Tell us the hourly rate of public servants.

sbsquarepants

Godge wrote: »

That is not the point. You were making the case that 1 in 6 earning more than €60,000 was high in the context of an average salary of around the mid-40s. I do not understand how you can reach this conclusion purely by a reference to chiefs and indians. Surely, at least a superficial analysis of public service pay structures would be needed to reach this conclusion?

I'm not sure what you think is the point then, because that was my point. At a cursory glance it would appear that too many people are getting paid too much money. The enormous deficit in the budget would seem to back that up.

itzme

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not sure what you think is the point then, because that was my point. At a cursory glance it would appear that too many people are getting paid too much money. The enormous deficit in the budget would seem to back that up.

Ok so what you seem to be saying is

Main Problem: we have an enormous deficit
One Cause: PS pay bill
One Core Problem in PS pay: 1 in 6 being over 60k
Reasoning Why This is a Core Problem: we have an enormous deficit

I'm assuming you have heard of circular logic.

Peanut

itzme wrote: »

Ok so what you seem to be saying is

Main Problem: we have an enormous deficit
One Cause: PS pay bill
One Core Problem in PS pay: 1 in 6 being over 60k
Reasoning Why This is a Core Problem: we have an enormous deficit

I'm assuming you have heard of circular logic.

That's not circular logic though, it's simply re-emphasising the original problem within a narrower scope of expenditure.

Looking at it from a business perspective, it doesn't actually matter what the initial reason is for any cost cutting once you determine that it's something that necessarily has to be done - if there is unproductive expenditure it should be adjusted regardless of any causal link or not to the original problem. Of course politically, it's not so simple..

woodoo

antoobrien wrote: »

Instead we're allowing increments to eat into the savings, requiring deeper cuts to be made to core pay to allow for the changes increments will make. That doesn't make sense to me

It makes far more sense. If you and me were on the same grade. Say we were both speech therapists. I am at the top of my 8 increments earning €50,000 so i will stay at that level from now on. You on the other hand are at point 4 on the incremental scale earning €40,000. We both do the same work i have just been there a bit longer than you.

A 5% paycut would reduce my to pay €47,500 and reduce your pay to €38,000. We both lose 5% of our core pay. (BTW the new top of the scale will be 47,500 from here on in after the 5% paycut)

The option you are recommending is that increments be done away with. So that leaves you permanently earning less than me. You will never reach the €50,000. But i will still be paid €50,000 permanently. How is that fair on you. We are both experienced Speech Therapists on the same grade and contract. But you are stuck on €40,000 permanently.

antoobrien

woodoo wrote: »

The option you are recommending is that increments be done away with. So that leaves you permanently earning less than me. You will never reach the 50,000. But i will still be paid 50,000. How is that fair on you. We are both experienced Speech Therapists on the same grade and contract.

I never said the increment stops should be permanent. In case you don't know, within the context of CPA2 there is a tinkering with the increments for 3 years, so any conversations about the increments changes was within that timescale.

My opinion is that they should do a full stop on increments for the three years covered which would allow a smaller cut to core pay, premiums and allowances, then come up with a different system to reward both service and performance e.g. the part increment part bonus one I suggested a few posts later.

purplecow1977

Did ye happen to see this in yesterday's Independent???

"However, senior government advisers are to benefit from a second incremental pay increase in April, which will boost their salaries by a couple of thousand euro, before their pay cut is introduced in July.

Each senior government minister has two advisers, one handling press and one looking after policy. As this Government was formed in March 2011, the new increments are due to kick in shortly, meaning the pay cut will be taken from their increased salary.

The standard pay cap for ministerial advisers is €92,000, but six ministers have breached it since taking office for their key personnel.
The Sunday Independent has also learned that a previous government promise that compulsory redundancies would feature was dropped at the last minute as a compromise to secure the final deal."

THAT'S wastage that can afford to be cut. Not regular frontline workers who aren't 'rolling in it' & are already just about keeping their heads above water as it is.

https://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=5&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=w5TGc3uRaX4VoqJd2rUrtw&pq=remember+when+e+cards&cp=21&gs_id=37&xhr=t&q=remember+when+nurses+teachers+firefighters&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,bs.1,d.ZGU&biw=1080&bih=541&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=IGI2UcKjCMW1PeaWgdgI#imgrc=HXUUuuLv9ZYftM%3A%3Bxi9NjCBZ4XVLjM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F24.media.tumblr.com%252Ftumblr_m5jgz0gWIj1qeg3qeo1_500.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmsteacher65.tumblr.com%252Fpost%252F25004630515%3B420%3B294

Godge

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not sure what you think is the point then, because that was my point. At a cursory glance it would appear that too many people are getting paid too much money. The enormous deficit in the budget would seem to back that up.

