Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Rightwing

kippy wrote: »

The state was taking in as much income as it was spending for years.
I'd ad that as well as "buying" the public sector vote, a fair chunk of the private sector vote was "bought" as well.

Godge wrote: »

Once again, your understanding is way off.

Benchmarking was in 2002. The unsustainable wages in the building industry came later in the decade.

I think you ought to take a look at the budget deficits throughout the Ahern years, this would help your understanding.

kippy

Rightwing wrote: »

I think you ought to take a look at the budget deficits throughout the Ahern years, this would help your understanding.

Look,
I ain't saying any wage rises were built on sustainable economics (the opposite is the case) however whatever you want to say about what the budget deficit within normal economics. Up until the proverbial sh1t hit the fan.

The PS, the Private and citizens in general all had their own piece of the pie when the economy was "overheating" based on one off transactional taxes. You cannot just "blame" the PS.

My point is, had the economy continued as it was (ie, income more or less equal to expenditure) PS wages were sustainable. Now, I don't agree that PS wages were justified, just that they were sustainable in that context.
What stopped them being sustainable was the cliff face that the income side of things went off.

I don't personally think there is any point trying to continue to point this out to you and others at this point.

Don't you think the almost sudden 350K job losses put a significant strain on the economy?

creedp

Geuze wrote: »

I support a well-paid and productive PS.

But I agree that, for example, when 8-11 health boards merged into the HSE, and Ahern promised the unions - no jobs lost - I agree that was madness.

Note though that people again and again voted for Bertie Ahern.

Jees I was over on the Irish Water thread and if you swopped HSE for IW you'd get a whole lot of support for what Ahern did .. just shows you the importance of the 'Brand'. On top of that we'd have people seeking better working conditions, including the provision of free gym facilities for HSE, sorry IW workers.

Rightwing

kippy wrote: »

Look,
I ain't saying any wage rises were built on sustainable economics (the opposite is the case) however whatever you want to say about what the budget deficit within normal economics. Up until the proverbial sh1t hit the fan.

The PS, the Private and citizens in general all had their own piece of the pie when the economy was "overheating" based on one off transactional taxes. You cannot just "blame" the PS.

My point is, had the economy continued as it was (ie, income more or less equal to expenditure) PS wages were sustainable. Now, I don't agree that PS wages were justified, just that they were sustainable in that context.
What stopped them being sustainable was the cliff face that the income side of things went off.

I don't personally think there is any point trying to continue to point this out to you and others at this point.

Don't you think the almost sudden 350K job losses put a significant strain on the economy?[/QUOTE]

Of course, but the ridiculous PS rises led to more builders being employed in the first place. That's the essential criticism.

The economy could never have kept going the way it was, we had structural problems, just like Greece had.

kippy

Rightwing wrote: »

I think you ought to take a look at the budget deficits throughout the Ahern years, this would help your understanding.

What were the budget deficits over the Ahern years, as a matter of interest?
Have you something to back up your assertions?

kippy

Rightwing wrote: »

kippy wrote: »

Look,
I ain't saying any wage rises were built on sustainable economics (the opposite is the case) however whatever you want to say about what the budget deficit within normal economics. Up until the proverbial sh1t hit the fan.

The PS, the Private and citizens in general all had their own piece of the pie when the economy was "overheating" based on one off transactional taxes. You cannot just "blame" the PS.

My point is, had the economy continued as it was (ie, income more or less equal to expenditure) PS wages were sustainable. Now, I don't agree that PS wages were justified, just that they were sustainable in that context.
What stopped them being sustainable was the cliff face that the income side of things went off.

I don't personally think there is any point trying to continue to point this out to you and others at this point.

Don't you think the almost sudden 350K job losses put a significant strain on the economy?[/

Of course, but the ridiculous PS rises led to more builders being employed in the first place. That's the essential criticism.

The economy could never have kept going the way it was, we had structural problems, just like Greece had.

So you are basicilly saying that:
1. The increases in public sector wages, lead to the "crash"?

I cannot fathom how increases in public sector wages (or the wage bill in general) led to "more builders being employed in the first place".
Can you round that square for me?

