have anecdotes, let's have some facts. If people are going to assert that a given level of maternity leave is applied, paid or unpaid, they should be able to back up those assertions with something better than their subjective impressions of some individual case they may or may not know all the relevant details of.

moderately,
Scofflaw

To be fair to avalon68, have a look at circular 11/2011 from the Department of Education and Skills

http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0011_2011.pdf

In the example given in the circular (Appendix C), the person is absent from the 23rd January 2009 until the 6th September 2010, a period of some 20 months, not far off two years. Actually the Department's circular doesn't include the unpaid 14 weeks of parental leave which means the teacher could just about reach the two years. If a teacher plans children more carefully (or has a doctor that give a birth-date that fits better), then this could be stretched a bit further. Add a second child following after two years and when you work it out the teacher is hardly in the school for four years.

Now I know a lot of this is unpaid, but it is possible in particular with the parental leave dates to come back for holiday periods. If the return date was 1 May for example, a primary teacher could take their parental leave in two blocks, one of eight weeks finishing at the end of the June and the other of six weeks starting 1 September and be paid for the summer.

An apology to avalon might be in order.

avalon68

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's not have anecdotes, let's have some facts. If people are going to assert that a given level of maternity leave is applied, paid or unpaid, they should be able to back up those assertions with something better than their subjective impressions of some individual case they may or may not know all the relevant details of.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Theres nothing anecdotal about telling you my direct boss, who I worked with for 6 years, was absent on maternity leave for 4 of those years. Its a fact. I also used to post her mail to her once a month, and a payslip was always included in that mail. Another fact.

avalon68

frankosw wrote: »

Nobody anywhere gets two years maternity leave per child.

Reported for telling lies,

I resent the implication that I am lying - I have no need to do so.

creedp

Godge wrote: »

To be fair to avalon68, have a look at circular 11/2011 from the Department of Education and Skills

http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0011_2011.pdf

In the example given in the circular (Appendix C), the person is absent from the 23rd January 2009 until the 6th September 2010, a period of some 20 months, not far off two years. Actually the Department's circular doesn't include the unpaid 14 weeks of parental leave which means the teacher could just about reach the two years. If a teacher plans children more carefully (or has a doctor that give a birth-date that fits better), then this could be stretched a bit further. Add a second child following after two years and when you work it out the teacher is hardly in the school for four years.

Now I know a lot of this is unpaid, but it is possible in particular with the parental leave dates to come back for holiday periods. If the return date was 1 May for example, a primary teacher could take their parental leave in two blocks, one of eight weeks finishing at the end of the June and the other of six weeks starting 1 September and be paid for the summer.

An apology to avalon might be in order.

However, that scenario is peculiar to teachers. I can't think of any other worker who could engineer such an extended period of time off for maternity reasons.

Godge

creedp wrote: »

However, that scenario is peculiar to teachers. I can't think of any other worker who could engineer such an extended period of time off for maternity reasons.

Avalon68 mentioned a boss in third-level university, possible that similar arrangements apply there. If the person was an academic and they scheduled leave in a particular way and time making sure paid leave coincided with the time students were on campus, the same might apply.

But avalon68 was called a liar and reported on the basis that "Nobody anywhere gets two years maternity leave per child" which as I have shown is a false statement.

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

To be fair to avalon68, have a look at circular 11/2011 from the Department of Education and Skills

http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0011_2011.pdf

In the example given in the circular (Appendix C), the person is absent from the 23rd January 2009 until the 6th September 2010, a period of some 20 months, not far off two years. Actually the Department's circular doesn't include the unpaid 14 weeks of parental leave which means the teacher could just about reach the two years. If a teacher plans children more carefully (or has a doctor that give a birth-date that fits better), then this could be stretched a bit further. Add a second child following after two years and when you work it out the teacher is hardly in the school for four years.

Now I know a lot of this is unpaid, but it is possible in particular with the parental leave dates to come back for holiday periods. If the return date was 1 May for example, a primary teacher could take their parental leave in two blocks, one of eight weeks finishing at the end of the June and the other of six weeks starting 1 September and be paid for the summer.

An apology to avalon might be in order.

