1 year break in PS increments

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
782
Does anyone know how much would be saved if service in 2011 were ignored when calculating Public Service increments?

No one would take a pay cut in 2011; salaries would remain at 2010 levels and increments would resume again in 2012. However the 2011 increment would not be backdated so the 2011 saving would carry forward into future years.
 
Last edited:


lotus1

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
28
Does anyone know how much would be saved if service in 2011 were ignored when calculating Public Service increments?

No one would take a pay cut in 2011; salaries would remain at 2010 levels and increments would resume again in 2012. However the 2011 increment would not be backdated so the 2011 saving would carry forward into future years.
This probably would be regarded as a paycut by those at the lower end of the scales whereas the higher earners at the top of the scales with no further increments due would be untouched.
 

bogtrotter

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,388
This probably would be regarded as a paycut by those at the lower end of the scales whereas the higher earners at the top of the scales with no further increments due would be untouched.


Very true...

Would it not make more sense to introduce a maximum wage of around 70,000 throughout the public sector and at the same time bring in a new tax band of 80% on salaries exceeding 70,000 in the private sector.

This would raise much needed revenue and would not put people on low wages on the poverty line......There is another way forward and until it is explored I cannot take political waffle seriously..
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
782
This probably would be regarded as a paycut by those at the lower end of the scales whereas the higher earners at the top of the scales with no further increments due would be untouched.
Some logic that! Being paid the same would be "regarded as a paycut".

If we are trying to avoid "pain" it would seem to be at least a possibility.

Apart from how it might be regarded, does anyone know the financial impact on govt spending?
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
782
Very true...

Would it not make more sense to introduce a maximum wage of around 70,000 throughout the public sector and at the same time bring in a new tax band of 80% on salaries exceeding 70,000 in the private sector.

This would raise much needed revenue and would not put people on low wages on the poverty line......There is another way forward and until it is explored I cannot take political waffle seriously..
Who mentioned putting anyone "on the poverty line"? With inflation close to nil this suggestion just might work.

"Increments" don't happen in most of the private sector. A wage freeze is a wage freeze for most non public servants...
 

asset test

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
14,593
Very true...

Would it not make more sense to introduce a maximum wage of around 70,000 throughout the public sector and at the same time bring in a new tax band of 80% on salaries exceeding 70,000 in the private sector.

This would raise much needed revenue and would not put people on low wages on the poverty line......There is another way forward and until it is explored I cannot take political waffle seriously..
oops.... some Principal Officers and higher would be a bit miffed by that figure bogtrotter. But then again, who cares? Many are facing an uncertain future as we speak, both private sector and public.

I dunno. Don't think it would work, but I would like to see some cap, if even for a year, and then paid back when things get better.... oh yeahhhhhhpetunia
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
JHC

Why should someone get a pay rise each year based on just being there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End increments is the only way forward.
 

Chrisco

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
3,822
I think they are in the employment contracts; the government wouldn't be able to suspend them unilaterally.
 

lotus1

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
28
Some logic that! Being paid the same would be "regarded as a paycut".

If we are trying to avoid "pain" it would seem to be at least a possibility.

Apart from how it might be regarded, does anyone know the financial impact on govt spending?
First point on Executive Officer scale circa 30k. Next point 32k . Max of scale circa 47k.
Person on 30k paid 17k less than their colleague for doing exactly the same job. Person on 30k deprived of their increment of 2k. Person on 47k has received all their increments and not deprived !

Using the same logic serving workers pay cut. PS pensions not.
PS pensioners linked to a non existent pay rate !!
 

gatsbygirl20

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
22,551
Very true...

Would it not make more sense to introduce a maximum wage of around 70,000 throughout the public sector and at the same time bring in a new tax band of 80% on salaries exceeding 70,000 in the private sector.

This would raise much needed revenue and would not put people on low wages on the poverty line......There is another way forward and until it is explored I cannot take political waffle seriously..
80% tax band? From people who object to any raising of taxes in the wider community? School Principals---some of the hardest working people in the PS--would not be too pleased.
They might "take their wealth abroad", or they might feel that "begrudgers" were "penalising success". And all the other excuses we so often hear......

We have a hard time recruiting Principals as it is...
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,598
Impose the pension levy on all employments supported by the public purse, i.e. the banks.
 

bogtrotter

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,388
Who mentioned putting anyone "on the poverty line"? With inflation close to nil this suggestion just might work.

"Increments" don't happen in most of the private sector. A wage freeze is a wage freeze for most non public servants...
It seems to me that you know nothing about our public service employees....Most public servants on increments are on the lower points of the scale and have already had their incomes reduced bu up to 20% ...They cannot take any more reductions in their salaries without resort to family income support schemes which would cost the state more than they save on reducing their wages....


There is plenty of room at the top of the scales to save without making those on small incomes carry the burden..........The same applies throughout our workforce and those who earn without having to work...
 

Nermal

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,320
I think they are in the employment contracts; the government wouldn't be able to suspend them unilaterally.
They are performance dependent. The standard of performance meriting an increment could be 'altered'.
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
782
I think they are in the employment contracts; the government wouldn't be able to suspend them unilaterally.
Can we forget all other issues but the potential saving for now. First let's see what the numbers would be. Then we can consider the contractual issues.

Also can we stick with this suggestion and its merits (or the reverse) and not muddle it up with other hare brained ideas like capping everyone at 70k...we all know this is not a runner in the real world.
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,598
Also can we stick with this suggestion and its merits (or the reverse) and not muddle it up with other hare brained ideas like capping everyone at 70k...we all know this is not a runner in the real world.
Yup, the only goer is to hit the lower paid, the higher paid must be protected, "in the real world".
 

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,831
It seems to me that you know nothing about our public service employees....
Private sector workers at these wages levels are paid for the job they do, they don't receive increments. The whole idea is absurd unless you still believe in a 19th century public sector.
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
782
It seems to me that you know nothing about our public service employees....Most public servants on increments are on the lower points of the scale and have already had their incomes reduced bu up to 20% ...They cannot take any more reductions in their salaries without resort to family income support schemes which would cost the state more than they save on reducing their wages....


There is plenty of room at the top of the scales to save without making those on small incomes carry the burden..........The same applies throughout our workforce and those who earn without having to work...
Where did I suggest a reduction?
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
782
It seems to me that you know nothing about our public service employees....Most public servants on increments are on the lower points of the scale and have already had their incomes reduced bu up to 20% ...They cannot take any more reductions in their salaries without resort to family income support schemes which would cost the state more than they save on reducing their wages....


There is plenty of room at the top of the scales to save without making those on small incomes carry the burden..........The same applies throughout our workforce and those who earn without having to work...
Where did I suggest a reduction?

(oh and while I'm at it when did they have a 20% cut?. The figure bandied about everywhere is 14% and that's an average. The cut at lower wage levels was less...)
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top