# Croke Park agreement: Invoke clause 1.28. (IT Opinion Article Eddie Molloy)



## thedaras (7 Sep 2012)

There has been a lot of talk lately about the Croke Park agreement and that paying 70% of the health budget is no longer justifiable.

Here are some of the views expressed in the Irish Times:

[broken link removed]



> *CLAUSE 1.28* of the Croke Park agreement on public service pay and  conditions states: “The implementation of this agreement is subject to  no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration.”
> 
> It is time for the Government to snap out of its denial and invoke  clause 1.28. The country cannot afford to maintain the Croke Park  agreement until 2014, and its inherent unfairness is deeply damaging to  society. The agreement is fundamentally flawed on economic and moral  grounds.


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2012)

Good article from Eddie Molloy.


----------



## ajapale (7 Sep 2012)

Title expanded and selected quotes added to original post.

aj


----------



## Delboy (7 Sep 2012)

they won't invoke it...won't even think about it....the Unions run this country


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Sep 2012)

The cabinet had their first meeting back recently after the summer break.

Following the meeting Government Chief Whip Paul Kehoe stated that the coalition was " absolutely committed " to the Croke Park Agreement.

The Cabinet are determined to stick with the Croke Park Agreement for the last year of it's term & hope that a more ambitious plan can be introduced subsequently - pending negotiations with the Unions of course.

I note that the Herald is reporting that another , more targetted , voluntary redundancy scheme is going to be introduced by the Government seeking a further 10,000 redundancies over 3 years , further evidence , if any more was needed , that the Government are pursuing every avenue to ensure core pay remains protected.


----------



## Firefly (7 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> I note that the Herald is reporting that another , more targetted , voluntary redundancy scheme is going to be introduced by the Government seeking a further 10,000 redundancies over 3 years , further evidence , if any more was needed , that the Government are pursuing every avenue to ensure core pay remains protected.



Sounds lovely. How will services to those who fund the public sector be affected? Or will we just keep borrowing on the never-never for the craic?


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> further evidence , if any more was needed , that the Government are pursuing every avenue to ensure core pay remains protected.


 And that's the problem. The country can't deliver the services it needs at existing core pay rates.


----------



## callybags (7 Sep 2012)

*



CLAUSE 1.28 of the Croke Park agreement on public service pay and conditions states: “The implementation of this agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration.”
		
Click to expand...

* 
Was ther any "currently unforseen budgetary deterioration"?


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> And that's the problem. The country can't deliver the services it needs at existing core pay rates.



But as you have pointed out yourself - PS workers have suffered enough pay cuts - now is the time for job cuts - unless my memory fails me ?

10,000 further voluntary redundancies must surely please you ?


----------



## orka (7 Sep 2012)

There is still scope for further cuts in some core PS pay - medical consultants being the standouts as still overpaid compared with their European counterparts.  Increments should also be looked at - why are there so many increments in a job where it shouldn't take much more than 3-5 years max to reach very close to full training.  Is a 20 year qualified primary school teacher much better than a 5 year qualified teacher?  Do people in admin jobs get progressively better every year for 20 years?


----------



## Delboy (7 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> But as you have pointed out yourself - PS workers have suffered enough pay cuts - now is the time for job cuts - unless my memory fails me ?
> 
> 10,000 further voluntary redundancies must surely please you ?



time for voluntary redundancies are long gone....that only hurts services to the public, as good people take the borrowed money and leave. 
time to specifically select the slackers and inept and show them the door....that is if the PS unions are sincere in their public utterances about maintaining services to the highest possible standard


----------



## Yachtie (7 Sep 2012)

delboy said:


> time for voluntary redundancies are long gone....that only hurts services to the public, as good people take the borrowed money and leave.
> Time to specifically select the slackers and inept and show them the door....that is if the ps unions are sincere in their public utterances about maintaining services to the highest possible standard



+1


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> time for voluntary redundancies are long gone....that only hurts services to the public, as good people take the borrowed money and leave.
> time to specifically select the slackers and inept and show them the door....that is if the PS unions are sincere in their public utterances about maintaining services to the highest possible standard



As reported by the Herald , another 10,000 voluntary redundancies are to be sought - such redundancies are to be targetted.

These redundancies are being sought by the Government as employers , I'm sure they will consult with the Unions on the implementation of the scheme.

