Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Public service pay cut?
Options
Comments
-
fliball123 wrote: »Both need each other and this is getting to the point, the public sector needs the private sector's tax to pay them. That tax is being eroded hense it is ridiculous to be paying pay rises in this situation.
I do know we need the public sector but can we have less incompetence and scandals and value for money?
The satisfaction surveys conducted of the civil and public sector wouldn’t reflect your stance, thankfully.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Like I just said show me one politician or party who when asking for my vote said they would be bailing out banks and insurance companies??
So now you want politicians to be able to predict the future? Did you not ask them when they were canvassing you about these future events? I assume you foresaw the Covid payments and such during the the last election. Did you ask any pandemic related questions the last time they called to your door?0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »AND?
theres a lot of govt spending that isnt public sector salaries
there's more than income taxation to meet exceptional economic demands on govt
thats it. thats the debate on your two main points pretty much done.
and it was really easy. youd almost have been expected to notice those two obvious items yourself.
nb the govt doesn't have to suddenly cut pay or workers in a year where it loses money as if it were a small town café
thats a ridiculous mentality to take towards a govt sector.
raised many the time for those with eyes willing to read and comprehend it
It might well survive a year without cuts.
But it can't borrow 25bn again I'm 20210 -
fliball123 wrote: »Barney answer this question do you accept that the tax payer covers the shortfall of public sector pensions?
Listen, you clown, I'm TRYING to hear you out. WTF are you actually proposing though?!
If you expect to be taken seriously suggesting fundamental, and apparently unconstitutional, changes (but maybe you have some magic formula, which I'm trying to glean) to contractual arrangements covering the employments of 15% of the workforce, you need to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter. Otherwise you're just talking, nay gibbering incoherently, out of your hoop.
Do you actually understand how a defined benefit pension scheme works? I didn't want to have to spoon feed you but I'll try to help you out.
Some of this stuff was explained, by the way, in the very straightforward link that I sent you and suggested you read, if you wanted to continue sh1teing on about defined benefit pensions.
All 330k+ serving PS employees have accrued a level of benefit, based on their service. This is money that the State has already committed to paying, it's spilt milk. There's also the current pensions being paid to retired PS workers, another puddle of milk.
If the employer wants to close a DB scheme it happens in one of a number of ways, it can freeze benefits as they stand for everyone and transfer everyone over to a new DC scheme, which then needs to be funded. By CONTRIBUTIONS. In the current system, the State takes about between 6.5% and 14% from the gross pay of every existing PS worker, and doesn't set it aside anywhere, it just uses it for whatever (let's say it puts it towards the cost of paying current pensions).
So, in a move to a DC scheme, the State now has to:
1. Take that 6.5 - 14% from the PS gross pay bill, and put it aside somewhere,
2. Match it with some level of employer's contribution (I know your forehead vein will be bulging at that, but that's just how DC schemes work in the real world), let's say for illustration purposes they make a middle of the road (by private sector standards) contribution of 10%.
3. Continue to pay lump sums and pensions to past, present and future retirees, on their accrued benefits from the now closed DB scheme.
So if you actually have the intelligence and arithmetic ability to wrap your mind around 1 - 3 above, even you will be able to see that the cash flow consequences of a sudden shift from a DB to DC scheme, are horrendous.
The State loses the benefit of somewhere near 8-10% of the PS pay bill straight away, then has to find the same again, to make employer's contributions, and STILL has materially the same pensions and lump sums bill, for years to come.
Another means of closing out a DB scheme is to close it to new members, put them into a DC scheme and continue as you were with pre-existing members. This mitigates the cash flow issue above, but means that it'll take decades before you see a difference, as all current PS workers remain in the DB scheme for the remainder of their career.
Another way is to transfer the DB scheme benefits across to a DC scheme. This would mean the State getting some very expensive actuaries in to figure out the current value of every employee's entitlements, and then put that aggregate figure, billions and billions, into a DC scheme, and then carry on into the future via a DC scheme. This is the biggest cash flow buster of all, as the transfer value would be enormous.
Now. What is it you're proposing? God knows you've had years to figure out and finesse it. Dazzle me.0 -
Belgian government just announced a 6% pay rise for those working in the health service.
Madness fliball, write them a strongly worded email and point out the error of their ways.0 -
Advertisement
-
barneystinson wrote: »Listen, you clown, I'm TRYING to hear you out. WTF are you actually proposing though?!