I appreciate the clarification, but I'm not sure we're reading the same circular! The one I'm reading says:

All pregnant teachers, who give birth to a live child, or who reach their 24th week of pregnancy, are entitled to 26 weeks maternity leave and 16 weeks additional unpaid maternity leave.

That looks to me like a very straightforward statement of the entitlements in question. The "Non Statutory Unpaid Maternity leave" is not an entitlement. I would think it applies only to teachers, and only because in the specific case of teachers a teacher returning part-way through the year may be regarded as an undesirable disruption to the classes in question. The statement that anyone is entitled to two years maternity leave is, in that light, evidently false. Without better evidence, it should not be repeated, thanks.

moderately*,
Scofflaw

*Just to clarify, while I am intervening here wearing my mod hat, it is only intended to prevent the endless circular arguments with everyone using their own preferred facts which are a feature of these threads. There is, therefore, no penalty attached to replying to these comments as there usually would be for arguing moderation on thread, because I am not directly moderating anyone here. I will make it clear when I am again directing traffic, although I think everyone gets it anyway.

sarumite

frankosw wrote: »

Not true of course.

Nobody working a contract has been replaced once thier contract expired.

In addition nobody who retired at normal age,nobody who left and nobody who died has been replaced either.

Not replacing is not the same as cutting. A contract not being extended is not the same as being made redundant. So yes, its true.

woodoo

avalon68 wrote: »

A previous boss of mine (3rd level uni) was on maternity for about 4 years. 2 kids and only back a couple of months after the 1st when she left again. My neighbour, a nurse....coming up on about 4 years now too ( 2 kids also). And a close friend, a teacher, just almost 2 years when she went back in sept, but preggers again and finishing up in nov. that's just people I know.....and I don't know that many people! I think if there was a database totting up extended leave people would be shocked!

If they take extra time off they have to apply for unpaid leave, some of it may have been sick leave too. But it definitely wasn't just a straight forward 4 year maternity.

Itchianus

frankosw wrote: »

In addition nobody who retired at normal age,nobody who left and nobody who died has been replaced either.

That's not universally true; there's been very limited, very targeted recruitment in some parts of the civil service to replace some of the skilled staff who have retired.

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate the clarification, but I'm not sure we're reading the same circular! The one I'm reading says:



That looks to me like a very straightforward statement of the entitlements in question. The "Non Statutory Unpaid Maternity leave" is not an entitlement. I would think it applies only to teachers, and only because in the specific case of teachers a teacher returning part-way through the year may be regarded as an undesirable disruption to the classes in question. The statement that anyone is entitled to two years maternity leave is, in that light, evidently false. Without better evidence, it should not be repeated, thanks.

moderately*,
Scofflaw

*Just to clarify, while I am intervening here wearing my mod hat, it is only intended to prevent the endless circular arguments with everyone using their own preferred facts which are a feature of these threads. There is, therefore, no penalty attached to replying to these comments as there usually would be for arguing moderation on thread, because I am not directly moderating anyone here. I will make it clear when I am again directing traffic, although I think everyone gets it anyway.

Who said that "anyone is entitled to two years maternity leave"? I certainly never did. Neither did anyone else.

Avalon said that he had experience of someone in the education sector who had about two year's maternity leave. The response to him was that he was lying because nobody gets two years' maternity leave. Once you find somebody, or in this case, a class of people who can get up to two years paid or unpaid maternity and related leave, then you disprove the notion that nobody gets two years' maternity leave. The accusation of a lie falls.

Now going back to avalon's original anecdotal story, if you are working for someone who has a baby, you are likely to know that they are missing from work for two years and you are likely to assume that it is maternity leave, you are not likely to know the details unless you work in HR. As the circular shows, (and as I pointed out in my post) this is not paid maternity leave in the normal sense but to anyone working in that school/university/IoT it looks like maternity leave which explains avalon's anecdotal story and shows that avalon wasn't lying.

Going back to the circular, it shows in Appendix C(i) - a worked example -that a person could be absent for 20 months. When added to parental leave of 14 weeks, you can get to 2 years. It is likely that similar provisions are in place elsewhere in the education sector as the same principles apply. Not good to have a lecturer come back with two weeks to go either, is it?

