Public sector pay increase

MonkeyTennis

Im gonna get a f**k load of decking. I'm not missing out this time, no sireee

bjork

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Im gonna get a f**k load of decking. I'm not missing out this time, no sireee

Will they be starting the SSIA's up again?

Free money for everone

bjork

kippy wrote: »

Avoid the points made.

Not going to engage with you again.

The point you made is when wages were cut, productivity improved

Maybe we should cut wages more

jank

iba wrote: »

I hope that weather is nice in Australia this time of year

Do Public Servants not pay tax?

Can you substantiate your statement with facts that the PS has not improved in recent years, that productivity has not increased and is not not more cost effective and efficient?

In recent years PS have taken huge pay cuts. Have had the workforce reduced by tens of thousands. Had there work load increased immensely. And had their work week increased by two and a half hours.

Its getting cold actually, Still 20 degrees today though.

Public servants pay tax but payroll for public services comes from private wealth and capital. One should remember that.

Yes, I can as no real reforms have been implemented or pushed through any agreements via the government and unions. However, you are asking me to prove a negative. Its like asking me to prove that a tooth fairy does not exist in the back garden. It should be a lot easier, if you can to factually say that yes, reforms and productivity has increased due to x,y,z... of you go.

If the workload has increased then surely its better to use this money not for wage increases but to hire new staff in pinch points that are under pressure?

kippy

bjork wrote: »

The point you made is when wages were cut, productivity improved

Maybe we should cut wages more

That wasn't the point I made at all actually. Do you care to address the actual points I made?

Mr. teddywinkles

kippy wrote: »

Lets get this straight, and I do agree with actual performance based pay reviews and raises however this argument about people having to be "more productive" to justify a pay increase is complete and utter nonsense in a lot of cases.

Salaries across the board/world have risen substantially over the years - are people more productive to justify these raises? And this is an overall question.

And again, I don't disagree portions of pay increases need to be linked to some level of performance indicator if possible but pay is not always linked to productiveness.

I'd suggest nurses in the public sector are "more productive" and indeed "Gardai" as well, possible teachers as well, if you are to measure productivity in terms of "people seen". Indeed if you are to measure productivity on the really basic scale of staff numbers to population levels ratio, I'd hazard a guess that overall productivity has improved as there are less staff doing the same or more work than there were in 2008.

Dunno where this everyone wages is rising mentality is coming from.
Not everyone in private companies is getting payrises. All depends on sector. In fact the opposite is more realistic.

kippy

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Dunno where this everyone wages is rising mentality is coming from.
Not everyone in private companies is getting payrises. All depends on sector. In fact the opposite is more realistic.

I know that not everyone is getting pay rises - I didnt suggest that everyone was.
My point is wages do not rise alone on productivity grounds.
The argument being made is that wages should not rise in the public sector because productivity has not risen.



If wages only rose on productivity alone, one would suggest that average wages in all sectors would remain static over long periods of time - unless the measurements of productivity were completed out of kilter.

Santa Cruz

Meanwhile as we cut wages and conditions we recruit foreign radiologists that cant differentieate between signs of cancer on a scan and takeaway menu

Tiger Mcilroy

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Meanwhile as we cut wages and conditions we recruit foreign radiologists that cant differentieate between signs of cancer on a scan and takeaway menu

Who interviewed and verified the qualifications of said foreign radiologist or does the blame lie outside the public sector on this somehow?....how about implementing a system where KPI are measured accurately and therefore identifying deficiencies in staff. The public sector wants it every which way with no accountability for any of the monumental f**k ups.

Riskymove

bjork wrote: »

What is the definition of a payrise?

An increment is not a payrise
"restoring" pay is not a payrise


What is a payrise?

I would imagine most PS would consider that when their gross pay is higher than it was before the cuts then they will have received a payrise

seamus

seamus wrote: »

This is exactly the reason why "restoration" is the wrong word. It implies an entitlement to the higher pay and that the public sector were somehow wronged by the decrease.

You have to be joking, the public sector were wronged on a massive scale by having their salaries cut. Public sector workers didn't make the big bucks and were laughed at by a lot during the boom for not going working on the buildings etc then when things to to crap the public sector, who had no hand, act or part in the rise of the Celtic tiger or his demise were punished by having their salaries cut.

Wronged isn't even a strong enough word for the injustice of the public sector pay cuts.

There needs to be a pay restoration and followed by a pay rise after it for fairness to actually happen.

bjork

Riskymove wrote: »

I would imagine most PS would consider that when their gross pay is higher than it was before the cuts then they will have received a payrise

We're working in gross pay? > Good


(Most of them work in Net pay, but I prefer gross)

Before the cuts, so back to 2007 levels?


