Why is everyone going on strike?

Idbatterim

Of course they are going to seek pay restoration, rightly or wrongly. The thing is though. I ask myself when many are admittedly on very modest wages, why are they having to fight for them. When the government had several hundred million to dole out on increased welfare and the Xmas bonus, for people doing nothing?

Rising ps pay, taking workers out of the tax net and welfare increases. Half way there to bust again, the other ingredients are loosening of central bank mortgage rules which government are desperate for and global crisis ...

Won't be surprised if we have to learn the lesson a third time round... But it won't matter, as kenny has made history now they have power short term, that's all that matters ...

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote: »

Is that the same cso which told us ireland had a growth rate of over 26% last year ?

Figures broadly described as fiction .

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/do-not-be-fooled-by-bizarre-fiction-of-cso-growth-figures-1.2719555

I wouldn't be putting much faith in their calculations .

So if it was the other way round where the CSO stats were showing Private Sector pay was higher than Public Sector pay, you would dismiss those figures as well? And not use it as a basis for an argument to increase public sector pay?

L

L wrote: »

Gardai start on 23k. They're not well paid.

And in Year 2, it raises to 28k. Add in the 4k Rent Allowance that the Govt offered to restore and it becomes 32k. Add in Overnight / Weekend / Sunday allowances and it becomes 33k.

So by Year 2, they are already earning the average wage in Ireland.

And Garda pay continues to rise in the following years, putting them well above the average wage.

And on top of that, they are demanding even more even though the country is still running at a loss.

Get up the yard with your 'they are not well paid' bluff.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

And in Year 2, it raises to 28k. Add in the 4k Rent Allowance that the Govt offered to restore and it becomes 32k. Add in Overnight / Weekend / Sunday allowances and it becomes 33k.

So by Year 2, they are already earning the average wage in Ireland.

And Garda pay continues to raise in the following years, putting them well above the average wage.

And on top of that, they are demanding even more even though the country is still running at a loss.

Get up the yard with your 'they are not well paid' bluff.

Incremental raises have been stopped.
New gardai are on 23k for the first 3 years.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Incremental raises have been stopped.
New gardai are on 23k for the first 3 years.

Care to expand on why they have been stopped?

Would it be because they opted to remain outside the LRA agreement?

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Care to expand on why they have been stopped?

Would it be because they opted to remain outside the LRA agreement?

Obviously it is.
However it's not really a negotiation when the government says ' here how about this?'
Workers say no, that's not good enough we need to negotiate further.
Then the government go ' no, take it and if you don't we will penalise you by stopping increments'

The point is, they are still in 23k for 3 years. So your figures above are wrong

Edit, and atm new recruits don't have the rent allowance, so unless/ until it is reinstated you can't count that either.

Graham

bubblypop wrote: »

Edit, and atm new recruits don't have the rent allowance, so unless/ until it is reinstated you can't count that either.

Wasn't the rent allowance part of the offer on the table?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Obviously it is.
However it's not really a negotiation when the government says ' here how about this?'
Workers say no, that's not good enough we need to negotiate further.
Then the government go ' no, take it and if you don't we will penalise you by stopping increments'

The point is, they are still in 23k for 3 years. So your figures above are wrong

Edit, and atm new recruits don't have the rent allowance, so unless/ until it is reinstated you can't count that either.

The Govt had offered to restore the rent allowance.

I am showing how by end of year 2, the garda would already be on the Irish average wage - if they signed up to LRA. The fact they didn't sign up to the LRA is on them. That's not including the partial restoration of pay from 2017 under LRA.

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying that already getting the average wage by end of Year 2 in the job - more with each passing year - is not enough ?

Then what is enough? Should we keep increasing the public pay until the unions say stop (or at least quit with the industrial action threats for another while), with complete dis-regard at how the private sector/economy at large is doing?

Jawgap

Graham wrote: »

I hate to constantly debunk the myth you're peddling.

I'll leave it to the CSO

The fallacy of the CSO figure has been long explained and yet people keep trotting it out like its the Third Secret of Fatima.

For a start the CSO can't allow for the fact that there are jobs in the private sector that simply don't exist in the Public Sector (because there is no need for them) yet the wages for those same jobs are included in the comparison.

