# Public sector V Public sector



## Shawady (9 Nov 2009)

It looks inevitable that the government is going to cut 1.3 billion from the public sector pay bill and I think the next battleground is not Public V Private, but Public V Public. If reports are correct in the papers, the government is looking at the whole system of allowances but this will affect some workers more than others. Therefore different public sector unions are going to have a different view on the correct approach.

Should the government just cut all pay by the same percentage or should they look to scrap some of these allowances that may be not justified now?

For example it was mentioned in one report that plain-clothes garda get a ‘plain clothes’ allowance worth 9 million a year to the state.


----------



## Firefly (9 Nov 2009)

The easiest thing would be to roll back the most recent bench-marking increases until the 1.3bn is obtained. That way everyone in the PS is back to where they were 2 years ago I'd say.


----------



## gipimann (10 Nov 2009)

Not all grades got an increase in the last benchmarking round (mine for one).


----------



## S.L.F (10 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> It looks inevitable that the government is going to cut 1.3 billion from the public sector pay bill and I think the next battleground is not Public V Private, but Public V Public. If reports are correct in the papers, the government is looking at the whole system of allowances but this will affect some workers more than others. Therefore different public sector unions are going to have a different view on the correct approach.
> 
> Should the government just cut all pay by the same percentage or should they look to scrap some of these allowances that may be not justified now?
> 
> For example it was mentioned in one report that plain-clothes garda get a ‘plain clothes’ allowance worth 9 million a year to the state.


 
I think taking a hatchet to the semi state wages would be a great thing they, at least, are paid far too much and their perks are out of this world.

The last I heard the ESB workers are looking for a cut of the pie if and when the ESB is privatized, this from an organisation where the average wage is €75,000.

Plus they did not get hit with the pension tax levy.


----------



## Booter (10 Nov 2009)

gipimann said:


> Not all grades got an increase in the last benchmarking round (mine for one).



Wouldn't make any difference if it did. While a small amount of grades had pay rises recommended by the second benchmarking report, none of these have been paid, nor are they ever likely to.


----------



## Firefly (10 Nov 2009)

gipimann said:


> Not all grades got an increase in the last benchmarking round (mine for one).


 
You wouldn't be affected then - just roll back the benchmarkings that were paid


----------



## Shawady (10 Nov 2009)

What about freezing increments?
I thought this would be a no brainer and would save shave several hundred million euro a year off the wage bill, but according to one of the sunday papers this was proposed by Impact but the leader of the CPSU would not entertain the idea at all.


----------



## Caveat (10 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> What about freezing increments?
> I thought this would be a no brainer and would save shave several hundred million euro a year off the wage bill ...


 
I agree but it will never happen.  The idea of automatic increments stinks to high heaven IMO but it's too late now.


----------



## galleyslave (10 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> What about freezing increments?
> I thought this would be a no brainer and would save shave several hundred million euro a year off the wage bill, but according to one of the sunday papers this was proposed by Impact but the leader of the CPSU would not entertain the idea at all.



freezing increments stops further increases but does nothing to reduce the current bills


----------



## Yorrick (10 Nov 2009)

Whatever happens we are heading for higher unemployment. I know several public employees and everyone of them is saying that while they know there are in a lucky position that they will be cutting back completely on discretionary spending. 
Cutting back on the holidays, pubs meals out etc. It is obvious if you take 4 bilion out of an econmy that demand will fall. The same will apply with the social welfare recipients. It is tight enough for them as it is but they will eliminate any unecessary spending result ing in more job losses in the services sector.


----------



## liaconn (10 Nov 2009)

Exactly. I can never understand the gloating tone of some posters and the media when they talk about public sector pay cuts. They don't seem to realise the domino effect of this and talk as if they won't be affected in any way. Surely they realise that public sector employees don't live in some kind of vacuum.  Who do they think are purchasing their goods and services?


----------



## dockingtrade (10 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Exactly. I can never understand the gloating tone of some posters and the media when they talk about public sector pay cuts. They don't seem to realise the domino effect of this and talk as if they won't be affected in any way. Surely they realise that public sector employees don't live in some kind of vacuum. Who do they think are purchasing their goods and services?


 
By that logic give them all a pay rise. It doesnt matter what they do with their money or what will happen if you cut pay, there is no money to pay the current sector pay bill. Take the cut then they where they are and theyll start spending again. I mean cut in tiers not across the board.


----------



## liaconn (10 Nov 2009)

My point is that private sector workers don't seem to realise they will be affected by cuts in public sector pay. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that some people in the private sector are doing some misplaced gloating and acting like they won't be hit by it as well..


----------



## Caveat (10 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> My point is that private sector workers don't seem to realise they will be affected by cuts in public sector pay. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that some people in the private sector are doing some misplaced gloating and acting like they won't be hit by it as well..


 
Are there that many gloaters on this site? If you exclude the ones who get banned pretty promptly for their general behaviour anyway, I'd struggle to find any really.

Public V public? It might yet happen.  Is there true solidarity within ICTU?  I don't think so at all and I predict cracks/internal disagreements will surface soon.


----------



## csirl (10 Nov 2009)

Most allowances should be abolished. The majority are unjustified and they tend to be concentrated in certain sectors of the public service where the employees are more militant/political. Many only exist to give certain sectors of the public service extra money without it being recorded as salary.

I agree with S.L.F. on the ESB - the reason we have some of the highest electricity prices in the world is because ESB employees are way over paid. Time to cut their pay and pass it onto the consumer and businesses in the form of price cuts. Also, if ESB employees wont take the pension levy, then they shouldnt be in a State funded pension scheme.

The other area that needs to be looked at are public sector jobs that are 24/7 jobs being paid premium rates for working outside 9-5. If you take a job such as a nurse, Garda etc. that is a 24/7 profession, you shouldnt expect to get paid overtime or premium rates outside office hours. Its not as if working outside these times is unexpected or unusual with these professions. The should be hired on the basis that they work a 41 hour week, but can be rostered for any time.


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Nov 2009)

Perhaps the best way for the Unions to fight public sector pay cuts is to simply say to the 24/7 Front Line Alliance - you go on strike and we will use all our strike funds to support you and we will suggest to all other members that they pay a proportion of their wages to ensure that your salaries are not affected by your strike action enabling them to stay on strike as long as required ?


----------



## bogle (10 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> The other area that needs to be looked at are public sector jobs that are 24/7 jobs being paid premium rates for working outside 9-5. If you take a job such as a nurse, Garda etc. that is a 24/7 profession, you shouldnt expect to get paid overtime or premium rates outside office hours. Its not as if working outside these times is unexpected or unusual with these professions. The should be hired on the basis that they work a 41 hour week, but can be rostered for any time.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

Are you saying that someone who works 24/7 shouldn't get extra pay over and above someone who's doing a similar job on a 9 to 5 basis Monday to Friday? If the answer is yes you've probably never worked shift work.

Or

Are you saying that if they get asked to do overtime it shouldn't be at overtime rates? In other words if somebody has already done say a cycle of 10 to 12 hour nights and are then due rest days and they end up coming in during the rest period to do an un-rosterd 10 to 12 hour night at maybe a few hours notice that this be paid at a flat rate? 

I use to work shift work - worked days, evenings, nights, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Eve, New Years day, Bank Holidays. It plays absolute havoc with family life and social activities and also with you're body clock.

Some people never really adjust to doing shift work, finding it impossible to sleep during the day so much so that they end up having to change job.

Also I've observed that older people (say 50+) find doing nights tougher and tougher the older they get. Four AM in the morning is perfect heart attack time!

So personally I don't begrudge 24/7 workers the extra money they get for working unsocial hours, especially those dealing with the public.


