The true cost of Increments in PS??

woodoo

Could the true cost of increments be a mere €48 million and falling.

The cost of increments for the HSE alone was reported to the Dail Committee on Public Accounts as €17 million per year. Considering that there are currently about 105,000 staff (about one third of total PS/CS) in the HSE and the total public service/civil service staff numbers are 300,000. The the total cost of increments may be in the region of €48 million per year. This figure will fall year on year as more staff reach the end of the scale and hardly any new staff are being hired.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hse-staff-share-in-increments-worth-17m-3334012.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/1004/1224305196769.html

Also the total Travel and Subsistence for the HSE is €55 million could the total for the PS overall be in the region of €165 million (55 x 3). A much bigger figure than increments but hardly mentioned. Allowances are another matter too.

green123

woodoo wrote: »

Could the true cost of increments be a mere €48 million and falling.
.

48 million is a lot of money not a mere amount.

for example the cut to the respite allowance that has caused such outrage only saved 26 million.

money has been taken away from some of the poorest people in the country and been given to public servants as a pay increase.

public sector core pay should be massively cut never mind paying increments

Jaysoose

Lol a mere 48 million he says.

Could somebody answer if the increments that have been paid out with no performance management system been examined as of yet or are we just ignoring the fact that people have been receiving pay rises when they possibly shouldnt have.

These pay rises are a disgrace and to attempt to justify this insane situation is farcical.

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

Lol a mere 48 million he says.

it is low compared to what you and others have said they cost without providing proof

I hear you saying 1Bn at times :rolleyes:

Jaysoose

kceire wrote: »

it is low compared to what you and others have said they cost without providing proof

I hear you saying 1Bn at times :rolleyes:

Your going to have to provide a link to the post were i said this im afraid.

Can you however provide evidence that all increments that have been paid out to workers have gone through the correct performance management process?

Jaysoose

Its also funny how the independent is used as a source when it suits the Ps's argument but when its negative its branded as a rag.

Double standards are great.

Silentcorner

woodoo wrote: »

Could the true cost of increments be a mere €48 million and falling.

Let me guess...they're entitled to it....


"There is a danger that after the initial drive, to set up a new organisation and to get it functioning properly, has expanded itself the organisation may settle down to routine operations characterised by excessive caution and loss of initiative and flexibility. There is the danger that in the course of time these organisations may be directed and administered with decreasing regard for the national needs and increasing and undue concern for the benefit and convenience of their staffs. There is a danger that bureaucratic procedures may stifle efficiency and delay necessary or desirable innovations and changes"......Sean Lemass 1959 ( on the semi-state sector)...particularly apt here I believe

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

Your going to have to provide a link to the post were i said this im afraid.

I didnt think posters had to back up claims on here anymore

Jaysoose

kceire wrote: »

I didnt think posters had to back up claims on here anymore

So your statement is a lie then?

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

So your statement is a lie then?

Your going to have to provide a link to that then

Jaysoose

kceire wrote: »

Your going to have to provide a link to that then

Have you been at the sherry this morning?

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

Have you been at the sherry this morning?

No. Have you?

Jaysoose

kceire wrote: »

No. Have you?

And...ignore.

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

And...ignore.

already done

woodoo

green123 wrote: »

48 million is a lot of money not a mere amount.

Compared to the 250 million and sometimes up to 500 million we have been told increments cost it is a mere amount.

48 million is not a significant enough sum to throw the CPA away over. As i mentioned in the opening post the travel and subsistence could be up to €165 million per year. A 10% to 15% cut in that would save about €20 to €25 million This is not taxed payments so it would be a direct saving. Also allowances are quite costly and i'm sure there are many of them that could be looked at. Some are just of the wall.

