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

[mandelbrot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... make the managers manage!

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

 

[Firefly]

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]

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]

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]

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