My problem is that your cursory glance based on no empirical evidence reaches a sweeping conclusion which gives your opinion little or no realistic value.

sbsquarepants

itzme wrote: »

Ok so what you seem to be saying is

Main Problem: we have an enormous deficit
One Cause: PS pay bill
One Core Problem in PS pay: 1 in 6 being over 60k
Reasoning Why This is a Core Problem: we have an enormous deficit

I'm assuming you have heard of circular logic.

I have. This is not it.

Godge wrote: »

My problem is that your cursory glance based on no empirical evidence reaches a sweeping conclusion which gives your opinion little or no realistic value.

See that's the thing with cursory glances - they do have a tendancy to be cursory!
Are you suggesting that 1 in every 6 people employed by the state is either a highly skilled specialist of some sort or in some senior management role? Now, i'm not claiming to have all the facts and figures, or in fact any facts and figures - what i'm saying is that at a glance, that seems a bit "off" to me.
In other words, if i was tasked with overhauling the whole system, probably the very first question i would ask is "why are so many people, getting paid so much money?" If you know the answer to this question please enlighten me.
I'm not entrenched in my view, just quietly suspecting that an awfull lot of people are simply being paid too much.

antoobrien

itzme wrote: »

Ok so what you seem to be saying is

Main Problem: we have an enormous deficit
One Cause: PS pay bill
One Core Problem in PS pay: 1 in 6 being over 60k
Reasoning Why we have noticed This is a Core Problem: we have an enormous deficit so we are looking at this topic more closely than we had for a while

I'm assuming you have heard of circular logic.

You're being unfair to sbsquarepants, there's nothing circular about the logic, merely the misrepresentation of an honest opinion - more honestly described as the above.

jasonbourne.cs

regardless of whether its public sector or not ,if any organization was running a huge deficit and people are called in to see where cuts are needed you'd of course look at the higher earners to see what they do , does the role justify the wage , can it be done cheaper .

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

merely the misrepresentation of an honest opinion.

well, is his point simply that we have a deficit and therefore 1 in 6 earning over €60,000 is too many?

if it is, its seems a bit simplistic, why €60k? if we had a smalller or no deficit, does that mean 1 in 6 would be fine? etc

sbsquarepants

jasonbourne.cs wrote: »

regardless of whether its public sector or not ,if any organization was running a huge deficit and people are called in to see where cuts are needed you'd of course look at the higher earners to see what they do , does the role justify the wage , can it be done cheaper .

That's my point. And further more, in the situation we find ourselves in now, it is almost inconcievable that it can't be. There will of course be exceptions to that rule, but they are just that - exceptions. Everyone can't be an exception.

Riskymove

jasonbourne.cs wrote: »

regardless of whether its public sector or not ,if any organization was running a huge deficit and people are called in to see where cuts are needed you'd of course look at the higher earners to see what they do , does the role justify the wage , can it be done cheaper .

again a bit simplistic, surely the best approach is to look at everyone? you are ignoring 5 of every 6 workers which I imagine costs more than the 1 in 6

antoobrien

Riskymove wrote: »

well, is his point simply that we have a deficit and therefore 1 in 6 earning over €60,000 is too many?

if it is, its seems a bit simplistic, why €60k? if we had a smalller or no deficit, does that mean 1 in 6 would be fine? etc

No, in fact (s)he has already directly dismissed that theory. The point I see being made is that in the poster's opinion, 1/6 of the PS workforce being managers or specialists requiring higher pay seems high.

As godge has pointed out, it's based on a rather cursory examination of the figures, however it does raise an interesting question: how does this compare to other non-profit organisations and companies.

sbsquarepants

Riskymove wrote: »

well, is his point simply that we have a deficit and therefore 1 in 6 earning over €60,000 is too many?

if it is, its seems a bit simplistic, why €60k? if we had a smalller or no deficit, does that mean 1 in 6 would be fine? etc

The 60k figure isn't mine - i'd look at everyone. It's the government who suggested 60k as a starting point. The deficit only brings focus to a problem that was already there - if you're overpaying, you're overpaying whether you can afford it or not. The state should be always be striving to achieve best value for the state regardless of whether it's boom or bust.

antoobrien

Riskymove wrote: »

again a bit simplistic, surely the best approach is to look at everyone? you are ignoring 5 of every 6 workers which I imagine costs more than the 1 in 6

Isn't the argument regularly made by the unions that the lower paid have taken a higher proportion of hits than the higher paid and it's timer for the latter to start taking more of the pain?

The problem the unions face is of their own making for negotiating the original CPA in such a way that allowed these claims to go unchallenged for the past few years.