Essentially though this is an employer driven scheme with peripheral Union involvement - perhaps you should be directing your ire elsewhere ?


----------



## Complainer (8 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> time for voluntary redundancies are long gone....that only hurts services to the public, as good people take the borrowed money and leave.
> time to specifically select the slackers and inept and show them the door....that is if the PS unions are sincere in their public utterances about maintaining services to the highest possible standard



You don't seem to understand the difference between redundancy and performance management. You don't make people redundant because of their performance. You make posts redundant when those jobs are not required.


----------



## orka (8 Sep 2012)

Yes but a post is not necessarily person-specific in a one-to-one way.  If there are many people doing the same job and one (or more) needs to be made redundant (eg only 15 posts required not 20 so 5 posts redundant) - better to let go the under performers?  

Deiseblue, what do you mean by 'such redundancies are to be targetted'? Targetted in a posts way (we don't need this post anymore; no-one has applied for voluntary redundancy from this post so we'll remove someone on a last in-first out basis) or in a targetting underperformers way (we need to reduce headcount so we'll target our underperformers)?


----------



## Leper (9 Sep 2012)

The Croke Park Agreement is written in stone and let's face it it is going to be honoured and rightly so.  There are many ways to "skin a cat" and Public Service agencies would be better employed pro-actively reducing the payroll.  This is not an impossible task.  Look at 
(a) The amount of people who willingly would take a No Pay Career Break - let them have it 
(b) The many who would accept reduced working hours on an on-going basis - let them have it 
(c) Parental Leave (the new biggie) let them all have it, even for years.
(d) Extend a new non paid type of Maternity Leave. 

All of above carry Zero-Rate-of-Pay and would have immediate and good "results"


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2012)

orka said:


> Yes but a post is not necessarily person-specific in a one-to-one way.  If there are many people doing the same job and one (or more) needs to be made redundant (eg only 15 posts required not 20 so 5 posts redundant) - better to let go the under performers?
> 
> Deiseblue, what do you mean by 'such redundancies are to be targetted'? Targetted in a posts way (we don't need this post anymore; no-one has applied for voluntary redundancy from this post so we'll remove someone on a last in-first out basis) or in a targetting underperformers way (we need to reduce headcount so we'll target our underperformers)?



The last redundancy package was open to all in order to achieve the required numbers .- basically everyone that applied was accepted - Garda , nurses , firefighters , civil servants , social welfare staff et al .

Under a targetted scheme - the Government & their advisors will decide on the areas that they feel need trimming & offer voluntary redundancies on that basis.

This has proved problematic in the past as such a scheme was rolled out in the HSE & the take up was way lower than the target numbers sought.


----------



## Delboy (9 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> The last redundancy package was open to all in order to achieve the required numbers .- basically everyone that applied was accepted - Garda , nurses , firefighters , civil servants , social welfare staff et al .
> 
> Under a targetted scheme - the Government & their advisors will decide on the areas that they feel need trimming & offer voluntary redundancies on that basis.
> 
> This has proved problematic in the past as such a scheme was rolled out in the HSE & the take up was way lower than the target numbers sought.



and thats what you call targeted!!!! it's Voluntary, no matter how it is dressed up

Targeted means pointing out jobs/people/posts (call it whatever you want) and saying time to go, here's some borrowed Troika cash, good luck....not letting more good people apply for Voluntary redundancy to leave thereby affecting services to the public


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> and thats what you call targeted!!!! it's Voluntary, no matter how it is dressed up
> 
> Targeted means pointing out jobs/people/posts (call it whatever you want) and saying time to go, here's some borrowed Troika cash, good luck....not letting more good people apply for Voluntary redundancy to leave thereby affecting services to the public



I never dressed it up - I always referred to this proposed redundancy scheme as " voluntary "

The Government as a consenting party to the Croke Party Agreement cannot force compulsory voluntary ( a contradiction  I know ! ) redundancies on any PS employee.

This time it appears that they will decide what areas & employees are in scope & what areas & employees are not enabling them to decide who they feel can be let go - this time around the Government & their advisors can decide who should go rather than the previous scheme where basically anybody who applied was successful.

I should point out that details of this scheme has yet to be agreed with the Unions & as I have already pointed out a previous scheme along the same lines in the HSE was poorly subscribed to.


