Do you think nurses will get their payrise?

jay0109 wrote: »

Basic economics- the Govt has to pay out X in wages each year but only took in Y.
That is why it was an issue...the Govt didn't have the money to pay it's employees and required a bailout for that. The ECB and IMF said they'd cover the gap with loans but cuts had to be made to what were some of the highest paid Civil Servants on the planet.

This is not new news. This is well known to everyone and anyone who follows political and economic issues with even the most basic level of interest

Basic economics ? The people who paid for the crash were all of us taxpayers and are still paying for it. Get real ! The banks and the large developers, caused the massive debt, which brought the country to its knees. Not the public service! Are you a builder or a banker that you want to rewrite history.? The largest debt that is being paid off is Anglo's which was nothing to do with your average person in the street , and all to do with greed and corruption. Where have you had your head for the last 10 years?
The country may be back up there growth wise but the health service, and other areas like education , are still struggling and unless investment is forthcoming soon into pay and conditions the next generation won't have a country worth living in.

Deleted User wrote: »

I pay 550 for a double bedroom in Dublin city centre.

How long have you been living there and when was the rent agreed? I've househunted a lot for friends over the last year or so and I can never find anything close to that. In fact, the cheapest thing on Daft right now is on St. Anthony's Road at €642 per month - and that's possibly the most dangerous road anywhere in Dublin, with this particular studio apartment directly next door to the infamous burnt-out house with "garda scum" spray painted on the front door :D:D

Unless you're implying that nurses should be forced to live in what is in all probability a major Kinahan stronghold (I wouldn't even set foot on Anthony's Road in broad daylight, never mind coming home from a late shift after dark, and I'm a fairly big lad - if I was a young woman on my own or even a less sure of himself lad, forget it) then it must be admitted that spiralling housing are indeed a genuine and legitimate upward pressure on the general cost of living and therefore pay. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Miike wrote: »

Also if I was to calculate your average wage and include all the senior level staff above you in that average, would you say it's a fair representation of what people on your level earn?

Sorry - I didn't realise that what you meant by average is calculated after excluding anyone in grades/positions earning more than you! I wasn't aware of nursing/public service "statistics".



So folks, €57000 is incorrect as the average annual earnings for a whole time equivalent nurse because:
1. it includes those on high earning grades (most unfair) and

2. It includes premiums and allowances (even though these were introduced and increased in the past as a way to satisfy wage demands/disputes without calling them wage increases).


Probably the second one is the way this dispute will eventually be settled. And then this will be pocketed by the nurses and they will be back in another couple of years looking for more money (and sympathy), and quoting their basic pay scales as evidence.

Meanwhile all other HSE sectors will demand comparable increases. Will services improve as a result? Will they f***.

I posted this a few pages back, perhaps it got lost in the many posts on the interim but some opinions from the nurses posting would be appreciated. Does the INMO claim that nurses are seeking seeking parity of base pay with AHPs also include reneging payments and educational opportunities that AHPs do not receive in lieu of their base pay raise. If not then it is hardly fair to claim that it is parity.

Note: I am not including overtime and anti-social hours allowances in this question. They should, of course, be continued to be paid to anyone working them.















[Quote:]
Originally Posted by Miike View Post
Do you think nurses are being unreasonable asking to be paid the extra 12% so that they're on the same level as other healthcare team members like OT Physio or Social Work?

Nurses have objectively tougher jobs than all of the above and have longer working weeks. This rhetoric of BUT THEY HAVE OVERTIME! AND PREMIUMS! is ****ing bananas. So does everyone else in the HSE. [/quote]







*Everybody* doesn't get paid overtime and premiums, I don't even get paid to be on call yet it is still expected of me and I do it.

A question, if nurses have their base salary raised by 12% to match AHPs (it is unfair in my eyes to blanket raise for all grades without addressing the 2 tier pay system penalising new graduates, they are the ones leaving the country after all) will nurses be willing to forego the educational and salary allowances that they currently receive that the AHPs don't?

I don't know about OT, physio or social work as you listed but none of the few hundred people working in my discipline have any of the following, off the top of my head, open to them:

Paid final year college placement,
Opportunities to have master fees paid for them and do them while retaining increment benefits.
Extra pay allowances for post grad qualifications.
Extra pay allowances for specific units/locations.
Many more ways of advancing their career and increasing remuneration, either by going down the managerial route (multiple CNMs of various grades in every ward and dept without even considering the higher managerial grades) or via specialisation (CNS and ANP).

Obviously not every nurse receives all of these but they are there to be availed of. Not so for others, perhaps that is why there is a base salary disparity, to account for the lack of advancement options others have over the course of their career? Somehow I doubt all of those allowances would be given up in lieu of higher base pay.

The primary focus should be to end 2 tier pay, a 12% pay rise isn't much to encourage a new graduate to stay in the country if they are still on 10% less than staff on the old pay scheme.

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

*Everybody* doesn't get paid overtime and premiums, I don't even get paid to be on call yet it is still expected of me and I do it.

A question, if nurses have their base salary raised by 12% to match AHPs (it is unfair in my eyes to blanket raise for all grades without addressing the 2 tier pay system penalising new graduates, they are the ones leaving the country after all) will nurses be willing to forego the educational and salary allowances that they currently receive that the AHPs don't?

