Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

chopper6

comongethappy wrote: »

Not at all.

As I said, I think levels of taxation are about right in the economy (approx 35% of GDP for 2014)..... Which is average for OECD countries.

As I said, if there is an economic argument for having this increased further to accommodate pay hikes I'm happy to hear it.

Where did anybody mention increasing that tax burden for "pay hikes"?

comongethappy

chopper6 wrote: »

Where did anybody mention increasing that tax burden for "pay hikes"?

Well, can you can advise how the government increases the PS pay-bill without increasing the tax burden on the economy?

Obviously through either issuing more debt or expenditure cuts elsewhere.
Question is.... What else gets cut in order to pay the PS workers more?

Bob24

chopper6 wrote: »

Where did anybody mention increasing that tax burden for "pay hikes"?

Where else will you find the money though?

Halloween Jack

comongethappy wrote: »

Well, can you can advise how the government increases the PS pay-bill without increasing the tax burden on the economy?

Obviously through either issuing more debt or expenditure cuts elsewhere.
Question is.... What else gets cut in order to pay the PS workers more?

Rising tax receipts as more people enter work force, spend more due to increasing consumer confidence etc.

As the economy improves the govt should be able to start injecting some money into the economy, without raising taxes or cutting elsewhere.

I would have thought that was obvious?

ardmacha

When you come back to this forum it is like GroundHog Day. You expect some sort of mature discussion might have arisen, but instead you get the same set of posts misstating facts. So you have the usual falsehoods about the pension levy being pension contribution, falsehoods about the calculation of PS pensions and the old canard about increments. The latter is particularly pernicious misuse of language since the error has been pointed on numerous occasions to the main poster concerned. Say there was a discussion in Motors forum on car insurance costs. I could go in there and say that everyone I knew got older every year and so had a reduction in their insurance costs. Now this might have potential as a wisecrack, but it is not a serious contribution to the discussion. The change in an individual's insurance cost owing to that person's experience is a separate issue from the change in insurance costs generally and a reduction in the former does not imply anything directly about the latter. If I was in the Motors forum and kept implying, like a broken record, that my experience of reduced insurance cost as I grew older meant that there wasn't an issue with insurance costs generally, then I would be told to wise up and would probably eventually be banned. Yet people can continually come in here and talk about increments, payments reflecting experience, when the thread is about a separate issue, the level of PS pay.

As I said, I think levels of taxation are about right in the economy (approx 35% of GDP for 2014)..... Which is average for OECD countries.

Using the OECD average is fine, but this includes places such as the US, Korea, Turkey etc that have a significantly different structure to the Irish government spending. The West European countries to which we compare ourselves have higher spending. If you want Turkish style welfare policies or US style health and university fees than your proposal is appropriate.

comongethappy

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Rising tax receipts as more people enter work force, spend more due to increasing consumer confidence etc.

As the economy improves the govt should be able to start injecting some money into the economy, without raising taxes or cutting elsewhere.

Government revenues are likely to rise in the coming years, as they have been for each of the previous 4 years.... But there wasn't automatically a rush to blow those increases on increased PS pay.

I'm still awaiting an economic argument as to the benefits of spending increased tax revenues on PS pay instead of focusing on debt, or service provision, or more importantly, the disastrous deficit in capital/infrastructure?

comongethappy

ardmacha wrote: »

then your proposal is appropriate.

What was my proposal?

Halloween Jack

comongethappy wrote: »

Government revenues are likely to rise in the coming years, as they have been for each of the previous 4 years.... But there wasn't automatically a rush to blow those increases on increased PS pay.

I'm still awaiting an economic argument as to the benefits of spending increased tax revenues on PS pay instead of focusing on debt, or service provision, or more importantly, the disastrous deficit in capital/infrastructure?

That's fine, if you read the thread you'll notice I'm a civil servant and advocated spending any extra revenue on capital projects, indeed I just had an argument with colleagues on the same subject.