----------



## Delboy (9 Sep 2012)

so,lets say the HSE is chosen by the Govt....will the local Mgmt be allowed tap specific employees on the shoulder and say your time is up?
Or are you saying anyone in the HSE will be allowed go if they volunteer to do so?


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> so,lets say the HSE is chosen by the Govt....will the local Mgmt be allowed tap specific employees on the shoulder and say your time is up?
> Or are you saying anyone in the HSE will be allowed go if they volunteer to do so?



It sounds to me exactly the same as the voluntary redundancy scheme currently rolled out by the Bank of Ireland.

The Bank decide what categories of staff/departments are in scope & hope to achieve the required target figures from that category.

In other words although they cannot target individuals they can target departments/ branches that they want to trim & hope that they can achieve the voluntary redundancies they require from those areas.

I have no idea where the latest PS proposed scheme is being aimed at but I can unequivocally say that it will be voluntary & people will not be tapped on the shoulder - compulsory redundancies are excluded under the CPA.


----------



## Shawady (10 Sep 2012)

There are several areas that could be looked at without targeting core pay.

A two or three year freeze on increments does not seem unreasonable and to be honest I was surprised this was not looked at before from the unions in exchange for a smaller pay cut.

The bill for allowances is supposed to be 1.5 billion. These could be looked at by an independent body to see which are justified. i've no doubt some are but I'm sure there are others, particularly in the teaching and garda end of things that are not justified.

The overtime bill is supposed to be similar to the allowance bill. Again I can see how overtime is justifed in some areas like garda operations but it should be critically examined across the public sector to see if some of the overtime work can be done in normal hours. Is there work being held off until the weekend so someone can come in and claim a few hours overtime? This would require PS managers to do there job.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> But as you have pointed out yourself - PS workers have suffered enough pay cuts - now is the time for job cuts - unless my memory fails me ?
> 
> 10,000 further voluntary redundancies must surely please you ?



This isn’t about relative suffering or punishment and I would never take pleasure in people losing their job.
This is about what the state can afford to pay for services and maximising the services it can deliver to the public for that money.  It is obvious that the state’s primary goal  should  be the quality and breath of those services and so it should seek to deliver them at the minimum possible cost. As wages are by far the biggest input cost these should be the number one item that is targeted to be kept to a minimum. 
Since I made the comments that you refer to there have been substantial pay increases in the public sector in the form of increments, unemployment has increased and our finances have deteriorated further.


----------



## cork (10 Sep 2012)

Where are the savings from the Croke deal?
Where is the reform?
They are so may "Get out" clauses in this agreement - its continued existance makes no sense.

We have a government that lacks any type of leadership or bottle.

The Labour party care more about public sector unions than cut backs in services.


----------



## thedaras (10 Sep 2012)

To me it seems there is a "go slow" by all involved, thereby delaying much of what should have happened.
While we have the likes of  chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC), Kieran Mulvey coming out with statements around the Croke Park deal,in my opionion he should not comment either way.
So now we have managers etc going to the LRC,trying to implement some change or other and we have the Chief of the Lrc making statements about who should and should not comment on it!
Ref:http://www.independent.ie/national-news/creighton-in-war-of-words-with-lrc-boss-3223697.html


> "It is a bit rich for someone who was as cosseted as he was by benchmarking to state the Croke Park Agreement is un-breakable,'' she added. And she warned that this relationship "compromises his independence and leaves him open to the suggestion that he has a coloured perspective''.


----------



## Knuttell (10 Sep 2012)

cork said:


> The Labour party care more about public sector unions than cut backs in services.



And this will not be forgotten by the electorate at the next election,people are just standing on the sidelines quietly watching the disgraceful way Labour are carrying on,protecting a small minority at the expense of everything and everyone else and they will be punished for it in much the same way the Greens and the PDs were.

I expect labour to be decimated at the next election.


----------



## Shawady (10 Sep 2012)

I have just recieved an e-mail from public sector management reform group outlining current and future reforms. It is quoted from a government publication. There was a short paragraph on the pay bill that I thought worthwhile copying below. I assume the figures are just for current PS workers and do not incude PS pension costs.


