I've the greatest of respect for Fergus Finlay but this makes no sense. A 3 Euro saving is a 3 Euro saving no matter what way you look at it (before tax).Public service pay is about one-third of public spending. So every €3 you take off a public servant should give you about €1 in public spending cuts.
I've never heard anyone misrepresent what percentage of spending PS pay represents - on this forum or on the airwaves. You can argue over details but when you start making up numbers you lose all credibility and, unfortunately, Fergus has done so in my eyes here.When they’re talking about public spending, commentators seem to use whatever figure comes into their heads. I’ve heard it solemnly reported on the radio that public service pay accounts for proportions of spending ranging from 50% to 75%. There’s a mantra about it — "it’s simply impossible to cut public spending (and thereby save the economy is the inference) without cutting pay because pay simply accounts for too much".
The actual figure is about one-third. Public service pay is about one-third of public spending.
What grade?
I've the greatest of respect for Fergus Finlay but this makes no sense. A 3 Euro saving is a 3 Euro saving no matter what way you look at it (before tax).
Can you please be specific - what grades of staff in what institutions are earning the €87k that you originally quoted and getting 70 days leave?Entry-level, e.g. you could be less than 30 and earning 60-65k, heading for 85k.
I've never heard anyone misrepresent what percentage of spending PS pay represents - on this forum or on the airwaves.
What he said and what he may have meant are 2 different things.I think what he meant was that cutting the public sector payroll by 3% would only lead to 1% savings in total public spending because payroll is about 1/3rd of public expenditure.
I don't know what this means. Has anyone misrepresented what percentage PS pay represents (50%, 75% as Fergus as states). I'm as one-eyed as the next man but I've never seen or heard this.No, but Fergus Finlay obviously has.
What he said and what he may have meant are 2 different things.
Yes, but surely what he meant is important.
I don't know what this means. Has anyone misrepresented what percentage PS pay represents (50%, 75% as Fergus as states). I'm as one-eyed as the next man but I've never seen or heard this.[/quote]
You seem to be saying that, because you personally haven't heard any misrepresentation then Fergus Finlay is obviously lying.
What utter rubbish; there has been a massive increase in public sector numbers over the last few years.It's not that long ago that the public sector was struggling to recruit staff. Funny how you didn't rush in then?
Absolutely. But who's to say that that's what he meant. Are you Fergus Finlay?What he said and what he may have meant are 2 different things.
Yes, but surely what he meant is important.
All you gotta do is point me at a link. I'm not so biased in my opinions that I can't admit I'm wrong. Where has this been stated? Is it a widely held view?I don't know what this means. Has anyone misrepresented what percentage PS pay represents (50%, 75% as Fergus as states). I'm as one-eyed as the next man but I've never seen or heard this.
You seem to be saying that, because you personally haven't heard any misrepresentation then Fergus Finlay is obviously lying.
Absolutely. But who's to say that that's what he meant. Are you Fergus Finlay?
Well, it was pretty obvious to anyone else I know who read the article that that is what he meant. Obviously, you'd rather believe he's making stuff up.
All you gotta do is point me at a link. I'm not so biased in my opinions that I can't admit I'm wrong. Where has this been stated? Is it a widely held view?[/quote]
It is Fergus Finlay who said he's seen/heard these figures quoted. You seem to be accusing him of lying on the basis that you have not heard any misrepresentation yourself. That is the point I am making.
What utter rubbish; there has been a massive increase in public sector numbers over the last few years.
Furgus Finlay is a Labour Party hack, as biased as they come. He was Dick Springs special advisor during his time as minister for foreign affairs. He wrote a book about it, is was the most self congratulatory piece of fiction I have ever read. The overarching impression it gave was that his biggest fan is Furgus Finlay.
Why would being a labour party hack make him biased in favour of the Public Service? Quite the opposite I would have thought.
The Labour Party are the party of the middle-class urbanity public sector employee.
.
LMAO.Absolutely. But who's to say that that's what he meant. Are you Fergus Finlay?
Well, it was pretty obvious to anyone else I know who read the article that that is what he meant. Obviously, you'd rather believe he's making stuff up.
All you gotta do is point me at a link. I'm not so biased in my opinions that I can't admit I'm wrong. Where has this been stated? Is it a widely held view?
It is Fergus Finlay who said he's seen/heard these figures quoted. You seem to be accusing him of lying on the basis that you have not heard any misrepresentation yourself. That is the point I am making.
You may know what Fergus meant but the article isn't aimed at you. It's an opinion piece, by definition the aim is to form opinion. Fergus makes an unsubstantiated point that people are misrepresnting PS wages as a percentage of overall numbers and then 1 line later makes, what I can only assume, to be a glaring mistake in his own figures.When they’re talking about public spending, commentators seem to use whatever figure comes into their heads. I’ve heard it solemnly reported on the radio that public service pay accounts for proportions of spending ranging from 50% to 75%. There’s a mantra about it — "it’s simply impossible to cut public spending (and thereby save the economy is the inference) without cutting pay because pay simply accounts for too much".
The actual figure is about one-third. Public service pay is about one-third of public spending. So every €3 you take off a public servant should give you about €1 in public spending cuts.
What utter rubbish; there has been a massive increase in public sector numbers over the last few years.
Furgus Finlay is a Labour Party hack, as biased as they come. He was Dick Springs special advisor during his time as minister for foreign affairs. He wrote a book about it, is was the most self congratulatory piece of fiction I have ever read. The overarching impression it gave was that his biggest fan is Furgus Finlay.
The Labour Party are the party of the middle-class urbanity public sector employee.
They are to the public sector unions what Sinn Fein are to the IRA.
The public sector were recruiting 20’000 odd people a year at that stage. That’s quite a successful record for any organisation.I did a thesis in 2003/2004 on public sector recruitment. At the time it was extremely difficult to recruit people, to the point where significant sums were expended by the Public Appointments Service on advertising/recruitment. There's hardly anyone in the current workforce who couldn't have got into the public service at that point if they really wanted to. The reality is that they didn't. That they may wish now that they did is a different matter.
“Some bias towards the Labour Party”, you have to be joking! He spent most of his adult life as a member and working for them. He has criticised government policy and the actions of some state service providers but I never remember his saying that PS pay was too high.Fergus Finlay has been highly critical of civil servants in the past. I rememebr him on the Late Late having a pop. He may well have some bias towards the labour party but not for public sector workers.
Good point about its funding; since union dues are tax deductable this amounts to a subsidy by the exchequer to the Labour Party.Just to be contrary, while Labour has 1/3 of its funding by unions, only very small part of that is from a public sector union, the bulk is the smaller private sector unions.
LMAO.
Here again is the orginal quote. I haven't misrepresnted or paraphrased Fergus in any way shape or form.
You may know what Fergus meant but the article isn't aimed at you. It's an opinion piece, by definition the aim is to form opinion. Fergus makes an unsubstantiated point that people are misrepresenting PS wages as a percentage of overall numbers and then 1 line later makes, what I can only assume, to be a glaring mistake in his own figures.
When you're in the business of opinion forming you gotta be able to back up what you say.
(I know this thread is now way off topic, is there any chance a Mod could split it into another something along the lines of "Opinion formers - get your facts right", you could lump DMcW stuff in there too.)
Can you please be specific - what grades of staff in what institutions are earning the €87k that you originally quoted and getting 70 days leave?
For the record, the salary scale for entry level Assistant Lecturer in DIT runs up to €52k
[broken link removed]