But people were claiming that to restore pay cuts elsewhere were necessary, which isn't the case. Indeed Howlin only broached the subject on the back of better than expected exchequer returns.

Obviously I'd love to get the cuts reversed, but to my mind there are more pressing issues to be addressed first. As you suggested capital investment would be a lot more beneficial to country at the moment, than pissing money away on current spending. Capital projects can help shorten our dole queues, and help strengthen the recovery, once we do this and hopefully increase our capacity to pay off our gargantuan debt, then maybe the likes of me can ask for a slice of the pie;)

Halloween Jack

And actually, even if the government were hell bent on spending money on public servants I'd rather they hired new staff for areas where shortages exist/significant cut backs have had a negative impact on services.

What I will say though is that my position on this is informed by the fact that despite the continuing bitterness on the part of some posters around here, we really all are in this together and pay rises for public servants will happen naturally once we get more people working.

ardmacha

Halloween Jack wrote: »

What I will say though is that my position on this is informed by the fact that despite the continuing bitterness on the part of some posters around here, we really all are in this together and pay rises for public servants will happen naturally once we get more people working.

Fine, so long as everyone foregoes pay increases until we get "more people working". Or is it just the PS that are going to do this while others take increases and drive up the costs of goods and services?

Flex

ardmacha wrote: »

When you come back to this forum it is like GroundHog Day. You expect some sort of mature discussion might have arisen, but instead you get the same set of posts misstating facts. So you have the usual falsehoods about the pension levy being pension contribution, falsehoods about the calculation of PS pensions and the old canard about increments. The latter is particularly pernicious misuse of language since the error has been pointed on numerous occasions to the main poster concerned. Say there was a discussion in Motors forum on car insurance costs. I could go in there and say that everyone I knew got older every year and so had a reduction in their insurance costs. Now this might have potential as a wisecrack, but it is not a serious contribution to the discussion. The change in an individual's insurance cost owing to that person's experience is a separate issue from the change in insurance costs generally and a reduction in the former does not imply anything directly about the latter. If I was in the Motors forum and kept implying, like a broken record, that my experience of reduced insurance cost as I grew older meant that there wasn't an issue with insurance costs generally, then I would be told to wise up and would probably eventually be banned. Yet people can continually come in here and talk about increments, payments reflecting experience, when the thread is about a separate issue, the level of PS pay.

As far as I know insurance gets lower as you get older because statistically older drivers are safer. Statistically how much more efficient is, say for example, a Clerical Officer after 6 or 7 years doing the same job as they were after 3 years doing it? Little or none Id imagine. On top of that, if youre a poor driver your insurance costs will be affected by it, you wont simply get reduced rates 'just because someone else did'.

The claim I find that is usually made is that because an individuals pay scale isnt increasing, then their pay is frozen, which I find ridiculous.

On the topic at hand, Im not necessarily against further pay increases in the Public Sector, however, Im frustrated at the fact its done in a brainless manner to buy votes. Consistently, reports have showed that while the Public Sector are overall paid more than their counterparts in the private sector, those at the lower end are overpaid, and as you move closer to the top end you find workers are underpaid. Id like to see those who deserve them get them. I doubt that will happen though, how we pay our Public Sector mirrors how our income tax is implemented; the effective rate is overly generous for lower earners, and punitive on mid to higher earners. In both circumstances it encourages mediocrity and discourages ambition and hard work.

I also think it would be good to see some data answering comongethappy's question earlier regards how many people have left the Public Sector due to low pay over the past five years, would be quite interesting and something worth using in decisions about where to award more pay increases

Flex

ardmacha wrote: »

Fine, so long as everyone foregoes pay increases until we get "more people working". Or is it just the PS that are going to do this while others take increases and drive up the costs of goods and services?

Additional money from incremental pay increases spent on goods and services doesnt cause any increase in the cost of goods and services? It isnt additional money being spent in the economy?