Surely demand for housing based on major increases in population and people working here, cheap credit, a currency being controlled from elsewhere, light touch regulation etc etc are all ahead of increased public sector wages as a reason for the mess we are in now?

Rightwing

kippy wrote: »

What were the budget deficits over the Ahern years, as a matter of interest?
Have you something to back up your assertions?

Basically we were borrowing year on year even during the boom. Practically everyone knew the housing bubble couldn't last. So when that bubble crashed, our financial position just crumbled. There was no excuse for this from a political point of view. The only PS workers I've ever blamed were:

Regulator, Dept of finance officials, C Bank and politicians.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

We went into the bailout because of the combination of a number of factors:

(1) The domestic banking crisis;
(2) The world economic collapse;
(3) The reliance on property transaction taxes for our tax base;
(4) The sharp rise in unemployment putting pressure on the social welfare bill.


The level of public sector pay was not a factor of any significance. However, the cutting of public sector pay was the main expenditure saving.

An explosion in Voted Expenditure from 23bn in 1999 to 63 bn in 2009 was a major factor in the crisis.

It is incomphrehensble that anyone could look at the crisis and not give expenditure the recognition it deserves.

kippy

Rightwing wrote: »

Basically we were borrowing year on year even during the boom. Practically everyone knew the housing bubble couldn't last. So when that bubble crashed, our financial position just crumbled. There was no excuse for this from a political point of view. The only PS workers I've ever blamed were:

Regulator, Dept of finance officials, C Bank and politicians.

There are not many developed countries in the world that don't borrow a certain amount year on year. This is perfectly normal and indeed sustainable if kept in check.

"Everyone knew they housing bubble couldn't last" yet almost everyone got caught out by it.

Look, my point is not that we had a sustainable economy, my point is in response to a point that arose earlier in this thread where somebody said that had things remaimed the way they were (without 64 bil for the banks) the public sector wages would have caused us to go to the IMF ANYWAY.
This is patently not true, had income continued as it was...........
Of course none of this happened.

fliball123

noodler wrote: »

An explosion in Voted Expenditure from 23bn in 1999 to 63 bn in 2009 was a major factor in the crisis.

It is incomphrehensble that anyone could look at the crisis and not give expenditure the recognition it deserves.

This is what I was trying to point out to this poster. That even with supposed full employment and the cash lottery ticket that was stamp duty our borrowings grew and this was while the banking crisis was still a couple of years away.

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

There are not many developed countries in the world that don't borrow a certain amount year on year. This is perfectly normal and indeed sustainable if kept in check.

"Everyone knew they housing bubble couldn't last" yet almost everyone got caught out by it.

Look, my point is not that we had a sustainable economy, my point is in response to a point that arose earlier in this thread where somebody said that had things remaimed the way they were (without 64 bil for the banks) the public sector wages would have caused us to go to the IMF ANYWAY.
This is patently not true, had income continued as it was...........
Of course none of this happened.

We had an ecconomy built on stamp duty how the frick is that sustainable..Your getting laughable now Kippy. I state that the 64bn from the banks could of been reneged on had we not had to borrow for our day to day spending. . You cannot turn around to your loan masters and say I aint covering those banks and then in the same breathe ask for a few billion there to pay for ps increments or for the xmas bonus for the dole.?

Can you not see this?

We were spiraling with a deficit regardless of if no one lost the job (we had full employment), we probably would of had benchmarking 3, 4 and 5 and Bertie would be still sitting there in the Dail with his Teflon suit had the banking crisis not hit.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

This is what I was trying to point out to this poster. That even with supposed full employment and the cash lottery ticket that was stamp duty our borrowings grew and this was while the banking crisis was still a couple of years away.

Stamp duty income and near full employment ended circa 2008. The income fell of the cliff.
A large part of expenditure moved to social welfare spending.

Of course cuts had to be made to expenditure to match. However to suggest that public sector wages ALONE would have made us head to the IMF HAD income levels remained static is completely incorrect.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

We had an ecconomy built on stamp duty how the frick is that sustainable..Your getting laughable now Kippy. I state that the 64bn from the banks could of been reneged on had we not had to borrow for our day to day spending. . You cannot turn around to your loan masters and say I aint covering those banks and then in the same breathe ask for a few billion there to pay for ps increments or for the xmas bonus for the dole.?