If you expect to be taken seriously suggesting fundamental, and apparently unconstitutional, changes (but maybe you have some magic formula, which I'm trying to glean) to contractual arrangements covering the employments of 15% of the workforce, you need to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter. Otherwise you're just talking, nay gibbering incoherently, out of your hoop.
Do you actually understand how a defined benefit pension scheme works? I didn't want to have to spoon feed you but I'll try to help you out.
Some of this stuff was explained, by the way, in the very straightforward link that I sent you and suggested you read, if you wanted to continue sh1teing on about defined benefit pensions.
All 330k+ serving PS employees have accrued a level of benefit, based on their service. This is money that the State has already committed to paying, it's spilt milk. There's also the current pensions being paid to retired PS workers, another puddle of milk.
If the employer wants to close a DB scheme it happens in one of a number of ways, it can freeze benefits as they stand for everyone and transfer everyone over to a new DC scheme, which then needs to be funded. By CONTRIBUTIONS. In the current system, the State takes about between 6.5% and 14% from the gross pay of every existing PS worker, and doesn't set it aside anywhere, it just uses it for whatever (let's say it puts it towards the cost of paying current pensions).
So, in a move to a DC scheme, the State now has to:
1. Take that 6.5 - 14% from the PS gross pay bill, and put it aside somewhere,
2. Match it with some level of employer's contribution (I know your forehead vein will be bulging at that, but that's just how DC schemes work in the real world), let's say for illustration purposes they make a middle of the road (by private sector standards) contribution of 10%.
3. Continue to pay lump sums and pensions to past, present and future retirees, on their accrued benefits from the now closed DB scheme.
So if you actually have the intelligence and arithmetic ability to wrap your mind around 1 - 3 above, even you will be able to see that the cash flow consequences of a sudden shift from a DB to DC scheme, are horrendous.
The State loses the benefit of somewhere near 8-10% of the PS pay bill straight away, then has to find the same again, to make employer's contributions, and STILL has materially the same pensions and lump sums bill, for years to come.
Another means of closing out a DB scheme is to close it to new members, put them into a DC scheme and continue as you were with pre-existing members. This mitigates the cash flow issue above, but means that it'll take decades before you see a difference, as all current PS workers remain in the DB scheme for the remainder of their career.
Another way is to transfer the DB scheme benefits across to a DC scheme. This would mean the State getting some very expensive actuaries in to figure out the current value of every employee's entitlements, and then put that aggregate figure, billions and billions, into a DC scheme, and then carry on into the future via a DC scheme. This is the biggest cash flow buster of all, as the transfer value would be enormous.
Now. What is it you're proposing? God knows you've had years to figure out and finesse it. Dazzle me.
Take the defined benefit element away make it contribution based and let the public servants have the OAP. They can put in as much as or little as they want but they cover the costs and is not guaranteed by the state is that clear enough for you. So freeze it and let it burn itself out as ps retire and die like all other DB schemes that have been frozen and closed all over the globe.
Can you show me a private sector company in Ireland giving 10% as outlined in your step 2 above in a DC scheme please and you reckon that is middle of the road for private sector?? Are you including all of those in the private sector who have 0% from their employer in that? Might sway your middle of road way way down. The state should not give anything as the Public servant will get their OAP instead so they shouldn't contribute any more towards their retiremnt, just like those of us in the private sector.
So If defined benefit is the way to go then tell me why the hell are they being closed down all over the globe. There will be a cost with current employees and retirees that you cant just take it from them but going forward it would ease the cost of pensions on the tax payer. Remember the state is not like an company it has to go on for ever and with that in mind moving to DC and giving them OAP will save billions in the long term, my kids will have to pay less for someone else's pension and my grand kids hopefully will have to pay nothing for them.
There you go some light reading for you TO EDUCATE YOURSELF
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/defined-benefit-plans-whered-they-go/
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/06/demiseofdbplan.asp
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/public-sector-pension-costs-forecast-to-more-than-double-by-2040-1.3570648
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/public-sector-pensions-worth-80-more-than-those-in-private-sector-1.37265530 -
Pogue eile wrote: »Belgian government just announced a 6% pay rise for those working in the health service.
Madness fliball, write them a strongly worded email and point out the error of their ways.