Increments are always mentioned in the media and on here. But i am just questioning whether they really are as big an issue as made out. Its possible that travel and subsistence could be over 3 times the cost of increments. But its never mentioned...ever

Allowances too?? I don't know an awful lot about them. Maybe someone on here does?

green123

on one hand the government are making huge cuts but then on the other hand a certain special section of society are getting pay increases.

so yes of course in the grand scheme of things if your 48m figure is right then that is not really very much.

but it is the principle of the thing that is annoying people - seeing public servants getting pay increases while other less well off people are being cut just seems wrong

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

Compared to the 250 million and sometimes up to 500 million we have been told increments cost it is a mere amount.

People have used these figures because they have actually been provided by the govt. It was only a year ago that when asked during dail question time that 250m was the cost of increments. Now a year later we are being told it's less than 20% of that figure.

Considering the Public Sectors track record at maths and accounting what figures are we to believe?

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

People have used these figures because they have actually been provided by the govt. It was only a year ago that when asked during dail question time that 250m was the cost of increments. Now a year later we are being told it's less than 20% of that figure.

Considering the Public Sectors track record at maths and accounting what figures are we to believe?

I would have no problems believing the HSE figures as they use the one system and it would be easy to find out who is due increments. I would be less inclined to believe what a politician says on the matter. They seem to be revising the cost downwards over the last while. They just don't seem to know.

If the government ever get to the stage where they are planning on cutting increments i would hope the unions insist on seeing the true cost of them first with a complete breakdown. I would bet the house they won't be touched. I think Howlin gets it about increments and would look elsewhere, including paycuts before touching them.

green123

woodoo wrote: »

I would have no problems believing the HSE figures as they use the one system and it would be easy to find out who is due increments. I would be less inclined to believe what a politician says on the matter. They seem to be revising the cost downwards over the last while. They just don't seem to know.

If the government ever get to the stage where they are planning on cutting increments i would hope the unions insist on seeing the true cost of them first with a complete breakdown. I would bet the house they won't be touched. I think Howlin gets it about increments and would look elsewhere, including paycuts before touching them.

gets what ?

how does it make sense for an employer who is going bust to keep giving his staff pay increases ?

madness

rodento

Ya can't cut the earnings of workers all the time without targeting the social wellfare/pension payments, its simple really

There needs to be a bigger gap between welfare and work, its the only way to get people back into the workplace

Instead we get an attack on wages and hidden tax's on workers like petrol increase and bus & rail fare increase and I won't metion the medical card or housing

Farmer Pudsey

I do not agree with not paying increments it is much the same as paying young nurses/teachers less than the minimum starting rate. It is the same with protecting the headline rates of SW. When you do this certain people suffer at a higher rate to others.

The savings from cutting increments would be minimal and for how many years would you do it 1 or 2 or 5. In the end it would only be a shortterm saving as these workers would have to get there increments in the end. Just like in the longterm the nurses/teachers will be brought up to the standard rate of pay.

There is another element of unfairness to both of the above it effects younger staff more and these staff are on a pension plan of average earnings not final earnings for pensions.

This shows the hyprocrasy of Howlin/Gilmore et al. They consider it fair again that the burden is spread unevenly just to protect headine rate/CP

juan.kerr

Give it another year or two and the increments will have wiped out any public sector pay reductions / levies etc.

green123

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I do not agree with not paying increments it is much the same as paying young nurses/teachers less than the minimum starting rate. It is the same with protecting the headline rates of SW. When you do this certain people suffer at a higher rate to others.

The savings from cutting increments would be minimal and for how many years would you do it 1 or 2 or 5. In the end it would only be a shortterm saving as these workers would have to get there increments in the end. Just like in the longterm the nurses/teachers will be brought up to the standard rate of pay.

There is another element of unfairness to both of the above it effects younger staff more and these staff are on a pension plan of average earnings not final earnings for pensions.