_These reforms are being introduced at a time when Public Service numbers are being dramatically reduced due to the necessity to make major savings in the Public Service pay bill.  Public Service Numbers are now 28,000 lower (at 292,000 approx) than their peak (of 320,000 approx) at end 2008.  The Exchequer pay bill has been reduced by 17.7% between 2009 and 2012, from €17.5bn (Gross) to €14.4bn (net of the Pension Related Deduction).  Over the period 2009 to 2015, the Exchequer pay bill is expected to reduce by €3.8bn, or €3.3bn net of expected increases in public service pensions costs._


----------



## cork (10 Sep 2012)

It is shocking that while sevices are being cut many in the public sector are carrying on regardless.

The embargo is not an instrument for reform.

It simply is a blunt instrument to cut numbers.

No attempt is being made to reform, utilise staff better or make better use of technology.


----------



## Calico (10 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> And this will not be forgotten by the electorate at the next election,people are just standing on the sidelines quietly watching the disgraceful way Labour are carrying on,protecting a small minority at the expense of everything and everyone else and they will be punished for it in much the same way the Greens and the PDs were.
> 
> I expect labour to be decimated at the next election.



I expect every public sector worker will vote for labour, so they may not be decimated.


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2012)

Shawady said:


> I have just recieved an e-mail from public sector management reform group outlining current and future reforms. It is quoted from a government publication. There was a short paragraph on the pay bill that I thought worthwhile copying below. I assume the figures are just for current PS workers and do not incude PS pension costs.
> 
> 
> _These reforms are being introduced at a time when Public Service numbers are being dramatically reduced due to the necessity to make major savings in the Public Service pay bill.  Public Service Numbers are now 28,000 lower (at 292,000 approx) than their peak (of 320,000 approx) at end 2008.  The Exchequer pay bill has been reduced by 17.7% between 2009 and 2012, from €17.5bn (Gross) to €14.4bn (net of the Pension Related Deduction).  Over the period 2009 to 2015, the Exchequer pay bill is expected to reduce by €3.8bn, or €3.3bn net of expected increases in public service pensions costs._



Damned impressive !

Congratulations to all involved - verifiable payroll savings & a reduction in numbers all achieved in a climate of industrial peace.

Looks like a successor to the CPA is the preferred option of the Government although the Unions apparently are looking for various guarantees before agreeing to return to the table.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> Damned impressive !
> 
> Congratulations to all involved - verifiable payroll savings & a reduction in numbers all achieved in a climate of industrial peace.
> 
> Looks like a successor to the CPA is the preferred option of the Government although the Unions apparently are looking for various guarantees before agreeing to return to the table.



Did you notice the "Net of the Pension Related Deduction" bit? They are counting the Pension Levy as a pay cut. It should have been a pay cut but it wasn't and so counting it in muddies the waters. They also haven’t added in the increased pensions cost.

That said, in normal circumstances it would indeed be impressive but these aren't normal circumstances and it's nowhere near enough of a saving.


----------



## Delboy (10 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> It sounds to me exactly the same as the voluntary redundancy scheme currently rolled out by the Bank of Ireland.
> 
> The Bank decide what categories of staff/departments are in scope & hope to achieve the required target figures from that category.
> 
> ...



we have a very different understanding of what 'targeted' means. That's not targeted in my book and will only lead to more good people going and thus affect services...not that many seem to care about that.

And this 28,000 figure that is mentioned as the reduction in staff number since 2008....does that include people who were at retirement age/people who left on health grounds/people who just resigned?


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Did you notice the "Net of the Pension Related Deduction" bit? They are counting the Pension Levy as a pay cut. It should have been a pay cut but it wasn't and so counting it in muddies the waters. They also haven’t added in the increased pensions cost.
> 
> That said, in normal circumstances it would indeed be impressive but these aren't normal circumstances and it's nowhere near enough of a saving.



Hence the proposed additional targetted voluntary redundancy scheme allied to a proposed CPA 2 .

The coalition seems to have reined in the dissidents - even that most virulent of Union bashers , Mr. Varadkar, has stated in recent days that the coalition are honour bound to adhere to the Agreement.

The Government of course have to be pragmatic for a number of reasons - they are terrified of well planned , targetted industrial action , the political fall out in terms of disenchanting a major electorate rump & the probability of sending the morale & engagement of PS employees through the floor if they cut pay further leading to all sorts of IR problems in the future.