Personally I think front line Health care workers deserve more, consider what they did and over the past 4 months and continue to do, in comparison to office workers who work from the comfort of home and aren't to enthusiastic about going back in to their offices, teachers who have been off for three months and may refuse to go back in September etc.0 -
I have none, 37 hours is not long hours, it’s probably typical, if slightly below the average in Ireland of 39 hours. The way some posters are going on about long hours and extra hours agreed to in 2013 led me to think you guys were slaving away, turns out the 2013 brought most PSs up to just below the average working week. Poor lambs.
A good point ðŸ‘0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Take the defined benefit element away make it contribution based and let the public servants have the OAP. They can put in as much as or little as they want but they cover the costs and is not guaranteed by the state is that clear enough for you. So freeze it and let it burn itself out as ps retire and die like all other DB schemes that have been frozen and closed all over the globe.
Can you show me a private sector company in Ireland giving 10% as outlined in your step 2 above in a DC scheme please and you reckon that is middle of the road for private sector?? Are you including all of those in the private sector who have 0% from their employer in that? Might sway your middle of road way way down.
The irony of you telling anyone else to go and educate themselves, when you are absolutely impervious to facts that don't accord with your personal preconceived notions, would be hilarious, if it didn't waste so much oxygen.
The absolute irony of you asking me questions, the answers to which are contained in a link I offered you, which you REFUSED to read, is beyond hilarious, at the "cringe, what a complete moron, he really can't actually take on board anything anyone else has to say" end of the spectrum.
Here's the link, which no doubt you still won't open (despite being told it's fully relevant to the questions you've asked): https://iapf.ie/News/News/?id=47
But here's some of your answers, copied and pasted in so that it will be irrefutably evident that you're just an irrational, determinedly ignorant, ranter:
IAPF Survey: Employers contribute generously to replacement Defined Benefit Pension Schemes
28/05/2018 Posted by IAPF | Comments(0)
IAPF Survey: Employers contribute generously to replacement Defined Benefit Pension Schemes
Defined Contribution Scheme are the replacement following 9 out of 10 (88%) of Defined Benefit closures
88% of Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes that closed have selected a Defined Contribution (DC) arrangement as a replacement scheme, with the balance made up of PRSAs and Hybrid structures, according to a new survey by the Irish Association of Pension Funds.
Of the new schemes established, the maximum employer contribution rate exceeds 10% in half of the schemes, with 8% of employers contributing greater than 15% of salary.
In 44% of new DC structures, the employer matches the employee’s contribution, usually up to maximum of 10%-15% of salary.
In total, 86% of schemes paid more than the traditional, typical contribution rate of 5%.
These were the findings of the IAPF Defined Benefit Survey 2018, which examined 65 companies comprising of over 60,000 members, with pension savings in excess of €20bn.
Other findings included:
- 20% of companies surveyed still have a DB plan in place which is open to new entrants and future accrual of benefits
- Approximately 74% of companies have legacy DB arrangements in place which are closed to new members, with half of these being closed to future accrual
- 39% of closed DB schemes have removed future service accrual for existing active members
Speaking of the findings, Jerry Moriarty, CEO of the IAPF,
“While the migration from the much-coveted defined benefit scheme over the last few years has been difficult for many employees, our survey has revealed that those employers who have replaced the DB pension structure with a DC structure are making relatively generous contributions into those schemes on behalf of employees”.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Like I just said show me one politician or party who when asking for my vote said they would be bailing out banks and insurance companies??
Show me one politician who when asking for your vote said they wouldn't be bailing out banks and insurance companies.
Politicians are not public servants. They are elected representatives.0 -
Advertisement
-
Personally I think front line Health care workers deserve more, consider what they did and over the past 4 months and continue to do, in comparison to office workers who work from the comfort of home and aren't to enthusiastic about going back in to their offices, teachers who have been off for three months and may refuse to go back in September etc.
the dept/office (of approx 100) i work in, were told to come in as normal as we were "front line"l (with exception of a minority with health issues/conditions - understandable)...so was my sisters and a friends who work in different sections of the public sector, and a lot dealt with people face to face...i dont think we got the same luxury as the private sector0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Like I just said show me one politician or party who when asking for my vote said they would be bailing out banks and insurance companies??
Note that the funds used to re-capitalise the banks meant that Irish people were "bailed out".
Shareholders were wiped out.
Depositors were protected / bailed out = that means Irish people
Senior bond holders were protected, including the Irish holders of these bonds, like CUs.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Take the defined benefit element away make it contribution based and let the public servants have the OAP. They can put in as much as or little as they want but they cover the costs and is not guaranteed by the state is that clear enough for you. So freeze it and let it burn itself out as ps retire and die like all other DB schemes that have been frozen and closed all over the globe.
