Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Sheldons Brain

Monife wrote: »

If pay is restored, will civil service workers employed post 2009 get an increase in salary to bring them in line with the payscales of their colleagues? Would they go on the 1st point of the scale or whatever point they are on depending on service?

I think the government should do this first.

Gumbo

Monife wrote: »

If pay is restored, will civil service workers employed post 2009 get an increase in salary to bring them in line with the payscales of their colleagues? Would they go on the 1st point of the scale or whatever point they are on depending on service?

The pay cuts were taken of each scale. So each scale would get its % increase and you stay on the same point of the scale you are currently on.

noodler

kceire wrote: »

The pay cuts were taken of each scale. So each scale would get its % increase and you stay on the same point of the scale you are currently on.

The 10% pay cut for new entrants distorts things considerably.

Gumbo

noodler wrote: »

The 10% pay cut for new entrants distorts things considerably.

Their scales should just increase by the pay rebate I suppose. In an ideal world you wouldn't have pay splits but it happens everywhere. Just look at Tesco long term staff and Dunnes Stores long term staff. The legacy staff have much better deals with regards to pay, benefits etc

In fact Tesco issued a voluntary redundancy package this week aimed squarely at legacy staff.

Sheldons Brain

kceire wrote: »

Their scales should just increase by the pay rebate I suppose. In an ideal world you wouldn't have pay splits but it happens everywhere. Just look at Tesco long term staff and Dunnes Stores long term staff. The legacy staff have much better deals with regards to pay, benefits etc

In fact Tesco issued a voluntary redundancy package this week aimed squarely at legacy staff.

Tesco is one thing, but in Irish hospitals and universities highly qualified people with valuable international experience are being placed on lower salaries than people without this valuable experience because they are "new". This is idiocy, pure and simple.

noodler

kceire wrote: »

Their scales should just increase by the pay rebate I suppose. In an ideal world you wouldn't have pay splits but it happens everywhere. Just look at Tesco long term staff and Dunnes Stores long term staff. The legacy staff have much better deals with regards to pay, benefits etc

In fact Tesco issued a voluntary redundancy package this week aimed squarely at legacy staff.

Woah there. You are in danger of being pro-PS in every post ever yet not applying the same integrity to the 1% of new entrants.

If I had used a private sector example then general response it well "what to the Irish people want? A race to the bottom?.....More PS servants to leave for the private sector?.....Best and brightest" etc etc.

Bringing pay parity back for new entrants should be far cheaper than any other reversal of pay policy option open to the Government. It will apply to a tiny fraction of workers and it will deal with the starting points on the scale.

Allowing the 10% cut to apply whilst focusing on restoration of pay for workers already on better pay and conditions (including the original pension) scheme is pure hypocrisy in my opinion.

Although full disclosure - I am a recent entrant.

Rightwing

New PS entrants shouldn't be on less. It's the older ones that should be targetted and ideally axed. (Not frontline.) Tesco are right, you can replace middle management with newer, hungrier people for far less. I'd like to see more of this in both sectors.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

New PS entrants shouldn't be on less. It's the older ones that should be targetted and ideally axed. (Not frontline.) Tesco are right, you can replace middle management with newer, hungrier people for far less. I'd like to see more of this in both sectors.

Shouldn't be on less than they currently are or shouldn't be on less than their (in your frequently expressed opinion) grossly overpaid colleagues...?

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

New PS entrants shouldn't be on less. It's the older ones that should be targetted and ideally axed. (Not frontline.) Tesco are right, you can replace middle management with newer, hungrier people for far less. I'd like to see more of this in both sectors.

You do know that discrimination on the grounds of age is illegal?

I would also hazard a guess that you are not over 35?

Gumbo

noodler wrote: »

Woah there. You are in danger of being pro-PS in every post ever yet not applying the same integrity to the 1% of new entrants.

If I had used a private sector example then general response it well "what to the Irish people want? A race to the bottom?.....More PS servants to leave for the private sector?.....Best and brightest" etc etc.

Bringing pay parity back for new entrants should be far cheaper than any other reversal of pay policy option open to the Government. It will apply to a tiny fraction of workers and it will deal with the starting points on the scale.

