Public sector pay freeze for top 40,000 public servants announced

I was thinking more along the lines of making sure everyone who was in the industry that took us down takes some personal pain for their part in the downfall. Money should go to the exchequer and should be levied regardless of whether they are or arent still employed in banking.

OK. Let's nail them all to crosses. Shall we start with the all the bankers from tellers to the top as you have stated, then the developers, engineers, architects, builders including carpenters, electricians, roofers and JCB drivers, property investors, the media, town planners, county councillors for rezoning, NRA for the grid lock, Financial Regulator, every one in the Dept of Finance starting with the tea lady, Dept of the Environment, Dept of Transport, the social partners and the house buyers.

Right, I'll get the nails. We can then look at the retailers & wholesalers who pushed up margins, the farmers and solicitors. Oh, I almost forgot, the insurance companies!

Have I covered off every one who played a part in taking us down.
 
Why must cuts happen everywhere? If an employer is profitable, forcing a pay cut on the employees out of some warped notion that they must share some pain, that just makes the employer more profitable - doesn't do a whole lot for the economy other than a bit of extra corporation tax.

So tell me why should those working in the public service be hit with a pay cut? How are they to blame for what has happened? Why should they take the pain?

Public services like the Fire Service, Gardaí and Nurses do not generate any money but provide an invaluable service to this country had nothing to do with the downfall of our economy, yet they must be hit with a pay cut? And at the same time, as pay cuts are being talked about, the HSE Chief Executive will get a bonus of €70,000?

Area's such as Revenue, Customs and Motor Tax offices that make huge amounts of money, should the staff in those offices be saved from a pay cut?
 
So tell me why should those working in the public service be hit with a pay cut? How are they to blame for what has happened? Why should they take the pain?
It's nothing to do with blame. Their employer (the state) can't afford to pay the current wage bill. So through some combination of job cuts and pay cuts, costs have to be saved. We are borrowing €400M a week at the moment - that is just unsustainable.
 
It's nothing to do with blame. Their employer (the state) can't afford to pay the current wage bill. So through some combination of job cuts and pay cuts, costs have to be saved. We are borrowing €400M a week at the moment - that is just unsustainable.

+1
Keep saying it; it might sink in.
 
It's nothing to do with blame. Their employer (the state) can't afford to pay the current wage bill. So through some combination of job cuts and pay cuts, costs have to be saved. We are borrowing €400M a week at the moment - that is just unsustainable.

Orka, I totally agree with you, but, and its a big but, cuts should and must be sought in other areas too.

Incentivised career breaks could be introduced public service wide, as far as I know they have been so far limited to the Civil Service and the uptake has been slow but nobody was expecting 100's or 1000's to pack up and leave.

Pay increments could be frozen which would mean that future pay is set at a rate that would not need any further borrowing.

Cutting the pay of 350,000 workers will have an immediate knock on effects, tax take will be down and disposable income will be dramatically hit. You also have the fact that motivation and the morale of all public service workers will be damaged. Cuts must be achieved but they must be fair.
 
You see now, I never said or implied that.

It was a very, very simple question (now even more simplified) to which there can easily be a YES or NO answer:

"The public sector - cuts are required"

Just to be pedantic, it's a statement, not a question.....

It's nothing to do with blame. Their employer (the state) can't afford to pay the current wage bill. So through some combination of job cuts and pay cuts, costs have to be saved. We are borrowing €400M a week at the moment - that is just unsustainable.

Very good point.

I apologise if there are some who have an axe to grind with the PS for whatever justified or misguided opinion. I'm sorry that the media is whipping up the frenzy and blood lust. I'm sorry that maybe you (those in the PS) or your friends or your colleagues are facing a very uncertain period. I really am.

But the arithmatic fails every time with what we have and what we can afford.

There are means to bridge this gap and not all relate to pay and job numbers. But what we agree on must be beneficial for the greater good, not personal self interest. If you're a public servant, the greater good is the public.

I wasn't happy to take a pay cut, but then I wasn't happy that it could lead to friends and colleagues losing their jobs. So I signed up. It was the same simple arithmatic, what was comming in wasn't going to match what was going out.

To come back to the same tiring issue, about comparing private with public, in certain cases we can, in others we can't. But when people say the private sector by and large hasn't taken pay cuts may have missed the numbers on the live register. The CSO figures only include pay cuts for people in employment. Too many have seen 100% pay cut.

But for those employers that haven't seen their basic rates cut have made other changes because they've had to, stuff that doesn't get recognised by the CSO. They've done everything they can to not cut pay and to try and keep people in employment. But there has been swift and quick reform.

The important thing is that in the vast majority of cases this has been with the support of employees. They may not have liked it, but ultimately they were able to see the greater good.
 
Cutting the pay of 350,000 workers will have an immediate knock on effects, tax take will be down and disposable income will be dramatically hit. You also have the fact that motivation and the morale of all public service workers will be damaged. Cuts must be achieved but they must be fair.