Can you not see this?

We were spiraling with a deficit regardless of if no one lost the job (we had full employment), we probably would of had benchmarking 3, 4 and 5 and Bertie would be still sitting there in the Dail with his Teflon suit had the banking crisis not hit.

There is absolutely no point in pointing out black and white to you, is there?

Of course it was build on unsustainable income, as was spending for everything in this country

Can you show me some figures from 2007 and previous to show me that we were borrowing significantly to cover expenses?

We havent had "full employment" since 2007/08

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Stamp duty income and near full employment ended circa 2008. The income fell of the cliff.
A large part of expenditure moved to social welfare spending.

Of course cuts had to be made to expenditure to match. However to suggest that public sector wages ALONE would have made us head to the IMF HAD income levels remained static is completely incorrect.

We had near too full employment coming up to it aswell Kippy from 2003/4 onwards.

No one is suggesting it was PS pay alone infact welfare is a bigger part than ps pay and pensions..But the fact still remains that when this debate happens people in the PS say "oh if only those banks behaved themselves" and not understanding that without the banks we would of found ourselves over that cliff anyways

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

We had near too full employment coming up to it aswell Kippy from 2003/4 onwards.

No one is suggesting it was PS pay alone infact welfare is a bigger part than ps pay and pensions..But the fact still remains that when this debate happens people in the PS say "oh if only those banks behaved themselves" and not understanding that without the banks we would of found ourselves over that cliff anyways

Had income remained the same as 2007, even with the banks the way they turned out, the country was "manageable". Why? Because income was close enough to expenditure?
Granted some cuts would have had to occur but we would not have had to hit the IMF for the amount of money we did, in the time scale we did.
The biggest hit on the states finances in a short period of time was again:
1. The drop off in property related taxes/income.
2. The increase in the live register.
That, was ultimately the big reason why the state began to run at a major deficit.

Now, that was caused because spending had increased in a massive way, which is all well and good when the income matches it.

What has happened in the interm is that cuts have been made on the spending side in the order of 20 or so billion I believe and changes have been made on the income side, to again balance the books.

I ain't saying:
Public sector wages were'nt too high.
Welfare costs weren't too high.
The banks are entirely at fault etc etc

What I am saying is fairly straight forward.

Right now, the key aim is getting people back to work, as shown with figures earlier presented.

One of the big reasons, we coulnt "write off" that debt was of course because we would have had major fiscal issues( as well of course of the fact that a lot of that debt was actually held by irish people themselves, directly or indirectly)

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

I think you ought to take a look at the budget deficits throughout the Ahern years, this would help your understanding.

Such as the 2006 budget surplus?

Peter Flynt

Godge wrote: »

Such as the 2006 budget surplus?

Indeed the budget was in surplus for virtually all (1997-2007) of the Ahern years.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

Of course, but the ridiculous PS rises led to more builders being employed in the first place. That's the essential criticism.

The economy could never have kept going the way it was, we had structural problems, just like Greece had.

Public sector wage increases led to more builders led to the crash:D:D:D:D:D:D.

Hilarious.

You should write an economics textbook to explain it all.

Godge

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Indeed the budget was in surplus for virtually all (1997-2007) of the Ahern years.

FF messed up the country because they didn't use the surpluses to put the long-term tax revenue on a sustainable path. Instead they taxed the froth and when the froth disappeared, crash.

As for the budget deficits, in most years we ran a primary surplus (i.e. surplus before interest payments) and in two years we ran an overall surplus.

However, don't expect rightwing to admit he is wrong.

I am still waiting for him to point out an example of a country where the maximum teacher salary is below the average industrial wage.

ardmacha

fliball123 wrote:

No one is suggesting it was PS pay alone infact welfare is a bigger part than ps pay and pensions..But the fact still remains that when this debate happens people in the PS say "oh if only those banks behaved themselves" and not understanding that without the banks we would of found ourselves over that cliff anyways

Without the banks it would not have been a cliff, but a gentle undulation.

Godge wrote: »

I am still waiting for him to point out an example of a country where the maximum teacher salary is below the average industrial wage.