----------



## batty (10 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> Most allowances should be abolished. The majority are unjustified and they tend to be concentrated in certain sectors of the public service where the employees are more militant/political. Many only exist to give certain sectors of the public service extra money without it being recorded as salary.
> 
> I agree with S.L.F. on the ESB - the reason we have some of the highest electricity prices in the world is because ESB employees are way over paid. Time to cut their pay and pass it onto the consumer and businesses in the form of price cuts. Also, if ESB employees wont take the pension levy, then they shouldnt be in a State funded pension scheme.
> 
> The other area that needs to be looked at are public sector jobs that are 24/7 jobs being paid premium rates for working outside 9-5. If you take a job such as a nurse, Garda etc. that is a 24/7 profession, you shouldnt expect to get paid overtime or premium rates outside office hours. Its not as if working outside these times is unexpected or unusual with these professions. The should be hired on the basis that they work a 41 hour week, but can be rostered for any time.


 
Is the ESB pension fund state funded?
Who sets electricity prices in Ireland?


----------



## annet (10 Nov 2009)

bogle said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here?
> 
> Are you saying that someone who works 24/7 shouldn't get extra pay over and above someone who's doing a similar job on a 9 to 5 basis Monday to Friday? If the answer is yes you've probably never worked shift work.
> 
> ...


 
Public sector workers in 24/7 knew when they went into the job that their jobs were not traditionally 9-5.  In addition to benefiting from increments and the awards under benchmarking - they get paid for working unsocial hours, night shifts, saturday's, sunday's and bank holidays....  but night shifts were horrible - especially when it got to around two to three in the morning.


----------



## S.L.F (10 Nov 2009)

batty said:


> Is the ESB pension fund state funded?
> Who sets electricity prices in Ireland?


 
The pension fund for the ESB comes from Electricity prices.

The govt sets the price but has been know to do as the ESB asks...


----------



## z101 (12 Nov 2009)

Was unfortunate enough to be in the area of the frontline protest. It was just breaking up and everyone was heading off. I walked behind 3 guards on the street down beside the passport office. They looked in their early thirties. One got into a top of the range 2 door BMW 6 series coupe and another a nice 320d. 
Is there a BMW allowance among the 56 allowances that are so critical?


----------



## Ron Burgundy (12 Nov 2009)

Why was there a fire engine on the march, is this not government property ??

Was it not needed in station it was from ??


----------



## Complainer (12 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> Was unfortunate enough to be in the area of the frontline protest. It was just breaking up and everyone was heading off. I walked behind 3 guards on the street down beside the passport office. They looked in their early thirties. One got into a top of the range 2 door BMW 6 series coupe and another a nice 320d.
> Is there a BMW allowance among the 56 allowances that are so critical?


I guess the two Gardai that I know personally, both Sergeants, one driving a 9x-D Polo and the other driving a 03D Focus must have forgotten to apply for the allowance.


----------



## S.L.F (12 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> Was unfortunate enough to be in the area of the frontline protest. It was just breaking up and everyone was heading off. I walked behind 3 guards on the street down beside the passport office. They looked in their early thirties. One got into a top of the range 2 door BMW 6 series coupe and another a nice 320d.
> Is there a BMW allowance among the 56 allowances that are so critical?


 
I also know a garda sergeant and he doesn't drive a fancy car either.

Maybe they won the lotto.

Maybe they got inheritance.

Maybe their wives make a lot of money in the private sector.

Begrudgery!!!


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> I guess the two Gardai that I know personally, both Sergeants, one driving a 9x-D Polo and the other driving a 03D Focus must have forgotten to apply for the allowance.


 
The garda up the road from me with 4 houses must have been maxing out his allowances all along fair play to him....


----------



## VOR (12 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Is there true solidarity within ICTU? I don't think so at all and I predict cracks/internal disagreements will surface soon.


 
Spot on Caveat. The teachers and the pen pushers have been cast aside by the frontline movement. Not so much a crack as a chasm.

It didn't take long.


----------



## Complainer (12 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> The garda up the road from me with 4 houses must have been maxing out his allowances all along fair play to him....


Or else maybe he (like many other property investors) used the banks' money and the state subsidy (interest relief) to do some leveraged investing.


----------



## VOR (12 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> Or else maybe he (like many other property investors) used the banks' money and the state subsidy (interest relief) to do some leveraged investing.


 
You make a valid point and one that the T.U.s have overlooked. Blaming the banks is fair and reasonable. But so is blaming the borrowers who borrowed huge amounts to buy. 

The line I keep hearing from the unions and others is that this is all the banks' fault. Well, without willing borrowers it would never have happened. It is now time we all took responsibility for our reckless actions and suffer some short term pain. That goes for private sector, frontline public sector and back office public sector. 

(I have decided to treat the three groups as separate just like the unions are doing )


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> Or else maybe he (like many other property investors) used the banks' money and the state subsidy (interest relief) to do some leveraged investing.


 

very true i agree 100%,  like so many others in all sectors who contributed to the demand side of the boom.  Are you saying any PAYE workers who speculated on property are blameless??

It would a very interesting excerice to do a survey by profession on who owns more than 2 houses. Does socialist Jack and boys believe thier members could have also contributed to the capitalist property bubble, by speculating? Or is it if you make a fortune in property great but if you lose its the banks fault.

Judging someones finacial situation by the year of the car is pathetic.(from your earlier post)


----------



## Pique318 (12 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> if you make a fortune in property great but if you lose its the banks fault.


Capitalism in Ireland 2009.

Taking responsibility for ones own actions (when things go pear-shaped) is anathema.
Congratulations if you win. Thanks to the bankers who helped you.
Commiserations if you lose. Condemnation of the bankers who helped you (because THEY should've known better).

I'm not including the Sub-Prime cases in this. That was madness on both sides.


----------



## WarrenBuffet (12 Nov 2009)

This thread truely is the depths......

Fully of totally unsubstantiated, outlandish statements by bitter, jealous people. Disgusting......Irish begrudgery at its worst.

Not a normal feature of AAM where users attempt to put their opinions forward in a balanced manner (there are 2 sides  to every story) based on cold hard facts.

I stopped visiting other websites in order to avoid that kind of jealous, sad, small minded ranting. Cop on AAM


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> I also know a garda sergeant and he doesn't drive a fancy car either.
> 
> Maybe they won the lotto.
> 
> ...


 I agree


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Nov 2009)

WarrenBuffet said:


> This thread truely is the depths......
> 
> Fully of totally unsubstantiated, outlandish statements by bitter, jealous people. Disgusting......Irish begrudgery at its worst.
> 
> ...


 

wheres the begrudgery in this thread???


----------



## Complainer (12 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> very true i agree 100%,  like so many others in all sectors who contributed to the demand side of the boom.  Are you saying any PAYE workers who speculated on property are blameless??


I didn't say anything about blame for anybody. I just made a suggestion about how he (like many others) may have built a property portfolio - no more, no less.


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> I didn't say anything about blame for anybody. I just made a suggestion about how he (like many others) may have built a property portfolio - no more, no less.


 
Fiar enough. I just dont undesrsrtand your point about gaurds driving 9x year cars  and not claiming allowances. You can judge someones finances by what year car they drive...


----------



## Complainer (12 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> Fiar enough. I just dont undesrsrtand your point about gaurds driving 9x year cars  and not claiming allowances.


The previous poster had referred facetiously to a BMW allowance, so I continued his facetious approach.



dockingtrade said:


> You can judge someones finances by what year car they drive...


Did you mean to say 'cant'?


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> I agree


 
If ye are insuating that im begrudging, let me qualify what im trying to say. First of all I begrudge no one anything they have or any wage they have if their employer has the resources to pay them.

What im saying in this thread is there is a demand side to the boom. People have to take responsibilty especially when it came to property specultaion.

My point on the survey on who has what is becuase there is a huge demand side to the boom and its when union leaders say we have noting to do with this mess, thats annoys me. Maybe they should be substaniating what they say. How do they know they dont represent property speculators (nothing wrong with property speculation) and causers of the boom/bust.  We all contributed to the boom through consumption. I cant see how no one from 300K people had nothing to do with the boom. Therefore I have any issue with outlandish statements like "we didnt cause this". We all have to face up to it, all of us and now deal with it.