How much will this restoration be?
€50/week extra?

mariaalice

jank wrote: »

Its getting cold actually, Still 20 degrees today though.

Public servants pay tax but payroll for public services comes from private wealth and capital. One should remember that.

Yes, I can as no real reforms have been implemented or pushed through any agreements via the government and unions. However, you are asking me to prove a negative. Its like asking me to prove that a tooth fairy does not exist in the back garden. It should be a lot easier, if you can to factually say that yes, reforms and productivity has increased due to x,y,z... of you go.

If the workload has increased then surely its better to use this money not for wage increases but to hire new staff in pinch points that are under pressure?

If you are living in another country how do you know so much about how the Irish public services works and what improvement ( or not ) has happened.

The same posters keep turning up in thread about the public services some people are obsessed by the public services.

MonkeyTennis

jank wrote: »

Public servants pay tax but payroll for public services comes from private wealth and capital. One should remember that.

Please explain

JillyQ

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Please explain

Employers PRSI is just one which every private sector employer pays for each employee, which goes towards it along with the taxes paid by the employee. The employers PRSI is a tax that is solely paid by the private sector.

Iwasfrozen

Geuze wrote: »

You suggest a world where newly qualified accountants aged 25 earn nearly 50k, as reported by the Chartered Accountants themselves, and where the MAX a teacher can ever earn is the same, at 50k.

Why would any ambitious, smart, young person choose teaching as a career under those conditions?

A society that values a skilled and experienced educator the same as a newly qualified Chartered Accountant is not the type of place where most people want to live.

Even capitalist employers would want teachers well-paid, so as to help produce more skilled students.

Once again, a Chartered Accountant is not a fair comparison to a teacher. Chartered Accountants have to spend years studying for their exams outside college while working. Teachers, unless they're studying part time for a masters, don't have to do this.

As a society we want a competent, efficient education system. But that doesn't mean bloated wages for our public staff. It means paying them a fair wage for a fair job. 50k is, I believe a generous cap for teachers and I believe most people would agree with me.

And just to clarify because you don't seem to have picked it up, the 50k cap would be for ordinary teachers. We're not talking about principals or vice principals.

MonkeyTennis

JillyQ wrote: »

Employers PRSI is just one which every private sector employer pays for each employee goes towards it along with the taxes paid by the employee. The employers PRSI is a tax that is solely paid by the private sector.

Surely all PRSI goes into the SIF and not to pay PS wages.

Iwasfrozen

silverfeather wrote: »

There would be more striking I would bet if they had not restored pay.

Let them strike, they'll come back when their children are hungry.

awec

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Let's not let the fact that a huge portion of public sector workers are on pretty crap pay get in the way of a good rabble!

Let's not let the fact that a huge portion of the public sector is pretty crap get in the way of it either.

seamus

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

You have to be joking, the public sector were wronged on a massive scale by having their salaries cut. Public sector workers didn't make the big bucks and were laughed at by a lot during the boom for not going working on the buildings etc then when things to to crap the public sector, who had no hand, act or part in the rise of the Celtic tiger or his demise were punished by having their salaries cut.

Absolute nonsense. What other sectors were or weren't earning is irrelevant. Public sector pay is directly dependent on the state's income. If that goes in the tank, public sector wages have to take a hit, just like any other organisation that needs to cut costs.

The resentment and entitlement is strong in your post. You seem to believe that somehow public sector wages should be immune to normal market forces. Not so.

Take your payrise and enjoy it.

JillyQ

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Surely all PRSI goes into the SIF and not to pay PS wages.

It is an additional approximate 11% on top of what the employee pays. So in other words going on one of the figures mention in this thread €50,000 as a gross a salary the additional 11% is paid on top of the €50,000 which means that the employer is paying out some where in the region of an additional €5,500, thus meaning that the employer is paying out somewhere in the region of €55,500 for that employee (including salary and taxes). The Employers PRSI is not paid by the public sector, they pay employees PRSI only.

awec

seamus wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. What other sectors were or weren't earning is irrelevant. Public sector pay is directly dependent on the state's income. If that goes in the tank, public sector wages have to take a hit, just like any other organisation that needs to cut costs.

The resentment and entitlement is strong in your post. You seem to believe that somehow public sector wages should be immune to normal market forces. Not so.

Take your payrise and enjoy it.

The sense of entitlement is galling. Happy to have wages hiked to stupid levels when the state is raking in the cash, but expect the rest of us to prop it all up when the state is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Meanwhile, private sector workers get made redundant left, right and centre and those left in work are left paying out their arse to run the big white public sector elephant.

iba

jank wrote: »

Its getting cold actually, Still 20 degrees today though.

Public servants pay tax but payroll for public services comes from private wealth and capital. One should remember that.

