Public sector pay increase

facing_west

its a pointless discussion

the public sector will receive a pay rise as its politically urgent they do , labour are going to loose a chunk of seats in the next election anyway but will loose even more if the goverment doesnt throw a bone towards labours base

all political parties vigorously court the public sector vote in this country , after pensioners , they are the second most powerful voting bloc and that will not change anytime soon

btw , i dont for a second believe the line that most are on crap pay , a clerical officer in any department is on a lot more than most sectretarys who work in solicitors offices , many clerical officers spend their day answering calls , posting mail and using a photo copier yet pull in 30 k per year

facing_west

ratracer wrote: »

But stripped down where exactly? Anywhere I've read, including this thread, its front line staff getting hammered:

Cut teachers -> bigger class size -> not good enough
Cut health staff -> long hospital waiting times etc, poor patient care in wards
Cut/freeze AGS -> more crime/less response.

In all cases, the top heavy management make decisions on critical staffing levels etc, and they are never going to vote themselves out of a job.

There are a lot of way PS money could be saved without ever cutting staff.

their is a pretty easy solution to the issue of class sized , close a tonne of rural primary schools , the one i went to currently has less than twenty pupils yet has two teachers , were it to be closed , the furthest any kid would have to travel to the nearest larger school is three miles , there is a second school the other end of the parish which also has less than twenty pupils , again if it was closed , the furthest the students would have to travel to the school in the village centre ( which has a hundred and only built a new school five years ago ) is three miles

a major problem in this country is people expecting every possible service on their doorstep

kippy

facing_west wrote: »

its a pointless discussion

the public sector will receive a pay rise as its politically urgent they do , labour are going to loose a chunk of seats in the next election anyway but will loose even more if the goverment doesnt throw a bone towards labours base

all political parties vigorously court the public sector vote in this country , after pensioners , they are the second most powerful voting bloc and that will not change anytime soon

btw , i dont for a second believe the line that most are on crap pay , a clerical officer in any department is on a lot more than most sectretarys who work in solicitors offices , many clerical officers spend their day answering calls , posting mail and using a photo copier yet pull in 30 k per year

The public sector as a whole are not Labour supporters and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the block as a whole vote en-mass for one particular party.

kippy

facing_west wrote: »

their is a pretty easy solution to the issue of class sized , close a tonne of rural primary schools , the one i went to currently has less than twenty pupils yet has two teachers , were it to be closed , the furthest any kid would have to travel to the nearest larger school is three miles , there is a second school the other end of the parish which also has less than twenty pupils , again if it was closed , the furthest the students would have to travel to the school in the village centre ( which has a hundred and only built a new school five years ago ) is three miles

a major problem in this country is people expecting every possible service on their doorstep

I'd agree with that 100%.

facing_west

kippy wrote: »

The public sector as a whole are not Labour supporters and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the block as a whole vote en-mass for one particular party.

i said all parties vigorously court their vote , they are an enormous block , three hundred thousand and those people all have relatives who may vote based on their niece a nurse having gotten a pay cut or a pay rise

they are the base of the labour party and labour are in terrible trouble so need their base to come out in some shape or form on election day

facing_west

kippy wrote: »

I'd agree with that 100%.

most would not however , we are an incredibly parochial people in outlook when it comes to resources and how money should be spent on them , im from rural ireland but firmly believe that rural ireland has too much spent upon it

ratracer

facing_west wrote: »

their is a pretty easy solution to the issue of class sized , close a tonne of rural primary schools , the one i went to currently has less than twenty pupils yet has two teachers , were it to be closed , the furthest any kid would have to travel to the nearest larger school is three miles , there is a second school the other end of the parish which also has less than twenty pupils , again if it was closed , the furthest the students would have to travel to the school in the village centre ( which has a hundred and only built a new school five years ago ) is three miles

a major problem in this country is people expecting every possible service on their doorstep

But closing those two schools then puts another 40 or so pupils into the other school, further increasing class sizes? The teachers might be freed up, but then space becomes limited!

Quin_Dub

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What performance goals would you set for firemen? Or nurses?

The increment system should not be part of this discussion. It would be easy for the employer to say to a fireman you didn't put out enough fires last year so you stay on your starting pay. Forever.

Easy -

Attendance , Completion of required training. Getting above X grade in audits etc.