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Nov 2009)

Complainer said:


> The previous poster had referred facetiously to a BMW allowance, so I continued his facetious approach.
> 
> 
> Did you mean to say 'cant'?


 
yes...sorry


----------



## z101 (13 Nov 2009)

I am not begrudging either. I am delighted for them... Just dont go whingeing about wages that NEED to be cut as the country cant afford them at the moment, to support a lifestyle that is clearly not that close to the breadline to say the very least. The Polo cop must'nt like cars, isn't it lucky he can made that choice as his salary allows.

There are clearly more important National matters these workers should consider than the 'me fein' attitude their unions are displaying. It's not about whose fault it is any more, it's the reality of the solution that must sink in. What money is spent should be prioritised to the most needed and needy in Irish society. I admire the Public servants who have posted on AAM in support of this even though they know it will cost them. They have a sense of realism for the current condition of this country that alot other public servant and the Unions dont give a hoot about. 
I realise alot of you are Public service workers or clearly have a public service worker who is close to you and thus effecting your income, but this is unsustainable to borrow 500Million per week...Country is going broke on a huge scale folks.


----------



## Complainer (13 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> You can't judge someones finances by what year car they drive...


You might want to tell that to Ceatharlach.


Ceatharlach said:


> I am not begrudging either. I am delighted for them... Just dont go whingeing about wages that NEED to be cut as the country cant afford them at the moment, to support a lifestyle that is clearly not that close to the breadline to say the very least. The Polo cop must'nt like cars, isn't it lucky he can made that choice as his salary allows.


But you are happy to make judgements about the appropriateness of the salary levels of a force of 14,000 people based on the two cars you saw. You are happy to make judgements like 'the Polo cop must'nt like cars' though you know nothing about him.

Is it too much to expect that these discussions might be based on something a bit more solid?


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> If ye are insuating that im begrudging, let me qualify what im trying to say. First of all I begrudge no one anything they have or any wage they have if their employer has the resources to pay them.
> 
> What im saying in this thread is there is a demand side to the boom. People have to take responsibilty especially when it came to property specultaion.
> 
> My point on the survey on who has what is becuase there is a huge demand side to the boom and its when union leaders say we have noting to do with this mess, thats annoys me. Maybe they should be substaniating what they say. How do they know they dont represent property speculators (nothing wrong with property speculation) and causers of the boom/bust.  We all contributed to the boom through consumption. I cant see how no one from 300K people had nothing to do with the boom. Therefore I have any issue with outlandish statements like "we didnt cause this". We all have to face up to it, all of us and now deal with it.


Fair enough. I agree with everything in that post.


----------



## VOR (13 Nov 2009)

VOR said:


> You make a valid point and one that the T.U.s have overlooked. Blaming the banks is fair and reasonable. But so is blaming the borrowers who borrowed huge amounts to buy.
> 
> The line I keep hearing from the unions and others is that this is all the banks' fault. Well, without willing borrowers it would never have happened. It is now time we all took responsibility for our reckless actions and suffer some short term pain.


 
While I was away Dockingtrade took a lot of heat about his comment which was very similar to mine above. 

I would like the following stark reminder of what has taken place in the last year:

The survey found that Irish firms had the highest rate of workforce reduction among EMEA nations, with close to 80 per cent of Irish respondents reporting changes to their organisational structure and *61 per cent confirming lay-offs.* This compared to an EMEA average of 48 per cent reporting redundancies.
Almost half of Irish participants said they would continue to make reductions in their permanent employee base in the next six months.
Some *26 per cent of Irish firms surveyed had introduced pay cuts*, more than twice the EMEA average. This also represented a 50 per cent increase on the number of Irish firms who reported salary cuts in a preliminary survey carried out by Watson Wyatt last June.

[broken link removed]


----------



## z101 (13 Nov 2009)

It seems people can make generalities about bankers and politians when it suits your arguments but heaven help us if we make any about cops/teacher/nurses or any of the public service. 
They are ALL making the country go broke or is that an 'assumption' or solid fact. lest we care...


----------



## S.L.F (13 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> They have a sense of realism for the current condition of this country that alot other public servant and the Unions dont give a hoot about.


 
Please show me where it says anywhere that the unions or any public servant doesn't give a hoot about what is going on in the country.

If you can't have the good grace to retract that remark!



Ceatharlach said:


> It seems people can make generalities about bankers and politians when it suits your arguments but heaven help us if we make any about cops/teacher/nurses or any of the public service.
> *They are ALL* making the country go broke or is that an 'assumption' or solid fact. lest we care...


 
Again please state some facts or provide a link


----------



## z101 (13 Nov 2009)

I understand the unions represent their members but they should be informed enough to see that borrowing 500m a week (most of which is PS wages and Social welfare) is not sustainable and is putting the country under. Instead of relaying this realism it's all 'you wont get me I'm part of the union'. So yes they dont display they give a hoot. The 10 point plan was a joke with every solution meaning little as possible impact on their members. Tax increases was proven to cripple this country in the eighties but they dont seem to care that this pool is dimishing and would be counter productive. 

Unions keep saying this was caused by the banks not their members. That their members are been asked to pay for others mistakes. That by been asked to pay for their own pensions they are already contributing. They have been churning this out in a bid to get some private sector support for their actions. You may not want to hear it but the realism here is that you may or may not have been part of the problem, but you have to be a big part of the solution, as the cost of the PS is the biggest outgoing of a country that cant afford it.


----------



## S.L.F (14 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> They have a sense of realism for the current condition of this country that alot other public servant and the Unions dont give a hoot about.


 
One moment you are saying they don't give a hoot then you are saying



Ceatharlach said:


> So yes they dont display they give a hoot.


 
LOL

Do please tell me why on earth you think people like you and me wouldn't care about the dogs dinner the FF govt have made of this country.

Do you actually believe that they are immune to the crap that has gone on in the country?


----------



## z101 (15 Nov 2009)

Its self explanatory.. wheres the confusion. You are aware not all PS voted to strike. Some care about the state of the country.

I do care and FF will not be in power for a long time to come. They will pay. Thats a given as a result of cowens mishandling especially as min for finance. I am not defending them but thats another debate. I am talking about what the country needs now re badly need spending cuts. Dont know whats your pickle...


----------



## S.L.F (15 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> Its self explanatory.. wheres the confusion. You are aware not all PS voted to strike. Some care about the state of the country.


 
First it's not self explanatory, you said they *don't* give a hoot and then you said they *don't appear* to give a hoot, there is a big difference, since you are not in the head of every one of the 380,000 people that are in the public sector you can't possibly know.

Second an overwhelming majority vote to strike, all of whom I'm positive care about the state of the country but also the state of the Public Service.



Ceatharlach said:


> I do care and FF will not be in power for a long time to come. They will pay. Thats a given as a result of cowens mishandling especially as min for finance. I am not defending them but thats another debate. I am talking about what the country needs now re badly need spending cuts.


 
I care as well but I believe what the country needs more is a general election, this mess we are in it is due to Cowen, Bertie and the rest of them they need to be out.

The other thing that is never mentioned is whether or not they are able to bring about cuts in pensions, pay or in services that won't bankrupt the country in other ways.



Ceatharlach said:


> Dont know whats your pickle...


 
My pickle is when posters start claiming things like the PS are over paid by 40% and other posters have said why not have a cut across the board for all PS workers of 20% which needless to say would cause great hardship for both the country and the people who work in the public service.

I had a good look at the CSO report in it it says that the PS get €973 on average but when the news papers are quoting figures from it they never mention things like the average Civil Service wage is about €850 which isn't bad till you think about all the big boys higher up who are making 5 and 6 times that wage or more, a 20 or 40% pay cut for them wouldn't affect the half as much as someone who is on the minimum wage in the Civil Service.

I know one guy (porter type work) who works in the OPW who depends on the overtime to make enough to feed his family for him to take a 20% pay cut is just plain wrong.

I'm not sure if his overtime has been cut or not, but all organisations need people like him they are the ones who keep the fires burning.