And if he finds one, is it the kind of place he would like to live?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Barney its a pity you were not crying foul of this little nugget of wisdom when they done the benchmarking exercise twice?

Some Apples are more orangy than oranges

Welcome back Fliball, am I to take it you haven't mastered even a rudimentary understanding of averages while you were on your holiday?!

I was still in school or college when benchmarking happened Fliball, and then I was out working in the big bad private sector for the majority of my working life to date.

But I don't really understand the logic of your statement (what's new says I); if the purpose of benchmarking was to generate pay parity, and you can't show me categories of PS worker who are overpaid by 48% relative to a comparable group of private sector workers, then surely that means benchmarking actually worked...

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

Public sector wage increases led to more builders led to the crash:D:D:D:D:D.

Hilarious.

You should write an economics textbook to explain it all.

This is really self explanatory stuff, but anyway, as teachers and gardai etc were getting too much money, they went buying 2nd homes etc. Now I'll hazard a guess that they didn't build the house themselves.

Needless to say, they ran aground, and are now back cap in hand to drain the private sector once more.

Sleephead

Rightwing wrote: »

This is really self explanatory stuff, but anyway, as teachers and gardai etc were getting too much money, they went buying 2nd homes etc. Now I'll hazard a guess that they didn't build the house themselves.

Needless to say, they ran aground, and are now back cap in hand to drain the private sector once more.

Wow. You're clearly a WUM. Bizarre point of view to be honest!

The public sector have kept this country afloat for the past 7 years, taking cut after cut, all the while taking abuse from the public at large for having the audacity to have a job.

Rightwing

Sleephead wrote: »

Wow. You're clearly a WUM. Bizarre point of view to be honest!

The public sector have kept this country afloat for the past 7 years, taking cut after cut, all the while taking abuse from the public at large for having the audacity to have a job.

True, sure where would we without 'em, eh?

nice_guy80

It wasn't wage levels in the PS, it was the number of people hired into the PS that caused a lot of problems.
so when the crash came we'd too many PS workers who collectively earned too much money.

the HSE and most government departments became bloated with admin staff, too many ancillary teaching posts were created (resources teachers, SNAs, DEIS funded schools), the Gardai increased to its highest ever strength

Rightwing

nice_guy80 wrote: »

It wasn't wage levels in the PS, it was the number of people hired into the PS that caused a lot of problems.
so when the crash came we'd too many PS workers who collectively earned too much money.

the HSE and most government departments became bloated with admin staff, too many ancillary teaching posts were created (resources teachers, SNAs, DEIS funded schools), the Gardai increased to its highest ever strength

No question about that, and that still remains a huge problem for us going forward. But when you see a headline like this, it's fair to say pay is also a huge concern.

About 1,500 teachers earn between€85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

Peter Flynt

Rightwing wrote: »

No question about that, and that still remains a huge problem for us going forward. But when you see a headline like this, it's fair to say pay is also a huge concern.

About 1,500 teachers earn between€85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

They're Principals.

Rightwing

Peter Flynt wrote: »

They're Principals.

That doesn't hold any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Ever wonder where your taxes go?
Another PS classic:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mayor-takes-9000-pay-cut-but-still-earns-more-than-spanish-pm-26897042.html

THE country's highest-paid Lord Mayor has volunteered to take a €9,000 pay cut -- but he will still earn more than the prime ministers of Israel, Sweden, Spain and even Russia.

But we can excuse this on the grounds he is a lord mayor.

Geuze

If newly qualified accountants, aged 25 approx, are on 50k, and average accountancy pay is 90k, then principals of schools should be on 80-120k pa.

Seems sensible to me.

A typical accountant isn't in charge of 750 pupils and 50+ staff, a large school principal is, so they should get paid more.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

That doesn't hold any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Ever wonder where your taxes go?
Another PS classic:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mayor-takes-9000-pay-cut-but-still-earns-more-than-spanish-pm-26897042.html

THE country's highest-paid Lord Mayor has volunteered to take a €9,000 pay cut -- but he will still earn more than the prime ministers of Israel, Sweden, Spain and even Russia.

But we can excuse this on the grounds he is a lord mayor.

