Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

Except that you didn't show that, because you didn't understand what bren was saying.

Imagine you're currently on 50000, and the government can afford to pay you 3000 more for the year (so total pay for the year to work out to 53000)

Scenario 1: You could get a 3000 euro raise on January 1st, which would see your salary raised to 53000, which it would be on December 31st. It would also mean for the next pay review, 53000 would be the basis for determining future increases.

Scenario 2: You could get a 2000 euro increase on January 1st and a 2000 euro increase on July 1st. This would mean your annual salary for the first 6 months would be 52000 (so you'd get paid 26000 between January and June) and your annual salary for the 2nd 6 months would be 54000 (so you'd get paid 27000 for between July and December). This means you'd get paid a total of 53000, but your annual salary would be 54000, which would serve as the basis for determining future increases.

If there is a certain amount of money available for a period of time, staggering the increases is the best financial decision for the recipient, as it means the salary level at the end is higher and that higher level serves as the start point for future negotiations.

It's not obscure mathematics and it's not nonsense. It appears you don't have experience with negotiating pay. It seems you don't understand it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I said in scenario 1 that the end result to your annual salary at the end of the period is 3000 higher, while in scenario 2 the end result to your annual salary at the end of the period is 4000 higher.

I also said for the period in question (1 year in my example), the total pay received is identical in both scenarios (53000), but that scenario 2 sets you up better for future periods.

As for "that's not how it works", you'll find that it is. In both the private and public sectors, the "employer" has a budget figure (aka an actual number of euro) to work with. By staggering or not staggering the schedule of increases, you pay out the same amount but change the starting point for future deals.

You use a scenario of a one-off 5% increases vs two separate 2.5% increases, but those aren't the options that would be on the table. The options would be more like 3.75% up front or 2 separate 2.5% increases or 1 * 2.5% + 1 * 1.5% + 1 * 1%. A single upfront increase won't match the total of staggered increases.

Ultimately, would you rather receive 53000 this year and then negotiate from a starting base of 53000 next year, or would you rather receive 53000 this year and then negotiate from a starting base of 54000 next year?

The problem is you are using the wrong variables. Your calculations are not of use as a result.

You're saying 1 increase of 5% vs 2 increments of 3% and 2%.

That's not how these negotiations work.

If you're offered 3% and 2%, you won't get an offer of 5% in one go. You'll get an offer of 4% in one go.

So let's saying 50000 * 4% at Week 1 - That's 52000 over the year, and it gives you a starting base of 52000 next time around.

If we go for 50000 * 3% at Week 1 and then another 2% at Week 27, that would be 51500/year for the first 26 weeks (25750) and then 52530/year for the second 26 weeks (26262.50). So your pay received would be 52012.50 (so basically identical), but your starting point for the next deal would be ~1% higher.

lads the govt have literally given away 14 billion to social welfare recipients the majority of which wont be voting for FG/FF no matter what they do ...

there better be something left in the pot for the actual workers

this business of 4 - 5 % so called pay rise over 2 years before massive Paye, Prsi, usc, pension levy deductions and rampant inflation would be simply laughable if it wasnt funny

the union reps better get their fingers out or the workers will vote no

People are talking at cross purposes.

One set of folks are looking at what's best for one year's salary. Another are looking at longer-term. There's also a subset making a fair but minor point on compound interest.

Basically, if the government truly only has €1.8b for public sector wage increases this year, then it would be a better long-term strategy to seek structured / stepped increases over the year. This would allow a higher wage increase by the end of the year while keeping to the €1.8b budget.

So this year's pay would be lower, but every subsequent year would be higher, all else remaining equal.