Everything can be measured.

facing_west

facing_west wrote: »

their is a pretty easy solution to the issue of class sized , close a tonne of rural primary schools , the one i went to currently has less than twenty pupils yet has two teachers , were it to be closed , the furthest any kid would have to travel to the nearest larger school is three miles , there is a second school the other end of the parish which also has less than twenty pupils , again if it was closed , the furthest the students would have to travel to the school in the village centre ( which has a hundred and only built a new school five years ago ) is three miles

a major problem in this country is people expecting every possible service on their doorstep

I would very much disagree, it is important for communities to maintain their facilities and one thing is keeping their primary schools open.

as_mo_bhosca

facing_west wrote: »

their is a pretty easy solution to the issue of class sized , close a tonne of rural primary schools , the one i went to currently has less than twenty pupils yet has two teachers , were it to be closed , the furthest any kid would have to travel to the nearest larger school is three miles , there is a second school the other end of the parish which also has less than twenty pupils , again if it was closed , the furthest the students would have to travel to the school in the village centre ( which has a hundred and only built a new school five years ago ) is three miles

a major problem in this country is people expecting every possible service on their doorstep

I totally agree with you on this. There are some remote places where small schools are justified but not in the majority of cases. Children in these schools cost multiples of the amount it costs to educate children in "full size" schools. Keep the number of teachers in the country the same, reduce class size. You could also increase the amount of money schools get to run the school. Currently no where near enough.

Quin_Dub

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

I would very much disagree, it is important for communities to maintain their facilities and one thing is keeping their primary schools open.

Can't agree there..

In my area there are 3 schools within a 4 mile radius , one has about 250 pupils and a brand new building with all mod con. The other 2 are 25 and 40 pupils respectively with 5 teachers between them. Both schools have a "principcal" teacher as well on the salary to match...

Shutting those 2 smaller schools and moving the staff and pupils to the large new school makes total and utter sense.

Better facilities for the pupils , reduce running costs (insurance , maintenance etc) and better use of resources.

They have begun discussions to close the smaller school for next September thankfully, but the other one should close too in my view..

In terms of "community" and location - Both schools are literally in the middle of nowhere - No village, no shop , no pub, no post-office - Nothing.. Just a (tiny) school building on the side of a road...


There will be situations where a small school needs to stay for various reasons - totally accept that , but equally there are lots of examples like mine above where consolidation is a no-brainer.

facing_west

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

I would very much disagree, it is important for communities to maintain their facilities and one thing is keeping their primary schools open.

so you think closing a school with nineteen pupils which results in those pupils having to travel to the centre of the parish less than three miles away , is going to damage a community ?

im not talking about the northern territory in australia or even connemarra where closing a school , means having to travel twenty miles

facing_west

as_mo_bhosca wrote: »

I totally agree with you on this. There are some remote places where small schools are justified but not in the majority of cases. Children in these schools cost multiples of the amount it costs to educate children in "full size" schools. Keep the number of teachers in the country the same, reduce class size. You could also increase the amount of money schools get to run the school. Currently no where near enough.

three primary schools in the parish i grew up in , two have less than twenty pupils , one has around 130 and was only built six years ago , had the planners any brains , they would have built a bigger new one and closed the two small ones but sure then the oppositions campaigns would begin and no one does hyperbolic over the top rural opposition campaigns like we do

facing_west

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Can't agree there..

In my area there are 3 schools within a 4 mile radius , one has about 250 pupils and a brand new building with all mod con. The other 2 are 25 and 40 pupils respectively with 5 teachers between them. Both schools have a "principcal" teacher as well on the salary to match...

Shutting those 2 smaller schools and moving the staff and pupils to the large new school makes total and utter sense.

Better facilities for the pupils , reduce running costs (insurance , maintenance etc) and better use of resources.

They have begun discussions to close the smaller school for next September thankfully, but the other one should close too in my view..

In terms of "community" and location - Both schools are literally in the middle of nowhere - No village, no shop , no pub, no post-office - Nothing.. Just a (tiny) school building on the side of a road...


There will be situations where a small school needs to stay for various reasons - totally accept that , but equally there are lots of examples like mine above where consolidation is a no-brainer.

bar those who attend a school , a school brings nothing to a community , if you have no kids at a school , what interest have you in the place unless you are particulary unusual

in the vast majority of cases , closing small rural schools , means relocating to a larger one only a few miles over the road , ireland is not siberia , western australia or even the outer hebredies

the north west donegal examples get trotted out as typical , especially on the likes of the jonathan healy show on newstalk

suicide_circus

Why not increase salaries based on performance?

Jawgap

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why not increase salaries based on performance?

Because measuring performance in the PS is not as straightforward as people would have you believe.

suicide_circus

Jawgap wrote: »

Because measuring performance in the PS is not as straightforward as people would have you believe.

How convenient

Jawgap

suicide_circus wrote: »

How convenient

It's not 'convenient' - it's true.

Someone equated the work of a nurse to a health care assistant in this thread and someone else suggested orderliness of files would be a reasonable performance measure......

Would you rather have a nurse who gets around to visit X number of patients in a shift and who keeps good files - or would you rather have a nurse who is quick enough to catch junior doctors' errors?