Sand

comongethappy wrote: »

Government revenues are likely to rise in the coming years, as they have been for each of the previous 4 years.... But there wasn't automatically a rush to blow those increases on increased PS pay.

I'm still awaiting an economic argument as to the benefits of spending increased tax revenues on PS pay instead of focusing on debt, or service provision, or more importantly, the disastrous deficit in capital/infrastructure?

That is the key thing - where is the indication that there is any economic argument for increasing PS pay? Performance hasn't improved. Management hasn't improved. Reform has been relentlessly rejected by the unions. There is no indication that there is any difficulty filling positions, and there is no indication that any pay rise is targeted at solving any issue.

On the other hand, we have immense debt, very little investment and a collapse in services, all of which are more pressing concerns. Labour indicating again why they are a populist joke of a party. I gave two transfers to two individual Labour politicians I respected individually. I can see now that was a mistake. Labour need to be cleared out, root and branch.

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

Halloween Jack

ardmacha wrote: »

Fine, so long as everyone foregoes pay increases until we get "more people working". Or is it just the PS that are going to do this while others take increases and drive up the costs of goods and services?

If prices are driven up it'll mean more is being spent in the economy at large which will mean the economic picture is getting rosier and naturally you would expect the unions and government will get round the table and talk pay increases.

Like I say I'd obviously love a pay increase, but I'm thinking medium term, the best way to ensure the recovery continues is to get people back to work imo, once we know growth is sustainable I'd expect to see some of the pay cuts we've made in the public service would start to be reversed.

Sheldons Brain

Sand wrote: »

That is the key thing - where is the indication that there is any economic argument for increasing PS pay? Performance hasn't improved. Management hasn't improved.

Performance has increased in recent years, as less people were employed and more work was done.

On the other hand, we have immense debt, very little investment and a collapse in services, all of which are more pressing concerns. Labour indicating again why they are a populist joke of a party. I gave two transfers to two individual Labour politicians I respected individually. I can see now that was a mistake. Labour need to be cleared out, root and branch.

This seems fair enough,

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

Where do you live? Surely here in Ireland if the past few years have indicated anything it is that uniquely you can just pass a law to reduce PS pay while private sector pay doesn't fall much.

Halloween Jack

Sand wrote: »

That is the key thing - where is the indication that there is any economic argument for increasing PS pay? Performance hasn't improved. Management hasn't improved. Reform has been relentlessly rejected by the unions. There is no indication that there is any difficulty filling positions, and there is no indication that any pay rise is targeted at solving any issue.

On the other hand, we have immense debt, very little investment and a collapse in services, all of which are more pressing concerns. Labour indicating again why they are a populist joke of a party. I gave two transfers to two individual Labour politicians I respected individually. I can see now that was a mistake. Labour need to be cleared out, root and branch.

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

The economic argument to my mind would be boosting domestic demand by empowering a large section of the workforce to spend more money.

Of course there are many, many, other ways to get this effect of course. From my point of view I'd be annoyed if say the government decided to start raising social welfare base rates, but again I'd be against any extra money we have going on current spending that doesn't have a direct job creation aspect. (I'm aware that increasing current spending would lead to some jobs being created indirectly).

As regards reform I'd disagree that the unions have blocked it outright, we've seen an increase in the working week, curtailment of sick leave limits and new regulations regarding redeployment, an integrated HR function etc.

Those measures may have been necessary, but they aren't the type of reforms I would have said would have been most useful in my eyes. Effective performance management would have been my number one priority.

Rightwing

Talk of pay increases is absurd, no wonder the country went bankrupt. Sure we can blame the Germans, eh? :rolleyes:

They ought to be looking at taking 15-20% off the existing wage bill.

barneystinson

Sand wrote: »

And if the past few years have indicated anything it is that PS pay rises are easily given, but very, very hard to recover if times turn bad. We ought to be *very* slow to institute broadbased pay increases given trade union politics.