To sum up, you could never prove anyone is entitled to 2 years maternity leave, that would be impossible. For a start, 50% of the population, more or less, can't get it:). But you can disprove the statement that nobody is entitled to two years maternity leave.

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

Who said that "anyone is entitled to two years maternity leave"? I certainly never did. Neither did anyone else.

Let's not play word games, please, because I haven't suggested anyone claimed that "anyone" was so entitled.

Godge wrote: »

Avalon said that he had experience of someone in the education sector who had about two year's maternity leave. The response to him was that he was lying because nobody gets two years' maternity leave. Once you find somebody, or in this case, a class of people who can get up to two years paid or unpaid maternity and related leave, then you disprove the notion that nobody gets two years' maternity leave. The accusation of a lie falls.

Now going back to avalon's original anecdotal story, if you are working for someone who has a baby, you are likely to know that they are missing from work for two years and you are likely to assume that it is maternity leave, you are not likely to know the details unless you work in HR. As the circular shows, (and as I pointed out in my post) this is not paid maternity leave in the normal sense but to anyone working in that school/university/IoT it looks like maternity leave which explains avalon's anecdotal story and shows that avalon wasn't lying.

I dislike the claim of lying, I admit, because I have little doubt avalon is recounting the details as he/she sees them. However, that is something separate, and what was requested was facts rather than anecdotes. avalon's story, however honestly told, is of little use because it represents only his/her perception of the case, which is subjective.

Godge wrote: »

Going back to the circular, it shows in Appendix C(i) - a worked example -that a person could be absent for 20 months. When added to parental leave of 14 weeks, you can get to 2 years. It is likely that similar provisions are in place elsewhere in the education sector as the same principles apply. Not good to have a lecturer come back with two weeks to go either, is it?

To sum up, you could never prove anyone is entitled to 2 years maternity leave, that would be impossible.

Not at all. In the case of civil servants, such contracts and entitlements are publicly available information - you need merely show that somewhere there is someone with such an entitlement, since it would be part of their contract.

Godge wrote: »

For a start, 50% of the population, more or less, can't get it:). But you can disprove the statement that nobody is entitled to two years maternity leave.

Even on the basis of the highly stretched figures you've put forward, you haven't done that. "Entitled" means something specific - it doesn't just mean "someone might receive if we string things together in a highly specific way that includes other holidays and entitlements", which is what you've had to do to get close to two years.

You might claim that "with the right combination of circumstances it might be possible for someone to be away from work legally for nearly two years after having a baby, albeit with much of that time unpaid" if you like, but you have categorically failed to "disprove the statement that nobody is entitled to two years maternity leave".

You are, of course, welcome to try again, but not to assert a claim that you have proved such a case.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

avalon68 wrote: »

Theres nothing anecdotal about telling you my direct boss, who I worked with for 6 years, was absent on maternity leave for 4 of those years. Its a fact. I also used to post her mail to her once a month, and a payslip was always included in that mail. Another fact.

It's fact that you know of a boss who did that, it's still anecdotal.

avalon68 wrote:

A previous boss of mine (3rd level uni) was on maternity for about 4 years. 2 kids and only back a couple of months after the 1st when she left again. My neighbour, a nurse....coming up on about 4 years now too ( 2 kids also). And a close friend, a teacher, just almost 2 years when she went back in sept, but preggers again and finishing up in nov. that's just people I know.....and I don't know that many people! I think if there was a database totting up extended leave people would be shocked!

I knew a couple of people in the private sector who took a years maternity. It means nothing other than some mothers take extended leave, for all we know it could be unpaid parental leave.

Mod. What we do know is that it has nothing to with increments so if somebody wants to start a separate thread on maternity entitlements in public service, no problem.

Good loser

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?

I got loads of increments in my day - including two LSI's.

But as Head The Wall says that 'adds nothing to the discussion'.

B. Stinson makes a reasonable point about increments - if the State's finances were not in dire straits. This is of overarching importance. We cannot afford to increase pay to anybody as things stand. Though saving increments will not be enough.

frankosw

Good loser wrote: »

if the State's finances were not in dire straits. This is of overarching importance. We cannot afford to increase pay to anybody as things stand. Though saving increments will not be enough.