In a nutshell I don't trust this govt to apply paycuts fairly across the board since it was them in the first place who are solely responsible for the shambles we are facing, you may say the unions were involved and all that but the responsibility lies with the people at the helm.

This govt has to go.


----------



## liaconn (15 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> Its self explanatory.. wheres the confusion. You are aware not all PS voted to strike. Some care about the state of the country.


 

And the many many PS workers who voted for strike care about the state of the country. But we also care about being able to pay our mortgages and ESB bills and feed and clothe our children. We're not all earning a fortune you know. The issue is that cuts have to be done fairly and that the Public Sector aren't just used as an easy target by Government.

It always amazes me how some people in the Private Sector get very self righteous about Public Servants being prepared to take huge pay cuts but then start jumping up and down when there's any question of reducing their child benefit or re-introducing university fees or widening tax belts. They don't seem to care so much about the state of the country then.


----------



## Purple (15 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> It always amazes me how some people in the Private Sector get very self righteous about Public Servants being prepared to take huge pay cuts but then start jumping up and down when there's any question of reducing their child benefit or re-introducing university fees or widening tax belts. They don't seem to care so much about the state of the country then.



I agree with you there but the fact remains that the public sector benefited most from the boom (the pay gap has increased considerably between public and private sector over the last 10 years) and, along with social welfare, are the biggest areas of public spending so they have to be targeted for major cuts.
It’s not nice, it may not be all that fair, but it has to happen.


----------



## S.L.F (15 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> We're not all earning a fortune you know.


 
but liacon haven't you heard the public sector get €973 a week

on average

across a very broad range of careers, with semi-state companies included and with expenses included


----------



## liaconn (15 Nov 2009)

Oh I know SLF. But to be honest, I'm so busy taking sick leave and claiming expenses and inventing reasons to do overtime and taking every Friday off to cash my massive pay cheque that I don't really have time to do my sums.


----------



## S.L.F (15 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Oh I know SLF. But to be honest, I'm so busy taking sick leave and claiming expenses and inventing reasons to do overtime and taking every Friday off to cash my massive pay cheque that I don't really have time to do my sums.


 
Ha so you admit it then.


----------



## liaconn (15 Nov 2009)

Well, the Sindo says so and everyone knows a guy in the pub who says so, so what do I know??  Also, if I was really dynamic and bright and hard working I'd be in the private sector wouldn't I?  To be honest I only joined the civil service for the tea breaks and the pension and the automatic promotions and so I could fiddle my flexitime.


----------



## S.L.F (15 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Well, the Sindo says so and everyone knows a guy in the pub who says so, so what do I know?? Also, if I was really dynamic and bright and hard working I'd be in the private sector wouldn't I? To be honest I only joined the civil service for the tea breaks and the pension and the automatic promotions and so I could fiddle my flexitime.


 
Ha it's all coming out now!

Anything else???

Come on liacon you'll feel better to let everybody know what wasters all 380,000 people are in the PS, including the dole officers who have to actually work now that all 100% the private sector have lost their jobs (except journalists)


----------



## bogle (15 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> It always amazes me how some people in the Private Sector get very self righteous about Public Servants being prepared to take huge pay cuts but then start jumping up and down when there's any question of reducing their child benefit or re-introducing university fees or widening tax belts. They don't seem to care so much about the state of the country then.



On the radio a few days ago a woman rang into a show arguing the case that child benefits shouldn't be cut. She then let slip that her husband was on 100K plus per year!!??

With regard to the difference in average private and public sector salaries the fact is that the CS/PS employ a large number of professionals like Judges, Barristers, Lawyers, Hospital Consultants, Hospital Doctors, Professors, Engineers of all types,  Accountants, Auditors, Pharmacists, Physiologists, Marine Biologists, Geologists, Teachers, Lecturers, Scientists to name but a few. When you consider that *one* hospital consultant earns multiples of the average industrial wage its not surprising that average wage in the CS/PS is higher. Also a significant number of employees in the CS/PS work 24/7 e.g. Guards, Nurses, Doctors, Firemen, Ambulance drivers, Coast Guard and i for one don't expect them to work nights, weekends, bank holidays without being compensated for it (although there is case to rationalize all the allowances). 

In my own field of Information Technology I can tell you for a fact that IT people from the private sector were not queuing up to seek a career in IT in the CS/PS. Over the years I've had plenty of contact with private sector IT people and I can tell you that never once did one of them inquire off me about joining the CS/PS.

On saying that I want the unions to keep negotiating with our employers. From listening to the media there seems to be the basis of deal within reach -  that is let numbers run down over the next few years with so called bridging measures (code for temporary pay cut) being applied in the short term to balance the books.


----------



## S.L.F (15 Nov 2009)

bogle said:


> On the radio a few days ago a woman rang into a show arguing the case that child benefits shouldn't be cut. She then let slip that her husband was on 100K plus per year!!??


 
It is possible her husband doesn't give her any money or doesn't give her enough, it's also possible she was arguing for the vast majority of people who need it.


----------



## z101 (15 Nov 2009)

It's obvious people have different view. Unions are trying to tell the gov how cuts should be made and that their calculations are wrong. This gov has made a hames of things, but is anyone naive to think FG will not address the situation using the McCarthy report? Labour (luckily) will not lead a government as their policy's of borrow borrow borrow to run the country, laden down the country in the 80's under Ruari Quinn. They policys are correct in theory but damaging in reality. 

Also I think child benefit should not be universal and should be means tested. University fees should be introduced to those who can handle them, or better still a student loan scheme such as is in the UK. I also believe it's scandalous we dont have water charges. These things dont add up to me Liaconn and yes these people dont care about the prediciment we are in either. But this was not the nature of the debate so I didn't think to mention it. The tax system in Ireland is flawed and needs to be addressed. But that does change the fact that 500m is been spend each week and 4billion od cuts need to be made this year. The country is not competitive at the moment. The Public service cuts will be made in the budget to address our current expenditure and after that those things you spoke about need to be cut as savings will still be needed for next year.


----------



## bogle (15 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> ... Labour (luckily) will not lead a government as their policy's of borrow borrow borrow to run the country, laden down the country in the 80's under Ruari Quinn...



Dude I think you need to check your dates and figures there! 

Ruari Quinn was Minister for Finance in 1995 if I recall correctly. 

He was also no tax and spend finance Minister...

 "During Quinn's tenure as Minister for Finance, the overall tax burden in Ireland (the ratio of tax revenue, including pay related social insurance levies, to gross national product) fell from 38.7% to 34.8%, of by 1.3 percentage points each year. He achieved this by limiting current government spending to grow by 6.8% in nominal terms or 4.8% in real terms, against a backdrop of improving economic fortunes, due to increasing investment in technology intensive sectors of the Irish economy.
 Under Quinn, the General Government Balance went from a deficit of 2.1% in 1995 to a surplus of 1.1% in 1997. The General Government Debt went from 81% of GNP in 1995 to 63.6% in 1997".

I think he may also have been the one who initially applied to Brussels for permission to lower corporation tax to 10% (was initially 10% I think and then went to 12.5%).

Its worth considering that if the Rainbow Government had stayed in power for the decade 1995 to 2005 if we would have had the housing boom and subsequent bust.!!!
I doubt if they would have let the price of houses and development land run out of control like a run away train as they did.


----------



## z101 (15 Nov 2009)

Your right I stand corrected, I meant mid eighties FG/ Labour coaliton where even Today Alan Duke/Gareth Fitzgerald admits raising taxes was a huge mistake and the subsequest borrowing at Labours insistance. sorry Ruari

Not sure if I aggree with your last line. One of the big mistakes was raising the stamp duty level to 317,000 which caused house prices to inflate to that level. Cowen was as useless a min for finance as he is Taoseach. He also pandered to the Unions thus causing this mess. At the time the opposition said this raise in the stamp duty exemption levels was not enough and should have been higher for FTB's. I dont remember any political party as a policy come out strongly against anything during the boom. Hindsight is 20/20 but the reality is they all would have done nothing. Everyone is an expert now but I think McWilliams is the only one who warned. 
I thought the low corporate tax rate came under the Tallaght aggrement in Early 90's?? am open to correction to that one also.