I wouldn't mind if the DB scheme for new staff was replaced with DC.
But I would expect enough contributions to fund similar benefits.
So I would expect employer = 20%, employee = 10%.
All PS hired since April 1995 pay full-rate PRSI, and will receive the State Pension.0 -
Note that the funds used to re-capitalise the banks meant that Irish people were "bailed out".
Shareholders were wiped out.
Depositors were protected / bailed out = that means Irish people
Senior bond holders were protected, including the Irish holders of these bonds, like CUs.
The real irony of the whole things is that the money that Charlie McCreevy put aside to pay for the pensions of public servants was used to bail out the bondholders, many of those bondholders being private sector pension schemes.0 -
I didn’t ignore it, if you were in the private sector now you wouldn’t be getting a wage increase. There have been a few PS posters on here whining that they took a wage cut AND had to work extra hours in 2013, the fact is, and you confirmed this yourself, the extra hours that they have to do just brought them into line with the private sector. I thought the way they were going on that they were all hitting 48 hours a week until I read the agreement.
No one is giving up the PSs and I do not think there should be pay cuts, there just should NOT be pay increases when employment rate in 24% and a high percentage of businesses will not be giving pay increases, with many reducing pay. Head over to the work problems thread, lots of posters there saying they have been put on part time or had to take 10% pay cuts.
Get down off the cross SW, you are not taking much of a hit by foregoing a 2% increase, the quarter of the work age population who are unemployed today would argue they are in a much worse position.
Im paid so highly I get FIS. Btw, it's not a pay increase. It's pay restoration. An Increase is more than you originally had.
The 2 % equates to a week's wages before deductions. Why is it my problem someone is out of work?
Why would you expect to use public services that the country can't afford to provide while expecting me to take the hit for that lack of affordability?
That's a lunatic talking!!0 -
SouthWesterly wrote: »Im paid so highly I get FIS. Btw, it's not a pay increase. It's pay restoration. An Increase is more than you originally had.
The 2 % equates to a week's wages before deductions. Why is it my problem someone is out of work?
If your current wage is increasing, it is an increase. Lots of people took pay cuts during the recession, only a PS would call an increase a “pay restoration”. It isn’t your problem, it’s a State problem, so the State shouldn’t be increasing your wages while there is 24% unemployment in the State and the State is having to borrow billions. How tone deaf are you?
You are not “taking a hit”, the Government just shouldn’t be giving you more of our (borrowed) money. We want the use of the public service but not with increased cost to the State at a time we can’t afford it.0 -
So in your opinion can every private sector worker go to their current employer and expect to get their pay restored to celtic tiger levels? Or if not, whats different?SouthWesterly wrote: »Im paid so highly I get FIS. Btw, it's not a pay increase. It's pay restoration. An Increase is more than you originally had.
The 2 % equates to a week's wages before deductions. Why is it my problem someone is out of work?
Indeed. You have just said that the country cannot afford you, yet you also want a 2% increase to current wages.Why would you expect to use public services that the country can't afford to provide while expecting me to take the hit for that lack of affordability?
That's a lunatic talking!!0 -
Indeed. You have just said that the country cannot afford you, yet you also want a 2% increase to current wages.
That's the mindset of the public sector. They don't care about the viability of the state because they know come what may the Government of the day will just continue to borrow.
See the Guards threatened strike against the State as proof of what they thought of it.
Or the nurses walking out of cancer wards.0 -
That's the mindset of the public sector. They don't care about the viability of the state because they know come what may the Government of the day will just continue to borrow.
See the Guards threatened strike against the State as proof of what they thought of it.
Or the nurses walking out of cancer wards.
Ultimately an individual cannot do anything about the 'viability of the state'. There are so many uncontrollables.
Individuals care about putting bread on the table, having as good a life as possible, whatever that may mean to them.
I don't think there's anyone on here, no matter what sector who would say that they should suffer a cut to their pay and conditions for thei viability of anything least it effect their own personal viability.
People don't see a bigger picture when there are so many variables.
There are very few non natural resource rich countries out there that don't borrow money. No one is saying borrowing money to pay wages is sustainable in the longer term however it depends on where those wages go and indeed it needs to be acknowledged that the states gross wage bill isn't the full picture.
