Good article on why we should not be borrowing to pay increases to public servants

[Deiseblue]

Does anyone else think that it was a very opportune time by the government to announce pay rises in the PS just after the national feel-good factor was high after the YES result and also leading into a bank holiday weekend?

Oh you cynic

The talks were always aimed to conclude at the end of May one way or the other.
It was important that the teacher unions be in a position to ballot their members prior to going on their richly deserved holiers .
The larger Unions also expect to conclude ballots in July , this is important from the Government's point of view in terms of certainty prior to the preparation of the next budget.

 

[Firefly]

It was important that the teacher unions be in a position to ballot their members prior to going on their richly deserved holiers .

Oh you troll

 

[Deiseblue]

Oh you troll

Ah you have to hang the bait out there sometimes !

 

[ashambles]

I was hoping to see more detail on the claim this would cost 566m over three years.

There seems to be a huge understatement of costs.

Clearly 2k on average for 300k employees is 600m in a full year, so depending on how that's split out we're looking at closer to 1500m over three years, i.e the cost is being understated by 1 billion euro, unfortunately this sort of subterfuge was rife in the Bertie and Beggs era. So we seem to be back to square one.

I would guess they're understating the cost even more, a 20k employee pays little in pension levy (despite what they may think) so they'll need a pay rise of around 4% to get to a 1k pay rise. Payrises have an impact on pension costs and knowing the mindset of the people involved will certainly give rise to "relativity claims" and all the rest. This 566m deal will cost closer to 2B by the time it's finished.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

I feel sorry for the middle to high earning public servants. They were asked to take bigger cuts and now they're being asked to take smaller increases. Where's the fairness in that?!

 

[venice]

I was hoping to see more detail on the claim this would cost 566m over three years.

Why do you need more detail. Looks to me you have worked out yourself that's it's going to cost 2 Billion.

No idea where you got those figures from but there you go..

 

[ashambles]

Why do you need more detail. Looks to me you have worked out yourself that's it's going to cost 2 Billion.

No idea where you got those figures from but there you go..

Does this help?

Year 1
1000 * 300000 = 300m
Year 2
1000 * 300000 * 2 = 600m
Year 3
600m?

That would add up to 1.5B, as I stated before however there as costs are associated with payrises. So it's going to be higher than this, also I can't see year 3 costing the same as year 2.

 

[Deiseblue]

Does this help?

Year 1
1000 * 300000 = 300m
Year 2
1000 * 300000 * 2 = 600m
Year 3
600m?

That would add up to 1.5B, as I stated before however there as costs are associated with payrises. So it's going to be higher than this, also I can't see year 3 costing the same as year 2.

The mooted Agreement extends the Haddington Road Agreement until 2018 , by the end of 2017 Public Sector workers will have their Gross pay restored by an average of €2,000 .

There are approx. 280,000 Public Sector workers x €2,000 = € 560,000,000.

It should be noted that the State will recoup a substantial amount of that figure - PAYE , USC , PRSI & the Pension Levy.

 

[Deiseblue]

I feel sorry for the middle to high earning public servants. They were asked to take bigger cuts and now they're being asked to take smaller increases. Where's the fairness in that?!

The Government has confirmed that all Public Sector workers earning between €65,000 & just over €100,000 per annum will have the pay cuts imposed by the Haddington Road Agreement reversed by 2017.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

The Government has confirmed that all Public Sector workers earning between €65,000 & just over €100,000 per annum will have the pay cuts imposed by the Haddington Road Agreement reversed by 2017.

So where does this €1,000 stuff fit in with that?

Are you sure?

€2,000 will hardly get someone who was on €70,000 back to their original salary.

 

[ashambles]

New deal to be voted on ,costing 560 million over 3 years

and

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...costing-566m-affordable-says-howlin-1.2231563

The new public service pay restoration deal, which will see most public service staff receive €2,000 on a phased basis, will cost the State €566 million over three years.

The figures of 566m has been quoted as being the cumulative cost over three years, I think even Deiseblue is now agreeing it isn't the cost over three years but one year. So both the post and article quoted above are incorrect.

Why this is important is during the Bertie & Begg era the government were not able to correctly predict the cost and sustainability of simple pay rises - as I said before it looks like we're back there again.

 

[Jon Snow]

and

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...costing-566m-affordable-says-howlin-1.2231563

The new public service pay restoration deal, which will see most public service staff receive €2,000 on a phased basis, will cost the State €566 million over three years.

The figures of 566m has been quoted as being the cumulative cost over three years, I think even Deiseblue is now agreeing it isn't the cost over three years but one year. So both the post and article quoted above are incorrect.

Why this is important is during the Bertie & Begg era the government were not able to correctly predict the cost and sustainability of simple pay rises - as I said before it looks like we're back there again.

I don't understand the figure either TBH - if you say the gross pay cost is 2k x 280k workers that's 560m, but then there's the income tax, PRSI, PRD, pension contributions and USC on it, which is at least half of it, so the actual cost in additional payments to PS staff is at most 280m in a year.

That doesn't include PS pensioners, not sure what their cost is and what the new deal means for them.

And then there's what effect that increase has on future entitlements, but seeing as 99% of serving PS workers are on a final salary pension, that's unknowable...