----------



## colin79ie (16 Nov 2009)

> Also a significant number of employees in the CS/PS work 24/7 e.g. Guards, Nurses, Doctors, Firemen, Ambulance drivers, Coast Guard and i for one don't expect them to work nights, weekends, bank holidays without being compensated for it


 
This is one new group of protesters that gets on my nerves.

How many of these employees work 24/7? They work continental shifts of 4 days on/off, 12 hours on/off. I used to be one of these 'frontline alliance' workers as well but I left to pursue other career options in the private sector. I worked a 40 hour week same as everyone else, and could work all the overtime I wanted. But it was MY choice to do so, and it was MY choice to do that particular job in the first place. One chooses one's own preofession so why don't they just get on with the job THEY have chosen and they are paid for like everyone else.

There are dangerous aspects to every job. Binmen, truck drivers, taxi drivers, bank officials, fishermen, farmers etc etc etc.


----------



## Purple (16 Nov 2009)

colin79ie said:


> This is one new group of protesters that gets on my nerves.
> 
> How many of these employees work 24/7? They work continental shifts of 4 days on/off, 12 hours on/off. I used to be one of these 'frontline alliance' workers as well but I left to pursue other career options in the private sector. I worked a 40 hour week same as everyone else, and could work all the overtime I wanted. But it was MY choice to do so, and it was MY choice to do that particular job in the first place. One chooses one's own preofession so why don't they just get on with the job THEY have chosen and they are paid for like everyone else.
> 
> There are dangerous aspects to every job. Binmen, truck drivers, taxi drivers, bank officials, fishermen, farmers etc etc etc.



Well said.


----------



## liaconn (16 Nov 2009)

bogle said:


> On the radio a few days ago a woman rang into a show arguing the case that child benefits shouldn't be cut. She then let slip that her husband was on 100K plus per year!!??


 
On The Week in Politics last night, people were being interviewed re their views on reducing child benefit. Some people were telling very genuine stories about having to rear young children on their own or their partner having lost his job and so on and you could quite clearly see how a reduction in child benefit would impact very negatively on them. However, one mother said 'how can I give my children all that they want' if they reduce child benefit. Surely someone like that could afford a reduction.


----------



## S.L.F (16 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> However, one mother said 'how can I give my children all that they want' if they reduce child benefit. Surely someone like that could afford a reduction.


 
Maybe she meant "need" instead of "want"?


----------



## Latrade (16 Nov 2009)

This is where I get confused. My understanding is they are proposing to have the child benefit as means tested. There may well be some other general cut too, but I think they're just doing the figures on saving from means testing first.

So what's wrong with that? 

My confusion is that the very same people who claim those on (joint) 100K can afford to pay considerably more tax each and every month, yet they can't afford to lose this benefit? Where's the logic or consistency in that?


----------



## Purple (16 Nov 2009)

latrade said:


> this is where i get confused. My understanding is they are proposing to have the child benefit as means tested. There may well be some other general cut too, but i think they're just doing the figures on saving from means testing first.
> 
> so what's wrong with that?
> 
> my confusion is that the very same people who claim those on (joint) 100k can afford to pay considerably more tax each and every month, yet they can't afford to lose this benefit? Where's the logic or consistency in that?



+1


----------



## S.L.F (16 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> This is where I get confused. My understanding is they are proposing to have the child benefit as means tested. There may well be some other general cut too, but I think they're just doing the figures on saving from means testing first.
> 
> So what's wrong with that?
> 
> My confusion is that the very same people who claim those on (joint) 100K can afford to pay considerably more tax each and every month, yet they can't afford to lose this benefit? Where's the logic or consistency in that?


 
By the same token, surely because they pay so much in tax that they should get something back?

Maybe means testing is the way to go.


----------



## liaconn (16 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Maybe she meant "need" instead of "want"?


 
True.


----------



## Latrade (16 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> By the same token, surely because they pay so much in tax that they should get something back?
> 
> Maybe means testing is the way to go.


 
That's not the point of the taxation system being proposed though. It's to tax the "well off" to pay for the "most vulnerable" and continue to current levels of social welfare. Surely means testing without tax increases can achieve the same result?


----------



## bogle (16 Nov 2009)

colin79ie said:


> This is one new group of protesters that gets on my nerves.
> 
> How many of these employees work 24/7? They work continental shifts of 4 days on/off, 12 hours on/off. I used to be one of these 'frontline alliance' workers as well but I left to pursue other career options in the private sector. I worked a 40 hour week same as everyone else, and could work all the overtime I wanted. But it was MY choice to do so, and it was MY choice to do that particular job in the first place. One chooses one's own preofession so why don't they just get on with the job THEY have chosen and they are paid for like everyone else.
> 
> There are dangerous aspects to every job. Binmen, truck drivers, taxi drivers, bank officials, fishermen, farmers etc etc etc.



What's you're substantive point here apart from having your nerves agitated?
Mine is that if an employee (private or public) is expected to work nights, weekends, bank holidays they should be compensated accordingly. It is standard practice in industry to pay shift premium - example Intel pay a shift premium in excess of 30%. There very well may be a case for rationalizing all the allowances - I don't know as  I'm not a front line alliance employee.

Final point - I assume you took a pay cut then when you left the CS/PS?
I know I took one when I left a professional job in a consultancy firm to join the CS!


----------



## colin79ie (16 Nov 2009)

Didn't take a pay cut.

What does it matter whether you are working in the dark or during daylight? You work your 40 hour week regardless. What you do in that 40 hours is your chosen job. You get paid for it. Simple.

The 'frontline' workers get compensated for bnk holidays etc the same as most other people.


----------



## z101 (16 Nov 2009)

bogle said:


> I know I took one when I left a professional job in a consultancy firm to join the CS!


 
Then why did you switch? There must have been a reason that made you think it was the correct thing for you to do that outweighted a better salary.

I work some saturdays and sundays as it's work. I dont get any extra for it as the market wouldn't pay it. Thats just the reality of it.

Restaurant and bars were having to pay Sunday double pay to staff resulting in many not doing food or opening on Sundays. I believe this is reversed or been reversed as it was not tenable to operate and make any profit. Again just the reality of it.

If someone was working a 40 hour week and was asked to work a Sunday on top perhaps there may be a case. From what I know these 'frontline' members work Sundays as part of a 5 day week. 
I have a friend who is a bar manager. It's just assumed he works unsociable hours untill 3/4 am on fri/sat nights and puts in 50 to 60 hrs a week. He took a 10% paycut in the summer also. It's the reality of his career choice. Should it not be the same for frontline staff? If Intel can afford to pay it and absorb the cost then fair enough, get a job at intel. 
I dont think the country can afford to pay it at the moment though.


----------



## Sunny (17 Nov 2009)

You can't expect people to work night shifts and not get compensated for it. I would imagine that the majority of people suggesting that you should have never worked a night shift and seen the health represcussions and impact on family life and disruption that you bring. In France, you have to have periodic health checks to pass you fit for working nightshifts.

Sunday working is different as in the modern world, Sunday is just a normal working day for a significant amount of people. All pay premiums in the public and private sector should go for this. Why should a pub pay some kid 30% extra for working on Sunday?


----------



## z101 (17 Nov 2009)

If you do nights dont they work 4 on 4 off afterwards to compensate?

Say they did pay a premium for the grave yard shift on sats and suns, do you think it fair enough then to cut out overtime payment for the 8am to 7 pm hours on Sunday,? as like you say Sunday is just a normal working day in the modern world.


----------



## S.L.F (17 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> Restaurant and bars were having to pay Sunday double pay to staff resulting in many not doing food or opening on Sundays. I believe this is reversed or been reversed as it was not tenable to operate and make any profit.


 
Very poor choice on your part picking a Sunday as they tend to be (on average) the busiest day of the week so of course people have to get paid more.



Ceatharlach said:


> Sunday is just a normal working day in the modern world.


 
Really!!! Is that a fact?