Jawgap

salonfire wrote: »

The Govt had offered to restore the rent allowance.

I am showing how by end of year 2, the garda would already be on the Irish average wage - if they signed up to LRA. The fact they didn't sign up to the LRA is on them. That's not including the partial restoration of pay from 2017 under LRA.

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying that already getting the average wage by end of Year 2 in the job - more with each passing year - is not enough ?

Then what is enough? Should we keep increasing the public pay until the unions say stop (or at least quit with the industrial action threats for another while), with complete dis-regard at how the private sector/economy at large is doing?

Why would they sign up to an agreement they weren't involved in negotiating?

GRA and AGSI weren't even in the room because they're not allowed in the room.

The Muppet

Jawgap wrote: »

Graham wrote: »

I hate to constantly debunk the myth you're peddling.

I'll leave it to the CSO

The fallacy of the CSO figure has been long explained and yet people keep trotting it out like its the Third Secret of Fatima.

For a start the CSO can't allow for the fact that there are jobs in the private sector that simply don't exist in the Public Sector (because there is no need for them) yet the wages for those same jobs are included in the comparison.

True and there are under the counter payments and off the book payments .bonuses perks . Putting part of a salary through the books and paying the rest cash in hand in the private sector that the CSO figures can not account for. Every cent of PS pay is accounted for.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Why would they sign up to an agreement they weren't involved in negotiating?

GRA and AGSI weren't even in the room because they're not allowed in the room.

When they were getting pay raises at the time Ireland was awash with money, they weren't in the room then either. Did they refuse these increases?

Or is it only when pay goes down suddenly they cannot agree to it?


When people were suffering pay cuts and job losses, do you think they 'were in the room'?

tayto lover

salonfire wrote: »

When they were getting pay raises at the time Ireland was awash with money, they weren't in the room then either. Did they refuse these increases?

Or is it only when pay goes down suddenly they cannot agree to it?


When people were suffering pay cuts and job losses, do you think they 'were in the room'?

His point that they were not allowed discuss their own situation still stands. It's a situation no other section of workers has to endure and it's completely wrong.


By the way have you ever heard of any group refusing a pay increase?

cantwbr1

The Muppet wrote: »

True and there are under the counter payments and off the book payments .bonuses perks . Putting part of a salary through the books and paying the rest cash in hand in the private sector that the CSO figures can not account for. Every cent of PS pay is accounted for.

This is not true for the vast majority of workers. I'm sure that it happens for a minority but for everyone else everything is taxed.
In my own case I get health insurance (Tax, PRSI, USC and Insurance Levy). I am also eligible for a bonus. This is performance related (both mine and the companies) so may not be paid. This is also subject to all of the usual state deductions. I have never come across a company that pays anything under the table.

Your statement above is equivalent to "All PS workers are incompetent and sit on their backsides for 39 hours a week". We all know that this is untrue for >90% of PS workers but lets not let a bit of hyperbole get in they way of a proper discussion.

Jawgap

salonfire wrote: »

When they were getting pay raises at the time Ireland was awash with money, they weren't in the room then either. Did they refuse these increases?

Or is it only when pay goes down suddenly they cannot agree to it?


When people were suffering pay cuts and job losses, do you think they 'were in the room'?

that's not really the point though is it?

The fact is they weren't in the room for any of the social partnership negotiations so to say there are a 'party' to them is somewhat incorrect.

And even when they were getting pay rises it's still a pretty rotten job - you have to deal with people at their worst. My brother and brothers-in-law are Guards and frankly you could pay me 3 or 4 times what I'm getting now (never mind what a Guard gets) and I wouldn't do that job in a fit - they've had everything from broken cheekbones, to a herniated disc and a needle stabbing - and that's leaving aside the regular spitting and verbal abuse they have to put up with.

And as I said earlier if people think its such a cushy number, apply - they're recruiting now - get the job and you'll be on easy street.

The Muppet

cantwbr1 wrote: »

This is not true for the vast majority of workers. I'm sure that it happens for a minority but for everyone else everything is taxed.
In my own case I get health insurance (Tax, PRSI, USC and Insurance Levy). I am also eligible for a bonus. This is performance related (both mine and the companies) so may not be paid. This is also subject to all of the usual state deductions. I have never come across a company that pays anything under the table.