Yes, I can as no real reforms have been implemented or pushed through any agreements via the government and unions. However, you are asking me to prove a negative. Its like asking me to prove that a tooth fairy does not exist in the back garden. It should be a lot easier, if you can to factually say that yes, reforms and productivity has increased due to x,y,z... of you go.

If the workload has increased then surely its better to use this money not for wage increases but to hire new staff in pinch points that are under pressure?

Thanks for that: 'Public servants pay tax but payroll for public services comes from private wealth and capital. One should remember that' - I did not know this.

Can you tell me then what do the taxes that Public servants go on then please?

Productivity has increased because less people are doing more work and working longer hours for less money = xyz

JillyQ

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Surely all PRSI goes into the SIF and not to pay PS wages.

The employee PRSI does, a percentage of the employers one does as well but not all of it. Im not sure of the break down.

Geuze

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Once again, a Chartered Accountant is not a fair comparison to a teacher. Chartered Accountants have to spend years studying for their exams outside college while working. Teachers, unless they're studying part time for a masters, don't have to do this.

Acc = 3yr degree + 3.5yrs apprentice

Teacher = 5 yrs in college + probationary period

Not that different.

iba

Riskymove wrote: »

I would imagine most PS would consider that when their gross pay is higher than it was before the cuts then they will have received a payrise

I think it would take a hell of a lot more than just 800euro to get anywhere near the pay PS employees were on before the pay cuts. PS's pay was cut by thousands.

Geuze

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

50k is, I believe a generous cap for teachers and I believe most people would agree with me.

And just to clarify because you don't seem to have picked it up, the 50k cap would be for ordinary teachers. We're not talking about principals or vice principals.

50k max for teachers is crazy - you won't get high quality candidates.

Try it - the education system will suffer.

Surely we want to attract the best into teaching?

Google/Apple don't say "ah, we'll pay 50k max for our engineers/programmers, sure we'll manage.."

No, they want good candidates, so they pay more for talent

As a society, we should want to attract talented people into teaching.

Especially since other professionals are earning 50k while aged under 30.

Geuze

JillyQ wrote: »

Employers PRSI is just one which every private sector employer pays for each employee, which goes towards it along with the taxes paid by the employee. The employers PRSI is a tax that is solely paid by the private sector.

PS employers do pay PRSI.

iba

klark_kent wrote: »

its not that difficult

wealth is created in the private sector , the public sector dont actually create any wealth , they serve a different role

the point is , in order to meet the goverment spend of the day , the money must first be created in the private sector

the building boom allowed spending to soar but when the construction bubble popped , cuts in goverment spending had to follow , irrespective of the banking crisis which of course compounded our problems

Wealth is created in the PS sector too. Fees are charged for services, eg passports.

Geuze

klark_kent wrote: »

its not that difficult

wealth is created in the private sector , the public sector dont actually create any wealth , they serve a different role

Please note that wealth is merely the accumulation of savings/investment.

You may be referring to income?

Note that a euro spent on consumption by households is treated the exact same way as a euro spent by the Govt.

They both contribute to income, equally.

awec

iba wrote: »

Wealth is created in the PS sector too. Fees are charged for services, eg passports.

Just because every service isn't free doesn't mean it's creating wealth.

Geuze

JillyQ wrote: »

The Employers PRSI is not paid by the public sector, they pay employees PRSI only.

Are you 100% sure about this?

Because the many PS payslips that I have seen include an amount for employers PRSI.

Iwasfrozen

Geuze wrote: »

Acc = 3yr degree + 3.5yrs apprentice

Teacher = 5 yrs in college + probationary period

Not that different.

How many professional exams do teachers have to pass?

Geuze

klark_kent wrote: »

if the goverment pays a guard 50 k but the guard then pays 12 k in taxes , the NET cost to the tax payer is 38 k but the guard still didnt create any wealth for the goverment to spend on wages and services etc

Please clarify what you mean by "wealth" here?

If a nurse in a hosp produces 100k of output, then national income increases by 100k.

If the nurse is PS or private sector, it doesn't matter.

Both contribute 100k to national income.

Geuze

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How many professional exams do teachers have to pass?

5-6 years of exams.

Hard to say, maybe 32 exams approx.

awec

Geuze wrote: »

Please clarify what you mean by "wealth" here?

If a nurse in a hosp produces 100k of output, then national income increases by 100k.

If the nurse is PS or private sector, it doesn't matter.

Both contribute 100k to national income.

How would a nurse in a hospital produce 100k of output?

Iwasfrozen

Geuze wrote: »

5-6 years of exams.

Hard to say, maybe 32 exams approx.

lol a BA is not a professional qualification and the h dip has very few exams.

Geuze

People are getting bogged down with the phrase "wealth creation".

Note that a euro spent on a hosp has equal value to a euro of profits.