Most people I know are off on a Sunday and normally are.

Speaking for myself I from time to time work that day but do try to keep it free because I have commitments to family.


----------



## Sunny (17 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> If you do nights dont they work 4 on 4 off afterwards to compensate?
> 
> Say they did pay a premium for the grave yard shift on sats and suns, do you think it fair enough then to cut out overtime payment for the 8am to 7 pm hours on Sunday,? as like you say Sunday is just a normal working day in the modern world.


 
Fours day on and four days off is still tough going. Try doing it for a significant length of time.

I have no problem not paying a premium on Sundays. Never agreed with it in either the public or private sector. You do a 5 day day week. If one of those happens to be a Sunday, then so be it.


----------



## foxylady (17 Nov 2009)

Firefly said:


> The easiest thing would be to roll back the most recent bench-marking increases until the 1.3bn is obtained. That way everyone in the PS is back to where they were 2 years ago I'd say.


 

As a civil servant, the pension levy introduced in the last budget has already put our wages back to two years ago and as one of the lower grades , I for one cannot afford anymore paycuts


----------



## S.L.F (17 Nov 2009)

foxylady said:


> As a civil servant, the pension levy introduced in the last budget has already put our wages back to two years ago and as one of the lower grades , I for one cannot afford anymore paycuts


 
*Voice of Brian Lenihan*

Hi foxylady, in case you haven't heard the pension levy is not a pay cut, your gross is the same as it was before so you are on the same money as before.

*Voices of the PS pensioners*

Thank God for that, if they had cut the wages of the Public Sector our pensions would have had to come down too because they are linked to PS wages. Thanks Fianna Fail for looking after all the big lads on big pensions.


----------



## Padraigb (17 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> ... if they had cut the wages of the Public Sector our pensions would have had to come down too because they are linked to PS wages.



I am quite sure that is why they did things as they did. The found a way to cut the pay of those still serving while leaving pensions untouched. Remember that it was done not too long after the grey power revolt on medical cards.



> Thanks Fianna Fail for looking after all the big lads on big pensions.



Most public service pensioners, like myself, are not "big lads on big pensions". I'm not complaining about what  have, but I wish people would not distort discussion by focusing unduly on non-representative cases.


----------



## S.L.F (17 Nov 2009)

Padraigb said:


> I am quite sure that is why they did things as they did. The found a way to cut the pay of those still serving while leaving pensions untouched. Remember that it was done not too long after the grey power revolt on medical cards.


 
Since it was me who said it first I'm not going to put +1 here (except to say I won't put it there).



Padraigb said:


> Most public service pensioners, like myself, are not "big lads on big pensions". I'm not complaining about what have, but I wish people would not distort discussion by focusing unduly on non-representative cases.


 
Just to be clear what I meant was the big boys would be the ones on more than hundred thousand euro a year.

This is the biggest problem of all about the whole thing instead of the media looking at the small people which accounts for 99% of cases they look at the big guys which needless to say is wrong.


----------



## z101 (17 Nov 2009)

You cut your coat by your clothe, so as the hospitality industry couldn't afford to trade on Sundays unless the double pay was changed back to normal it's the same for the public service. That was changed without any big debate here or elsewhere. Funny how hospitality staff (Probably lowly paid) just accept this and get on with it. 
Sunny why do you think splitting Sunday into 2 halves has not been spoken about by the unions? 
Foxy Lady. From the point of view outside the Public service your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed). The anomoly to others is the fact that it was not this way all along, as is the case for people paying into unguaranteed pensions in the private sector.
I think it's great if you have the luxury to choose when you can or dont want to work and thus not work Sundays. For anyone else if your employer cant afford to pay it (Public or Private) you should maybe choose a different career or get a job for Intel, apparently.
Another thing, for years Unions were getting pay rises harping on twice yearly about inflation levels and their percentages should reflect increases for members. Now we have deflation there's not a mention. One union official was even quoted as say it was an 'unreal' figure. Absolute nuts.
Again 500m a week borrowing is making the country bankrupt.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> You cut your coat by your clothe,


 
The problem with this govt is that it will cut the arms off the coat and a big hole in the back of it.



Ceatharlach said:


> Foxy Lady. From the point of view outside the Public service your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed)


 
Good Grief Ceatharlach, how many times do you have to be told.

*The pension Levy does not go towards any pension fund for the Public service*

*It is a tax for working in the Public Service*

*You gain no value from it at retirement*

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding on the issue


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> *The pension Levy does not go towards any pension fund for the Public service*
> 
> *It is a tax for working in the Public Service*
> 
> *You gain no value from it at retirement*


crap! The guaranteed, market proof public sector pension has to be paid for from investments in the non-guaranteed vulnerable market using taxpayers money. Any shortfalls have to be made up using more tax payers money. Hence the levy to prop up public sector guaranteed pensions. 

As a private sector worker I get no such guaranteed pension, I take my lumps in the market. Hence no levy for me. I'd love a public sector pension - levy or not and consider a 7% hit on pay an acceptable price to pay for that guarantee


----------



## Caveat (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> *The pension Levy does not go towards any pension fund for the Public service*
> 
> *It is a tax for working in the Public Service*
> 
> *You gain no value from it at retirement*


 
Maybe, but that doesn't contradict what Ceatharlach said.


----------



## Pique318 (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> crap! The guaranteed, market proof public sector pension has to be paid for from investments in the non-guaranteed vulnerable market using taxpayers money. Any shortfalls have to be made up using more tax payers money. Hence the levy to prop up public sector guaranteed pensions.


See...it's easy to understand, even if you don't want to...


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Maybe, but that doesn't contradict what Ceatharlach said.


 
Yes it does!

What he (or she) said was, _"your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed)"_ 

This is totally false.



Ceatharlach said:


> your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed).


 


galleyslave said:


> Hence the levy to prop up public sector guaranteed pensions.


 
The Pension Levy doesn't go towards the pension fund.


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> The Pension Levy doesn't go towards the pension fund.



Public sector pensions are paid out of central government current account coffers. The pension levy goes into central government coffers therefore it is quite logical to say that the pension levy is a payment toward public sector pensions.


----------



## Caveat (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Yes it does!
> 
> What he (or she) said was, _"your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire (guaranteed)"_
> 
> ...


 
OK, when you put it like that - fair enough.

The bottom line is that PS workers are paying more for their pension. But still less than the average private sector worker pays for their pension and they get a far better pension. Yes there are exceptions to this but if you take a PS worker earning say 35K and a private sector worker earning the same, the private sector worker would have to pay a very high percentage of their salary to get the equivalent PS pension.

E.g. From http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/.../bl100vol1.pdf 

*Given the above arrangements, the Group observes that the annual cost of purchasing similar pension arrangements (including the earnings-linking of pension benefits) in the private sector would be very high indeed: ranging from around 27% of annual salary in the case of a typical civil servant employed prior to 2004 to 31% for a teacher entitled to retire at age 55; 33% for a hospital consultant; 48% in the case of a Garda member; and as high as 87% of annual salary in the case of a High Court judge. The cost of providing similar benefits in a Defined Contribution arrangement, which is more generally applicable in the private sector, would be significantly higher in all cases. "*

None of us can change what the government do with this levy 'saving'. Call it a tax if you like but we all pay them and I for one certainly don't like the way some of my tax revenue is used - not much I can do about it though. Any PS worker feeling hard done by should contact a broker advising the details of their pension and find out how much it would cost them if they were to make their own pension arrangements. 

Better still, form a lobby group, protest, and demand that they be allowed to make their own pension arrangements - I don't think there would be too many volunteers.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> Public sector pensions are paid out of central government current account coffers. The pension levy goes into central government coffers therefore it is quite logical to say that the pension levy is a payment toward public sector pensions.


 
However, Public and Civil servants both permanent and temporary pay this levy, do they get anything extra for it?

Temporary staff are worse off because they get nothing at all



Caveat said:


> The bottom line is that PS workers are paying more for their pension. .


 
*Exasperated Sigh*

Once again...

