But how many of the 30,000 are still entitled to/or qualify for increments?
Croke Park 2 - dead before it gets voted upon
- Thread starter Leper
- Start date
But how many of the 30,000 are still entitled to/or qualify for increments?
Who said that?
You just need to believe in yourself, leave the herd behind and rise to the top.
OK - maybe I was a bit OTT in the original statement - but the essential point is that talented people dont need unions, good people are a scarce commodity in any economy in any country at any time, so why do you subscribe to a system that penalises you for the sake of subsidising those that wont pull their weight.
As regards 'good people are always a scarce commodity' - you might say what about all the architects and solicitors - I'll bet you they wont spent the rest of their lives unemployed, they didnt get where they were without brains & effort, that will get them back working eventually - you cant keep a good man down.
Bill Struth
Registered User
- Messages
- 182
According to Dan O'Brien in today's Irish Times:
"...public sector workers, despite having suffered net income reductions, have, on average, retained a large part of the gains from bubble-era pay increases.
The average gross pay packet in the public sector* was €63,305 last year, down by €1,300 from the peak registered in 2009. But it remains well up on the €58,170 paid in 2007 just as the bubble burst"
So even though cuts have been made, wages are still higher, on average, than they were at the height of the boom..
"...public sector workers, despite having suffered net income reductions, have, on average, retained a large part of the gains from bubble-era pay increases.
The average gross pay packet in the public sector* was €63,305 last year, down by €1,300 from the peak registered in 2009. But it remains well up on the €58,170 paid in 2007 just as the bubble burst"
So even though cuts have been made, wages are still higher, on average, than they were at the height of the boom..
Bill Struth
Registered User
- Messages
- 182
Now if only I was paid the average wage...
C
celebtastic
Guest
In your own time...
I have just visited the IMPACT website and glanced through the additional harsh details that are being put to its membership for acceptance/rejection. I cant believe that a trades union prepared this document; even the government could not have presented worse.
I feel IMPACT will have a lot less members within a few weeks.
I feel IMPACT will have a lot less members within a few weeks.
19,710 in 2012 of 31,618 civil servants ( 63% ) - the majority of whom are lower paid workers.
Obviously Celebtastic's figure of 99.9 % includes VAT !
C
celebtastic
Guest
C
celebtastic
Guest
Thanks for that
The headline, I think, instructive:
"Nearly two-thirds of civil servants in line for pay increase this year"
It gives the lie to all this guff about "pay freezes"
The headline, I think, instructive:
"Nearly two-thirds of civil servants in line for pay increase this year"
It gives the lie to all this guff about "pay freezes"
On the bright side we have managed to bring the percentage receiving increments down from your 99.9% to 63% - you really are going to have to stop exaggerating/inventing statistics , it has gone beyond tiresome !
And that percentage is dropping fast every year considering no promotions or recruiting.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
You don't appear to understand what an incremental payscale means, or are choosing not to - as a result it's you who is talking guff.
Paying someone in accordance with their existing contract and not increasing the salary scales is a pay FREEZE.
Not paying someone an increment which under their contract they are entitled to (subject to satisfactory performance), is a pay CUT. i.e. the effect of the action is that the individual is being paid less than their contract of employment states they should be paid - that is the very definition of a pay cut surely?
Not honouring the contracts of PS workers is only going to result in the people who actually have real-world marketable skills/experience jumping ship - the dead wood that the PS bashers believe is causing all of the inefficiencies will stay on to the bitter end. That's what you get when you use a blunt instrument to perform delicate surgery.
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
Yet again you are using statistics incorrectly. A significant number of staff would not be getting increments due to being at the top of the scale already, staff get two long service increments after having reached the top of the scale, after 3 years and then 5 years (could be wrong on the latter).
However, the numbers not getting 1 or 2 is a disgrace.
To clarify what the statistics mean/where they come from: the numbers originally came from a Dail question. The question asked about performance ratings, not increments awarded/denied.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/26/00132.asp
This showed that of the 77% of civil servants who had their assessment completed (about 23,000, my calc), only 0.1% (about 23, my calc) of them scored a 1 which is the level at which an increment is denied. Various news outlets than made up some stats of their own by applying the 0.1% to the whole population of civil servants (30,000) to come up with the number, 30, of civil servants who were denied increments. This (news outlets) calculation ignored a couple of things: (a) the 23% of people who didn't have assessments, (b) the fact that not every civil servant is eligible for an increment every year because of long service/top of scale issues and (c) the possibility of grade differences in an increment-eligible year vs a non-eligible year.
So 30 increment denials is not a correct number (actual is likely to be lower...) but it is correct to state that 0.1% of those assessed got a 1 on their assessment - and so 99.9% got a 2 or above (the qualifying level for an increment if the employee is eligible in that year).
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/26/00132.asp
This showed that of the 77% of civil servants who had their assessment completed (about 23,000, my calc), only 0.1% (about 23, my calc) of them scored a 1 which is the level at which an increment is denied. Various news outlets than made up some stats of their own by applying the 0.1% to the whole population of civil servants (30,000) to come up with the number, 30, of civil servants who were denied increments. This (news outlets) calculation ignored a couple of things: (a) the 23% of people who didn't have assessments, (b) the fact that not every civil servant is eligible for an increment every year because of long service/top of scale issues and (c) the possibility of grade differences in an increment-eligible year vs a non-eligible year.
So 30 increment denials is not a correct number (actual is likely to be lower...) but it is correct to state that 0.1% of those assessed got a 1 on their assessment - and so 99.9% got a 2 or above (the qualifying level for an increment if the employee is eligible in that year).