Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Idbatterim

It is a pay rise..if you guys were not being over paid you would not of had your pay cut.

Fliball I agree with a lot of what you are saying, the government dont cut on a "this is fair basis" we could argue here over what "fair" is... They simply decided to cut almost everything, "fair" doesnt come into it with that lot! The young and workers in general got screwed, so amongst others the sacred cow pensioners could go on living the life of reilly & before others but in, it is the life of reilly as far as I'm concerned, go and see the comparison in non broke rick countries. My dad is German and recently reached retirement age, E90 per week is what he gets from the German government, (he moved here in the early 70's and with their system, what you get out is based on what you paid in) We can start from there if we really want a discussion on what is "fair" Ps if he were living in Germany on top of the vastly lower rate, I think a medical card is the only other perk you get, unlike the endless gravy train here!

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

The appropriate salary scale for a post is not adjusted (i.e. there is no pay rise) when an increment is awarded, the person just moves up the salary scale.

For example,

http://hr.per.gov.ie/files/2011/09/Terms-Conditions-01-February-20101.pdf

"Most civil servants are on a pay scale with annual increments up to a maximum point."

The maximum point changes if there is a pay increase, it does not change if an increment is awarded to an individual.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that because myself and the rest of the known world would disagree

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pay-rise

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/pay-rise

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/pay-raise

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/pay-rise

LordNorbury

Monife wrote: »

To receive your increment you have to have achieved a satisfactory rating in your annual performance review and have satisfactory attendance levels.

It is meaningless, everyone gets satisfactory, making a completely pointless form filling process out of the whole entire exercise! Hence why uncertified sick leave in the PS is twice that of the private sector.

LordNorbury

ardmacha wrote: »

I would argue that while health has real problems, policing is better and education is clearly up to international norms.

Great, how many Gardai and teachers did we dismiss last year for incompetence? There are around 10,000 teachers I reckon in the country and the same number of Gardai. By any normal rational assessment, 10% of them probably shouldn't still be there, because they are not performing properly. Yet there they will stay, in the case of teachers, wrecking the educational prospects of young kids, because the union protect will protect them at all costs.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

I asked what part of the PS does this "friend" work in that he can be a publican as well.

And I told you that you're welcome to PM and I'll give you all the info you need, to allow you to come back and apologise for accusing me of spoofing.

You haven't PM'd me yet.

Godge

LordNorbury wrote: »

It is in the private sector. I never in my life heard of a set up in the private sector where people pass through a pay scale automatically and unimpeded, as a matter of absolutely automatic entitlement, without other factors such as (1) performance and productivity (2) peer review (3) attendance and (4) your general attitude towards your employment in terms of your current and future potential/value to the organisation.


.

Incremental salary scales are common in many organisations.

Dunnes, Easons, Superquinn (not up-to-date since the takeover), all the main banks and insurance companies all have incremental scales, some as little as 3-4 points and some needing more than a year but they are there.

I did a lengthy post on this about three/four years ago on boards.

By the way, all of the 1-4 points above apply to public servants.

http://hr.per.gov.ie/pmds-2013/

Monife

LordNorbury wrote: »

It is meaningless, everyone gets satisfactory, making a completely pointless form filling process out of the whole entire exercise!

Have you got documentary evidence of this? No, didn't think so.

Also, read my subsequent post about someone not getting their increments.

ardmacha

By any normal rational assessment, 10% of them probably shouldn't still be there, because they are not performing properly.

Which organisation, public or private, sacks 10% of its staff for being incompetent?

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that because myself and the rest of the known world would disagree

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pay-rise

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/pay-rise

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/pay-raise

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/pay-rise

http://www.apsc.gov.au/home/latest-news/remuneration-report

An Australian government report that distinguishes between increments and pay scales.

LordNorbury

Godge wrote: »

Incremental salary scales are common in many organisations.

Dunnes, Easons, Superquinn (not up-to-date since the takeover), all the main banks and insurance companies all have incremental scales, some as little as 3-4 points and some needing more than a year but they are there.

I did a lengthy post on this about three/four years ago on boards.

By the way, all of the 1-4 points above apply to public servants.

http://hr.per.gov.ie/pmds-2013/

So if the 4 points above apply in to public servants, how come we have no teachers being refused a transition across this incremental pay scale? How come we have seen zero teachers and Gardai fired for incompetence?