I believe the  extremely positive reporting reform group findings will be used as a further tool by the coalition to ensure the survival of the CPA.


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> we have a very different understanding of what 'targeted' means. That's not targeted in my book and will only lead to more good people going and thus affect services...not that many seem to care about that.
> 
> And this 28,000 figure that is mentioned as the reduction in staff number since 2008....does that include people who were at retirement age/people who left on health grounds/people who just resigned?



All I can do is outline how I think the scheme will work - as per my previous post comparing the scheme to the current Bank of Ireland scheme.

For further info & clarification as to how the scheme will operate I can only suggest that you raise the matter with your local public representatives.

I can only assume that the reduction in staff numbers is due to a combination of schemes available under the CPA & natural attrition.


----------



## Firefly (10 Sep 2012)

Complainer said:


> You don't make people redundant because of their performance.



Why not?


----------



## Firefly (10 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> The Government of course have to be pragmatic for a number of reasons - they are terrified of well planned , targetted industrial action , the political fall out in terms of disenchanting a major electorate rump & the probability of sending the morale & engagement of PS employees through the floor if they cut pay further leading to all sorts of IR problems in the future.



Hi Deise,

Apologies if I sound dramatic here, but considering that the next generation (my kids and your kids) will be have to repay the circa 300-400m a week we are borrowing to pay the bills, with interest, what price do you put on peaceful industrial relations? I mean, surely, at some point enough is enough? 

Firefly.


----------



## liaconn (10 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> Why not?


 
Because there are laws about these things. You sack people because of their performance, following agreed procedures re written warnings etc.

To make someone redundant the post has to go altogether. You cannot make someone redundant and re-hire someone else in their place.

Therefore you need to be very clear whether you're sacking someone or making them redundant if yiou don't want to end up before a tribunal.


----------



## cork (10 Sep 2012)

Brian Lenihan brought in the embargo to cut numbers.

It was 100% necessary.

But with the passing of time - reform should be delivered.

We still have the local authoritys, quangos and waste.

We have some of the highest paid public servants in the EU.

The fact, govt are happy to cut services rather than reform is shocking.

There is a report in the DEpt of the Environment detailing how 500m+ can be saved in local govt gathering dust.


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> Hi Deise,
> 
> Apologies if I sound dramatic here, but considering that the next generation (my kids and your kids) will be have to repay the circa 300-400m a day we are borrowing to pay the bills, with interest, what price do you put on peaceful industrial relations? I mean, surely, at some point enough is enough?
> 
> Firefly.



A bit too dramatic perhaps , if my maths are right ( by no means a racing certainty ) taking the median figure of 350 m a day equates to borrowings of approx 1 billion every 3 days - not correct surely ?

The prospect of industrial strife has been described as " Armageddon " by Minister Howlin.


----------



## Firefly (10 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> A bit too dramatic perhaps , if my maths are right ( by no means a racing certainty ) taking the median figure of 350 m a day equates to borrowings of approx 1 billion every 3 days - not correct surely ?



It's per week - I've updated my earlier post..


----------



## mandelbrot (10 Sep 2012)

Shawady said:


> A two or three year freeze on increments does not seem unreasonable and to be honest I was surprised this was not looked at before from the unions in exchange for a smaller pay cut.


 
I fundamentally disagree with that.

Who are the people who get increments? They tend to be the youngest, most recently hired or promoted people, who by definition are already lower paid for doing the same job as their colleagues in the same grade - freezing increments is a fairly surefire way to alienate (and over a 3-year timeframe risk losing) the best performers in order to protect the people sitting at the top of their scale shuffling papers and marking off time...


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> I fundamentally disagree with that.
> 
> Who are the people who get increments? They tend to be the youngest, most recently hired or promoted people, who by definition are already lower paid for doing the same job as their colleagues in the same grade - freezing increments is a fairly surefire way to alienate (and over a 3-year timeframe risk losing) the best performers in order to protect the people sitting at the top of their scale shuffling papers and marking off time...



So how should it be done?
Are you in favour of across the board % pay cuts, targeted redundancies etc?

I do think that the Unions are doing all they can to protect the longer serving staff, that’s why they screwed new entrants so badly. 