Really, how difficult was it to implement the pay cuts? Was there much mass-scale industrial action, I don't remember working to rule or crossing any pickets... and pay was cut 3 times in less than 5 years if you include the pension levy... you call that difficult??

And lets be clear, the pay cuts were implemented by emergency legislation, with an automatic expiry. There is no question of pay increases AFAIK, simply a question of whether, if improvement comes quicker than expected, the expiry of some measures should happen earlier than was originally legislated for. That is a fundamental difference from a pay increase.

Its like me borrowing your car tomorrow for a week because mine broke down, and giving it back to you in 4 days because I get mine back early from the garage, then telling you how lucky you are!

Halloween Jack

Rightwing wrote: »

Talk of pay increases is absurd, no wonder the country went bankrupt. Sure we can blame the Germans, eh? :rolleyes:

They ought to be looking at taking 15-20% off the existing wage bill.

I'm sure you have a sophist acted model displaying the economic benefits of taking such action?

Or are you just spouting I'll informed ideologically slanted bollocks as usual?

Rightwing

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I'm sure you have a sophist acted model displaying the economic benefits of taking such action?

Or are you just spouting I'll informed ideologically slanted bollocks as usual?

I've never seen that model before for starters.

Not all in the public sector should be cut, but areas like admin & quangos should be axed, thereby bringing down the wage bill.

not yet

Rightwing wrote: »

Talk of pay increases is absurd, no wonder the country went bankrupt. Sure we can blame the Germans, eh? :rolleyes:

They ought to be looking at taking 15-20% off the existing wage bill.

So lets get this straight..


You are making a direct connection with the PS pay bill and the country going bankrupt.

Jesus christ I've seen it all now.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

I've never seen that model before for starters.

Resorting to petty comments about autocorrect typos now... says a lot about you.

Halloween Jack

Rightwing wrote: »

I've never seen that model before for starters.

Not all in the public sector should be cut, but areas like admin & quangos should be axed, thereby bringing down the wage bill.

Which quangos? What administrative units? What would the economic effects of firing 15-20% of public sector workers? What effects on services would your suggested cuts have? How much would firing that many workers cost in redundancy and social welfare costs? How would we create jobs for another 60,000 people when we already have 450,000 unemployed?

Have you put any thought in to this or, at the risk of getting repetitive, are you spouting I'll informed ideologically slanted bollox as usual?

Rightwing

not yet wrote: »

So lets get this straight..


You are making a direct connection with the PS pay bill and the country going bankrupt.

Jesus christ I've seen it all now.

Indeed.

Contrary to what our politicans tell us, it wasn't the bankers, nor the builders. It was Ahern's madness, but then again I suppose he deserved to be what was it, the 3rd highest paid politician in the world?.

Esel

Rightwing wrote: »

Indeed.

Contrary to what our politicans tell us, it wasn't the bankers, nor the builders. It was Ahern's madness, but then again I suppose he deserved to be what was it, the 3rd highest paid politician in the world?.

I am interested in your theories and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

not yet

Rightwing wrote: »

Indeed.

Contrary to what our politicans tell us, it wasn't the bankers, nor the builders. It was Ahern's madness, but then again I suppose he deserved to be what was it, the 3rd highest paid politician in the world?.

Good man, spot on, you know your stuff of that there is no doubt.

not yet

Esel wrote: »

I am interested in your theories and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Me too, me too..!!

Rightwing

Esel wrote: »

I am interested in your theories and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

not yet wrote: »

Me too, me too..!!

I wouldn't recommend a newsletter. Read from multiple sources.