Increments are not a "pay increase"..they have been factored in to the pay agreements and into the PSA...they are an integral part of the pay scales that are part of the contract signed on acceptance of the job.

The targets for savings within the PS have been met and will continue to be met..the only thing the state cannot actually afford to pay now is the ridiculouslyhigh levels of social welfare and benefits.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

Increments are not a "pay increase"..they have been factored in to the pay agreements and into the PSA...they are an integral part of the pay scales that are part of the contract signed on acceptance of the job.

The targets for savings within the PS have been met and will continue to be met..the only thing the state cannot actually afford to pay now is the ridiculouslyhigh levels of social welfare and benefits.

stop talking nonsense, how is an increase in ones pay not an increase?

The pay is linked to the Performance of the worker and as such when they are awarded the appropriate mark they move up the scale and are awarded the pay increase.

Its truly astounding that you can actually say that this is somehow not a "pay increase" then try and justify your complete and utter tripe.

frankosw

Jaysoose wrote: »

stop talking nonsense, how is an increase in ones pay not an increase?

The pay is linked to the Performance of the worker and as such when they are awarded the appropriate mark they move up the scale and are awarded the pay increase.

Its truly astounding that you can actually say that this is somehow not a "pay increase" then try and justify your complete and utter tripe.

When you start in "X" job you agree to a series of increments up to the max of the scale.

This is your contract and those increments are your wages.

A pay increase would be anything over and above your agreed wages ie a further promotion..ther is a moratorium on promotions in the Public Service at present.

Its all imaterial because the Govt will not be suspending increments or cutting pay...remember when they tried to lower minimum wage?


Its not going to happen.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

When you start in "X" job you agree to a series of increments up to the max of the scale.

This is your contract and those increments are your wages.

A pay increase would be anything over and above your agreed wages ie a further promotion..ther is a moratorium on promotions in the Public Service at present.

Its all imaterial because the Govt will not be suspending increments or cutting pay...remember when they tried to lower minimum wage?


Its not going to happen.

Honestly your talking rubbish.

Stop digging.

frankosw

Jaysoose wrote: »

Honestly your talking rubbish.

Stop digging.

Well now..the govt and the troika have seen no reason to stop paying increments and it's well-reported that targets are being met so how come you know better?

Head The Wall

frankosw wrote: »

When you start in "X" job you agree to a series of increments up to the max of the scale.

This is your contract and those increments are your wages.

Has this "contract" of yours ever been changed while you have been in the employ of the PS?

I just ask as you seem to be under the illusion that it's not open to change whatsoever.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

Well now..the govt and the troika have seen no reason to stop paying increments and it's well-reported that targets are being met so how come you know better?

I never commented on the troika or the governments insistence to paying the payrises so im nor responding to that.

The point im making is your assertion that they are anything but payrises is completely false. Its been documented and posted on these forums many times that the theory is that they are given when an employee achieves a certain score based on the performance management system and as such are a reward and a move up the respective payscale for the position.

This is clearly a PAY RISE anyway you try to spin it.

frankosw

Jaysoose wrote: »

I never commented on the troika or the governments insistence to paying the payrises so im nor responding to that.

The point im making is your assertion that they are anything but payrises is completely false. Its been documented and posted on these forums many times that the theory is that they are given when an employee achieves a certain score based on the performance management system and as such are a reward and a move up the respective payscale for the position.

This is clearly a PAY RISE anyway you try to spin it.

Nothing but nothing to do with performance management or anything similar.

Up to a certain point all increments are automatic and are awarded each year til the top of the scale is reached.

When the top of the scale is reached increments are not awarded automatically but are subject to a review or to a long service increment being awarded...typically the first LSI is paid after the emplyee has been 4 years at the top of thier payscale.

Why you think that people should remain on thier starting salary for years anyway is beyond me.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

Has this "contract" of yours ever been changed while you have been in the employ of the PS?

I just ask as you seem to be under the illusion that it's not open to change whatsoever.

And it shouod be open to change becaue YOU say so?

Its not like numbers of customers within the PS has dropped or the workload for the staff eased..

Head The Wall

frankosw wrote: »

Nothing but nothing to do with performance management or anything similar.