Am I imagining that there was a report out the other day that slated Gardai for the absolutely rotten culture that is at the centre of Irish policing?!? They couldn't even fire the secretary general of the Dept. of Justice, nope we can't get rid of the man at the top, he gets to keep his 200K salary, we'll just move him sideways into some other area where he will probably cause less damage.

Is this what you call accountability and sound performance management?!?

srsly78

Monife wrote: »

Have you got documentary evidence of this? No, didn't think so.

Also, read my subsequent post about someone not getting their increments.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/civil-service-performance-review-deemed-failure-as-majority-pass-1.1621423

"new figures for 2012 show the performance of just 0.08 per cent of employees was ranked as “unacceptable”"

LordNorbury

ardmacha wrote: »

Which organisation, public or private, sacks 10% of its staff for being incompetent?

An organisation I previously worked in, one of the largest employers in Ireland by the way, refused pay increases to 10% of its workforce ever year, this was company policy.

Godge

LordNorbury wrote: »

Great, how many Gardai and teachers did we dismiss last year for incompetence? There are around 10,000 teachers I reckon in the country and the same number of Gardai. By any normal rational assessment, 10% of them probably shouldn't still be there, because they are not performing properly. Yet there they will stay, in the case of teachers, wrecking the educational prospects of young kids, because the union protect will protect them at all costs.

The statement in bold is not rational.

It is difficult to get figures on those fired. Like in private sector companies, it is much easier to go to someone and say, do you want to resign and get a reference letter or do you want to be fired and get no reference letter. Guess what? In most cases, both in the private and public sector, the person resigns. In the private sector, they often get a little payment to help them out the door - saves on any costs incurred with solicitors and rights commissioners.

Godge

LordNorbury wrote: »

An organisation I previously worked in, one of the largest employers in Ireland by the way, refused pay increases to 10% of its workforce ever year, this was company policy.

Probably one of the call-centre type organisations. I remember talking to a senior executive in O2 who was proud of their 26% annual turnover rate.

It all depends on the type of organisation that you want to run. Do you need well-qualified specialists who will be loyal to the organisation and build it up? In that case, you won't refuse 10% of the workforce a pay increase.

Do you just need bodies to answer queries and phonecalls or take orders or clean in as efficient a way as possible? Well then, denying pay increases to the 10% least inefficient will help you keep competitive as they leave.

The public service, by and large, falls into the first type of organisation.

Monife

srsly78 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/civil-service-performance-review-deemed-failure-as-majority-pass-1.1621423

"new figures for 2012 show the performance of just 0.08 per cent of employees was ranked as “unacceptable”"

Your statement was still incorrect, you claimed everyone got a satisfactory rating.

carpejugulum

Godge wrote: »

It all depends on the type of organisation that you want to run. Do you need well-qualified specialists who will be loyal to the organisation and build it up?
...
The public service, by and large, falls into the first type of organisation.

lol

Civil servant says there is 'institutionalised' culture of sick leave

srsly78

Monife wrote: »

Your statement was still incorrect, you claimed everyone got a satisfactory rating.

No, you just misread my post it seems. The phrase was "pretty much noone", which is roughly equal to 0.08% no?

ardmacha

carpejugulum wrote: »

lol

Civil servant says there is 'institutionalised' culture of sick leave

"A mid-ranking civil servant says there is an "institutionalised" culture of sick leave in the public secto"

Generalisation again. Does this person have any clue about the public sector as a whole, or only her section? Does she know all about the culture in the Naval Service, the NRA, TCD or even the Revenue? There may be problem areas, but these should be dealt with specifically, generalities are of no use whatsoever.

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

I appreciate there are all the other costs involved etc. But my point was and I was actually trying to play devils advocate for the PS, when just the pay rates are compared with other countries, are they comparing gross or net, because if its gross, how valid are the comparisons given the ridiculous marginal rate and how low it kicks in here and then if you wanted to go even further the cost of living as you say...

I would personally use the gross figure, it's the industry standard IMHO.
But it's a little different in the PS. We got a new member of staff recently, quite senior (60k-70k scale), technical, professional position, they came from the PrvS, like I did(only I'm on a lot lower;))

They were shocked with their take home, they never realised the extras that you pay in, pension & levy. They just assumed they could work out their take home based on the PrvS salaries.