Allowing the 10% cut to apply whilst focusing on restoration of pay for workers already on better pay and conditions (including the original pension) scheme is pure hypocrisy in my opinion.

Although full disclosure - I am a recent entrant.

thats why i specifically said :

In an ideal world you wouldn't have pay splits

im also a new entrant but just before the pay cuts, but as i applied for and got promoted to a new PS job since i first joined in 2009, i am also on all the increased extras that new entrants have ie. extra hours, lower annual leave etc

creedp

kceire wrote: »

thats why i specifically said :



im also a new entrant but just before the pay cuts, but as i applied for and got promoted to a new PS job since i first joined in 2009, i am also on all the increased extras that new entrants have ie. extra hours, lower annual leave etc

Its my understanding that all PS, not just new entrants or newly promoted have been affected by the changes to working conditions including increased hours and lower annual leave. Although is it the case that the reduced leave only applied to those above a certain grade so the lower paid were spared the reduction in leave?

I must say that the faux concern for by the anti-PS brigade about the reduced terms for the new entrant PS is laughable when is so brutally clear that all they want is further slashing of PS pay across the board. Sometimes reading these posts makes me think about the 'Walking Dead' series - I'll leave it up to people's imagination as to which side fits into which category.

Gumbo

creedp wrote: »

Its my understanding that all PS, not just new entrants or newly promoted have been affected by the changes to working conditions including increased hours and lower annual leave. Although is it the case that the reduced leave only applied to those above a certain grade so the lower paid were spared the reduction in leave?

Im not 100% sure, but the move i made was from Grade 4 to Grade 6 if that makes sense. Plus im on the technical staff side so that can skew figures as everything is based back to Admin grades somehow.

Rightwing

barneystinson wrote: »

Shouldn't be on less than they currently are or shouldn't be on less than their (in your frequently expressed opinion) grossly overpaid colleagues...?

Indeed.

Why pay extra when others can do the job for less? Seems a key failing to me.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

Indeed.

Why pay extra when others can do the job for less? Seems a key failing to me.

Hmmmm, yeah, that doesn't have any downside at all.

I bet there's any number of people who'd give your job a good rattle for less than you're on, so should you be for the chop?

Rightwing

barneystinson wrote: »

Hmmmm, yeah, that doesn't have any downside at all.

I bet there's any number of people who'd give your job a good rattle for less than you're on, so should you be for the chop?

That's the threat, but people should embrace it.

That's why I'm very much against this PS job for life madness. Wage restrictions ought to be in place unless the individual is outstanding. The implications of this will be seen in about 20 years time.

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

I must say that the faux concern for by the anti-PS brigade about the reduced terms for the new entrant PS is laughable when is so brutally clear that all they want is further slashing of PS pay across the board. Sometimes reading these posts makes me think about the 'Walking Dead' series - I'll leave it up to people's imagination as to which side fits into which category.

You can't win on here. If you support some of the measures the government took you're called PS basher. when you dont support some of the measure the government took you're still called a PS basher. If you the describe the pension levy as a pension contribution when discussing pay, you're called a PS basher because its a pay cut. If you then call it a pay cut you're called a PS basher because now the discussion is about pension contributions........and on and on it goes. The terms 'ps basher', 'anit-ps' and 'PS hater' has become such an overused ad-hominem that now its primarely just directed towards someones whose opinion you find disagreeable.

DuckHook

sarumite wrote: »

You can't win on here. If you support some of the measures the government took you're called PS basher. when you dont support some of the measure the government took you're still called a PS basher. If you the describe the pension levy as a pension contribution when discussing pay, your called a PS basher because its a pay cut. If you then call it a pay cut your called a PS basher because now the discussion is about pension contributions........and on and on it goes. The terms 'ps basher', 'anit-ps' and 'PS hater' has become such an overused ad-hominem that now its primarely just directed towards someones whose opinion you find disagreeable.

Post of the year.

barneystinson

sarumite wrote: »

You can't win on here. If you support some of the measures the government took you're called PS basher. when you dont support some of the measure the government took you're still called a PS basher. If you the describe the pension levy as a pension contribution when discussing pay, your called a PS basher because its a pay cut. If you then call it a pay cut your called a PS basher because now the discussion is about pension contributions........and on and on it goes. The terms 'ps basher', 'anit-ps' and 'PS hater' has become such an overused ad-hominem that now its primarely just directed towards someones whose opinion you find disagreeable.

