That 20% differential was paid for with boom time taxes and is simply affordable in a balanced and sustainable economy.
Yes, thanks. Fixed it.Presume you mean 'unaffordable'.
According to John Fitzgerald in Newstalk this morning it's still at between 5 and 10%.Yes, there was a PS pay premium.
The three PS paycuts have reduced the pay premium, towards 0% on average across the pay distribution.
And that still doesn't allow for the better pension in the PS. Nor for the pay premium being higher at lower pay levels.According to John Fitzgerald in Newstalk this morning it's still at between 5 and 10%.
Or for the shorter week, job security, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, flexi-time, generally nicer working environment etc..And that still doesn't allow for the better pension in the PS. Nor for the pay premium being higher at lower pay levels.
And that still doesn't allow for the better pension in the PS. Nor for the pay premium being higher at lower pay levels.
The initial report of the Public Sector Pay Commission will make interesting reading next summer.
Their terms of reference look promising -
"The Pay Commission will consider such other remuneration matters as it may be asked to consider by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform from time to time, including:
When reaching its findings the Commission shall have regard to:
- Providing objective analysis on the appropriate pay levels for identifiable groups within the public sector;
- Comparing appropriate rates for identifiable groups with prevailing private sector/market rates. This should have regard to evidence on recruitment and retention trends in respect of each group;
- Comparing appropriate rates for identifiable groups within the public service with their equivalents in other jurisdictions, particularly where internationally traded skillsets are required, having due regard to differences in living costs;
- Providing objective analysis on the appropriate pay levels for officeholders’ pay and pensions.
(a) The superannuation and other benefits applying in the public service;
(b) Security of tenure, where it applies to public servants;
(c) Pay comparisons taking account of relevant characteristics;
(d) The public service reform agenda;
(e) Evidence on recruitment and retention within the public service;
(f) Any other relevant matters including impact on national competitiveness and sustainable national finances and equity considerations;
(g) Any other issues as they are determined by Government."
there'll be no wage reductions in the PubSec.
Unions will get down to negotiating payrises for their members
You're having a pop at the man. I know nothing about him but the article makes sense to me. How about you comment on the content?John Fitzgerald is ranting on similar to Garret with their averaging of this, that, and the other. After all, he's just an economist and we all know you'll never see 2 of them agree on anything even though they'll all trained in the same way. I do believe the same Mr Fitz worked for the state as an advisor and economist before the proverbial hit the fan. What wonderful work he did and fantastic advice he gave which saved us from going up the swanney. I'd take what John Fitz says with a pinch pinch of salt. His pedigree, when it was tested, proved to be very wanting indeed. However, there's certain people who love to buy a thoroughbred because they think they're buying a racehorse. Nuff said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?