Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

It benefits nobody, will you give over with such nonsense.

All I'm seeing from recent pay 'deals' is permanent decreases which will also make my pension smaller... I have no social welfare pension (always matches or beats inflation) to fall back on.

By structuring and getting a higher overall percentage instead of a smaller at the start, your pension increases.

It literally benefits everyone to structure the deal. The government only have a certain figure to play with, you want to spread that out over the course of the agreement because that leads to a higher gross wage when you negotiate the next agreement. Long term you benefit.

6% on January first is worse then 7.5% spread over 12 months. Both cost the government the same amount of money (not suggesting 6 or 7.5% should be accepted, the figure is 10% and yes the figures are theoretical. It's the ratio that is important).

The maths speaks for itself. It's blindingly obvious but people want it all on day one. That doesn't make sense.

None of it is government propoganda. I've shown the maths and rationale behind it. If you want to argue my "fact" then where is the flaw in the maths? The government have a pot of money and the unions can negotiate the size of the pot and how it's distributed. Distributing it linearly is worse for your pocket.

Leaving aside that we should be compensated for the discrepancy between the last pay deal and inflation which should be given in day 1, inflation over the next 12 months doesn't hit your pocket on day one either. Spreading out the deal over 12 months to offset rising prices month on month also makes sense.

Are you (and others) honestly suggesting that if the pay deal is 10% we should get that on day one? That's not a reasonable position imo.

This thread is just an echo chamber. If you have a different perspective you're just shouted at that your wrong. Point out the flaw in the logic, there isn't one. You might not agree with it and have your own sound logic.

They're a scam because the whole increase is touted as the sum you get, but you never actually get it. The value of money decreases over time, the cumulative amount rarely if ever beats inflation and the time lag between price increases and wage increases is money out of my pocket.

You're missing the point in what I'm trying to say but I won't clog up the thread.

We all want the best pay deal and not to receive an effective pay cut relative to inflation.

Obviously if you offered me 10% on day one or 10% over 12 months, I'd take day one but the union and government negotiate the percentage and actual amount in tandem. By spreading out the actual amount over the course of the deal you end up with a higher gross wage then spreading it out linearly. That's one reason why unions wouldn't want it divvyd out on day one. People are missing that point.

Unions and government don't negotiate anything. Most of the unions are, of course, invited to the talks and show up......But most are left out of the negotiating room and only a few union leaders are invited in to be subsequently told, without negotiation, what the % increase (or indeed decrease) is going to be.

That's how it works.

No, you've missed my point.

5% spread is 5%, i don't care about the .09.

It's 5% over two years when inflation in some sectors is beyond 5% at present.

The minimum wage is to increase by 12.4% on 1st January. So why does the government impose a full 12.4% increase on one day for those on minimum wage and yet simultaneously/conveniently refuse to pay increases in one tranche to the public sector which are up to three to four times less than that?

They don't want to pay up. It's as simple as that.

Also in the skilled jobs in the private sector (which the government is competing with for staff) there are annual reviews, no staggered pay increases with bonuses (in the banks etc) now back on the agenda whilst you're here supporting the government.

How exactly am I doing that?

Spreading 1.8 billion over 12 months linearly leads to a lower percentage increase then doing it in increments. That's one reason why Unions negotiate for a structured deal. The government also want a structured deal for obvious reasons.

Where exactly am I contradicting myself?it's nothing to do with the cumulative effect. That's negligible.

It's not just about the percentage increase its about the pot of money that will cost. Unions will try to maximize that. Nobody in the thread gets that. It's blindingly obvious.

I'm gonna bow out. This thread is toxic. You literally cannot have a differing opinion without being called a government propogandist.

I'm a public sector worker and want the best deal just like most in here. I understand how structuring the deal in increments is better for Public Sector Workers. You guys don't see it that way. Fair enough. I think your all wrong and you think the same of me. I thought the point was to share opinions but evidently that isn't the case here. 6% on day one versus 7.5% split as 4% on day one and 3.5% on month 6 costs the government the same. I'd prefer a deal LIKE the second but with different percentages that meet inflation.

I hope we can all agree that the next deal should be higher then the projected inflation to cover what we lost in the last deal.

See post above.

If you think I'm shilling for the employer you've complety missed my point. As a public sector employee, why would I argue on their behalf?

It's about the pot of money and not just the percentage. People here can't see that. Fair enough.

Best of luck tho.

Would you take 6% on day one or 4% on day one and another 3.5% on month 6.

Bit (roughly) cost the same over the span of one year.

That's the point. Thats why structuring can be good. It allows for a bigger headline percentage which is better long term. Yet you and everyone here misses that.

And yes, you wouldn't accept either deal but change the percentages and keep the ratios the same.

It's a nonsense argument. The slight overall increase above the set rate is completely offset by any change in economic circumstances or the loss in money by not paying upfront.

No, you're misreading what I'm saying. (Or I'm badly explaining)

By spreading the total amount = the pot of money i.e. the cost to the government.

If the total public sector wages is 30 billion. Consider the two scenarios (the actual figure is lower but I had done the maths before googling it).

Scenario one: 6% on day one i.e. 30 billion x 0.06 costs an additional 1.8 billion over 1 year.

Scenario two: 4% on day one and 3.5% on day one of month 7. First 6 months cost 15x0.04 = 600 million. Second six months cost 15x0.075 = 1.125 billion. The total cost to the government is 1.725 billion (approx the same) but for 2025 you've a higher gross wage. You do receive a little less over the year but you can change the percentages to fix that, it's just an example.

That's what I've been trying to say. Structuring allows for a better deal for public sector workers in the longer term but costs the government the same amount in year 1. Obviously, if you're offered X% on day one or X% spread over 12 months, day one is better. If you're offered €X to top up employees wages over one year, it's different. The negotiation isn't just about the percentage, it's about the pot of money too.

Now, is any of that government propoganda or shilling for the employer? I don't think so. It's understanding the employer has a pot of money and using it to maximize wages beyond the duration of the deal. It's a different position and demanding it on day one. You may still disagree with the logic.

If you want to argue we should be given that 7.5% on day one, i think it's a slightly different discussion and not the one I'm trying to articulate.

Again, I'm not proposing 7.5%, it's just to demonstrate the maths. I want the figure to be higher.