2 year old news piece. Seriously

Peter Flynt

Rightwing wrote: »

That doesn't hold any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

So you think there's no difference between being responsible for the duties of an educational institution with 1000 pupils, 70 teachers, 30-40 other staff. . . . and a classroom teacher?

Do you have a habit of making a fool of yourself on here?

barneystinson

Geuze wrote: »

If newly qualified accountants, aged 25 approx, are on 50k, and average accountancy pay is 90k, then principals of schools should be on 80-120k pa.

Seems sensible to me.

A typical accountant isn't in charge of 750 pupils and 50+ staff, a large school principal is, so they should get paid more.

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

Peter Flynt

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

A friend of mine in a major multinational Accountancy firm told me she interviewed someone recommended three weeks ago for a position . . Salary 85K - He had virtually no experience.

Rightwing

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

He's getting chartered accountants mixed up with accountants.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

He's getting chartered accountants mixed up with accountants.

Huh?

Geuze

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

The Chartered accountants themselves report that:

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

barneystinson

Geuze wrote: »

The Chartered accountants themselves report that:

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

Respondents to the chartered accountants Leinster survey - doesn't represent the average of all accountants across the several professional bodies and the country as a whole...

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

No question about that, and that still remains a huge problem for us going forward. But when you see a headline like this, it's fair to say pay is also a huge concern.

About 1,500 teachers earn between€85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

You posted that earlier today, six or seven pages back.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92494930&postcount=1203

You got detailed answers then that refuted your point. Yet you chose to ignore those responses and posted again the same discredited point.

I for one won't be paying any attention to your posts.

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

Barney, that is the average salary of employed accountants. It is the figure used for the CSO averages.

However, it does not include accountants who are partners in an accountancy firm, neither does it include accountants who have their own practice. As a result the figure seriously underestimates the amount of money earned by accountants. It also does not include bonuses and other perks.

You can understand now why I have such a problem with the CSO figures and other similar earnings data.

barneystinson

Godge wrote: »

Barney, that is the average salary of employed accountants. It is the figure used for the CSO averages.

However, it does not include accountants who are partners in an accountancy firm, neither does it include accountants who have their own practice. As a result the figure seriously underestimates the amount of money earned by accountants. It also does not include bonuses and other perks.

You can understand now why I have such a problem with the CSO figures and other similar earnings data.

Sorry Godge, you're misunderstanding me - I'm expressing surprise at how HIGH that figure is. Have a look over on the accountancy forum at the guy/gal in Galway, stuck on 23k as a fully qualified accountant with several years experience.

There's no-one bar the partners, in any accountancy firm outside of Dublin, earning next or near 90k.

Even in industry you'd have to be the FC or Director to be on that kind of wedge; the accountancy profession is a pyramid shape like any other with a broad base of trainees and people who'll never make it to 90k. That survey showing 90k average figure is a piece of propaganda - "you should join our institute, and you'll be minted like us!", I'm very dubious...

But as I said, if I'm wrong, it just means I'm even more underpaid than I thought! :pac:

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

Sorry Godge, you're misunderstanding me - I'm expressing surprise at how HIGH that figure is. Have a look over on the accountancy forum at the guy/gal in Galway, stuck on 23k as a fully qualified accountant with several years experience.

There's no-one bar the partners, in any accountancy firm outside of Dublin, earning next or near 90k.

Even in industry you'd have to be the FC or Director to be on that kind of wedge; the accountancy profession is a pyramid shape like any other with a broad base of trainees and people who'll never make it to 90k. That survey showing 90k average figure is a piece of propaganda - "you should join our institute, and you'll be minted like us!", I'm very dubious...

But as I said, if I'm wrong, it just means I'm even more underpaid than I thought! :pac:

I know several accountants, some outside Dublin. None of them live a lifestyle that implies earnings less than 100k.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

You posted that earlier today, six or seven pages back.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92494930&postcount=1203

You got detailed answers then that refuted your point. Yet you chose to ignore those responses and posted again the same discredited point.

I for one won't be paying any attention to your posts.

Great, will save me from the most basic of explanations.

barneystinson wrote: »

Sorry Godge, you're misunderstanding me - I'm expressing surprise at how HIGH that figure is. Have a look over on the accountancy forum at the guy/gal in Galway, stuck on 23k as a fully qualified accountant with several years experience.