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

As godge has pointed out, it's based on a rather cursory examination of the figures, however it does raise an interesting question: how does this compare to other non-profit organisations and companies.

well as I mentioned the PS is not one organisation and such comparisions are not really the best route

what is needed is analysis of sectors of the PS - HSE, Civil service, Local government etc to get a better perspective on this kind of issue

layers of management for example is a known issue in HSE

jasonbourne.cs

Riskymove wrote: »

again a bit simplistic, surely the best approach is to look at everyone? you are ignoring 5 of every 6 workers which I imagine costs more than the 1 in 6

what is the point in over complicating the matter ?

yes look at everyone , but start at the higher earners

example : if you have a company with six people

1 boss @60k
1 manager @40k
4 admins @20k

the two managements combined amounts are still over the combined of the other 4 admins and the question is do they deserve that amount of money for what they do .

after that you look at the 4 admins and determine if 4 are needed for the volume of work .

:rolleyes:

Riskymove

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The 60k figure isn't mine - i'd look at everyone. It's the government who suggested 60k as a starting point. The deficit only brings focus to a problem that was already there - if you're overpaying, you're overpaying whether you can afford it or not. The state should be always be striving to achieve best value for the state regardless of whether it's boom or bust.

well actually the Government is using €65k and it seems to be an arbritary figure reached following negotiation rather than anything significant

its an across the board measure that makes absolutely no attempt to look at actual issues like overpayment or value for money

Isn't the argument regularly made by the unions that the lower paid have taken a higher proportion of hits than the higher paid and it's timer for the latter to start taking more of the pain?

The problem the unions face is of their own making for negotiating the original CPA in such a way that allowed these claims to go unchallenged for the past few years.

well I am sure that Unions representing lower paid would say that

there's also a movement seeking measures for "higher paid" generally; but most unions indicated a figure of €100,000

it should be noted that many workers under €65k face cuts in the proposed agreement just not to core pay

Riskymove

jasonbourne.cs wrote: »

example : if you have a company with six people....

but this is my point, the Govt are not doing that, they are applying an across the board measure to everyone over €65k

they are not looking at structures or management roles or duplication of work orhow many there are over 65k in certain organisations or value for money or anything else

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

Riskymove wrote: »

well actually the Government is using €65k and it seems to be an arbritary figure reached following negotiation rather than anything significant

Apologies, i thought the figure was 60, and i agree it's entirely arbitrary. As i said i would look at everyone, but i suppose it makes some sense to start at the high end.

jasonbourne.cs

well then we are in agreement , it shouldn't just be a flat cut to everyone.
Obviously though everyone on 65k isn't doing the same role though either

if you deserve your wage and its justified / fair , all well and good i don't have a problem with it then.

antoobrien

Riskymove wrote: »

but this is my point, the Govt are not doing that, they are applying an across the board measure to everyone over €65k

There's a good reason for the 60k/65k figure, they cost the government a minimum of 3bn in salaries. If I can find the breakdown we can use median wages to get a more accurate figure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the overall wage bill for this wage rage was closer to 5bn.

Riskymove wrote: »

they are not looking at structures or management roles or duplication of work orhow many there are over 65k in certain organisations or value for money or anything else

They are, or rather they're hoping to do that by "encouraging" the people near retirement age to go, while not replacing the roles deemed unnecessary. I'd prefer if they were a bit more direct with it, but that would almost certainly require redundancies, something the unions seem loathe to consider.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

There's a good reason for the 60k/65k figure, they cost the government a minimum of 3bn in salaries. If I can find the breakdown we can use median wages to get a more accurate figure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the overall wage bill for this wage rage was closer to 5bn.

If that was indeed their twisted logic there would be a better case for looking at the under €65k as they make up €11bn or €13bn depending on if you are looking at the net or gross pay bill. While we are at it, if the private sector perspective is taken, the Govt should seriously be looking at the lower rates of pay as this is where the PS pay premium is supposed to exist. All those arguements argued to death by the non-PS people have since been forgotten about and now apparently the Govt has agreed a good deal. The ground shifts quickly doesn't.

They are, or rather they're hoping to do that by "encouraging" the people near retirement age to go, while not replacing the roles deemed unnecessary. I'd prefer if they were a bit more direct with it, but that would almost certainly require redundancies, something the unions seem loathe to consider.

As always the senior roles that are vacated are more likely to be replaced .. so they will be replacing expensive guys with more expensive guys with little saving, as the retired guys will also be entitled to higher pensions. However, the lower levels will not be replaced and lead to a reduced quality of work and there will not be sufficient number of indians to serve the chiefs. However, if that is seen as effective reform .. so be it!

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

If that was indeed their twisted logic there would be a better case for looking at the under €65k as they make up €11bn or €13bn depending on if you are looking at the net or gross pay bill. While we are at it, if the private sector perspective is taken, the Govt should seriously be looking at the lower rates of pay as this is where the PS pay premium is supposed to exist. All those arguements argued to death by the non-PS people have since been forgotten about and now apparently the Govt has agreed a good deal. The ground shifts quickly doesn't.