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

How much did we owe back in 2008? How much do we owe now?

How you can say we are ok when we still be borrowing in 2016 and we will owe more again than now. How is that being ok?

So you think that the increasing percentage we have to pay to service our debt as we continue borrowing is ok with you..Thank god your not taoiseach..
So less for services and welfare as well as meaning more taxes or borrowing more and in this equation ps want pay rises above increments? REALLY thats ok..

Well pal its not ok by me and it will not be tolerated any party spinning the tune of ps pay rises will get a bump of 300k but will be blanked by pretty much everyone else. As everyone has connected the dots a pay rise for the 300k means a pay cut for the rest (as the money has to be found somewhere) and yeah I am using the ps logic of tax increase = pay cut

We are one of the most progressive income tax paying bases in the world
We pay a very high % which kicks in at a very low level
When you take indirect taxation we are a very high tax ecconomy and do we get a health in return for that..NO we have pay for that aswell.
We are now getting charged for water..we just have not got the bill yet..thats coming in 2016 and you guys want pay rises in the same here
Low property tax which will go and after what people have lumped out on the historic stamp duty..How does that measure up when you put that into the equation

and I am not the only one who will not tolerate it.
When people wake up to the PS pay rise = tax payer pay cut..It will not be tolerated by anyone

Lots of data out there that suggests we have one of the highest pay for public sector employees in the world

How do you intend to 'not tolerate it'?

What exactly are you going to do?

chopper6

LordNorbury wrote: »

An organisation I previously worked in, one of the largest employers in Ireland by the way, refused pay increases to 10% of its workforce ever year, this was company policy.

10% of them must be crap workers so.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

10% of them must be crap workers so.

Still no PM ...

funny_fecker

chopper6 wrote: »

And what department in the PS do they work in that allows them to run a pub empire as well as doing their day jobs?

You're spoofing,plain and simple.

so you never heard of the " jobbing cop "

guard in my local station was a brick layer throughout his years in the force , he,s retired now and is sheep farming

carpejugulum

ardmacha wrote: »

"Generalisation again. Does this person have any clue about the public sector as a whole, or only her section? Does she know all about the culture in the Naval Service, the NRA, TCD or even the Revenue? There may be problem areas, but these should be dealt with specifically, generalities are of no use whatsoever.

€430m sick leave bill in public sector ‘unsustainable’

The rate of sick leave for the estimated 300,000 employees in the public sector is almost twice that of the private sector.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

10% of them must be crap workers so.

Still no PM...

chopper6

carpejugulum wrote: »

€430m sick leave bill in public sector ‘unsustainable’

Three days uncertified leave per annum.

After two consecutive days you must produce a doctors cert.

Amazing to think though that people who work with patients,prisoners,members of the public and schoolkids might get sick occasionally.

ezra_pound

chopper6 wrote: »

Three days uncertified leave per annum.

After two consecutive days you must produce a doctors cert.

Actually it's 7 in two rolling years. In 2012 it was 7 in one year.

The sick leave cost for 2014 will be down massively on 2012 as all the wasters have expired all their entitlements for the near future.

chopper6

ezra_pound wrote: »

Actually it's 7 in two rolling years. In 2012 it was 7 in one year.

The sick leave cost for 2014 will be down massively on 2012 as all the wasters have expired all their entitlements for the near future.

Not strictly true...the 'wasters' will now get a certfor the week instead of going sick for the day.


Who gives them the certs? Private sector doctors.

ezra_pound

chopper6 wrote: »

Not strictly true...the 'wasters' will now get a certfor the week instead of going sick for the day.


Who gives them the certs? Private sector doctors.

No the wasters have expired all their 4 year period entitlements for certified leave. If they get a cert they still don't get paid or get half pay.

Godge

chopper6 wrote: »

Not strictly true...the 'wasters' will now get a certfor the week instead of going sick for the day.


Who gives them the certs? Private sector doctors.

you know nothing about sick leave entitlements.

Public sector sick leave statistics are skewed by the fact that they don't eliminate the salary of cancer and stroke victims after a period as short as three months or even one month which private sector organisations do. As a result, these long-term sick leave genuine cases skew the averages and the real story is why you wouldn't want to have a serious illness in the private sector.

noodler

Ah Godge.

