# Social Partnership talks



## Contango10 (13 Jan 2003)

In terms of the current Social Partnership talks, does anybody have any opinions on the 7% pay increase over 18 months mentioned on the news?

Although I shamefully had to think about it for a while, I calculate this as 4.6% per annum. Just about equals inflation.

Why only an 18-month agreement?  The previous National Agreements were all circa. 36 months?

Contango10


----------



## Contango10 (16 Jan 2003)

I can't believe this post got no replies.

Surely Social Partnership is very important, being one of the contributing factors to our economic turnaround since 1987.

Maybe people are too concerned with putting in new windows, going to Portugal or cross-mortgaging investment properties.

Contango10


----------



## public servant (16 Jan 2003)

*I am up for it.*

IContango,I am all in favour of it.
As a teacher over the next 3 years I would receive the following, assuming the new ppf and benchmarking go through.
7% + 13% bencmarking award = 21.45% (when aggregated)
Also over this period I will receive 3 increments on the teachers scale which is worth about another 10%. All told 31% over 3 years which will go  someway to closing the gap which has crept in over the last 10 years.


----------



## Meooww (16 Jan 2003)

*Saucer of milk for Contango*

What a cheap shot, Contango.


----------



## ATM (16 Jan 2003)

*its even better*

public servant
Don't forget that you also got an average increase of about 5% for supervision and substitution. 

ye did well!


----------



## rory (16 Jan 2003)

*Re: I am up for it.*

Hi public servant,



> will go someway to closing the gap which has crept in over the last 10 years



Which gap are you referring to?


----------



## publicservant (16 Jan 2003)

*the gap*

At the risk of opening a can of worms. The gap is the gap between public and private sector pay , and the gap within the public service between various roles which nominally had the same qualifications at entry. Contango's originally post was looking for some feedback on the new  ppf. 

I dont particularly wish to debate benchmarking as I do not know how the benchmarking body arrived at their conclusions and numbers...Not sure many do. But as a teacher, were I to receive the pay increases already listed, then I would be happy.


----------



## darag (16 Jan 2003)

*Re: the gap*

Hmmm... aggregate 31% + 5% for supervision - of
course public servant is in favour of it.  Very nice
for those that get it.  Myself and many of my
friends in the private sector have been on pay
freezes for the last year or two.  Three close
friends have lost their jobs in the last year - two
are still looking for jobs.  One had been working
with the same company for over 20 years.

The only gap I see is that public servants have
absolute job security no matter how incompetent or
unmotivated they are or whether there is any demand
for their skills or services,  they receive pension
benefits which are unheard of in the private sector
(a Garda friend is retiring on two thirds salary at
the age of 45) and they generally work fewer hours
and have more holidays.  If public servants are so
poorly paid,  how come I personally know three full
time but not permanent teachers who would do
anything to be made permanent?

There is intense competition for civil servant and
other public servant positions.  This suggests that
the current rewards (job security, pension,
conditions AND salary) are very attractive to large
numbers of people.  Where is the flow of people out
of the public sector into the private sector?  It
doesn't exist; if anything, I see people in the
private sector coveting public sector positions.
There is no "gap" - if there was people would vote
with their feet.  In fact it seems the opposite is
the case.

Social partnership is a joke.  It has absolutely
nothing to do with creating social partnership.  The
socially disadvantaged got nothing and social
services haven't improved despite huge amounts of
public money pouring in - it's the already well
rewarded public sector grabbing a bigger slice of
the exchequer pie.


----------



## rory (16 Jan 2003)

*Re: the gap*



> The gap is the gap between public and private sector pay , and the gap within the public service between various roles which nominally had the same qualifications at entry.


No, the gap is between public and private sector job security, i.e. the former has it, the latter doesn't.

This argument that you hear (from teachers in particular) that so-and-so graduated the same year as me, and he's earning much more in the private sector is completely bogus in my view. Everyone makes career choices and takes the consequences that go with them. I'm sure there are classmates of mine working in other sectors that earn a lot more than I do but I can't go moaning to my boss about it.


----------



## Contango10 (16 Jan 2003)

*Re: the gap*

Although I meant my initial post to debate the current proposals for the next National Wage Agreement, I will join in the debate about public sector vs. private sector.

One of the arguments of the public sector unions was that the pay gap between them and the private sector caused recruitment problems in the public sector.

Perhaps it did, in certain specific occupations (e.g. nursing).