Well that'd be valid if all of that was a conversation between just 2 people, which it clearly isn't!

woodoo

sarumite wrote: »

You can't win on here. If you support some of the measures the government took you're called PS basher. when you dont support some of the measure the government took you're still called a PS basher. If you the describe the pension levy as a pension contribution when discussing pay, you're called a PS basher because its a pay cut. If you then call it a pay cut you're called a PS basher because now the discussion is about pension contributions........and on and on it goes. The terms 'ps basher', 'anit-ps' and 'PS hater' has become such an overused ad-hominem that now its primarely just directed towards someones whose opinion you find disagreeable.

Did it get you in the pit of the stomach when you heard new public service entrants were to get paid less than existing ones... no didn't think so.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Did it get you in the pit of the stomach when you heard new public service entrants were to get paid less than existing ones... no didn't think so.

Well you don't know me, so you actually don't have a clue. Although I didn't even have such a severe reaction when I heard the IMF were coming in! Do you know anyone who had such a severe reaction to the announcement of lower pay for new PS workers? Did it hit you in the pit of your stomach? Is that the measure by which a person is declared a PS hater or not?

I am on record from the moment the changes were announced that it was wrong. I do not agree with the government setting bad example to paying two people different rates for the same job. I think its damaging for Ireland (just look at our current rates for new SFI funded post-docs, they are below international standards!) and I think its one of the first thing the government should repeal.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Well you don't know me, so you actually don't have a clue. Although I didn't even have such a severe reaction when I heard the IMF were coming in! Do you know anyone who had such a severe reaction to the announcement of lower pay for new PS workers? Did it hit you in the pit of your stomach? Is that the measure by which a person is declared a PS hater or not?

I am on record from the moment the changes were announced that it was wrong. I do not agree with the government setting bad example to paying two people different rates for the same job. I think its damaging for Ireland (just look at our current rates for new SFI funded post-docs, they are below international standards!) and I think its one of the first thing the government should repeal.

We now pay below international standards for a lot of public sector jobs.

Do you think they should all get a rise?

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

We now pay below international standards for a lot of public sector jobs.

Do you think they should all get a rise?

What jobs and what rates are they on?

bobbysands81

Rightwing wrote: »

That's the threat, but people should embrace it.

That's why I'm very much against this PS job for life madness. Wage restrictions ought to be in place unless the individual is outstanding. The implications of this will be seen in about 20 years time.

There are wage restrictions in the PS. Do you think that we're all allowed just pluck a number out of the air and pay ourselves that amount?

Rightwing

bobbysands81 wrote: »

There are wage restrictions in the PS. Do you think that we're all allowed just pluck a number out of the air and pay ourselves that amount?

More or less. As the ad goes 'because you are worth it'

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

What jobs and what rates are they on?

Hospital consultants.

Senior Lecturers and Professors in Universities.

Nurses




I will let you do the research yourself. These are only a sample.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

We now pay below international standards for a lot of public sector jobs.

Do you think they should all get a rise?

I am and have been a strong advocate for paying appropriate rates of pay.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

Hospital consultants.

Senior Lecturers and Professors in Universities.

Nurses




I will let you do the research yourself. These are only a sample.

We can bring in workers from abroad that will do the job, and will do it for less.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

We can bring in workers from abroad that will do the job, and will do it for less.

Yeah right.