Your statement above is equivalent to "All PS workers are incompetent and sit on their backsides for 39 hours a week". We all know that this is untrue for >90% of PS workers but lets not let a bit of hyperbole get in they way of a proper discussion.

I never said it was true for the majority of workers, but as you admit yourself it does happen and so it shows that the CSO figures for private sector pay being promoted here can not be accurate.

That's the only reason I made the point it certainly was not to detract from proper discussion, you can't have a proper discussion if relevant factors are to be discounted.

cantwbr1

The Muppet wrote: »

I never said it was true for the majority of workers, but as you admit yourself it does happen and so it shows that the CSO figures for private sector pay being promoted here can not be accurate.

That's the only reason I made the point it certainly was not to detract from proper discussion, you can't have a proper discussion if relevant factors are to be discounted.

I accept that it probably happens, but not to an extent that it impacts the CSO figures for private sector pay. There are very few industries, apart from retail, that have sufficient unregulated cash to allow for such payments without some form of paper trail

Graham

The Muppet wrote: »

True and there are under the counter payments and off the book payments .bonuses perks . Putting part of a salary through the books and paying the rest cash in hand in the private sector that the CSO figures can not account for. Every cent of PS pay is accounted for.

:rolleyes:

If you're going to start throwing about about illegal activity you could equally (and incorrectly) suggest that PS pay rates are distorted by under the table payments for planning consent, penalty-points, lost evidence......

The Muppet

cantwbr1 wrote: »

I accept that it probably happens, but not to an extent that it impacts the CSO figures for private sector pay. There are very few industries, apart from retail, that have sufficient unregulated cash to allow for such payments without some form of paper trail

Any payment not represented in the CSO figures would impact those figures would it not?

Retail is a massive sector but its not the only one has access to cash , It is estimated that the black economy costs the state € 6 billion annually.

Graham

Jawgap wrote: »

And as I said earlier if people think its such a cushy number, apply - they're recruiting now - get the job and you'll be on easy street.

Nobody suggested it was a cushy job. Where on earth did you get that from?

Graham

The Muppet wrote: »

Any payment not represented in the CSO figures would impact those figures would it not?

Again???

Are you suggesting cash for passports, driving licenses, penalty-point vanishing, planning permission is all happening to such an extent that it effects CSO figures?

To be clear, I don't think it happens to any statistically relevant degree. I'm merely highlighting the absurdity of some of the points being made.

The Muppet

Graham wrote: »

Again???

Are you suggesting cash for passports, driving licenses, penalty-point vanishing, planning permission is all happening to such an extent that it effects CSO figures?

ah you're clutching at straws now Graham, sure we may as well include proceeds from drug dealing , criminality etc in the private sector figures so and be done with it.

Graham

The Muppet wrote: »

ah you're clutching at straws now Graham, sure we may as well include drug dealing , criminality in the private sector figures so and be done with it.

and in the public sector. Im glad you finally agree that it's a rather ridiculous misdirect. Perhaps you'll let that particular line of excusery drop.

Jawgap

Graham wrote: »

Nobody suggested it was a cushy job. Where on earth did you get that from?

Well if people are suggesting someone is overpaid for what they do, then is it not reasonable to assume that people see the someone as being overpaid?

Lots of "I-don't-know-how-they-can't-survive-on-€x-per-year" etc type stories.

Graham

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if people are suggesting someone is overpaid for what they do, then is it not reasonable to assume that people see the someone as being overpaid?

Lots of "I-don't-know-how-they-can't-survive-on-€x-per-year" etc type stories.

Which is entirely different to somebody suggesting Gardai have a cushy job.

Jawgap

Graham wrote: »

Which is entirely different to somebody suggesting Gardai have a cushy job.

Sorry, I mis-typed.....

if people see someone as overpaid for the job they do, then isn't it reasonable to assume that they see the job as 'cushy' relative to the salary paid?

Graham

Jawgap wrote: »

if people see someone as overpaid for the job they do, then isn't it reasonable to assume that they see the job as 'cushy' relative to the salary paid?

No. Overpaid does not equal cushy.