This shows the hyprocrasy of Howlin/Gilmore et al. They consider it fair again that the burden is spread unevenly just to protect headine rate/CP

you are right, it is unfair to pay new staff less. the easy way to solve that would be to cut the whole bloody lot of them.

i wouldnt cut increments for 1 or 2 or 5 years, i would cut increments permanently.
nobody should get a pay increase just because they happen to be in a job for another year.
you get a pay review every year like in the real world and if you are doing a good job and your employer is doing well and can afford to give a pay increase then you get a pay increase.

juan.kerr wrote: »

Give it another year or two and the increments will have wiped out any public sector pay reductions / levies etc.

exactly, they moan about a tiny reduction in pay/a pension contribution but most of them are taking home more money now than they were 3 or 4 years ago.

Fromthetrees

I don't like the word mere when we're talking about money being paid out by the state, it isn't monopoly money.

When you have a guaranteed job, guaranteed pension, guaranteed pay increases and guaranteed safety than you should be paid at least 10% less than an equivalent job in the private sector.

I have 2 close family members who are nearly 60, one in the public sector and one in the private sector. My relative in the public sector is retiring next year with a tasty pension while the one in the private sector has had their pension wiped out and is working 50+ hours per week earning just enough to get by and will in all likelihood be working for another 10 years. There is something seriously wrong with this. It really annoys me when I read or hear that there's public sector bashing or there's a private vrs. public divide going on.

All of this should just be about fairness.

Pay increases from public money, tax increases for everyone. It's not right.

How many private sector citizens have to emigrate before we get the country back on an even keel?

Chips Lovell

Howling said it would be €170 million..

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1017/howlin-says-pay-increments-will-cost-170m-in-2013-business.html

flutered

rodento wrote: »

Ya can't cut the earnings of workers all the time without targeting the social wellfare/pension payments, its simple really

There needs to be a bigger gap between welfare and work, its the only way to get people back into the workplace

the workplace, ah yes, there are people on here who have sent 40-50 cvs with no reply, there are four workplaces nowdays, the first is in the p.s. here one looses nothing, the other one is also in the p.s. where new enterants are expected to work for roughly 20k per year less that the first workers in the first workplace, the third workplace is another 6k per year below the second workplace, then you have the fourts workplace which has interns working for another 6-8k per year below the third workplace, the gov and the unions say this is a great idea, yeah ted.

woodoo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Howling said it would be €170 million..

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1017/howlin-says-pay-increments-will-cost-170m-in-2013-business.html

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/05/18/00064.asp

Noonan was saying it would be €250 million a few months before. I don't think they really know what they cost. Its amazing we can't get an accurate figure with breakdown. Either Noonan or Howlin are wrong or maybe both are wrong.

woodoo

flutered wrote: »

rodento wrote: »

the workplace, ah yes, there are people on here who have sent 40-50 cvs with no reply, there are four workplaces nowdays, the first is in the p.s. here one looses nothing, the other one is also in the p.s. where new enterants are expected to work for roughly 20k per year less that the first workers in the first workplace, the third workplace is another 6k per year below the second workplace, then you have the fourts workplace which has interns working for another 6-8k per year below the third workplace, the gov and the unions say this is a great idea, yeah ted.

Have you any evidence for that?

Icepick

green123 wrote: »

money has been taken away from some of the poorest people in the country and been given to public servants as a pay increase.

You can't take what one does not have.
They will be given less, which is something else altogether.

But PS pay should be cut and not increased, of course.

The sense of entitlement among a lot of welfare recipients and PS and semi-state workers is the underlying cause.

Celticfire

Icepick wrote: »

The sense of entitlement among a lot of welfare recipients and PS and semi-state workers is the underlying cause.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

green123

green123 wrote: »

gets what ?

how does it make sense for an employer who is going bust to keep giving his staff pay increases ?

madness

can anyone answer this question for me ?

how does it make sense for an employer who is going bust to keep giving his staff pay increases ?

unit 1

I think many people are under the illusion that our gov are going "bust" when this is patently untrue.
A country like a business can go bust, but a country, unlike a business cannot disappear off the face of the earth. Therefore a country gets into financial difficulties and businesses go bust.
In extreme cases like ourselves and the other piigs the lender of last resort steps in to sort out the mess, and as long as we play ball they will lend us enough money to get back on our feet. In our case, a healthy functioning soeiety, with industrial peace continually meeting stringent targets in challenging circumstances is exactly what the imf want. If this means paying increments to ps workers then they couldnt care less as its the bigger overall picture that counts.
Put it another way if the country is going bust then surely the oap, the dole, the childrens allowance,road expenditure, health care, are equally justifiable targets.
Most of the negativity towards ps increments is fuelled by envy, rather than clear rational analysis.