Labour Party Economics: about as much value as a windscreen wiper on a submarine.

Tax take is pretty much at rock bottom as it is. Retail is hit as hard as its ever going to be. People just aren't spending and to be honest, a few more people spending a bit less isn't going to make that big a difference, not in comparison to the savings made immediately off the wage bill.

That's why we'll be having tax reform to address the reliance on retail going hand in hand with the McCarthy Report.
 
a few more people spending a bit less isn't going to make that big a difference, .

It will be 350,000 people and their families spending less. Do you really think that's not going to affect shops, restaurants, pubs, hairdressers, taxi drivers, petrol stations, various suppliers to the aforementioned, particulary when some of them are already barely hanging on by their fingernails?
 
First point.

The government has a plan to reduce the deficit by 16 billion over 5 years.
Why not estimate how much of this is likely to come as tax and how much as spending cuts. Say 25% increase taxes against 75% spening cuts.
That leaves 12 billion of spending cuts so as PS wage bill is 1/3 of all spending it would be reasonable to look for cuts of 4 billion. Is this possible over 5 years - I think so. What would it represent? Roughly 10% cut in salary and 10% cut in numbers?
One of the factors that is leading to redcued spending IMO is the uncertainty out there because the government does not seem to have a plan.

Second point.

As a civil servant, I think I would like to see pay increases in the private sector. More income tax for the government which will lead to increase revenue and less spending cuts required.
 
Would it be correct to say that a pure flat rate income tax of 25% - no exemptions, no credits - would clear the deficit and leave cash to spare? To me this is the most painless way of doing it and would be popular with most PAYE workers.
 
Liaconn, any chance you could harangue beanpole with PMs rather than subjecting the rest of us to this squeaky, scratchy broken record? It's a public discussion forum. People can make suggestions that they don't have to back up with hard documented peer-reviewed evidence. Beanpole is well known to be OTT in his comments and views. He's not going to answer you. He doesn't have to answer to you for his opinions - just as you don't have to agree with him.

I would normally agree with what you said but this thread was started by Beanpole so I believe he should answer the questions put to him.

I also have asked him questions but he has not answered them.
 
It will be 350,000 people and their families spending less. Do you really think that's not going to affect shops, restaurants, pubs, hairdressers, taxi drivers, petrol stations, various suppliers to the aforementioned, particulary when some of them are already barely hanging on by their fingernails?

But as we keep being told, a fair percentage of those will be from natural wastage. What percent exactly: I don't know. All I know is that in previous discussions it has been mentioned that NW alone will give signficant savings.

However, tax will be reformed so it isn't such a big hit on VAT etc. But the revenue from VAT just doesn't come near (and thus the possible loss from the redundancies) the gap in the public expenses. It will be a hit yes, but not as big a hit as we're taking on the public finances.

And it's not to say it's a percentage across the board from all levels. At this stage, this is an assumption. If it were me, I'd assume it to be on the basis of most similar redundancy packages where the package is geared to be more attractive to those nearing, or withing earshot of retirement age. How many would that account for?

There will have to be strategic redundacies where the role just isn't needed. First, that has to happen anyway and it is a hit the PS is going to have to take. Those roles cannot be justified. Last, it is the PS unions claiming this means less nurses etc, when there is no indication that this will be the case.

Plus, do we honestly think there won't be a generous redundancy package?

Pay cuts can help avoid some of this, but not all cases. I take no delight in seeing people lose their jobs. I take no pleasure in anyone getting a pay cut. But when it really is down to bankrupting the country or not, for me the greater good is the only reasonable argument we have.
 
I should say perhaps qualify earlier comments. I do not believe that - in an ideal world where all options can be explored - pay cuts are the only way to achieve the required reduction in the cost of the public sector wage bill.

Wholesale layoffs would work too.

There are LOTS of people in Planning Offices, Land Registry, Revenue, Health and Safety Authority etc. who are already faced with a hugely reduced workload.

There are LOTS of employees in other services where we may just have to decide we can no longer afford to enjoy public services at the levels we have previously enjoyed.

We have nibbled at the edges of this issue in reducing the numbers of 'temporary' teachers and such like. My difficulty is that I have absolute zero confidence in the ability of the public sector to introduce wide-scale redundancies on a 'statutory redundancy only' cost basis. If I thought that there was any realistic prospect of wide-scale layoffs being pushed through, I would certainly take this option as part of the solution. Given my belief that such wide-scale layoffs are utterly impossible, or can only be done at a cost that would make our public debt even worse, what are we left with?
 
And look at where "Fianna Fail Economics" has got us. Borrowing €400m every single week. Amazing

I find this so depressing: tacked onto "we didn't cause it, we shouldn't have to take a pay cut............