Hope this helps.

woodoo

creedp wrote: »

Having listened to that tool Marc Coleman, whose is now calling himself an independent consultant, on TV3 last night (bad idea at 11pm!) I'm even more convinced of the validity of the above summary. In between an emotional story about how he was going to plead for a banking writedown for Ireland in Berlin and Frankfurt - presumably he will don the tricolour t-shirt over the IBEC one on that day! - he delivered an even more emotional plea that prior to awarding pay increases to the PS (maybe OK for the low paid PS - didn't define) the Govt should consider the fact that the private sector (didn't define) hasn't had a pay increase since 2006!! Companies must be using their money to but nice new shiny commercial vehicles if the latest new vehicles registration figures are anyting to go by.

I always find it amusing when these guys go to critisize PS pay they start comparing the likes of the semi-states and the private sector. Last night it was the turn of using IW's bonus culture as an example of out of control pay in the PS. One of these days these experts may get a handle of the fact that the likes of Bord Gais and IW are not paid in the same manner as PS but of course convenienty their higher pay is incorporated into the PS average figure to be compared to the palty private sector equivalent.

Bizaarre stuff for a supposedly independent and objective consultant economist.

Absolutely right i have been saying this for a few years now. Its just not something that is ever considered. The Semi States are a different animal altogether. They have had no pay cuts, no pension levy, and in some cases have had actual pay rises. Did the semi states have their hours increases i don't know? The Public Service that i belong to has had all these cuts. None of these commentators in the media and elsewhere seem to notice this or chooses to not notice this.

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry what the hell are increments you got pay rises even in the height of the bust and have so every years since the bust.....There are more deserving people to get some relief before the public sector ever get a larger slice of the pie.

You haven't learned a single thing in the years you've been on here. You've obviously been mouthing plenty but listening none. Not all staff are on increments. Most people in the public service today are at the top of the incremental scale.

Vizzy

woodoo wrote: »

You haven't learned a single thing in the years you've been on here. You've obviously been mouthing plenty but listening none. Not all staff are on increments. Most people in the public service today are at the top of the incremental scale.

I am one of those Woodoo.
Got my last Long Service Increment in August 2008(ironically) so now I have had no opportuntity to progress to the next grade for six years and probably won't for at least another 2 years.
I'd love to get my hands on some of the 250million that everyone talks about.

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

What is one eyed at being asked to pay about 1/4 of a billion a year since 2008 in annual increments and to public sector workers who have no valid performance mechanism

Tut tut tut. Not even the government use this figure anymore.

Icepick

woodoo wrote: »

You haven't learned a single thing in the years you've been on here. You've obviously been mouthing plenty but listening none. Not all staff are on increments. Most people in the public service today are at the top of the incremental scale.

Another reason why blanket pay rises are an insane proposition.
A lot of the PS workers are overpaid because the increments didn't result from performance improvements. If they want to earn more, they need to do what private workers do - get a promotion.

robp

Icepick wrote: »

Another reason why blanket pay rises are an insane proposition.
A lot of the PS workers are overpaid because the increments didn't result from performance improvements. If they want to earn more, they need to do what private workers do - get a promotion.

Increments are pretty widespread feature in public sectors. They are not peculiar to Ireland.

Phoebas

not yet wrote: »

So lets get this straight..


You are making a direct connection with the PS pay bill and the country going bankrupt.

Jesus christ I've seen it all now.

The PS pay bill forms a major part of all public spending so there is a direct relationship between it and the deficit.

Obviously its not the full story but certainly part of it.

mariaalice

If this happens it will be highly selective its a hard one for the Government to get right perception is every thing, some of the low paid public servants do deserve a pay rise and some such as the consultants, they have to pay or they wont have enough of them.

I cant believe you get the same old posters with the same old fury about public servants still posting.

The Dagda

They should just knock 1% off the USC, and knock 1% off it each year until it is gone.

That way both public and private get a benefit and we'll eventually be rid of this "temporary measure".

Does anyone know exactly how much the USC generates each year?