Likewise, who is the better cop - the one who has dozens of arrests, or the one who diverts offenders or prevents crime?

If it's so easy, devise a system.

suicide_circus

Well then why increase pay if there is no proff it's deserved? Why the reward?

Jawgap

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well then why increase pay if there is no proff it's deserved? Why the reward?

Pay isn't being increased, it's being restored.

The reason for it the deduction is now passing - so the justification for maintaining the cuts is now passing. It's only fair people get back what was taken from them unilaterally.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not 'convenient' - it's true.

Someone equated the work of a nurse to a health care assistant in this thread and someone else suggested orderliness of files would be a reasonable performance measure......

Would you rather have a nurse who gets around to visit X number of patients in a shift and who keeps good files - or would you rather have a nurse who is quick enough to catch junior doctors' errors?

Likewise, who is the better cop - the one who has dozens of arrests, or the one who diverts offenders or prevents crime?

If it's so easy, devise a system.

The worst thing is that nurses are being inspected somewhat nowadays but the inspections are all of paper work and nothing to do with their actual work.

Essentially (listening to family members in the profession) from a covering your ass point of view its more important to write down that you did "x" or "y" than actually doing it, if you do it and don't write it you could be in hassle but (and I'm not saying this would happen) if you wrote it and didn't do it then it probably would never be known.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well then why increase pay if there is no proff it's deserved? Why the reward?

There is a long long way to go before public sector workers return to a fair wage, the word increase shouldn't be used.

suicide_circus

Jawgap wrote: »

Pay isn't being increased, it's being restored.

The reason for it the deduction is now passing - so the justification for maintaining the cuts is now passing. It's only fair people get back what was taken from them unilaterally.

Ok fair enough. This use of "unilaterally" annoys me. Of course it was unilateral!

Jawgap

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ok fair enough. This use of "unilaterally" annoys me. Of course it was unilateral!

Yes, but a deal - Croke Park - had been agreed and one party just did a 'fu$k you' and pulled the plug.

Imagine the row that would follow if PS workers signed up to a deal and suddenly decided a few months into it that it no longer suited them and decided to engage in industrial action? Rightly, there'd be war!

PS workers agreed a deal and it turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on - if they agree another one should they be free to renege at their convenience?

Iwasfrozen

Jawgap wrote: »

Pay isn't being increased, it's being restored.

The reason for it the deduction is now passing - so the justification for maintaining the cuts is now passing. It's only fair people get back what was taken from them unilaterally.

The reason for the cuts has not passed. Ireland has a debt to gap ratio of 110. And we still have a budget deficit.

suicide_circus

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, but a deal - Croke Park - had been agreed and one party just did a 'fu$k you' and pulled the plug.

Imagine the row that would follow if PS workers signed up to a deal and suddenly decided a few months into it that it no longer suited them and decided to engage in industrial action? Rightly, there'd be war!

PS workers agreed a deal and it turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on - if they agree another one should they be free to renege at their convenience?

Was social partnership a 100% good thing for the country?

al22

To increase pay in one area means to cut mpney somewere else. Do Ireland have the xtra income for that? If yes, why Ireland borrow more?

omega man

Isn't our national debt close to 200 billion? How can we justify any PS wage increases under such circumstances?

I doubt many, if any, private companies would pay wage increases if they were extremely debt-laden.

I appreciate providing a public service isn't run under the same criteria as a private industry but surely with such massive national debt levels we can't consider this, not right now anyway.

PeteFalk78

omega man wrote: »

Isn't our national debt close to 200 billion?

How come there wasn't a similar outcry when the double dole Christmas payment was reintroduced in 2014?

KomradeBishop

You reduce debt to GDP by growing GDP/the-economy, by spending money into the economy (from government), and keeping at that while trying to reach full private sector employment, which increases overall tax revenue, allowing the budget to be balanced later on, and debts to be paid down later on.

What matters is not the overall level of debt, but the interest rate on the debt you use to do this, which is what determines how sustainable this is - and interest on debt is at its lowest level in more than 30 years, so there is a lot of room for increased spending.

OldieWilson

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You reduce debt to GDP by growing GDP/the-economy, by spending money into the economy (from government), and keeping at that while trying to reach full private sector employment, which increases overall tax revenue, allowing the budget to be balanced later on, and debts to be paid down later on.

Yes, and the way to do that is through decreasing tax on work rather than increasing expenditure

Jawgap

suicide_circus wrote: »

Was social partnership a 100% good thing for the country?

Generally I'd say yes - but it's not much of a 'partnership' if one partner can ram their view down everyone else's throat.

smash

Instead of dishing out pay increases why not slightly reduce USC for everyone in the country?

kippy

smash wrote: »

Instead of dishing out pay increases why not slightly reduce USC for everyone in the country?