It's a matter of optics - going after the "lower" paid is always seen as a bad thing, especially seeing as they have supposedly taken the brunt of the cuts. Just look at the tripe that Doran has come out with that the deal is an attack on women becuase they hit some of the premiums that the lower paid get.

But look at the breakdown of where savings have been delivered, it's mostly from the lower paid that the savings have been made.

creedp wrote: »

As always the senior roles that are vacated are more likely to be replaced .. so they will be replacing expensive guys with more expensive guys with little saving, as the retired guys will also be entitled to higher pensions.

They won't be replacing expense with more expense, they'll be replacing expense with less expense, as the simple fact of the matter is that the retiree was going to retire anyways sort of an untimely death. Besides the retirees don't have to be replaced, the same logic applies at the top to this bit you have about the bottom:

creedp wrote: »

However, the lower levels will not be replaced and lead to a reduced quality of work and there will not be sufficient number of indians to serve the chiefs.

creedp wrote: »

However, if that is seen as effective reform .. so be it!

It's not effective, it's what we have to work with.

Unless of course the union members somehow start voting for the reforms that their representatives seem to be trying very hard to avoid e.g. redundancy & wider redeployment (not advocating either), then we're stuck with these methods of reforming services.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

It's a matter of optics - going after the "lower" paid is always seen as a bad thing, especially seeing as they have supposedly taken the brunt of the cuts. Just look at the tripe that Doran has come out with that the deal is an attack on women becuase they hit some of the premiums that the lower paid get.

But look at the breakdown of where savings have been delivered, it's mostly from the lower paid that the savings have been made.

That's my point .. if it was the Govt's intention to close the deficit as quickly as possible they would have imposed a straight pay cut across the PS - obviously as with the 2 previous cuts the rate would be progressive so as to protect the lower paid. Instead we have a mess with some people affected badly (even those on relatively low salaries but in receipt of O/T, premium payments, etc) while some are hardly hit at all, e.g. the person on €64,999 will take no pay cut but a delay in their increment. How the Govt or the unions can stand over that approach mystifies me.

They won't be replacing expense with more expense, they'll be replacing expense with less expense, as the simple fact of the matter is that the retiree was going to retire anyways sort of an untimely death. Besides the retirees don't have to be replaced, the same logic applies at the top to this bit you have about the bottom:

My point here is if a senior person retires early, it is more likely they will be replaced - can't do without chiefs you know - by a person of equal salary and the Govt will also have to pay the pension to the retired person earlier than they would otherwise. I agree it won't happen in every case and in the round it will probably save money but in many cases reduce work quality as there is no way of targetting where the retirements occur.

It's not effective, it's what we have to work with.

Unless of course the union members somehow start voting for the reforms that their representatives seem to be trying very hard to avoid e.g. redundancy & wider redeployment (not advocating either), then we're stuck with these methods of reforming services.

CP2 or CP1+1 have nothing to do with structural reform .. simply reducing pay in a ham fisted manner.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

there is no way of targetting where the retirements occur.

Sure there is, the schemes can be targeted. Don't give certain grades/departments the option to take early retirement because losing too many would cause the kind of problems you are describing. Ditto for voluntary redundancy.

Remember an employer does not have to accept either a voluntary redundancy or a request for early retirement. It's merely unusual that they would do so, unless the schemes are over subscribed. This happened to a few people in Aviva in Galway last year who put in for VR but didn't get it because their section wasn't being "targeted" for headcount reductions.

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

But look at the breakdown of where savings have been delivered, it's mostly from the lower paid that the savings have been made.

actually that is incorrect, with the exception of overtime and premium payments all the measures apply to higher as well as lower paid staff

antoobrien

Riskymove wrote: »

With roughly 2/3 of the PS bill falling into the "lower" bracket, roughly 2/3 of all those savings will be from the lower paid.

Yeah but it's a matter of scale isn't it. With roughly 2/3 of the PS bill falling into the "lower" bracket, roughly 2/3 of all those savings will be from the lower paid.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

Sure there is, the schemes can be targeted. Don't give certain grades/departments the option to take early retirement because losing too many would cause the kind of problems you are describing. Ditto for voluntary redundancy.

Remember an employer does not have to accept either a voluntary redundancy or a request for early retirement. It's merely unusual that they would do so, unless the schemes are over subscribed. This happened to a few people in Aviva in Galway last year who put in for VR but didn't get it because their section wasn't being "targeted" for headcount reductions.

In theory yes .. but in practice that won't happen with this round of early retirements. This is why taken together with the pay cuts this is a most ill thought out and ham-fisted measure to reduce the pay bill.