The pension levy has nothing to do with pension if it had then people who were temporary would not have to pay it.

Just on a side issue about pensions and all that, if PS workers had the choice to put 6.5% of their salary into the Post Office for 40 years would they be better off than going with the pension arrangments in place.


----------



## Caveat (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> *Exasperated Sigh*
> 
> Once again...
> 
> The pension levy has nothing to do with pension if it had then people who were temporary would not have to pay it.


 
And once again (including an exasperated sigh from me too) it's not the point. It all comes back to a simple fact - The 'employer' of PS workers, the dept. of finance, cannot afford to pay it's workers.

*In the private sector this means (and continues to mean) lay offs, paycuts, closure of businesses.*

The government *had* to reduce the amount of money it is hemorrhaging to the PS payroll. To ensure that PS pensions are not as heavily subsidised was the method they chose - for now. 

The pension levy does not affect gross pay therefore it is not a pay cut.

If it was simply called _PS tax_ (or something) would you be happier - what I mean is, is your issue the deception/sneakiness (as you maybe see it) of the terminology or the fact that the government even touched the PS?


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

SLF just wont admit thats its fair to pay more for a guaranteed pension. If he does, his whole argument crumbles to dust


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> And once again (including an exasperated sigh from me too) it's not the point. It all comes back to a simple fact - The 'employer' of PS workers, the dept. of finance, cannot afford to pay it's workers.
> 
> The government *had* to reduce the amount of money it is hemorrhaging to the PS payroll. To ensure that PS pensions are not as heavily subsidised was the method they chose - for now.
> 
> ...


 
*2 exasperated sighs*

*kick the cat out the window*

*MMmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooowwwwwwwww*

I was answering a post by another poster about what the pension levy was about he said it goes into the pension fund where in fact it does not.

If the govt had just given the PS a pay cut then all the various people who are on pensions whould have had their pensions cut because their pensions are linked to wages in the PS, so yes you are correct it was a sneaky move on their part, they fear the grey vote and rightly so


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> SLF just wont admit thats its fair to pay more for a guaranteed pension. If he does, his whole argument crumbles to dust


 
Do you mean the temporary contract staff, who pay for it and don't get a pension, do you?

*looks about*

Nope nothing crumbling here


----------



## Round Tuit (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F. - you're really doing yourself no favours.
I read this as a private sector worker. I've watched good colleagues be made redundant. Our employer makes no contribution at all to our pensions - we'll get out what we put in, no more and no less, and it will have nothing to do with what our salary is. 

It took me over 10 years of unpaid overtime etc to get to around the average industrial wage but in the last 10 months I've had to take 2 x 10% pay cuts and also unpaid leave to try to avoid further redundancies. Because of that many in this office have had to take mortgage holidays or go interest only and also cut the % they contribute to their pensions (those of us who have one). Thems the facts of life in the current climate and we ALL have to do it. You can call the 7% what you like, that's just semantics, it still balances against a pension you get at retirement I can only dream of and that 7% is the difference between your taxes and mine so hopefully that means my taxes are contributing less now towards your pension.

PS - we never get a Christmas bonus or party so there's none of that frivolity to be cancelled.


----------



## michaelm (18 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> The pension levy does not affect gross pay therefore it is not a pay cut.


That would be a (mischievously?) technical interpretation of the levy.  It is, in the real world, indeed a pay cut, a sleight of hand on the part of the Government which introduces a PS pay cut without upsetting retired former PS workers and avoids any legal difficulties that a blunt pay cut might herald.





Round Tuit said:


> You can call the 7% what you like, that's just semantics, it still balances against a pension you get at retirement I can only dream of and that 7% is the difference between your taxes and mine so hopefully that means my taxes are contributing less now towards your pension.


It doesn't balance against one's pension at retirement.  It goes into Government coffers and on towards paying current PS pensions, which are pay-as-you-go (a giant pyramid scheme).  Your taxes don't contribute a cent to current PS workers future pensions.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Do you mean the temporary contract staff, who pay for it and don't get a pension, do you?
> 
> *looks about*
> 
> Nope nothing crumbling here



irrelevant.  You are constructing your argument on the basis that an the status of temp workers invalidates the fundamental thesis - said thesis being that public sector workers get a great perk in their guaranteed pensions and this is simply not affordable any more. The fact that temp workers have to pay it is irrelevant. The trough if empty and to fill it requires more cash. If the public service wants these great pensions then they have to pay for them. 

Here's a thought. Accept the fact that the country is screwed. Forget playing the  blame game and instead accept some pain and work towards fixing things. I've yet to hear a public sector worker say - ah sure I'd give up the guaranteed pension and accept a pension similar to the private sector in return for my levy... I think thats telling...


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Round Tuit said:


> S.L.F. - you're really doing yourself no favours.
> I read this as a private sector worker. I've watched good colleagues be made redundant. Our employer makes no contribution at all to our pensions - we'll get out what we put in, no more and no less, and it will have nothing to do with what our salary is.
> 
> It took me over 10 years of unpaid overtime etc to get to around the average industrial wage but in the last 10 months I've had to take 2 x 10% pay cuts and also unpaid leave to try to avoid further redundancies. Because of that many in this office have had to take mortgage holidays or go interest only and also cut the % they contribute to their pensions (those of us who have one). Thems the facts of life in the current climate and we ALL have to do it. You can call the 7% what you like, that's just semantics, it still balances against a pension you get at retirement I can only dream of and that 7% is the difference between your taxes and mine so hopefully that means my taxes are contributing less now towards your pension.
> ...


 
This was your post now if I remove all the stuff that is off topic or totally untrue what will be left



Round Tuit said:


> S.L.F...


 
I don't work for the govt nor any semi-state agency just as you have jumped to conclusions about me I suggest you have jumped to conclusions about the Public Sector


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> SLF just wont admit thats its fair to pay more for a guaranteed pension. If he does, his whole argument crumbles to dust


 
Maybe so but the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions and I have proved that in that part time staff who pay the pension levy get nothing for it.



Caveat said:


> The government *had* to reduce the amount of money it is hemorrhaging to the PS payroll. To ensure that PS pensions are not as heavily subsidised was the method they chose - for now.


 
If our govt gave a rats-ass about that they would have just put a pay cut across the board then not only would they be paying less wages but less pensions to PS pensioners and that would have saved far more



galleyslave said:


> irrelevant. You are constructing your argument on the basis that an the status of temp workers invalidates the fundamental thesis - said thesis being that public sector workers get a great perk in their guaranteed pensions and this is simply not affordable any more. The fact that temp workers have to pay it is irrelevant. The trough if empty and to fill it requires more cash. If the public service wants these great pensions then they have to pay for them.
> 
> Here's a thought. Accept the fact that the country is screwed. Forget playing the blame game and instead accept some pain and work towards fixing things. I've yet to hear a public sector worker say - ah sure I'd give up the guaranteed pension and accept a pension similar to the private sector in return for my levy... I think thats telling...


 
You said earlier that a hit of 7% on pay acceptable for a guaranteed pension but they are already paying 6.5% so it increases to 13.5% over 40 years.

Would 13.5% put into a post office for 40 years not be a better option?


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> You said earlier that a hit of 7% on pay acceptable for a guaranteed pension but they are already paying 6.5% so it increases to 13.5% over 40 years.
> 
> Would 13.5% put into a post office for 40 years not be a better option?



Im guessing you mean they already pay 6.5% into a pension pot. The thing is however, for example I pay into a pension pot. now if we both pay 6.5. I'm at the mercy of the market as to what I get back and after being through 3 stock market crashes in 20 years (.com bust, 9/11 and now) I can assure you I've lost a lot of the paltry pension I have. The public sector worker on the other hand has a guaranteed payout regardless of stock market conditions. I think thats worth the extra 7%


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Maybe so but the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions and I have proved that in that part time staff who pay the pension levy get nothing for it.


it has to do with it in the fact that the pension has to be paid for from public funds. Funds which are incapable of meeting the bill. Ergo, the levies and cuts and tax increases etc that we are all facing in one way or another.