Here is the key national income equation:

Y = C + I + G+ X - M

Y = national income
C = household consumption
I = investment
G = Govt purchases
X = exports
M = imports

100m spent by the State on paying nurses or building a bypass has the same impact on national income as 100m spent by households on consumption.

JillyQ

Geuze wrote: »

Are you 100% sure about this?

Because the many PS payslips that I have seen include an amount for employers PRSI.

It cetainly wasnt up until a couple of years ago Employees PRSI was paid but not Employers it may have changed.

iba

On another point for all your PS bashers and haters, do none of you recognise the sterling work that Enterprise Ireland, Tourism Island, Bord Bia etc do to attract firms to Ireland, to create investment in Ireland, to attract tourists to Ireland, to sell Irish produce abroad. PS groups like this have played no small part in assisting in the recovery.

MonkeyTennis

Employer PRSI is definitely there

Geuze

awec wrote: »

How would a nurse in a hospital produce 100k of output?

Given that average output per worker is 90,000 approx in Ireland, and given that nurses tend to work in an middle to above average productivity sector, then it's reasonable to say that they produce 100,000 worth of output.

You would need to know more about the costs of procedures, but it seems reasonable to me.


My point is this:

Bank official produces 100k of output vs nurse produces 100k of output

They both contribute equally to national income.

relax carry on

JillyQ wrote: »

It cetainly wasnt up until a couple of years ago Employees PRSI was paid but not Employers it may have changed.

Not to doubt you but can you provide any evidence of that at all? I can't recall ever hearing that before or seeing any evidence of it. It's a pretty odd exemption to have.

iba

JillyQ wrote: »

It cetainly wasnt up until a couple of years ago Employees PRSI was paid but not Employers it may have changed.

Sorry but you are wrong.

In the past, prior to about 1995 or something, some PS paid a lower PRSI contribution. But these meant that they were entitled to less benefits from the social welfare system. Since 1995 or whatever all PS pay full PRSI.

In addition, PS employer's all pay PRSI.

PRSI btw as implied by the name is an insurance that an employee pays into in case they fall on hard times and then can get help i.e. social welfare. That is what insurance is all about.

PRSI does not go towards paying wages of PS employees, it goes towards social welfare. Taxes and other Government income pays PS wages.

JillyQ

relax carry on wrote: »

Not to doubt you but can you provide any evidence of that at all? I can't recall ever hearing that before or seeing any evidence of it. It's a pretty odd exemption to have.

I just took a quick look on citizens information and cant find it. But i know for certain was there as i said it may have changed in the last couple of years.

Iwasfrozen

iba wrote: »

On another point for all your PS bashers and haters, do none of you recognise the sterling work that Enterprise Ireland, Tourism Island, Bord Bia etc do to attract firms to Ireland, to create investment in Ireland, to attract tourists to Ireland, to sell Irish produce abroad. PS groups like this have played no small part in assisting in the recovery.

Can we all agree to stop using ps as an acronym? I can't be the only one getting confused.

kippy

klark_kent wrote: »

that never happened , their was no talk of " laughing at public sector workers " during the boom until the crash happened

its a union concocted lie and one which was then spread by the faithful

public servants done better during the boom than the private sector , guards were earning sixty grand per year on average which was equal to what those on the building sites were pulling in but the brickies had no pension

Speaking of concocted lies, you seem eager enough to spread them yourself.
Where exactly did you get the figure of 60 grand a year as the average salary for a Guard, at any time in the past decade?
http://www.gra.cc/payscales.shtml
Theres the pay scales, hard to see how, the average pay of a member of the gardai would average 60K, then or now for that matter.

klark_kent

klark_kent wrote: »

my sister is a solicitor nearly ten years , she earns a good deal less than 50 k

She mustn't be doing it right so. You will look long and hard before you will find a working solicitor with 10 years experience only earning 50k never mind less. I have a number of friends in IT earning 50 to 70k and only in their late 20's with around 6 years experience.

JillyQ wrote: »

It cetainly wasnt up until a couple of years ago Employees PRSI was paid but not Employers it may have changed.

Employers prsi is definitely paid in the public sector, I see it on my payslip every month.

kippy

klark_kent wrote: »

that GRA site doesnt highlight the countless allowances which guards receive

And where exactly are these allowances set out.
I'd be skeptical as to thei impact of these allowances brining the average salary up to 60K per annum.

You've obviously got a reputable source for your 60K a year figure, please tell me where it is or have you worked it out yourself?

Quin_Dub

kippy wrote: »

And where exactly are these allowances set out.
I'd be skeptical as to thei impact of these allowances brining the average salary up to 60K per annum.

You've obviously got a reputable source for your 60K a year figure, please tell me where it is or have you worked it out yourself?

Salary scales and allowances