Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

Not only that, the "the lowest paid are benefitting by up to 17%" is also bullshit.

I spent a few hours of my day (off) today working it out, and the only way anyone is coming close to that, is the very lowest paid, (think CO on Pt 1) and only if they receive a couple of increments over the course of the deal - which the increases are then applied to. Including the value of increments in the final percentage in this way is deceitful as they would have gotten those increases anyway - they're not part of the pay deal.

They've spun everything to make themselves look good, when all that really happened is they made a big show of turning down 8.5% - saying it was too big a gap - talks were suspended - they went back and in reality got a miserly 0.75% extra, and suddenly they're selling it hard, and a great success.

They must think we're all stupid.

A cleaner on 24.1k a year receives a minimum of €3125 and another 4% which is €964. That is €4098/25100 = 17%.

The 4% is assuming 10.25% and not 9.25%. Technically the statement "up to 17%" is correct. If they get the 1% local bargaining clause applied as a direct salary adjustment, it brings it up to 17%.

Unless I have missed something?

Cleaner salary taken from Forsa, 465 a week (now i assume nobody can be on that rate as its for pre-95 but a new hire would start on 483 and the maths is close enough):

https://www.forsa.ie/pay-scales/civil-service-salary-scales/

Ezeoul was arguing that nobody was getting 17% (or at least that's how I interpreted it).

The lowest paid worker is getting 17%. anyone above that will get a lower percentage.

How is the statement BS if the lowest paid work does get 17%?

It gave the same rise to people on Disability allowance, a 5% rise for those on the State Pension.

People on job seekers earn 12k per year, State Pension 14k

Do you not agree on principle that those on lower incomes should get more help? Was that principle not agreed on a million times in this thread?

They're not wrong though. There's little to no cleaners remaining that are employed directly as public servants and those that do exist would be long on the top of their scales so they aren't earning 24k.

They made a point. I showed them where the maths works. I also acknowledged in the post there’s likely no cleaner on that specific wage. It’s an incredibly sarcastic response from them.

They originally said that they did the calcs and nobody came close to 17% without increments. Is that correct? I’ve taken one example from Forsa, are there others in the PS on 24k? That’s the figure for 17% to work.

They can shift their position all they want. Am I wrong?

It doesn’t make a material impact for them. They still think it’s a shite deal and will vote no.

And you do the same as the OP I replied. You don’t like media saying the increase is 10.25% because it will be 9.25% for many (and I agree with your point) but you do exactly the same in your post by mentioning 40€ extra per week but it will only be for some people.

If you don’t want people focusing on the higher increase in PS, don’t do the same with other groups.

That's equivalent to nobody. You said for someone to come close, they require increments i.e. nobody comes close without increments. Where's my "flawed" understanding?

I really don't understand your hostility. It doesn't fundamentally change your argument. I was just pointing out where the 17% comes from. It's such a tiny immaterial point.

You never typed the word nobody. The meaning is identical.

It baffles me you'd double down. Saying you have to receive increments to reach the 17% is incorrect. I've shown you an example of where you don't and an example of what the Union are referring too. Yet, you double down on the word "nobody".

If you want to argue there are no cleaners on that wage, sure. Entirely different position but you're trying to change the meaning of your original statement.

No, you are trying to change the meaning of my original statement.

You also totally missed the point.

The audacity of you, to think you know what I was saying better than I do.

For the sake of the thread, I'm putting you on ignore, and request that you return the favour.

(I know its a rule that you are not supposed to announce on thread when you are putting someone on ignore, but hopefully the mods will forgive me in this instance.)

It appears that trainees or students would possibly be getting closer to 17%. Brand new COs would be getting between 14.5 and 15.5% (depending on the sectoral bargaining 1%). Those getting 17% would definitely appear to be the exception.

Thank you Sarn.

Yet the Union are using the exceptions to base selling this deal to the members on.

THAT is the point.

The agreement was circulated to members of our union last week. The meeting between full time officials and workplace reps is on this week. Previously, the wording of the ballot is agreed at this meeting or workplace reps went back to members and a second meeting was held to agree ballot wording.

I dont expect any further communication from our union until mid Feb.

Do we have any idea what the non pay terms details that they spent so long discussing were? I've always been a believer that pay is pay and it's easier to get that amended.

Terms are different though. Not always easier to gain extra annual leave for example.