Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

Peter Flynt

Hearing through the grapevine that the plan is for a one year deal. Not aware of any percentage figures yet.

Hotblack Desiato

The shorter the better tbh. Needs an element of retrospection though.

combat14

RTe 3.8% & WTW Survey 4%

Raidió Teilifís Éireann

https://www.rte.ie › News › Business

Four in five firms plan pay increases next year with average of 3.8%

WTW

https://www.wtwco.com › 2023/08

Employers in Ireland to increase pay by 4% in 2024

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121478148#Comment_121478148

This one. Being abused by your employer and that's it would be illegal elsewhere. Such far-fetched nonsense that's clearly eating you up inside.

1. It's no more than you would pay anywhere else, unless you can link to the private pension product that gives you the same guaranteed payout for less than you are paying now?

2. Private employees will also have additional contributions taken out towards their pension under auto-enrollment. They can leave for a period but will be re-enrolled again.

3. The cost of providing your pension has gone up due to changing demographics, therefore the cost to you has gone up. Your employer is no more "abusing" their position than the milkman is, charging you more for a litre of milk now than last year due to rising costs.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121421717#Comment_121421717

Gusser09

Probably looking at 6 percent if it one year. Id take it. Many here wont which is fair enough.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488434#Comment_121488434

Thats a solid 1 year deal. Is that just your guess?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488377#Comment_121488377

You need to be careful with your words when you accuse people of telling lies. I didn't say that I was abused by my employer. I said "abusing their tax raising power to target their employees" which is exactly what happened.

No other employer could unilaterally change terms and conditions. Government played their legal games, technically not changing terms and conditions, but using their tax raising powers, which have never before been used to impose a tax on people based solely on their employer, to impose a salary deduction on a particular group of staff - something that no other employer could do.

'No more than you would pay anywhere else' is an attempt to skim over the reality of what happened. Employees signed contracts with particular remuneration, an overall deal including salary and pension. How the employer funded that salary and pension is the employer's issue. The employer actually chooses to fund pension payments out of current expenditure, not out of any deductions applied to those employees over the years. In broad terms, employees chose to accept lower salaries than would apply in the market for professional roles, to get the benefit of better pensions in the long term. Then the employer came along, under instructions from the Trioka, and decided to apply an extra levy, which actually wasn't going towards paying their pensions anyway.

Mandatory contributions for private employees is an entirely different decision, made ten years later, in very different circumstances for very different reasons. But I'm sure you'll be first to complain when the state pension is reduced to match the amount that people are getting from their mandatory contributions.

The cost of providing the pension is the employer's issue to manage. They signed up to contractual pension arrangements, and then chose to bypass those arrangements by imposing a levy in a way that no other employer could do.

Now, as I said, what lies were you referring to? You may have different opinions on the reasons here, but you don't get to claim other people are 'peddling lies' until you can point out actual lies, actual factual inaccuracies.

I'll wait...

Gusser09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488513#Comment_121488513

Yeah pure guess. Govt. will try and suss out what they can get away with it. I'd imagine we will start hearing noises of 4% soon to male 6% seem like a good deal.

noodler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488556#Comment_121488556

Ah come on you can't be serious.

Read your contract. Terms and conditions can go up and down

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488556#Comment_121488556

The cost of providing the pension is the employer's issue to manage

And that's what they did. Increased the contributions from their employees.

No other employer could unilaterally change terms and condition

impose a salary deduction on a particular group of staff - something that no other employer could do.

What? You've never heard of employers implementing pay cuts, cutting hours or staff lay-offs; regardless what is signed-up to in contracts by both employee and employer? Your posts are dripping with lies.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488647#Comment_121488647

Do I really have to explain the fundamentals of employment law?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/contracts-of-employment/change-job-contract/#fd1dc5

"Your employer cannot change your contract without your agreement."

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488948#Comment_121488948

Did you miss this line?

There are 2 main ways your contract can change:

• Due to a change in the law, or

• By agreement between you and your employer

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488588#Comment_121488588

There's no such term in my contact. Why don't you quote me the exact clause in your contract that you're referring to?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488986#Comment_121488986

So are you rolling back on your claim about "employers implementing pay cuts, cutting hours or staff lay-offs; regardless what is signed-up to in contracts by both employee and employer"?

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489060#Comment_121489060

Nope. It seems like you were under the impression contracts can't be changed. I give you few examples how they are changed and how they can also be changed by law like FEMPI. I was glad I'm here to help clear up any confusion you seem to have around terms and conditions of employment. You seem to struggle to grasp with the fact they can and do change.

Iggy1986

Give it a rest lads, nobody cares. Discuss it on WhatsApp

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488558#Comment_121488558

Fair! Yeah i can defo see that happening.

spark_tank

There's a lot of high estimations going around. 

We received 3.5% during 2023. Inflation is expected to be 5.3%.

Inflation is predicted to be 2.7% in 2024 and 2.1% in 2025.