Come to think of it, there's not been a huge amount of suggestion that Gardai are overpaid. The most common point is there is nothing left in the pot to increase the current pay significantly.

PolaroidPizza

The general public should be pushing for lower cost of living...but instead self serving unions are justifying their positions by pushing for pay increases.

Right2Write

newwan wrote: »

Drivers, teachers, nurses likely and guards blu flu...
What is going on?

The budget? An annual event where everyone lines up and holds out their hands?

Jawgap

Graham wrote: »

No. Overpaid does not equal cushy.

Come to think of it, there's not been a huge amount of suggestion that Gardai are overpaid. The most common point is there is nothing left in the pot to increase the current pay significantly.

We're running trade surpluses.....

.....our debt pile is shrinking....

...the year on year deficit has been halved in absolute terms and in relation to GDP....

....the PBSR has halved in the last year.....

....reserves are up 14% on the last year....

....tax revenues are 1.5% ahead of profile and 5.7% up year on year

.....so really, you'd have to wonder why people believe the pot is empty?

Graham

Jawgap wrote: »

.....so really, you'd have to wonder why people believe the pot is empty?

Off the top of my head without thinking too hard:

Our debt pile is still substantial.
We've relatively little in reserve.
Our public sector pay is already well above the EU average.
At some point those public sector employees are going to retire, the burden on the state is going to be eye-watering.

blackwhite

The Muppet wrote: »

ah you're clutching at straws now Graham, sure we may as well include proceeds from drug dealing , criminality etc in the private sector figures so and be done with it.

By quoting your €6bn "black economy" number, that's exactly what you tried to do.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

.....so really, you'd have to wonder why people believe the pot is empty?

Because it is?
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-budget



We are still not covering the day-to-day running costs of the state. We have decimated capital expenditure in order to reduce this deficit, but we're still not able to.

The pot is empty and we're still using the credit card. That's probably why people think that the pot is empty.

BoJack Horseman

Jawgap wrote: »

so really, you'd have to wonder why people believe the pot is empty?

Y-O-Y increases in 'X' tell an incomplete picture.

Look at it this way, public expenditure in 2017 will be the same as it was a decade ago in 2007.

That is 10 years of an aging, growing population & a decade of inflation eating away at what a given amount of money can deliver.

So, the Irish state is still very much cash-strapped.

Ireland simply cannot & should not go back to the Bertie/McCreevey spunking away of money they don't have.

The Muppet

Graham wrote: »

Again???

Are you suggesting cash for passports, driving licenses, penalty-point vanishing, planning permission is all happening to such an extent that it effects CSO figures?

The Muppet wrote: »

ah you're clutching at straws now Graham, sure we may as well include proceeds from drug dealing , criminality etc in the private sector figures so and be done with it.

blackwhite wrote: »

By quoting your €6bn "black economy" number, that's exactly what you tried to do.

I'm afraid you are wrong,

"undeclared lawful economic activity in Ireland was equivalent to 12.2pc of GDP in 2013 (the study does not include illegal activities such as drug dealing and pimping). "


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/our-black-economy-is-small-but-it-should-shrink-even-further-31085003.html

tayto lover

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Y-O-Y increases in 'X' tell an incomplete picture.

Look at it this way, public expenditure in 2017 will be the same as it was a decade ago in 2007.

That is 10 years of an aging, growing population & a decade of inflation eating away at what a given amount of money can deliver.

So, the Irish state is still very much cash-strapped.

Ireland simply cannot & should not go back to the Bertie/McCreevey spunking away of money they don't have.

So basically your party, FG, was spouting lies and nonsense for the past few months? (or was it all along?).

BoJack Horseman

tayto lover wrote: »

So basically your party, FG, was spouting lies and nonsense for the past few months? (or was it all along?).

Probably.

If only we had an effective opposition eh!

If only the 100+ non-FG TD would form a government and deliver us from this evil!

Graham

The Muppet wrote: »

"undeclared lawful economic activity in Ireland was equivalent to 12.2pc of GDP in 2013 (the study does not include illegal activities such as drug dealing and pimping). "

What a bizarre train of thought. There's undeclared economic activity so the PS deserve a pay rise.