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/36304/consultants_in_crisis

"“It is now becoming increasingly clear that hospitals are failing to recruit consultants due to the disproportionate salary cuts imposed on them,” he said in the days prior to the conference.
With a nod towards the factors fuelling the industrial action undertaken by NCHDs, Mr Evoy said Ireland was “losing our brightest and best graduates who, having finished prestigious fellowships, are accepting well resourced, well remunerated posts abroad”.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/116000-hospital-jobs-go-unfilled-29163747.html

"GROWING numbers of full-time hospital consultant posts are lying vacant despite salaries of more than €116,000 being offered."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hospitals-facing-staffing-meltdown-due-to-doctor-shortage-1.1825883

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/negotiations-on-hospital-consultants-deal-break-down-1.1909012

"In autumn 2012, the Government unilaterally reduced the pay of new hospital consultants by 30 per cent, a move which medical organisations maintained led to a brain drain of young doctors and resulted in senior posts in Ireland being less attractive than those in other English-speaking countries."

http://connachttribune.ie/hospitals-pay-huge-sums-agency-consultants/

Rightwing

I'm sure we could get plenty of qualified staff for instance to teach for less than €30K. Nurses too. Same across all the PS, Government ought to bypass the unions...what's the catch I hear you say...oh yes, their own pay may suffer too.

creedp

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm sure we could get plenty of qualified staff for instance to teach for less than €30K. Nurses too. Same across all the PS, Government ought to bypass the unions...what's the catch I hear you say...oh yes, their own pay may suffer too.

I think you would find that also applies in many areas of the private sector. A friend of mine works for a company that has bases in the South and North and he is currently seconded to work in the northern base but continues to be paid from the South. He get slagged by the northern based guys because the rate of pay for the same job is significanty higher in the south. His retort is at least ye have the NHS!

Of course there are no unions in the private sector to protect workers from such exploitation.

Paulzx

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm sure we could get plenty of qualified staff for instance to teach for less than €30K. Nurses too. Same across all the PS, Government ought to bypass the unions...what's the catch I hear you say...oh yes, their own pay may suffer too.

How about less than 20K seeing as your plucking random thoughts from your head...........or maybe less than 10K?

bobbysands81

Rightwing wrote: »

More or less. As the ad goes 'because you are worth it'

It's kind of hard to debate against such ignorance.

bobbysands81

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm sure we could get plenty of qualified staff for instance to teach for less than €30K. Nurses too. Same across all the PS, Government ought to bypass the unions...what's the catch I hear you say...oh yes, their own pay may suffer too.

Every single Public Sector worker has taken a pay cut so there goes your logic.

bobbysands81

Paulzx wrote: »

How about less than 20K seeing as your plucking random thoughts from your head...........or maybe less than 10K?

Sure why people at all??? Labour should be free.

ardmacha

Rightwing wrote:

I'm sure we could get plenty of qualified staff for instance to teach for less than €30K.

I doubt it, you are talking about graduates.

OECD data also discussed here

Rightwing

creedp wrote: »

I think you would find that also applies in many areas of the private sector. A friend of mine works for a company that has bases in the South and North and he is currently seconded to work in the northern base but continues to be paid from the South. He get slagged by the northern based guys because the rate of pay for the same job is significanty higher in the south. His retort is at least ye have the NHS!

Of course there are no unions in the private sector to protect workers from such exploitation.

I'm all in favour of foreign workers coming into the private sector as well and forcing down labour costs there.

PeteFalk78

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm all in favour of foreign workers coming into the private sector as well and forcing down labour costs there.

Yeah very true, hardly foreign workers have come into the private sector in the last 10-15 years. . Jeez gimme a break.

golfwallah

This report from the Irish Times says that the EC is pressing government to implement the €2b in cuts.

Cold comfort to the coalition in trying to buy the next general election!

kippy

golfwallah wrote: »

This report from the Irish Times says that the EC is pressing government to implement the €2b in cuts.

Cold comfort to the coalition in trying to buy the next general election!

The government SHOULD implement the 2 billion in cuts.
Anything else is a simple return to the usual vote buying when it makes more sense to carry on with trying to balance the books for at least another year.

Rightwing

kippy wrote: »

The government SHOULD implement the 2 billion in cuts.
Anything else is a simple return to the usual vote buying when it makes more sense to carry on with trying to balance the books for at least another year.

Should only in a way.

There's no point in this Govt bringing cuts and then get hammered in the next election, only for SF/FF to get in with crony politics and welfare/PS boosting budgets. The EC would do well to remember this for the whole of the EU.

kippy

Rightwing wrote: »

Should only in a way.

There's no point in this Govt bringing cuts and then get hammered in the next election, only for SF/FF to get in with crony politics and welfare/PS boosting budgets. The EC would do well to remember this for the whole of the EU.