Does anyone know what the saving would be if the pension levy was replaced with a pay cut allowing pensions to be cut by the same %?
It seems totally unjust that the people with the big mortgages, childcare costs and high living costs are getting screwed to pay the pensions of people who don’t have the childcare costs or mortgages (and are probably the ones who made a killing selling their home during the boom to the younger state employee who is now being screwed to pay their pension).


----------



## Firefly (10 Sep 2012)

liaconn said:


> Because there are laws about these things. You sack people because of their performance, following agreed procedures re written warnings etc.



My mistake - I took it as laying someone off for poor performance.


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2012)

RTE breaking news reports that Enda Kenny has vowed that the Croke Park Agreement will be honoured in full & will not be subject to any unilateral re-negotiation.

Mr. Kenny was speaking at the FG conference in Westport.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> RTE breaking news reports that Enda Kenny has vowed that the Croke Park Agreement will be honoured in full & will not be subject to any unilateral re-negotiation.
> 
> Mr. Kenny was speaking at the FG conference in Westport.



Was he sitting on Eamon Gilmore's knee?


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Was he sitting on Eamon Gilmore's knee?



He was surgically detached from Mr. Gilmore's knee last night & the strings that operate his limbs were also removed in order that he could attend the FG conference today.

Only a temporary arrangement though !


----------



## Kine (10 Sep 2012)

In a way I am kind of glad I wont be around for the next election - I don't think I would be able to vote for any of teh major parties, and I sure as hell couldn't vote for SF etc. 

Shame, I would have to spil my vote after so many people died to allow me the right to vote!


----------



## mandelbrot (10 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> So how should it be done?
> Are you in favour of across the board % pay cuts, targeted redundancies  etc?


 Yep, that'd be the common sense approach, and most importantly treats  everyone equally.



Purple said:


> I do think that the Unions are doing all they can  to protect the longer serving staff, that’s why they screwed new  entrants so badly.


 Yes, that was a complete disgrace.



Purple said:


> Does anyone know what the saving would be if the  pension levy was replaced with a pay cut allowing pensions to be cut by  the same %?
> It seems totally unjust that the people with the big mortgages,  childcare costs and high living costs are getting screwed to pay the  pensions of people who don’t have the childcare costs or mortgages (and  are probably the ones who made a killing selling their home during the  boom to the younger state employee who is now being screwed to pay their  pension).


That's a good question and one I'd like to know the answer to as well.  I'd accept if they withdrew the pension levy and applied actual pay cuts  across the board and graded according to the level of income, and which would bring pre-2011 staff closer to post-2011 new entrants' level (i.e replace 7.5% pension levy with 11% pay cut etc...). I could live with that, but I'd be heading for Australia to be with most of my old school and college friends if I'm told my incentive / reward for doing a good job is being withdrawn.


----------



## Shawady (11 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Does anyone know what the saving would be if the pension levy was replaced with a pay cut allowing pensions to be cut by the same %?


 
It should have been a pay cut but it's probably too late now as so many people have retired and received their pension entitlements.
The levy was an average of 7% (I think), and as PS pensions are calculated on gross salary, the lump sum would have been 7% less and the pension itself the same but there would have been an ongoing saving as the pension would be 7% less for the lifetime.

One of the reasons the HSE is over budget this year is because more people retired in Feb than they anticipated and that meant higher lump sum payments.


----------



## Chris (11 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Does anyone know what the saving would be if the pension levy was replaced with a pay cut allowing pensions to be cut by the same %?
> It seems totally unjust that the people with the big mortgages, childcare costs and high living costs are getting screwed to pay the pensions of people who don’t have the childcare costs or mortgages (and are probably the ones who made a killing selling their home during the boom to the younger state employee who is now being screwed to pay their pension).



I fully agree. When it comes to pensions you have a redistributive system where you take money from poor young people with no assets and give it to old people who are on average a lot lot wealthier. Of course whenever something like this is pointed out two arguments are made:
1) pensioners are poor
2) pensioners paid many years into the social system and deserve what they are getting

Neither of these are true, pensioners are a lot wealthier than the young people that are funding their pensions. And secondly, pensioners paid into nothing, they paid for the benefits of those that were pensioners at the time, there is no fund or ring fenced money waiting for them.
The other issue is that even if you look at the money that is paid "into" the system, pensioners get a lot more out than they put in. Here are some back of an envelope calculations:
Average wage is about €33k on which €2,700 is deducted in PRSI and USC. Let's say an average person starts working at 23 and works all their life up to 67 with no interruptions. That's 44 x €2,700 (according to deloitte) = €118,800 paid "into" the system.
Current retirement age is 67 and I think the average life expectancy is 84, so that's 17 years of pension on average; at €230 per week that's just over €200,000.
Now also keep in mind that PRSI and USC are not only paid for a future pension. But even if they were, pensioners are getting twice as much out as they "paid in". 
Who makes up the difference? Young people, and that is an absolute disgrace. Demanding that people who cannot vote or are not even born yet pick up the tab for promises made by politicians. It's a ponzi scheme of the largest scale and it is falling apart.