Silentcorner

Most of the negativity towards ps increments is fuelled by envy, rather than clear rational analysis.[/QUOTE]

This is absolute nonsense, and frankly quite worrying that people in the PS actually subscribe to this theory

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/imf-criticises-michael-noonans-budget-for-targeting-the-poor-3332206.html

When the lender of last resort tells says that about your PS, you better believe it...failure to do so has consequences, people in the PS who believe it is more prudent to maintain teachers wage rather than heat classrooms, or who believe maintaining administrators wage's in a bloated Health Service when our citizens are left on trolleys are in no position to pontificate

southsiderosie

kceire wrote: »

it is low compared to what you and others have said they cost without providing proof

I hear you saying 1Bn at times :rolleyes:

Jaysoose wrote: »

Your going to have to provide a link to the post were i said this im afraid.

Can you however provide evidence that all increments that have been paid out to workers have gone through the correct performance management process?

kceire wrote: »

I didnt think posters had to back up claims on here anymore

Jaysoose wrote: »

So your statement is a lie then?

kceire wrote: »

Your going to have to provide a link to that then

Jaysoose wrote: »

Have you been at the sherry this morning?

kceire wrote: »

No. Have you?

Jaysoose wrote: »

And...ignore.

kceire wrote: »

already done

MOD NOTE:

Jesus H. Christ. Are you two serious? How many times do you need to be warned: stop bringing your petty sniping into every thread involving the public sector! And don't post in thread again.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I'd like to remind folks of the charter, specifically:

This is a Politics forum, not Liveline.

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced. Your posts must contribute to debate, not derail it or drag it into mob chanting.

Rants and responses have been deleted, and future rants/overly hostile posts will be both deleted and infracted. This is not the Ranting and Raving forum; if you posts says little more than "public sector/private sector/farmers suck", then don't bother posting.

woodoo

green123 wrote: »

can anyone answer this question for me ?

how does it make sense for an employer who is going bust to keep giving his staff pay increases ?

If you take that to the extreme why pay them at all as the government have to borrow money. Why pay the dole anything either.

The decision they have to make is do they stop increments which will have an negative effect of some of the staff but not others (inherently unfair on one section of the PS) Unfairness within any organisation is picked up by the staff and never goes down well. It is easy for people outside to call cut this and cut that. But Howlin and his government have to look at the nitty gritty of any cut they make.

If i am at the top of my incremental scale and have signed the same contract and terms & conditions as my coworkers is it fair that their increments are cut while i am untouched. The principle the government has taken so far is that any pain for the PS will be shared by everyone.

I don't think increments are worth as much as people think. The government has asked the PS to cooperate in order to find another 1 billion savings. If they start cutting increments then the goodwill is gone. I read somewhere recently that the only way they can cut increments is by agreement or by bringing in new legislation. They won't get agreement to cut them.

Jaysoose

woodoo wrote: »

If you take that to the extreme why pay them at all as the government have to borrow money. Why pay the dole anything either.

The decision they have to make is do they stop increments which will have an negative effect of some of the staff but not others (inherently unfair on one section of the PS) Unfairness within any organisation is picked up by the staff and never goes down well. It is easy for people outside to call cut this and cut that. But Howlin and his government have to look at the nitty gritty of any cut they make.

If i am at the top of my incremental scale and have signed the same contract and terms & conditions as my coworkers is it fair that their increments are cut while i am untouched. The principle the government has taken so far is that any pain for the PS will be shared by everyone.