Up to a certain point all increments are automatic and are awarded each year til the top of the scale is reached.

It's incredulous that you even think so, where have you been for the last few years? Increments are not automatic, it just so happened that the management decided to lash them out to everyone regardless of how good or bad they were.

frankosw wrote: »

When the top of the scale is reached increments are not awarded automatically but are subject to a review or to a long service increment being awarded...typically the first LSI is paid after the emplyee has been 4 years at the top of thier payscale.

Why you think that people should remain on thier starting salary for years anyway is beyond me.

We had a situation where 18 people out of 300,000 in one year didn't receive an increment and this has led you to believe that you should just get them. Maybe you should read your contract where it will that it is subject to passing the PMDS system.


Maybe people that don't show improvement should stay on their starting salary. Why shoudl people get paid more if they are crap


The smell of entitlement in here is off putting

frankosw wrote: »

And it shouod be open to change becaue YOU say so?

Its not like numbers of customers within the PS has dropped or the workload for the staff eased..

So you're not going to answer the question, that says it all really. Anyway the workload has nothing to do with it either.

Your precious contract can get changed any time the govt wants to change it, it usually happens at budget time.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

Nothing but nothing to do with performance management or anything similar.

Up to a certain point all increments are automatic and are awarded each year til the top of the scale is reached.

When the top of the scale is reached increments are not awarded automatically but are subject to a review or to a long service increment being awarded...typically the first LSI is paid after the emplyee has been 4 years at the top of thier payscale.

Why you think that people should remain on thier starting salary for years anyway is beyond me.

Im out..if i stay any longer im looking at a site ban. You believe what you want to.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

We had a situation where 18 people out of 300,000 in one year didn't receive an increment and this has led you to believe that you should just get them..

What does that mean exactly?

can you clarify please?

frankosw

Jaysoose wrote: »

Im out..if i stay any longer im looking at a site ban. You believe what you want to.

Adios...sorry you didnt get to implement your sweeping reforms!

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

Adios...sorry you didnt get to implement your sweeping reforms!

Hard enough to get you to accept reality, sweeping reforms are a total other kettle of fish.

Head The Wall

frankosw wrote: »

What does that mean exactly?

can you clarify please?

Well if you can't understand plain english there's no point even debating this further.

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

We had a situation where 18 people out of 300,000 in one year didn't receive an increment

this is incorrect

the number of PS in line for an increment in any one year is far less than 300,000 and dropping each year

the "18" related to the Civil Service not the wider PS


The PMDS system and the approach to increment approval is a mess but please use correct figures

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well if you can't understand plain english there's no point even debating this further.

We had a situation where 18 people out of 300,000 in one year didn't receive an increment

Can you explain what this means?

And also where you get those particular figures from?

woodoo

The troika seem to have no problem at all with increments or the croke park agreement. They are more concerned about youth unemployment.

People need to accept that changes and reforms are happening through the CPA. It may not be moving at warp speed but its changing. Public servants aren't willing to move as fast as some people want. If its forced too hard it could cause public servants to withdraw their support for reforms. Have patience people the ship is turning.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

The troika seem to have no problem at all with increments or the croke park agreement. They are more concerned about youth unemployment.

This is a common line used by many on boards to justify the CPA. The reality is that the troika rarely comment in specifics something like the CPA and it would be unusual for them to so flagrantly undermine the government. They have made a number of references to the high cost of the public service however even then they have been vague at best. I really don't think there is enough information available to summarise the troikas opinion of the CPA.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

This is a common line used by many on boards to justify the CPA. The reality is that the troika rarely comment in specifics something like the CPA and it would be unusual for them to so flagrantly undermine the government. They have made a number of references to the high cost of the public service however even then they have been vague at best. I really don't think there is enough information available to summarise the troikas opinion of the CPA.

Thats funny, I thought they did mention a few specifics, such as child benefit cuts and non means tested state pensions.

“Child benefit has risen substantially in the last decade and there is no means-testing for it. We’re just laying out the option that you could target it at families who are less well off,”

“maintaining expensive universal supports and subsidies is difficult to justify under present budgetary circumstances”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0719/1224320381763.html