There's no-one bar the partners, in any accountancy firm outside of Dublin, earning next or near 90k.

Even in industry you'd have to be the FC or Director to be on that kind of wedge; the accountancy profession is a pyramid shape like any other with a broad base of trainees and people who'll never make it to 90k. That survey showing 90k average figure is a piece of propaganda - "you should join our institute, and you'll be minted like us!", I'm very dubious...

But as I said, if I'm wrong, it just means I'm even more underpaid than I thought! :pac:

For once, I have to agree with you. You nailed this one

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

Great, will save me from the most basic of explanations.



For once, I have to agree with you. You nailed this one

I have no idea what you even mean any more (whether you actually agree with me, or you "agree" with me); it seems your arse is now so smart that you've vanished into it and all I can see is that little periwinkle winking at me! Seriously.

Rightwing

Peter Flynt wrote: »

A friend of mine in a major multinational Accountancy firm told me she interviewed someone recommended three weeks ago for a position . . Salary 85K - He had virtually no experience.

In that case we can break the bad news to him early.

garancafan

Peter Flynt wrote: »

A friend of mine in a major multinational Accountancy firm told me she interviewed someone recommended three weeks ago for a position . . Salary 85K - He had virtually no experience.

Time for another PS benchmarking!

ardmacha

garancafan wrote: »

Time for another PS benchmarking!

Or at least some recognition that there are these relatively well paid disciplines in which people can get employment, and that people in similar jobs in the Revenue Commissioners or teaching these people in third level etc cannot simply be penalised compared to others with their skills because of a political philosophy.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

It took a national financial emergency to legally cut the pensions in accordance with the Constitution. Once the emergency is over, the pensions will have to be restored, in accordance with Constitutional law. The only question is how quickly will the pay cuts and pensions be restored.

I posted that quite some time ago and other similar posts many times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-needs-to-win-back-the-support-of-workers-1.1981268

"It is understood that the Government was anxious that the financial emergency legislation be wound down in a controlled manner. A big fear was that a court could rule that the financial emergency legislation was no longer valid given the surge in the economy – a recovery which in other contexts Government Ministers have been strongly proclaiming.
Further steps in this area are likely to be taken by the Government next year. Public service unions are expected to lodge claims for a pay rise next spring."


Well, at least the Irish Times is coming round to my analysis of public service pay, good news for my pension.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

I posted that quite some time ago and other similar posts many times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-needs-to-win-back-the-support-of-workers-1.1981268

"It is understood that the Government was anxious that the financial emergency legislation be wound down in a controlled manner. A big fear was that a court could rule that the financial emergency legislation was no longer valid given the surge in the economy – a recovery which in other contexts Government Ministers have been strongly proclaiming.
Further steps in this area are likely to be taken by the Government next year. Public service unions are expected to lodge claims for a pay rise next spring."


Well, at least the Irish Times is coming round to my analysis of public service pay, good news for my pension.

Your... analysis? Christ what a missued word these days. Finding an article to. Repeat, echo or regurgitate an opinion on an Internet forum shouldn't be taken as that newspaper coming around to "your way of thinking". Fairly egotistical of you in fairness.


Anyway, any spare money would be fairer spent bringing new entrants back up to the same level as old entrants. Also the the under 35k staff.

An across the board pay rise would would be unaffordable and still see post 2010 entrants discriminated against.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Your... analysis? Christ what a missued word these days. Finding an article to. Repeat, echo or regurgitate an opinion on an Internet forum shouldn't be taken as that newspaper coming around to "your way of thinking". Fairly egotistical of you in fairness.


Anyway, any spare money would be fairer spent bringing new entrants back up to the same level as old entrants. Also the the under 35k staff.

An across the board pay rise would would be unaffordable and still see post 2010 entrants discriminated against.

Never suggested that the bit in bold wouldn't be the first to happen.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Never suggested that the bit in bold wouldn't be the first to happen.

Well I have my doubts. The old guard won't allow the newbies or lower entrants an increase without them also benefiting.

10% pay cut for new entrants, inferior pension conditions and new combined pay scales which are worse than the new entrant pay scales pretty much highlight the willingness to accept disparity.