I don't think increments are worth as much as people think. The government has asked the PS to cooperate in order to find another 1 billion savings. If they start cutting increments then the goodwill is gone. I read somewhere recently that the only way they can cut increments is by agreement or by bringing in new legislation. They won't get agreement to cut them.

Fairness shouldnt be a factor, its simple maths.

Still nobody has answered the question as to the increments that were agreed but did not have any performance management system applied to them and why this was allowed to happen. Surely in the interests of fairness people that are working hard should at least be safe in the knowledge that they are being treated differently to somebody that is not pulling their weight?

You agree yourself that the figures being quoted are different month to month and you seem to have no issue using the Independent as a source when the figure has alledgedly come down yet whenever the headlines dont suit its branded a rag and isnt credible.

Its simply absurd that pay rises are being paid to any staff when cuts are being applied and levies and charges are coming in across the board.

woodoo

Jaysoose wrote: »

Its simply absurd that pay rises are being paid to any staff when cuts are being applied and levies and charges are coming in across the board.

Would you just do away increments no questions asked?

thebman

woodoo wrote: »

Would you just do away increments no questions asked?

Well at a big company here that I know of when profits went down, it is exactly what they did and unions supported it.

On top of which they cut wages for new hires, changed the entire way of working and laid off staff in the IT sector which is apparently booming according to our government.

It seems to be only in the PS that the union heads think these things shouldn't happen because the PS is different. That is just an engrained cultural thing in the PS, it isn't different, it needs to live within its budget same as everyone else. We are the limit of tax increases as the recent news on how stretched people are is showing you and we are nowhere near a sustainable financial course for the countries finances.

Celticfire

thebman wrote: »

Well at a big company here that I know of when profits went down, it is exactly what they did and unions supported it.

Are you talking about increments or pay rises?

On top of which theycut wages for new hires, changed the entire way of working and laid off staff in the IT sector which is apparently booming according to our government.

It seems to be only in the PS that the union heads think these things shouldn't happen because the PS is different. That is just an engrained cultural thing in the PS, it isn't different, it needs to live within its budget same as everyone else. We are the limit of tax increases as the recent news on how stretched people are is showing you and we are nowhere near a sustainable financial course for the countries finances.

There were all of the above plus two wage cuts in the PS, so I fail to see what your point is.

thebman

Celticfire wrote: »

Are you talking about increments or pay rises?



There were all of the above plus two wage cuts in the PS, so I fail to see what your point is.

I'm talking about increments. Annual performance assessment with annual increase in your pay scale based on your performance.

In fact the economist recently had an article showing why businesses are moving away from this system entirely as it is hated by management and staff a like and fails to deliver what it is supposed to.

Another big problem with it is that it requires too many managers in a traditional annual assessment system and managers are expensive which is exactly the problem we have in the PS. We have low productivity and high cost because of the structure of the organisation.

This is why the idea of small self-organising teams with fewer managers is becoming more and more popular.

woodoo

thebman wrote: »

In fact the economist recently had an article showing why businesses are moving away from this system entirely as it is hated by management and staff a like and fails to deliver what it is supposed to.

It would make no odds to me if increments weren't used. The question then is what wage do people get in the absence of an incremental scale? I'm sure may here would say put everyone to the bottom of the scale. I'd say put everyone to the top of the scale as that is the wage 75% of staff are on for any given grade.

That is an issue that people who call for abolition of increments don't really address. If increments were done away with today 25% of the staff would be permanently on less that their coworkers. Coworkers who are on the same terms & conditions, contract and work load. Many of that 25% may even be harder or better workers than their coworkers. Surely people can see how that would cause internal problems for an organisation.

ihateusernames

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I have 2 close family members who are nearly 60, one in the public sector and one in the private sector. My relative in the public sector is retiring next year with a tasty pension while the one in the private sector has had their pension wiped out and is working 50+ hours per week earning just enough to get by and will in all likelihood be working for another 10 years. There is something seriously wrong with this.QUOTE]

I have a several mates of mine who work in the building trade who took great delight in taking the piss out of my public sector wage a few years ago, spending fortuens in casinos and buying pads in bulgaria. Now, they think im on amazing money, while they are struggling strange that. I am not immune to higher petrol, childcare, household charge etc etc.