But, with these "recruitment problems", how did public sector employment manage to increase in the thousands over the last few years.  The newspapers were bursting with Health Board job ads, there are new Health Board offices all over the large town where I live.

And lots more Local Authority jobs, plus loads in Higher Education, where I work.

Recruitment problems??????!!!!!!!!!

I do believe in well-paid public employment, but in return I expect customer-focussed organisations, flexibility and higher productivity.

e.g. for the extra wages, teachers should have to do PT meetings in the evenings, and so on.

Contango10


----------



## publicservant (16 Jan 2003)

*wasn't going to reply but....*

Rory, Darag, and Contango. Having already seen the emotion rising to the surface, I wasn't planning to reply but here goes a couple of bits worth.

After I receive the 7% + 13% + sup+sub, my salary in 2005 will be the same as it was in 1996 when I worked in industry. A former colleague of mine who went to college with me, has the same degree, etc who is still in industry will in 2005 be earning double what I will be earning. Everyone one of us has our individual data points which we base our arguments. All of our data is correct, the role of the benchmarking body was to collate and compare across all job functions in the country to see what was needed to be done.However nobody seems to know how they reached their conclusions. Even Mr Mc Creevey is on record as saying he doesn't know.This is the tragedy with benchmarking.The numbers are not transparent, so we all go on our individual tales, like your of the gaurd retired at 45 etc.

In the late 90's early 00's the papers were full of 2 things, property and public service jobs. Chock a block each week. Teachers nurses, all grades of public servants... They couldn't be filled.Public servants could hardly work in the capital as the price of property was so high. We all want to be the public servant who works in Ballsbridge or stephens green but not the one who teaches in Belmullet, where the heat doesnt work and the ceilings fall in. ( Actually happened in our school last week, ceiling collapsed on a teacher).I regulary do maintenance work in our school to keep in hanging together.As do lots of others.

Thanks to the eejits in ASTI teachers have become the busmen of the 70's or ILDA drivers of this century. The nation seems to want to come and lynch teachers  when/where ever it can.

Since joining the Public service, I have nothing but respect for those who daily battle with the system. The system is made up of other public servants but it is impossible to get anything done/changed/improved. Unlike management in industry who through enlightened management techniques over the last 30 years, are now open to customer  focus,results,change, improvement, employee conditions, flexibility etc, as long as it improves the bottom line, Public service management up to senior department level dont seem to have grasped the idea. Hence loads of intelligent public servants have become disenfranchised.

I totally believe that Parent teacher meetings should be on in the evenings, as long as banks,shops,business's etc are open in the evenings, however that wouldnt suit all the people who work night shift.There is no time of the day which will suit all folk.And this herring has been thrown out before.(Teachers are parents too, and PT meetings also inconvience them).But if the majority of folk want it then lets have it. (Business's open in the evenings that is)

I totally agree with the notion of a much smaller public service, well paid, and measured on performance. The taxpayer would benifit, the public and last but not least the public servant. But until the vested interests of the country do something substantial, nothing will change. If we had a slimmed down public service in the morning, who would pay the dole of the extra 100,000 former public servants. You and I would.

PPF or social partnership is crap, but its the best form of crap we have had in the country ever. The bottom line numbers for growth, stability, employment, poverty,etc substantially improved under all the ppf type agreements. It is along way from perfect, but remember the alternatives of the 70's 80's


----------



## darag (16 Jan 2003)

*Re: wasn't going to reply but....*

Hi public servant, I was probably a bit overly
caustic in my previous post but I'd still like to
respond to your points.

The reason the papers were full of public sector
jobs was because of the huge number of positions
(rashly in my opinion) created.  For example,
various papers reported that last year, 30000 new
public servants were hired.  I wonder why all these
people took these positions given that the salaries
are apparently so poor?  The answer is obviously
that the overall package is extremely attractive.
Your data point of one friend is not convincing I'm
afraid when confronted with the fact that 30000
people flowed into the public sector last year.  I'd
be pretty confident claiming that most of those left
positions in the private sector given that the
overall employment numbers were static or fell
slightly.

For me that figure provides irrefutable proof that
in general the public sector package is at least as
attractive as that offered in the private sector.
Making the package even better by bumping up
salaries by 30% should be called Usury Partnership
and not Social Partnership.

daRag


----------



## Contango10 (17 Jan 2003)

*Not a narrow focus*

May I point out that SP is not just about public sector pay.  It concerns a broad range of socio-economic issues, which affect the economy and society.