This government are going to get hammered in the next election either way.
They don't have billions to give away.

Rightwing

kippy wrote: »

This government are going to get hammered in the next election either way.
They don't have billions to give away.

I'm not sure about that, if there's no more severe budgets they may get away realtively unscathed.

kippy

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, if there's no more severe budgets they may get away realtively unscathed.

Nah. Not gonna happen.

Rightwing

kippy wrote: »

Nah. Not gonna happen.

It's where economics and politics collide.

I'm all in our of more austerity, but the population at large are too dim and shortsighted for it to work properly.

ardmacha

The government have entirely failed to articulate some long range model for public finances; what expenditure is needed for services, a sustainable and just public pay model and a long term capital spending plan. With such a model they could argue for a particular budget level, without it then we are back to the usual nonsense. With such a model they could argue for re-election on the basis that they had organised the State in a sustainable way. But they don't even seem to aspire to such a thing, e.g. they have a Fiscal Council, but basically ignore them.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

The government have entirely failed to articulate some long range model for public finances; what expenditure is needed for services, a sustainable and just public pay model and a long term capital spending plan. With such a model they could argue for a particular budget level, without it then we are back to the usual nonsense. With such a model they could argue for re-election on the basis that they had organised the State in a sustainable way. But they don't even seem to aspire to such a thing, e.g. they have a Fiscal Council, but basically ignore them.

To say they have 'entirely failed to articulate some long range model for public finances' is just risible nonsense. As to a 'a sustainable and just public pay model', that was was next to impossible to implement considering they came in halfway through the CPA. The only thing in your post that is even remotely logical is comment about a long term capital spending plan. While I agree that we need more capital expenditure I am also aware that we have commitments under the fiscal compact to get our house in order in the short term. Its difficult to make long term plans in such a harsh economic climate.

ardmacha

sarumite wrote: »

To say they have 'entirely failed to articulate some long range model for public finances' is just risible nonsense. As to a 'a sustainable and just public pay model', that was was next to impossible to implement considering they came in halfway through the CPA. The only thing in your post that is even remotely logical is comment about a long term capital spending plan. While I agree that we need more capital expenditure I am also aware that we have commitments under the fiscal compact to get our house in order in the short term. Its difficult to make long term plans in such a harsh economic climate.

So "Risible nonsense", not just incorrect. Perhaps you would like to illustrate the details of this great plan and alleviate my ignorance on the matter. I'm sure that many other viewers of this forum cannot discern the plan either, although some of them don't care.

sarumite wrote: »

As to a 'a sustainable and just public pay model', that was was next to impossible to implement considering they came in halfway through the CPA.

I didn't say that they should have implemented a plan two years ago, I said they should have articulated one by now. Instead we had the unprincipled Haddington Road so that they'd be able to talk about tax cuts before the election.

sarumite wrote: »

While I agree that we need more capital expenditure I am also aware that we have commitments under the fiscal compact to get our house in order in the short term.

Indeed. The Troika did require some plans, have the government shown any willingness to plan beyond this point?

golfwallah

Latest Exchequer Returns show that, although ahead of last year and ahead of cumulative forecast, key taxes came in below target for September.

Another indicator of the need for caution rather than a give-away budget on October 14th - much less a reversal of Public Sector pay cuts.

See here for Irish Times report.

noodler

golfwallah wrote: »

Latest Exchequer Returns show that, although ahead of last year and ahead of cumulative forecast, key taxes came in below target for September.

Another indicator of the need for caution rather than a give-away budget on October 14th - much less a reversal of Public Sector pay cuts.

See here for Irish Times report.

In fairness, not sure anyone in this thread is arguing for it before the expiration of HRA.

Unions just said they would lodge a claim next year.

NotInventedHere

golfwallah wrote: »

Latest Exchequer Returns show that, although ahead of last year and ahead of cumulative forecast, key taxes came in below target for September.

Another indicator of the need for caution rather than a give-away budget on October 14th - much less a reversal of Public Sector pay cuts.

See here for Irish Times report.

Amazing, this story appeared just in time to dampen expectations. Along with the story about there being only 600 million available for adjustments. It almost as if........