Im not saying that "ha ha yer not laughing now are you" but people made choices regarding the career, some of us wanted some stability. One of my mates opening says he cannot complain coz thats the nature of the building industry. Its a choice.

One last point on increments, in my area you are assessed at the end of the year. If you dont meet your targets, you dont get your increment.

And I just finnished my work shift so please dont anyone accuse me of being on boards.ie when i should be working.

sarumite

ihateusernames wrote: »

I have a several mates of mine who work in the building trade who took great delight in taking the piss out of my public sector wage a few years ago, spending fortuens in casinos and buying pads in bulgaria. Now, they think im on amazing money, while they are struggling strange that. I am not immune to higher petrol, childcare, household charge etc etc.

Im not saying that "ha ha yer not laughing now are you" but people made choices regarding the career, some of us wanted some stability. One of my mates opening says he cannot complain coz thats the nature of the building industry. Its a choice.

Certainly that argument was valid prior to benchmarking. However, unions also made the choice of benchmarking their pay to the private sector in the good times.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

Certainly that argument was valid prior to benchmarking. However, unions also made the choice of benchmarking their pay to the private sector in the good times.

The benchmarking exercise was driven by the Government as employers & not the Unions although they were happy enough to accept same .

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

The benchmarking exercise was driven by the Government as employers & not the Unions although they were happy enough to accept same .

The programm for prosperity and fairness was devised with input from unions. The unions fully cooperated and many were intrinsically involved in the process. To argue the unions were backseat partners in whole process is blinkered at best.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

The programm for prosperity and fairness was devised with input from unions. The unions fully cooperated and many were intrinsically involved in the process. To argue the unions were backseat partners in whole process is blinkered at best.

The Government set up the PSBB benchmarking body in 2000 with input from all the social partners.

The Government's main priority was to ensure that Unions would sign up for further National Wage Agreements so yes I would contend that the Government as employers were the driving force behind the benchmarking body albeit with input from all the social partners including IBEC.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

The Government set up the PSBB benchmarking body in 2000 with input from all the social partners.

The Government's main priority was to ensure that Unions would sign up for further National Wage Agreements so yes I would contend that the Government as employers were the driving force behind the benchmarking body albeit with input from all the social partners including IBEC.

I am curious, if the government were involved in the process in their role as employer, why involve IBEC?

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

I am curious, if the government were involved in the process in their role as employer, why involve IBEC?

Because IBEC are numbered among the social partners.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Because IBEC are numbered among the social partners.

However if the government were involved as employers and looking for an agreement with their employees, IBECs involvment would have been somewhat redundant.

The reality is that the government wanted a national wage agreement in their role as 'the government' and not 'as the employer'. As they are unable to legislate on such matters, they got the social partnerrs together, the employers (themselves also being one, though IBEC as well) and the employees (via their unions) to formulate the agreement. Far from being back backseat passengers, they were equal partners in the agreement.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

However if the government were involved as employers and looking for an agreement with their employees, IBECs involvment would have been somewhat redundant.

The reality is that the government wanted a national wage agreement in their role as 'the government' and not 'as the employer'. As they are unable to legislate on such matters, they got the social partnerrs together, the employers (themselves also being one, though IBEC as well) and the employees (via their unions) to formulate the agreement. Far from being back backseat passengers, they were equal partners in the agreement.

I agree with you but the formulation of the benchmarking body( whether their agenda was driven either as employers or in their role as the government ) was driven by FF - the other partners as you correctly say were the other social partners including the unions & IBEC .