I don't know about OT, physio or social work as you listed but none of the few hundred people working in my discipline have any of the following, off the top of my head, open to them:

Paid final year college placement,
Opportunities to have master fees paid for them and do them while retaining increment benefits.
Extra pay allowances for post grad qualifications.
Extra pay allowances for specific units/locations.
Many more ways of advancing their career and increasing remuneration, either by going down the managerial route (multiple CNMs of various grades in every ward and dept without even considering the higher managerial grades) or via specialisation (CNS and ANP).

Obviously not every nurse receives all of these but they are there to be availed of. Not so for others, perhaps that is why there is a base salary disparity, to account for the lack of advancement options others have over the course of their career? Somehow I doubt all of those allowances would be given up in lieu of higher base pay.

The primary focus should be to end 2 tier pay, a 12% pay rise isn't much to encourage a new graduate to stay in the country if they are still on 10% less than staff on the old pay scheme.

You are going to be brushed off in this one. The Nursing Unions negotiated these "allowances" to settle previous disputes - as a fig leaf so that both parties could claim that there was no real wage increase that would breech existing pay agreements. Of course nurses will now insist that this has nothing to do with wages. In other words, they have pocketed the gains and come back for more. And they seem to get very indignant that these benefits are being mentioned as part of their "total compensation package".

jay0109 wrote: »

Again, with the Socialist Workers Party rhetoric:rolleyes:

I'll repeat- the banking bailout will cost 60bn in the end. Disgusting, horrible. I'm 100% with you on that.
But there was another 60bn+ borrowed around the time of the crash and after from the Troika to pay the daily bills the Government were running up i.e. Teachers, Nurses, Guards, Civil Servants etc. We are also still paying that back.
The tax base had collapsed, the Govt wage bill had gone way beyond what the country could afford.

The crash was two fold, it wasn't just the banking burst. You must have heard of this?


And no, I'm not a banker or builder :rolleyes:

how much of this money went to social welfare spending after the crash, and if so why?

the crash was way more complicated that two entities, but you ll find public expenditure played very little in its occurrence. i have reason to believe we were in fact a surplus country before the crash, i may stand corrected on this though, again, the crash occurred largely due to the rapid rise of private debt, of which we havent solved, and not only in this country.

jay0109 wrote: »

Again, with the Socialist Workers Party rhetoric:rolleyes:

I'll repeat- the banking bailout will cost 60bn in the end. Disgusting, horrible. I'm 100% with you on that.
But there was another 60bn+ borrowed around the time of the crash and after from the Troika to pay the daily bills the Government were running up i.e. Teachers, Nurses, Guards, Civil Servants etc. We are also still paying that back.
The tax base had collapsed, the Govt wage bill had gone way beyond what the country could afford.

The crash was two fold, it wasn't just the banking burst. You must have heard of this?


And no, I'm not a banker or builder :rolleyes:

I would have no objection in principle to nurses being paid high wages but the runes are lining up and we are closer to the next economic crash than the last one .

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I would have no objection in principle to nurses being paid high wages but the runes are lining up and we are closer to the next economic crash than the last one .

i do expect another downturn soon, but i suspect it wont be as bad as 08, of course i could be wrong, but our global status is different this time, the global banking system isnt as credit easy, particularly in this neck of the woods, but many other parts of the world are, it ll be interesting to see if any country experiences the elusive 'soft landing'!

jay0109 wrote: »

A lot went on Social Welfare but the vast majority went to keep the wages paid.
What are you suggesting? That social welfare should have been stopped?
Not sure what point your trying to make.
The fact is the Govt didn't have money to pay wages (or social welfare) and had to borrow from the Troika (who imposed certain conditions). Fact.

You may like to exclude public expenditure from your line of thought on the crash and the bailout. But the reality is that we had no money...no matter what or who caused the crash, we had to borrow to keep the show running.

we probably need to find the exact data to further this discussion, as neither of us truly knows this detail, any takers out there?

my point being, public expenditure rapidly increased during the crash due to the increase in public debt, as the bad loans were transferred onto the public balance sheet, the rapid increase in unemployment, and subsequent welfare bill, i do believe austerity was imposed, squeezing the bejesus out of the public sector(what a fcuking idiotic idea in a recession!)

facehugger99 wrote: »

It was even worse.

• €13bn in 2008
• €23.5bn in 2009
• €53.5bn in 2010
• €22bn in 2011
• €14bn in 2012
• €10bn in 2013

Borrowing to fund the public servants and social welfare recipients that Bertie bought and (we) paid for during the good times.

It makes the banking bailout look like the Teddy Bear's picnic.

We're still paying back the money and you have the same fcukers telling us it was really all the fault of the banks while they have their hands out looking for more of the same.

It's time people woke up to the bull**** they're being spun by populist economic morons.

once again, from the graph supplied, please tell me, which line(on the graph), was the more likely culprit of the creation of the crash?

source:

https://www.profstevekeen.com/data-on-credit-employment-and-house-prices/#Ireland

Miike wrote: »

Nice try, but I'll play because clearly literacy is outside the realm of possibility for you.

Let's make it real simple, so you can keep up.
You think it's fair the include directors/assistant directors in the average wage for a nurse? Just because they were nurses one time does not mean they do nursing work, its very bloody simple. Now let's try again... if I took your wage and added the director level salaries of your company to it and got an average. Do you think it would accurately represent your salary?

The natural question would be , will the directors/assistant directors benefit from any pay increases accrued from the industrial action ?

hurler32 wrote: »

What does a standard nurses salary range start and go to ??

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/hr-circulars/hr-circular-028-2018-appendix-3-1st-january-2019-consolidated-pay-scales-final.pdf


29,346 then 13 increment points to 45,701