If you are really going to try and argue that excessive sick leave in the public sector was and isn't an issue then you have lost all credibility.

You are unwilling to cede any point whatsoever that goes against the Public Sector.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Not strictly true...the 'wasters' will now get a certfor the week instead of going sick for the day.


Who gives them the certs? Private sector doctors.

Still no PM... (you can just apologise for accusing me of spoofing?)

ezra_pound

Regardless of how sick leave in the public sector is measured, it is certain that:
a. The sick leave entitlements up to now were very generous but not overly so. B. They were abused by a sizable minority c. Mainly on account of this sick leave entitlements have been halved d. This will bring considerable savings to the exchequer

sock puppet

ardmacha wrote: »

Which organisation, public or private, sacks 10% of its staff for being incompetent?

It's common in banking and some consulting firms. Not necessarily incompetent but just for being below your peers. It works for some organisations, though these would be prestigious firms and those who leave do well anyway. I'm not aware of many other examples other than Microsoft who had something similar, and it didn't go particularly well for them.

barneystinson

noodler wrote: »

Ah Godge.

If you are really going to try and argue that excessive sick leave in the public sector was and isn't an issue then you have lost all credibility.

You are unwilling to cede any point whatsoever that goes against the Public Sector.

Personally, in 4 years in the PS I haven't encountered a bad attitude towards sick leave in the offices I've worked in. I suppose it depends on the culture of the particular dept or office.

What there is, however, is a time & attendance system which means all sick leave is recorded, including as Godge mentioned, people out for months - years due to very serious illnesses and who are off pay after a few months.

Since a majority of the country are employed in SME's, I seriously question whether the figure quoted as the private sector average is

1.) accurate, given the absence in my experience of a penalised system to capture sick leave absences and produce a figure when the CSO come a knockin'... Much more likely that a lot of the respondent firms just stuck their thumb in the air, squinted, and picked a number.

2.) calculated on a like for like basis - in the SME sector, a person out on very long term sick leave of the type I mention above, may easily be out of sight and out of mind...

I AM NOT SAYING that no-one in the PS abuses the self-certified sick days, but in my personal experience I can't think of anyone I worked with / managed, who did. For instance I know for a fact that the wife of a friend, who works in a VEC, uses her uncertified days as effectively additional annual leave.

I AM SAYING that for the 2 reasons set out above I'd take the stated discrepancy and cost figures with a pinch of salt.

golfwallah

ezra_pound wrote: »

The sick leave cost for 2014 will be down massively on 2012 as all the wasters have expired all their entitlements for the near future.

ezra_pound wrote: »

Regardless of how sick leave in the public sector is measured, it is certain that:
a. The sick leave entitlements up to now were very generous but not overly so. B. They were abused by a sizable minority c. Mainly on account of this sick leave entitlements have been halved d. This will bring considerable savings to the exchequer

I hope you are right that the changed sick leave entitlements will bring considerable savings, as there is still scope for longer periods of paid leave in certain specified circumstances:
http://hr.per.gov.ie/sick-leave/

In 2012, attempts by public sector management to find savings of €25m were not successful, according to this Irish Times article:

Under plans to revise sick leave, drawn up as part of the State’s EU-IMF bailout, management in the public sector agreed to try to reduce sick leave by €25 million in 2012.
However, internal Department of Pubic Expenditure documents show that, during 2012, sick leave in most areas of the public sector remained broadly the same.

Hopefully, the new regulations will enable p.s. management to do the job more effectively.

Riskymove

Quote:
The rate of sick leave for the estimated 300,000 employees in the public sector is almost twice that of the private sector.

this is just like the "average" pay levels bandied about

the simple reason for this is that the Public Sector provides paid sick leave to staff....not all of the Private sector does so therefore the averages are different

it is not an unreasonable deduction that people faced with losing pay will not take sick leave...even when sick.....this may save businesses money....but it is shortsighted and not good for either the employee or the company.

Riskymove

Hopefully, the new regulations will enable p.s. management to do the job more effectively.

or maybe working in the health servive or ion the emrgency services simply results in a higher level of illness and injury than sitting at a desk?