The world ain't perfect but getting wound up about things you cannot control is never a good idea.
People will generally take as much as they can while they can while weighing up the variables and I don't think there's anyone here that wouldn't fight for an increase in salary.0 -
That's true, but it is a sad reflection on the Government caving into the public sector unions time and time again.
No one begrudges their negotiated increases when times are good. As people have pointed out, there has been no discussion about the pay until recently.
It's the money grabbing strikes and increases at a time when the economy is distressed that riles people up.
Ultimately the public sector are a particularly selfish breed.0 -
Advertisement
-
They are a group of individuals looking out for themselves. The same as any other group of individuals from any other sector.That's true, but it is a sad reflection on the Government caving into the public sector unions time and time again.
No one begrudges their negotiated increases when times are good. As people have pointed out, there has been no discussion about the pay until recently.
It's the money grabbing strikes and increases at a time when the economy is distressed that riles people up.
Ultimately the public sector are a particularly selfish breed.
To suggest otherwise is to admit a rather poor understanding of individuals in general.0 -
People will generally take as much as they can while they can while weighing up the variables and I don't think there's anyone here that wouldn't fight for an increase in salary.
Others are much more pragmatic. Look at all the businesses that shut for the good of public health - some voluntarily, resulting in massive losses to them and their employees.
Why did they comply in such a widespread way. If money was the bottom line the same way as it is for the public sector, the businesses should have just defied the orders and worked away.
We see unions defy the Government regularly with strikes and unreasonable work practices.0 -
Others are much more pragmatic. Look at all the businesses that shut for the good of public health - some voluntarily, resulting in massive losses to them and their employees.
Why did they comply in such a widespread way. If money was the bottom line the same way as it is for the public sector, the businesses should have just defied the orders and worked away.
We see unions defy the Government regularly with strikes and unreasonable work practices.
As I said, money isn't the bottom line for the public sector - it's one of a few variables that are analysed - the same as for anyone else (like the businesses you mention).
Lots of people in the public sector could have sat at home doing nothing for the past number of months but instead opted for transfer to another department or to volunteer elsewhere.
If you want to pick and chose and pick out very specific examples while completely misunderstanding the concepts I am talking about fire away - just don't expect any level of response to it.
The businesses wouldn't have had a choice in it at some point and it's often better to be ahead of the PR curve than behind it.
At the end of the day you tell me that you'd not try get a pay rise if there was a possibility of it on the table (no matter what the bigger picture is) and I'd call you a liar.0 -
At the end of the day you tell me that you'd not try get a pay rise if there was a possibility of it on the table (no matter what the bigger picture is) and I'd call you a liar.
Everyone wants more money, not everyone threatens strike or reverting to admitted inefficient ways to get it though.0 -
-
-
tayto lover wrote: »As I said before you need a union to get the proper pay and conditions.
Can’t beat a good union behind you.
If you are too useless to stand on your own two feet and prove yourself more worthy, maybe.
But the highest paid people in the country generally aren't in unions, industries like IT and Finance.0 -
If you are too useless to stand on your own two feet and prove yourself more worthy, maybe.
But the highest paid people in the country generally aren't in unions, industries like IT and Finance.
Do you see a lot of overlap / similarity between the above-mentioned and the majority of the public sector?
I'd be genuinely interested to see / hear your overarching vision for how public sector pay should be organised. Set forth your manifesto. There's plenty of open minded people willing to tease it out with you.0 -
I was quoting Dav. Do keep upSo in your opinion can every private sector worker go to their current employer and expect to get their pay restored to celtic tiger levels? Or if not, whats different?
Indeed. You have just said that the country cannot afford you, yet you also want a 2% increase to current wages.0 -
Advertisement
-
barneystinson wrote: »Do you see a lot of overlap / similarity between the above-mentioned and the majority of the public sector?
I'd be genuinely interested to see / hear your overarching vision for how public sector pay should be organised. Set forth your manifesto. There's plenty of open minded people willing to tease it out with you.
Same as in the private sector.
Each department or management team is given a budget to spend accordingly on salaries. Then distribute according to a bell curve on that department with the best performers getting the most and the poorest getting the least.
Allows for some flexibility in rewarding work and allows managers show appreciation in a more meaningful way.
Outside of this, everyone gets an increase or decrease in line with Cost of Living and economy performance.
Also, I'd allow for a cost of living allowance if the workplace was in Dublin or the cities.0
Advertisement