I'd be for this 100%.
Makes more sense on many levels.

Kermit.de.frog

Cutting taxes puts more in peoples pockets and maintains competitiveness.

The right thing to do.

smash

kippy wrote: »

I'd be for this 100%.
Makes more sense on many levels.

It's a tax that was supposed to be temporary, much like the public sector pay freezes, but it's been said now that it will never go away as it brings in over 4.7bn a year. However I think if they want to stimulate the economy or give a bit back the PS increases aren't the way to go. A reduction in USC would benefit everyone, and then sure why not just call a spade a spade and add it to the base tax brackets instead of trying to hide it as a sub tax.

KomradeBishop

OldieWilson wrote: »

Yes, and the way to do that is through decreasing tax on work rather than increasing expenditure

The way to do that, is to do both - increasing money in peoples hands and flowing more money into the private economy directly (restoring damaged public services in the process - which provides indirect benefits to the private economy too).

KomradeBishop

smash wrote: »

Instead of dishing out pay increases why not slightly reduce USC for everyone in the country?

Or, as said above, do both.

Jawgap

Reduce USC or increase the threshold at which it becomes payable - I think I'd prefer the latter.

.......not so long ago I would have been more pre-disposed towards PS wage increases:D

Zzippy

PS worker, love my job, I'd actually do it for less money but hey, I wouldn't tell the boss that... I appreciate that I'm lucky to have a job and enough money to get by. I'd much rather see a reduction in the unfair USC that would benefit everyone, particularly low-paid workers in both sectors. 2% increase after tax would mean feck all to me anyway.

And for those saying the PS is overstaffed - not a clue. I'm in an agency where we lost 200 staff (out of less than 500) through retirement, voluntary redundancy, non-renewal of contracts. We get constant criticism now because we're perceived as not doing our job - the fact is our staff are stretched so thinly around the country now that we haven't got the resources in staff and/or equipment to cover everything. I'd prefer to see money put into more staff rather than existing staff...

smash

Jawgap wrote: »

Reduce USC or increase the threshold at which it becomes payable - I think I'd prefer the latter.

I wouldn't be one to encourage reducing the threshold at which it becomes payable. This only benefits those on the lower end of the scale.

Jawgap

smash wrote: »

I wouldn't be one to encourage the threshold at which it becomes payable. This only benefits those on the lower end of the scale.

Well it benefits disproportionately those on the lower end of the scale - who, let's face it, would be on the sh1tt1est of sh1tty wages.

Plus it sends a message out that work pays.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Reduce USC or increase the threshold at which it becomes payable - I think I'd prefer the latter.

.......not so long ago I would have been more pre-disposed towards PS wage increases:D

I wouldn't increase the threshold and unfortunately its being discussed as being a possibility.

One of the few good things about USC is that it requires those on low incomes to contribute something where they are out of the net for most other things.

Galwayguy35

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

I wouldn't increase the threshold and unfortunately its being discussed as being a possibility.

One of the few good things about USC is that it requires those on low incomes to contribute something where they are out of the net for most other things.

What do you call a low income and what are these "most other things" you think I am out of the net for?

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

What do you call a low income and what are these "most other things" you think I am out of the net for?

Anyone earning over 10k a year pays a little USC but it takes up to about 18k before PAYE is paid, PRSI only kicks in after a certain income is reached etc also.

I'm no fan of USC it costs me nearly 2k a year but I'd either like it reduced across the board or totally abolished but I would not raise the threshold.

SMASH IRISH WATER

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

Quin_Dub

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

So.. 4 posts across 2 threads and your message is "I want everything for free and someone else should pay for it" ?

Interesting.

SMASH IRISH WATER

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

You can't really believe that nonsense you just wrote there?

Galwayguy35

When asked, Howlin didn't rule out a pay rise for TD's either in an article I was reading earlier on.

smash

SMASH IRISH WATER wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace to be paying an increase to lazy PS workers who are untouchable. Nothing in this country changes! If the government actually cared about the people and not just getting votes, they would give money to those who need it, such as those on social welfare or lower-paid private workers.

No one in the public sector should be earning more than 50k a year. Some of the salaries are obscene.

You're a disgrace to your username! :mad:

Quin_Dub

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

When asked, Howlin didn't rule out a pay rise for TD's either in an article I was reading earlier on.

This is the problem with these blanket (union mandated) Pay rises/Pay cuts..


And it's the fundamental issue here. PS unions have, for years, resisted the introduction of meritocracy in the PS. They also fought against targeted redundancies/pay cuts during the Croke Park negotiations.

Until pay cut/rises etc. can be targeted at the most effective areas we wil never solve the fundamental issues..

The best people should be able to see a clear path to higher wages/promotion and the worst people should equally be able to see a clear path to the door....

That is not currently the case.