----------



## Delboy (11 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> I fundamentally disagree with that.
> 
> Who are the people who get increments? They tend to be the youngest, most recently hired or promoted people, who by definition are already lower paid for doing the same job as their colleagues in the same grade - freezing increments is a fairly surefire way to alienate (and over a 3-year timeframe risk losing) the best performers in order to protect the people sitting at the top of their scale shuffling papers and marking off time...



and I fundamentally disagree with those over used statement. As someone with experience in the PS and with payroll, your definition is way off the mark.
I have found most people on increments to be well paid (over the average industrial wage at the very least) and if you want to alienate anybody, surely 1 of the easier ways of doing it is to give you and your colleagues a pay rise via increments each year, no matter how bad a job some of them do and how good a job you do


----------



## mandelbrot (11 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> and I fundamentally disagree with those over used statement. As someone with experience in the PS and with payroll, your definition is way off the mark.
> I have found most people on increments to be well paid (over the average industrial wage at the very least) and if you want to alienate anybody, surely 1 of the easier ways of doing it is to give you and your colleagues a pay rise via increments each year, no matter how bad a job some of them do and how good a job you do


 
You're talking about a lack of proper performance management, and your solution would appear to punish a subset of the total workforce (well performing staff who are still on the incremental scale) for the sins of the whole sector, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You have a point though, and of course it grates that someone who isn't pulling their weight gets the same increment as me. To me, a more sensible approach would be to force proper management systems on public sector organisations i.e. unless PMDS is implemented, and done so in accordance with a "normal" distribution, then NO-ONE in that particular Government Dept or PS organisation gets an increment.

What I mean by a normal distribution is that statistically something like the bottom 10-20% of staff in any large organisation tend not to perform well enough to merit their increment, so this should be enforced - make the managers manage!


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> He was surgically detached from Mr. Gilmore's knee last night & the strings that operate his limbs were also removed in order that he could attend the FG conference today.
> 
> Only a temporary arrangement though !




I wish it wasn't true!


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> You're talking about a lack of proper performance management, and your solution would appear to punish a subset of the total workforce (well performing staff who are still on the incremental scale) for the sins of the whole sector, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> You have a point though, and of course it grates that someone who isn't pulling their weight gets the same increment as me. To me, a more sensible approach would be to force proper management systems on public sector organisations i.e. unless PMDS is implemented, and done so in accordance with a "normal" distribution, then NO-ONE in that particular Government Dept or PS organisation gets an increment.
> 
> What I mean by a normal distribution is that statistically something like the bottom 10-20% of staff in any large organisation tend not to perform well enough to merit their increment, so this should be enforced - make the managers manage!



I agree.
How about double the amount of the increment but only give it to the top 20% of staff? Then at the next review if you fall into the bottom 20% previous increments can be removed.


----------



## mandelbrot (11 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I agree.
> How about double the amount of the increment but only give it to the top 20% of staff? Then at the next review if you fall into the bottom 20% previous increments can be removed.



Double the increment means you'd just end up with people running out of financial incentive sooner, since  you're talking about a scale with a ceiling. 

I don't see that there's anything inherently wrong with graduated payscales; the point of them being that a person at the top of the scale is performing at a very high level for the grade they're at. They're not unique to the PS or to Ireland.

A structure such as you describe would make PS organisations very cutthroat; it would require very careful planning of performance measures to avoid a situation where staff would have an incentive not to help each other.


----------



## Firefly (11 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> ...  make the managers manage!


 

The sad fact is that the managers themselves are in the union


----------



## Firefly (11 Sep 2012)

Chris said:


> It's a ponzi scheme of the largest scale and it is falling apart.