There was a big shortfall in 2021 and 2022 but will the government want to revisit those years (and the previous failures by the unions) again?

I'm predicting a two year deal and I'll guess 6% with some of it backdated into 2023. 7.5% if three years.

combat14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489144#Comment_121489144

3 years is an awful long time in present climate of toll prices going up 9.5% in january alone

Gusser09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489144#Comment_121489144

I'd be happy with 7.5 or 8 over 3yrs.

6 over 2yrs would be better.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489092#Comment_121489092

Which part of "Your employer cannot change your contract without your agreement" did you not understand? Contracts can't be changed without agreement. Any confusion about this is solely yours.

FEMPI was exactly what I was talking about - where the Govt used their tax raising powers to cut salaries by implement a particular levy solely on public employees, something that hadn't been done before, certainly not in living memory.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/b9862a-financial-emergency-measures-in-the-public-interest-fempi-acts/#principal-pay-changes

FEMPI measures continued with targeted reductions for high earners and for govt contractors (doctors, lawyers). The exceptional nature of these reductions means that they have mostly been reversed. All measures for public employees have now been reversed.

But the pension levy hasn't.

The only person telling lies here is you, as confirmed by the details from the Citizen Information Board.

bailey99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489101#Comment_121489101

Absolutely. Drop it and have yr argument elsewhere.

bailey99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489144#Comment_121489144

So "owed" 1.8% in 2023 from inflation, 2.7% inflation predicted in 2024, and 2.1% inflation predicted in 2025.

Add all that up and it's 6.6%. Fir two years I think that's the minimum number the unions could stand over to members. Personally, I think it'll be a little higher, two years, I think 7.5%, bit backdated included.

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489220#Comment_121489220

- where the Govt used their tax raising powers to cut salaries by implement a particular levy solely on public employees, something that hadn't been done before, certainly not in living memory.

Not true. Self employed people have an additional USC levy placed upon them, who, unlike state employees and their pension contributions, will never see any return from it.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488556#Comment_121488556

I have a lot of sympathy for public servants affected by the additional superannuation contribution (ASC) as it is known by law. However, that needs to be balanced by an appreciation of what happened at the time to private sector pensions.

You forget that private sector pensions were also raided at the time. That caused permanent long-lasting changes to those private pensions. The persistence of the ASC is directly relevant to those permanent long-lasting changes. You yourself have pointed to the difficulty of comparing public and private sector arrangements. However, on the face of it, there is some equity in comparing the long-lasting effects of the private sector pension levy with the persistence of public sector additional superannuation contribution. After all, your pension amount isn't affected in the long-term, unlike the private sector.

You remain in a relatively privileged position pension wise. Certainly compared to the public servants caught in the miserable Single Pension Scheme, or those stuck with relatively new private sector pensions, not to mention those who will have the even more miserly auto-enrolment scheme in the future. I would keep my mouth closed on it if I were you.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121488986#Comment_121488986

You've just made Andrew's exact point for him.

No other employer can rewrite the law unilaterally in their favour.

But the government can.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489558#Comment_121489558

Would that be the additional level in self-employed income over €100k that you're talking out? Funny how you didn't mention that detail in your attempt to play the victim card for the poor >€100k earners? That's how USC works for all of us, the benefits don't relate to how much you pay in.

It's a fairly different scenario to the unilateral imposition of the pension levy on public servants. It is a tax rule based on your class of employment, which has been a feature of tax rules for ever, basically. It's not a tax rule based on the identity of your employer, which as I said, never happened before.

You're really clutching at straws here now to try to justify your false allegation. If you had any decency, you'd be withdrawing your false allegation of peddling lies, but I suppose decency would be too much to expect

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121490000#Comment_121490000

I didn't need to mention the 100k threshold to prove you wrong. It's a class of workers specifically targeted by the government. You said only state employees where targeted.

Therefore I proved you to be totally incorrect.

I'll always call out lies. I'm one of the few people in this circle jerk thread that does.

Were you also as vocal when state employees benefited from paying much lower prsi? They were targeted then also.

Hotblack Desiato

Ah yes the lower PRSI which entitled one to no benefits at all. Not even an eye test.

Anything else you'd like to get off your chest?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489810#Comment_121489810

It's not really a fair comparison. The over-dramatic 'raided' language doesn't help your case either, it was a tax, same as every other tax.

The levy on private pension funds was 0.6%, less that most funds would be paying in pension admin charges, for a very limited period. It was a clawback of a small fraction of the tax relief given to those putting money into those funds. It brought in a relatively small amount of income, despite being very widely spread, so the impact on any individual was negligible. And of course, it hit many public sector staff who pay AVCs too, so they were hit on the double.

By comparison, the PRD took a big chunk off the income of a much small group, was in place earlier, and has continued indefinitely since. It has ABSOLUTELY reduced the retirement income of the staff involved by restricting their funds available for investment, for spending on healthcare and housing. And it seems to have been accepted by the union movement now, which is just a bit strange.