 

[Deiseblue]

and

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...costing-566m-affordable-says-howlin-1.2231563

The new public service pay restoration deal, which will see most public service staff receive €2,000 on a phased basis, will cost the State €566 million over three years.

The figures of 566m has been quoted as being the cumulative cost over three years, I think even Deiseblue is now agreeing it isn't the cost over three years but one year. So both the post and article quoted above are incorrect.

Why this is important is during the Bertie & Begg era the government were not able to correctly predict the cost and sustainability of simple pay rises - as I said before it looks like we're back there again.

The new mooted agreement if accepted by Union members will become operative in 2015 thus replacing the Haddington Road Agreement and will terminate in three years time in 2018 .
The vast majority of Public Sector will have pay partially restored in 2 tranches in 2016 & in late 2017.
Subsequent to the termination of the Agreement in 2018 negotiations on further pay restoration will hopefully recommence.
In any event the the thought that this particular new agreement will cost the State some 2 billion euro is hugely off the mark , as pointed out the net cost to the State will be far less than € 560 million.

 

[Deiseblue]

So where does this €1,000 stuff fit in with that?

Are you sure?

€2,000 will hardly get someone who was on €70,000 back to their original salary.

All Public Sector workers next year will receive a flat rate increase of €1,000 per annum , workers earning over €65,000 will not receive the €1,000 in 2017 payable to those on lesser salaries but will have their pay restored to pre Haddington Road Agreement levels.

 

[Purple]

You just agreed with everything I said???

You give the impression that state employees are funding their pensions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Am I misreading you?

Incorrect! Pre 1995 Public Sector employees of which there are many do not get the state pension

Pre 95 public sector employees get a state pension. It is tied to their rate of pay at the time they retire. Other than Judges they have the most heavily subsidised pensions in the country. They make a small contribution towards the cost but it's no much more than a token.

The real issue here is that 1 in 2 private sector employees do not pay into any pension unlike the public sector who all pay in a pension.
This needs to be addressed.

No state employee funds their own pension. They all contribute but none of them come close to covering the cost.
With the removal of the employee PRSI ceiling high paid private sector employees cover their own state pension. All other state pensions, be they for state employees or general OAP's, are subsidised through general taxation.
The retirement age should be increased significantly and everyone who works should have to fund their own pension, be they private or public sector. All pensions should be defined contribution, be their private or public.


Does anyone have the stat's on how our state pension liabilities break down? What proportion is for state employees, what's for contributory and non-contributory pensions and what makes up the rest?

 

[galway_blow_in]

the government really have no choice but to bribe the public sector as if they don't , labour will be no use to FG when they go looking for a coalition partner after the next election , add to that , if the current government don't dole out goodies to the public sector , FF will promise to anyway like they have always done

all political parties in this state actively court the public sector vote and all prioritise it above all voter demographics with the exception of pensioners

 

[Purple]

In any event the the thought that this particular new agreement will cost the State some 2 billion euro is hugely off the mark , as pointed out the net cost to the State will be far less than € 560 million.

That’s a silly and disingenuous way of putting it.

Costs are always given as gross costs. Public sector employees don’t give their salary as a net figure. Otherwise they are not tax payers. Otherwise they don’t consume state services.

The cost of this will be the gross cost plus the interest we will have to pay on the money we are borrowing to fund it.

That’s all money that will not be spent paying down our debts or on children with special needs (the teachers will take that money instead) or on sorting out the A&E crisis (the nurses and doctors will take that instead).

The government should be ashamed of themselves. The Unions are just doing their job; parasites live off their host, it’s in their nature.

 

[galway_blow_in]

I find the tone of the posts very much anti PS. As for the so called called pay increases? Are they not a small part restoration of pay cuts, as agreed?.

and so what if they are " anti " PS ?

the PS is over paid in this country by international standards and I include wages to guards , nurses and teachers

 

[galway_blow_in]

I work in the public sector , my experience was my wage was cut a lot with pension levy and other cuts and some small benefits we had taken away.
There are loads of people working in the public sector on very low wages, most of the Clerical officers would be struggling to get by on the money , but I find that there are just too many staff for each job and you can't get rid of non performing staff they are just transferred to another department and kept , the higher up are arguably paid too much.

Its not run like a private sector company I don't think its ever going to be either so its impossible to compare , problem is there are some really good workers who deserve a pay rise and loads of other non performing staff that should be and would be sacked in a private company that don't so meh its an argument that will go on forever .

clerical workers answer phones , post mail and use printers etc , were they working in the private sector , they would be on at least 30% less and forget about the same pension

 

[galway_blow_in]

That’s a silly and disingenuous way of putting it.

Costs are always given as gross costs. Public sector employees don’t give their salary as a net figure. Otherwise they are not tax payers. Otherwise they don’t consume state services.

The cost of this will be the gross cost plus the interest we will have to pay on the money we are borrowing to fund it.

That’s all money that will not be spent paying down our debts or on children with special needs (the teachers will take that money instead) or on sorting out the A&E crisis (the nurses and doctors will take that instead).

The government should be ashamed of themselves. The Unions are just doing their job; parasites live off their host, it’s in their nature.

plenty of public servants quote their wages as a NET figure as it makes it look like they are on a lower amount , its a union coached tactic , guards also omit the numerous allowances they receive