Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

@snoopsheep, I never said "a CO on point 1 should enjoy everything a HEO has" or anything like it.

Nor did I say everyone should be paid the same.

May I remind you that I made it very clear earlier in the thread, that I was referring to this very specific round of increases, which were triggered as part of Building Momentum due to inflation.

I do think everyone should have an equal cash in the bank increase from this round for that reason.

But yourself and others have decided to make it all about roles and responsibilities instead.

So have at it.

im not sure you're playing fair here tbh, narrowing in and zooming out and cherrypicking a bit.

i think ive set out the broad point in fair context several times and i dont think we need to get into it any further but I'll go with one last point-

the specific context here is not "this round of talks" because this round of talks is one of a sequence in which the govt have gotten away with squeezing certain grades above certain incomes to a greater extent.

over time thats simply a sustained attack on the quality of roles in the service overall and if we allow it to continue the COs today will be looking at the AP roles in ten years time and thinking "jesus i dont fancy that much"

the only winners of an outcome that consistently pits lower ranks in the service vs higher are a govt that supports privatisation of qualified/specialist roles and we are already seeing that in action.

HEO grades and higher have earned their roles through a highly transparent and competitive process and they have to justify that enough on boards.ie to those who begrudge every public servant any decent conditions at all.

they shouldnt have to justify the same increases as everyone else or else lose out, and im not swayed by arguments that castigate new entrants at those levels in order to argue for another weighted deal.

and making the argument based on cash increases as opposed to relative income is just arguing for one more form of taxation added to grades that already pay in the higher bracket across a number of deductions.

at some stage you just have to say "stop- enough". we can't keep apologising for being qualified and experienced just because we happen to be employed in the public sector, that goes against everything we should be fighting back against.

If anything, this round of talks is out of sequence - they would not be happening at all, if it wasn't for inflation. They have nothing to do with qualifications.

And I think you'll find those who are being squeezed the most by inflation, are those on lower incomes, and by the looks of things, will continue to be so.

But maintaining the status quo is more important, it appears.

Nothing against education, but I place more value on experience,... and none on arrogance.

AOs are clueless, naive and arrogant now is that it?

and before i get the well-used "you clearly haven't read my posts" you've been in here doing one line drive-bys for the past while as well as your posts getting more and more emotive and unclear, so i think at this stage if there's any ambiguity creeping in you may have to accept fair responsibility for that

It's been a bit of an eye opener and its obvious why the government can get away with what they do. Divide and conquer.

It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth when those who are already earning a lot more money are arguing that if lower paid staff get an extra percent or two to help with inflation, it will "devalue" them and that the "distance between grades" must be maintained at all cost - when I've seen COs resigning recently, one literally because they couldn't afford to pay their rent and feed themselves adequately.

I hope it keeps fine for you all.