Riskymove

ezra_pound wrote: »

d. This will bring considerable savings to the exchequer

well, no it won't

it is an efficiency saving really

ezra_pound

Riskymove wrote: »

well, no it won't

it is an efficiency saving really

True.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

http://www.apsc.gov.au/home/latest-news/remuneration-report

An Australian government report that distinguishes between increments and pay scales.

fair play to them they distinguished between a pay rise and a pay rise

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

How do you intend to 'not tolerate it'?

What exactly are you going to do?

I will be voting for anyone who is against pay rises in the public sector and by keeping it in focus on here and other boards which are looked at.

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

I will be voting for anyone who is against pay rises in the public sector and by keeping it in focus on here and other boards which are looked at.

So you reckon the Govt will be listening to your anti-PS rantings on the internet and will change policy accordingly?

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Ah Godge.

If you are really going to try and argue that excessive sick leave in the public sector was and isn't an issue then you have lost all credibility.

You are unwilling to cede any point whatsoever that goes against the Public Sector.

No, that is not what I am saying.

There is unbdoubtedly problems in parts of the public sector as the comparisons between different parts show anomalies especially as you know you are comparing like with like (though I will come back to that as there are some differences).

However, any comparison between public and private has to take account of the fact that long-term illnesses like cancer and strokes are treated more compassionately and with more paid sick-leave in the public sector than in the private sector.

For example, take a public service office of ten people where two people are out for six months in 2014 with cancer and stroke. If nobody else takes any sick leave, the average sick leave for that office is 36.5 days per person (where you are out sick over a weekend it counts as 7 days so two people out for six months counts as 365 days). That would be among the highest in the country yet it would all come down to the unfortunate circumstances of two people. In the private sector, they would have been off pay and on disability after six weeks.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I will be voting for anyone who is against pay rises in the public sector and by keeping it in focus on here and other boards which are looked at.

I can guarantee that every party in the next election will be promising to examine and restore pay for at least some public servants.

There might be a fringe lunatic independent (Shane Ross?) who might argue against it.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

I can guarantee that every party in the next election will be promising to examine and restore pay for at least some public servants.

There might be a fringe lunatic independent (Shane Ross?) who might argue against it.

Ah the tacit implication that any politician who is against the reversal of public sector pay cuts must be a lunatic!

You are good!

Paulzx

ezra_pound wrote: »

Regardless of how sick leave in the public sector is measured, it is certain that:
a. The sick leave entitlements up to now were very generous but not overly so. B. They were abused by a sizable minority c. Mainly on account of this sick leave entitlements have been halved d. This will bring considerable savings to the exchequer

The reduction in the sick leave benifets is nothing more than a smokescreen to allow management duck out of confronting and dealing with the abusers of the system. It will save nothing.

The majority of employees will never come even close to exceeding the new lower limits let alone have come close to using the old limits. There will be zero saving here.

The savings could easily have been achieved by leaving the existing limits in place and properly managing the defaulters i.e withdrawing the sick leave privileges ( and they are a privilege, not a right).

Reducing the sick leave was done for two reasons.

1-Optics. It allowed the government to claim it was taking on the "problem" of sick leave in the public sector and at the same time placate the IBECs and Mark "the whinger" Fielding of ISME.

2- It allowed senior managment duck out of taking on the abusers of the system and the accompanying visits to the Labour Court, Tribunals etc.


The system never needed to be changed. The management and oversight of it did. So, the people who get punished are the ones who have never abused it but in the future need to genuinely avail of it but have less benifits.

Another Irish solution

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

Ah the tacit implication that any politician who is against the reversal of public sector pay cuts must be a lunatic!

I would agree...and it would be political lunacy to oppose the reversals too as the PS are one of the largest voting blocks in the country.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

So you reckon the Govt will be listening to your anti-PS rantings on the internet and will change policy accordingly?

Still no PM... any chance of an apology?

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Nope and nope.

So just to be clear:

You've accused me of spoofing, and asked for proof of what I've stated as fact,

I've told you I'm happy to do so via PM if you want to contact me(since I would be giving you the names and locations of specific civil servants and their businesses which I am obviously not going to do on the public forum),

But now you neither want the proof nor will you accept that you were wrong and I wasn't spoofing... ??