I have to give you top marks for lateral thinking.

The Muppet

Graham wrote: »

What a bizarre train of thought. There's undeclared economic activity so the PS deserve a pay rise.

I have to give you top marks for lateral thinking.

Thanks Graham, I'm suprised you cant see the relevance of a €6 billion loss to the exchequer through under the counter payments and the discussion. Its hardly an insignificant amount.

Let me guess we should discount that too yeah?

Graham

The Muppet wrote: »

Thanks Graham, I'm suprised you cant see the relevance of a €6 billion loss to the exchequer through under the counter payments and the discussion.

So you're point still appears to be the PS deserve a pay rise because black economy.

Bizarre.

Peter Flynt

As a public servant myself, I certainly would not enter the public service in Ireland if starting out again.

Absolutely no way.

Peter Flynt

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ireland simply cannot & should not go back to the Bertie/McCreevey spunking away of money they don't have.

In each year of Bertie/McCreevy a budget surplus was recorded.

Wages across the economy rose and we all know the reasons why.

Graham

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Wages across the economy rose and we all know the reasons why.

Spending money we don't have.

We shouldn't do it again.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

that's not really the point though is it?

The fact is they weren't in the room for any of the social partnership negotiations so to say there are a 'party' to them is somewhat incorrect.

And even when they were getting pay rises it's still a pretty rotten job - you have to deal with people at their worst. My brother and brothers-in-law are Guards and frankly you could pay me 3 or 4 times what I'm getting now (never mind what a Guard gets) and I wouldn't do that job in a fit - they've had everything from broken cheekbones, to a herniated disc and a needle stabbing - and that's leaving aside the regular spitting and verbal abuse they have to put up with.

And as I said earlier if people think its such a cushy number, apply - they're recruiting now - get the job and you'll be on easy street.

You have me really confused now.. are you saying that by giving the pay raises they want will fix the issues of violence they face? That increased pay will make a broken cheekbone less broken??

If they do get injured, they are compensated for it on top of the regular salary. So I don't know why you are bringing that into a discussion about pay.


And if you are going to make glib remarks suggesting we all apply, maybe you could do the courtesy of following up with substantive information on how exactly that would help the country afford union demands?

The Muppet

Graham wrote: »

The Muppet wrote: »

Thanks Graham, I'm suprised you cant see the relevance of a 6 billion loss to the exchequer through under the counter payments and the discussion.

So you're point still appears to be the PS deserve a pay rise because black economy.

Bizarre.

If that's your interpretation of what I said that's fine . Of course we both know that's not the case. At least you're consistant with your ostrich approach to some of the problems with our economy .

Peter Flynt

Graham wrote: »

Spending money we don't have.

We shouldn't do it again.

We didn't do it in the first place. Do you know what a budget surplus is?

In each year of Bertienomics the country was spending less than it took in.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

We didn't do it in the first place. Do you know what a budget surplus is?

In each year of Bertienomics the country was spending less than it took in.

Fueled by charts that look like this.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp-from-construction


Should we return to that? Any issues that might unearth?

Peter Flynt

salonfire wrote: »

And if you are going to make glib remarks suggesting we all apply, maybe you could do the courtesy of following up with substantive information on how exactly that would help the country afford union demands?

Union demands?

I haven't seen much in demands from the unions since 2008.

It is a simple fact that the state, since 2008, has asked public sector workers to pay more in deductions than any other worker, as they were asked to take higher cuts. This is beyond dispute as separate levies were installed on public sector workers, simply for being public sector workers and no other reason.

Now the "emergency" caused by the 2008 financial crash is going on longer than the emergency declared in September 1939 for WW2.

Graham

Peter Flynt wrote: »

We didn't do it in the first place. Do you know what a budget surplus is?

In each year of Bertienomics the country was spending less than it took in.

The resulting tax on....... wait for it .......... borrowed money and over-inflated property values.

You'll have to excuse me if I'm not supportive of another round of imprudent lending to inflate property related activity in order to support a PS in a manner that it would like to become accustomed.

Peter Flynt

Graham wrote: »

The resulting tax on....... wait for it .......... borrowed money and over-inflated property values.

You claimed that the state was spending money it didn't have.
That claim was wrong.