Contango10


----------



## publicservant (17 Jan 2003)

*you should read a different paper*

Darag, I think your figure of an extra 30,000 public servants hired last year is incorrect according to the CSO website.

[broken link removed]

Public sector employment (excluding health)went up by 9000 between 2001 and 2002. two thirds of this was in the education sector. Public sector pay on average increased by 4.9% during the same period.Between 1998 and 2001 Health board employment increased by some 25000.

Don't forget also that the public service represents about 1 in 5 working people. Of the other 4 out of 5 , 3 of them work in SME of < 10 people. Alot of these SME's are outside the partnership talks to some extent.

I guess the lesson for me out of this research is that being in a union pays, as 20% of the work force seem to have a louder voice at the table than the 60% who work in SME's.


----------



## Jack Dee (17 Jan 2003)

*Public Sector Pay*

I think we are avoiding the FACT that although performing a valuable service, teaching is basically a low skill job, and hence the monetary rewards reflect this. 
If you were in the public sector previously and your friend now earns double what you do, then go back there if money is the issue, rather than moaning about it.

You made a career choice to be a teacher, if the rewards aren't good enough, get out of it instead iof being a pain in the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language for everyone else. 

The pblic are sick and tired of you people who work not much more than 70% of the year going on and on about why you can't earn as much as the programmer next door.

Fact is, he is a lot more skilled. Any muppet can gain a teaching qualification. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, some of the dumbos in my class from school had no careerr paths open to them so they became teachers.

Don't get me wrong, as I said at the start of my mail , teachers do a vital job, it's just not a skilled one.


----------



## publicservant (17 Jan 2003)

*thank you for your courteous reply*

Jack, if I might be permitted to reply. 
I think you have made several points but the emotion is running high. If I read your post correctly.

-' Teaching is a low skilled job - FACT ' 
-' Teachers do a vital, valuable public service'.
-' Programmers are a lot more skilled than  teachers'.
-' Any muppet can become a teacher'.
-' Several Dumb people in your class became teachers'
-' Teachers are a pain in the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language'.
-' If teachers pay is low then you should leave'.

Your well reasoned agrument has left me stumped. 
Me with my BA. pass in Geography with Hdip (Eventually).


----------



## contented (24 Jan 2003)

*Public Servants v the World*

Am I the only public servant who is relatively happy with his/her lot?? Now in my 37th year working having started out earning (Old money)£3.7/6 for 7 days work, I have far surpassed any aspirations or hopes I had at age 16.  I consider that I am fairly paid for my work and responsibilities but would however, like to keep up with inflation.

Like our private sector brethren I have paid my Income Tax etc over the years and look forward to my pension after another 13 years by which time I will have approx 50 years service.  Will I still be in employment then?  Being in the Health Service, I dont know. Cries everywhere for staff to be reduced and services to be increased!

 Why are public servant villified for being what they are??  In 1966 getting into the public service was not done without some considerable effort and I was extremely proud to have made the grade.

When times are good most people want to work in the private sector because (supposedly?) of better pay.  In bad times however its the reverse and then the Public Service is the cause of all our ills. WHY?????


----------



## darag (24 Jan 2003)

*Re: Public Servants v the World*

Publicservant, fair enough regarding the number of
new hires.  But I'd still contend that 10,000 people
joining the public sector supports my argument that
the reward package for public servants cannot be
considered poor.

Also while Jack Dee is over the top, I don't
understand why teachers or anyone else expect that
they unquestionably should be paid less or more than
the average of their peers with similar
qualifications.  People should be paid enough to
attract suitably qualified people to the job - no
more and no less.  Nurses should be paid more by
this reckoning, while teachers and guards for
example should certainly not be paid any more given
that there is no problem at all getting people to 
fill positions in those areas.  Unfortunately the 
unions would never agree to a system like this which
would support rewarding a teacher working in a 
socially deprived area, for example, more than a pen
pusher in a cushy number working in Merrion Square.

Contented, you actually support the argument that
public servants are already fairly well rewarded.  
Thanks for being honest about it.  It's not public
servants but rather hearing the beal bocht from them
which irks given the conditions in the private
sector.


----------



## 10000 (24 Jan 2003)

*jobs*

But I'd still contend that 10,000 people
joining the public sector supports my argument that
the reward package for public servants cannot be
considered poor.

were they permanent jobs or part time? Are they still in employment? what type of jobs? Professional, skilled, semi-skilled, low-skilled?


----------