Flippyfloppy

Jeez I know there was pay freezes, changes to entry scales & pay rises due to qualifications, but was there really many actual pay cuts? Wasn't it more reduction of sick leave, croke park hours, taxation of maternity benefit, not allowing teachers to take holidays in lieu while on maternity leave, pension levy, USC etc. I think they're saving more money outside of paycuts.

Riskymove

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

, but was there really many actual pay cuts?

:rolleyes:

not yet

Phoebas wrote: »

The PS pay bill forms a major part of all public spending so there is a direct relationship between it and the deficit.

Obviously its not the full story but certainly part of it.

The PS pay bill is approx 17 billion, take back 30% in taxes etc and that leaves 11.90 billion. Now I don't think that figure is excessive to run a country, and had little or nothing to do with the crash.

The crash was caused by greedy bankers-investors-developers and politicans, it was not caused by a PS worker earning 35k a year.

not yet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Jeez I know there was pay freezes, changes to entry scales & pay rises due to qualifications, but was there really many actual pay cuts? Wasn't it more reduction of sick leave, croke park hours, taxation of maternity benefit, not allowing teachers to take holidays in lieu while on maternity leave, pension levy, USC etc. I think they're saving more money outside of paycuts.

Spot on, there were no paycuts,

Jesus chirst, I now know the extent of the crap that people believe out there.

Flippyfloppy

Riskymove wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I'm a public sector worker and am pay cut free.... :rolleyes:

Riskymove

mariaalice wrote: »

If this happens it will be highly selective its a hard one for the Government to get right perception is every thing, some of the low paid public servants do deserve a pay rise and some such as the consultants, they have to pay or they wont have enough of them.

another thing is that if they simply reverse the Haddington Road Agreement, the people getting pay cuts back will be those earning over €65,000 who are the only ones who got a pay cut in that agreement!!

Try and sell that

barneystinson

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I'm a public sector worker and am pay cut free.... :rolleyes:

Really? Do elaborate...

Flippyfloppy

barneystinson wrote: »

Really? Do elaborate...

What's to elaborate?

Never.Got.A.Paycut.

Riskymove

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I'm a public sector worker and am pay cut free.... :rolleyes:

well done but so what?

that doesn't mean there were not paycuts does it?

I am surprised that you could work in the PS and not be aware the cuts (perhaps you work in a semi-state?)

Riskymove

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Never.Got.A.Paycut.

so therefore no one else did either?

barneystinson

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

What's to elaborate?

Never.Got.A.Paycut.

What part of the PS, what grade etc...

Do you not pay the PRD? That's a paycut.

Flippyfloppy

Riskymove wrote: »

well done but so what?

that doesn't mean there were not paycuts does it?

I am surprised that you could work in the PS and not be aware the cuts (perhaps you work in a semi-state?)

Riskymove wrote: »

so therefore no one else did either?

I didn't say none. I said not many. Why people bother wasting time twisting peoples words....maybe argue with the wall? Might be more fun??

barneystinson wrote: »

What part of the PS, what grade etc...

Do you not pay the PRD? That's a paycut.

Fair enough, I pay the PRD, and along with all the other taxes etc I'm not earning much more than I did 4 years ago. I work in the Education sector, the largest payroll in the country, and afaik there were little actual 'paycuts' but sanctions in other areas, as I mentioned in my first post here.

My thinking, if they reverse these paycuts it won't have much bearing in the Education sector as there were so many other cuts carried out

Riskymove

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I didn't say none. I said not many. Why people bother wasting time twisting peoples words....maybe argue with the wall? Might be more fun??

well, imo, the clear implication from your post was that rather than "actual" paycuts there were only other measures

Perhaps if you have said this clear statement in the first place

I work in the Education sector, the largest payroll in the country, and afaik there were little actual 'paycuts' but sanctions in other areas, as I mentioned in my first post here.

My thinking, if they reverse these paycuts it won't have much bearing in the Education sector as there were so many other cuts carried out

you could have avoided the issue