 
I agree. Those who have recently retired (with lumpsums) are the real winners here. 

The pension reserve fund was indeed plundered to (a) bail out the banks and (b) to ensure ECB/IMF funding for our budget deficit. The sad fact now, is that by paying these pensions and lumpsums as well as safe-guarding the CPA, the pension reserve fund can't be topped up again to meet future pension requirements (over a much larger public sector). Ponzi scheme indeed.


----------



## dereko1969 (11 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> The sad fact is that the managers themselves are in the union


 
Oh very pithy, so you're basically saying someone who is in a union can't manage? No matter how many smilies you put on it, it's still a fairly pathetic statement.


----------



## Firefly (11 Sep 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> Oh very pithy, so you're basically saying someone who is in a union can't manage? No matter how many smilies you put on it, it's still a fairly pathetic statement.


 
I didn't say they couldn't manage. 

Usually (and I could be wrong) managers and owners/leaders are on the same page in trying to bring about change in an organisation. If you were in charge, do you think having your managers in the same union as your workers would be beneficial?  Do you not see a conflict of interest?


----------



## dereko1969 (11 Sep 2012)

Different grades in the civil service have different unions. AHCPS, PSEU & CPSU. They have different interests.


----------



## Firefly (11 Sep 2012)

Let me rephrase so:

If you were in charge, do you think having your managers in a union would be beneficial? Do you not see a conflict of interest?


Now, seeing as you brought up the different unions above, do you think it would be easier or more difficult to bring about change if you had to deal with one or many unions?


----------



## Shawady (12 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> I agree. Those who have recently retired (with lumpsums) are the real winners here.
> 
> The pension reserve fund was indeed plundered to (a) bail out the banks and (b) to ensure ECB/IMF funding for our budget deficit. The sad fact now, is that by paying these pensions and lumpsums as well as safe-guarding the CPA, the pension reserve fund can't be topped up again to meet future pension requirements (over a much larger public sector). Ponzi scheme indeed.


 
I believe Chris was actually talking about the state old age pension in that post and the amount that people pay in through prsi compared to what they receive on reaching age 66.


----------



## cork (12 Sep 2012)

I am a firm believer of public services delivery.

But If you subtract the savings from the embargo from the CPA savings - you are not left with alot.

There exists an ideal opportunity for real reform of how services can be delivered.

Govt seem to be more inclined to cut services than implement reform.

This is a disgrace.


----------



## Purple (12 Sep 2012)

cork said:


> But If you subtract the savings from the embargo from the CPA savings - you are not left with alot.


I don't often agree with you but that's an excellent point.
Does anyone have the date on what the savings are due to the embargo so that we can subtract them from the figures that the big-wigs from the top floor of Liberty Hall give us?


----------



## dereko1969 (13 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I don't often agree with you but that's an excellent point.
> Does anyone have the date on what the savings are due to the embargo so that we can subtract them from the figures that the big-wigs from the top floor of Liberty Hall give us?


 
I don't see the point, is it still not a saving? Fewer people are doing the work thus there is a concomitant saving?


----------



## mandelbrot (13 Sep 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> I don't see the point, is it still not a saving? Fewer people are doing the work thus there is a concomitant saving?


 
I don't think anyone is disputing the saving, but the recruitment embargo came into effect prior to the CPA, so I presume the suggestion is that savings as a result of the embargo should be kept separate and not included as savings resulting from the CPA.

But then of course there's a converse argument that without the CPA there would be widespread industrial relations issues as retirees aren't replaced.


----------



## Chris (13 Sep 2012)

Shawady said:


> I believe Chris was actually talking about the state old age pension in that post and the amount that people pay in through prsi compared to what they receive on reaching age 66.



Yes that is correct, but for public sector pensioners the numbers will be even worse as many are able to retire a lot earlier with higher income and only in the last couple of years have they been paying the pension levy. Does someone have the average income for a public employee and average retirement age and lumpsum? Similar calculation as I made shouldn't be too difficult.


----------



## Shawady (13 Sep 2012)

I read something last week that the average weekly wage in the PS (not including pension levy) was €900, which equates to approx 45K a year. As people generally retire on the top of their scale the actual average retirement age would be higher than this, i imagine.
The problem with the PS pension scheme is that although newer members make contributions, it is not invested in an actual pension fund.


----------