Look, lads, I didn't cause it either but my drop in income as a solicitor didn't stop when it hit the floor - nope, it just kept going down.

We cannot afford to run the country the way it has been run and continues to run. The pain will hit everyone - there cannot be exceptions for anyone who didn't cause the problem.

And the worst part is that I still don't believe the message has gotten home to way too many people.

mf
 
Agree 100% with the last three posts

+1

The problem is that our discussion matters not one whit - the Government do not have the bottle to make the sort of cuts required.

An alternative administration, including the Labour party, would be far far worse.

... and so we will continue to slide deeper from recession into depression.

One of the constitutional factors that needs to be addressed is our electoral system. STV PR has led us into the position of a very weak government, unwilling to take hard decisions to upset the unions, the farmers, the bankers, or pretty much anyone else.
 
I find this so depressing: tacked onto "we didn't cause it, we shouldn't have to take a pay cut............

Look, lads, I didn't cause it either but my drop in income as a solicitor didn't stop when it hit the floor - nope, it just kept going down.

We cannot afford to run the country the way it has been run and continues to run. The pain will hit everyone - there cannot be exceptions for anyone who didn't cause the problem.

And the worst part is that I still don't believe the message has gotten home to way too many people.
This is quite patronising. Don't assume that because you are not hearing the answer you want, people 'dont get it'. Many of those people do 'get it' and have offered different answers and solutions.
I should say perhaps qualify earlier comments. I do not believe that - in an ideal world where all options can be explored - pay cuts are the only way to achieve the required reduction in the cost of the public sector wage bill.

Wholesale layoffs would work too.

There are LOTS of people in Planning Offices, Land Registry, Revenue, Health and Safety Authority etc. who are already faced with a hugely reduced workload.

There are LOTS of employees in other services where we may just have to decide we can no longer afford to enjoy public services at the levels we have previously enjoyed.
Don't the Land Registry have years of backlogs on hand to catch up on? I've no idea why you think the HSA have a reduced workload - their work was always on a sampling basis, so they never got to inspect every building site or every farm. Given the cutbacks that many public and private business are making in their own H&S staff, I'd have thought that the HSA will have more than enough productive work to keep them going. Every local authority planning office is currently rewriting their county development plan, which defines their planning policy for the next decade or so. These guys aren't sitting round scratching their asses.

I think those who propose cuts in public services have a duty to be reasonably specific about which services they propose to cut back.
Tax take is pretty much at rock bottom as it is. Retail is hit as hard as its ever going to be. People just aren't spending and to be honest, a few more people spending a bit less isn't going to make that big a difference, not in comparison to the savings made immediately off the wage bill.
Famous last words...


There are means to bridge this gap and not all relate to pay and job numbers. But what we agree on must be beneficial for the greater good, not personal self interest. If you're a public servant, the greater good is the public.
Indeed, the greater good is down to the public - who are (and the hint comes in the name) the users of public services. There are those who (very quietly) are quite happy to see public services being cut, because they will be jumping in at the chance to offer these services, at a price of course. This is the privatisation agenda, led by Mary Harney, and followed enthusiastically by many others.

To come back to the same tiring issue, about comparing private with public, in certain cases we can, in others we can't. But when people say the private sector by and large hasn't taken pay cuts may have missed the numbers on the live register. The CSO figures only include pay cuts for people in employment. Too many have seen 100% pay cut.
Indeed, many in the public sector have had their 100% pay cut - including just about all contract staff, many of whom were in essential roles.

But for those employers that haven't seen their basic rates cut have made other changes because they've had to, stuff that doesn't get recognised by the CSO. They've done everything they can to not cut pay and to try and keep people in employment. But there has been swift and quick reform.

The important thing is that in the vast majority of cases this has been with the support of employees. They may not have liked it, but ultimately they were able to see the greater good.
And indeed this kind of reorganisation has already been taking place right across the public sector - the private sector don't have a monopoly on quick & swift reform.
Why must cuts happen everywhere? If an employer is profitable, forcing a pay cut on the employees out of some warped notion that they must share some pain, that just makes the employer more profitable - doesn't do a whole lot for the economy other than a bit of extra corporation tax.
I don't think anyone has suggesting forcing job cuts on the private sector. However, there are real options out there to balance our budget by increasing income and other taxes. That's the beauty of income tax - those who earn will pay, those who are earning less, pay less.

No, neither of you answered the question I asked with a YES or NO.

You appeared to partially agree and Complainer did his usual.

Are you still not willing or able to answer?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Caveat - YES or NO?

As you've just realised, there are some questions that can't be answered with a YES or NO. I answered your question clearly.

Now where's the incorrigible Complainer? ;)
Sorry for the delayed response. That pesky inconvenience of public service sometimes causes temporary interruptions in my AAMing (unlike many of those who claim to be overworked and overstressed in the private sector).
 
Back
Top