Also, part time staff would have pensions. Temp. staff may not. Temp staff however who are employed for 3 years (if I recall correctly) can apply for a variety of positions the general public cannot, so they do get opportunities not open to everyone.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> Im guessing you mean they already pay 6.5% into a pension pot. The thing is however, for example I pay into a pension pot. now if we both pay 6.5. I'm at the mercy of the market as to what I get back and after being through 3 stock market crashes in 20 years (.com bust, 9/11 and now) I can assure you I've lost a lot of the paltry pension I have. The public sector worker on the other hand has a guaranteed payout regardless of stock market conditions. I think thats worth the extra 7%


 
Maybe so if the 7% went into the pension fund which it doesn't

I don't have a pension at all and but if I was putting 13.5% of my wage into the post office for 40 years would I be better off.

(I'm expecting a few PMs from brokers trying to sell me a pension now )



galleyslave said:


> it has to do with it in the fact that the pension has to be paid for from public funds. Funds which are incapable of meeting the bill. Ergo, the levies and cuts and tax increases etc that we are all facing in one way or another.


 
I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target everytime this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy.


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2009)

michaelm said:


> Your taxes don't contribute a cent to current PS workers future pensions.



 Rubbish; the national pension reserve fund was set up to plug the 100 billion euro public sector pensions deficit.

BTW, I agree, and have stated a number of times here, that a pay cut would have been fairer and better. That doesn't change the fact that the public sector generally does not come anywhere close to funding their own pensions. That’s not sustainable or fair on the general population who have to subsidise retired public sector employees (and yes, existing public sector employees subsidise them through their income tax as well).


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Maybe so if the 7% went into the pension fund which it doesn't


 You keep saying that and people keep pointing out that it doesn't make any sense. PS pensions are funded out of current income so the levy should go into the current income pot.



S.L.F said:


> I don't have a pension at all and but if I was putting 13.5% of my wage into the post office for 40 years would I be better off.


 No you wouldn't.





S.L.F said:


> I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target every time this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy.


 The public sector has, in broad terms, benefitted from the boom far more than the private sector so it is fair and reasonable that those who benefitted most should be looked at as part of the solution. Add to that the fact that their employer doesn't have the money to pay them (or access to the money either).


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Maybe so if the 7% went into the pension fund which it doesn't
> 
> I don't have a pension at all and but if I was putting 13.5% of my wage into the post office for 40 years would I be better off.




I doubt it. lets take a crude example. Say a ps worker on 40k (no jokes please!) average over the 40 years
13.5% is 5400 pa.
assuming inflation and DIRT negates the interest after 40 years you would have 216000 in the bank. Assuming you budget for 20 years and expect to die at 85 you'd have just over 10k pa to play with, or put another way, a final salary percentage of 25% Whats the public sector final salary%?


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

Your arguments are based on semantics. The tenet against your arguments have not be disproven at all and hold true. Nit picking peoples comments doesn't change the reality. Say what you like but this pension money comes from the government via the pension levy. 

I guess its unfortunate temporary staff have to pay for the guaranteed pensions of their full time job for life colleagues. Maybe they should strike if it were not for the fact they probably feel blessed to have a job and are not much use to unions as they dont get memberships fees for life.

It's a perfect example of 'theory v reality' You are very definitely in theory land. 
Try writing in bigger text next time that might make it true.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target everytime this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy.



ah, so the argument is now changing to "not my fault"... 

well tough. If I worked for a private sector company that was in serious financial trouble, it would generally be pay cuts or a p45. 
so, by the same analogy, the public sector worker is working for a company that is in serious financial trouble and has to take the pain


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

looks like purple is making the same point as me...


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> You keep saying that and people keep pointing out that it doesn't make any sense. PS pensions are funded out of current income so the levy should go into the current income pot.


 
The point I was making was

1 that the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions

2 the PS get nothing extra for paying this levy



galleyslave said:


> I doubt it. lets take a crude example. Say a ps worker on 40k (no jokes please!) average over the 40 years
> 13.5% is 5400 pa.
> assuming inflation and DIRT negates the interest after 40 years you would have 216000 in the bank. Assuming you budget for 20 years and expect to die at 85 you'd have just over 10k pa to play with, or put another way, a final salary percentage of 25% Whats the public sector final salary%?


 
My understanding is if you are in the PS for the full 40 years you get 1.5 years lump sum and then 50% of your wage after that.



Ceatharlach said:


> Say what you like but this pension money comes from the government via the pension levy.


 
Do you accept that the pension levy does not increase your pension when you retire?



galleyslave said:


> ah, so the argument is now changing to "not my fault"...


 
Don't know because I'm not a PS worker


----------



## michaelm (18 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> Rubbish; the national pension reserve fund was set up to plug the 100 billion euro public sector pensions deficit.


Mea culpa .  Taxpayers money does of course fund the NPRF which aims to defray future SW & PS pension costs.


----------



## Caveat (18 Nov 2009)

And don't forget, there is always this option...



Caveat said:


> Any PS worker feeling hard done by should contact a broker advising the details of their pension and find out how much it would cost them if they were to make their own pension arrangements.
> 
> Better still, form a lobby group, protest, and demand that they be allowed to make their own pension arrangements - I don't think there would be too many volunteers.


 
...any takers?


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> My understanding is if you are in the PS for the full 40 years you get 1.5 years lump sum and then 50% of your wage after that.


I think its clear that the 13.5% contribution you are talking about comes nowhere near paying for that pension provision.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Don't know because I'm not a PS worker


really? its the point you made earlier 



> I have met a few PS workers and they all say the same thing they are not prepared to be a soft target everytime this govt makes a dogs dinner of the economy


see, not their fault, didn't do it, won't pay for it. ... you said it...

I do wonder how a unionised, can't be fired, nicely paid sector is a 'soft target' compared with the non unionised, at the mercy of their employer, private sector


----------



## michaelm (18 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> ...any takers?


Not me anyway.  I joined the Public Service more than 10 years ago.  The wages were not great at the time but I wanted the job security and the pension looked decent.  Now it looks like I made a good choice.  The Government should draw a line under present pay and conditions for PS workers and introduce a _new deal _for new entrants, for whenever a slimmed down PS resumes filling posts that become vacant.


----------



## csirl (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> I doubt it. lets take a crude example. Say a ps worker on 40k (no jokes please!) average over the 40 years
> 13.5% is 5400 pa.
> assuming inflation and DIRT negates the interest after 40 years you would have 216000 in the bank. Assuming you budget for 20 years and expect to die at 85 you'd have just over 10k pa to play with, or put another way, a final salary percentage of 25% Whats the public sector final salary%?


 
According to your figures, a PS would be better putting the money in the bank. The pension that such a worker would currently get would be c.9k. (20k inclusive of c.11k SW pension which is paid for by PRSI contributions).

From talking to friends and relatives in the PS, a very high percentage of them would prefer to be on either a defined contribution scheme or simply to be allowed to make their own pension provisions. There's a lot of slight of hand going on regarding the figures being bandied about in public. When you consider pensions contibutions (6.5%), pension levys (7.5%), employee PRSI, employers PRSI and a notional employers contribution equal to the employees, you're in the 30-40% of salary range per annum. 

Something just doesnt add up here. I'm told that the reason there is a public sector pension deficit is because the Government is paying pensions to pensioners of yesteryear who made no contributions and people in certain politically appointed positions who get "enhanced" pensions.  

Current public sector workers are worried that because the money they contribute is being used to pay the above mentioned people today instead of being put in a ring fenced pensions scheme, there will be no money left when they reach retirement age. Most would prefer to make their own arrangements, even if their pensions we're quite as good, because they know that if they make their own arrangements they can plan for retirement. At present, and given the fact that todays pensions contributions have been spent rather than saved, a high percentage do not honestly believe there will be any worthwhile pension for them when they reach retirement age.

Pension levys and pay cuts dont help either - wipes out any disposable income that could be put in a privately purchased pensions scheme. A lot of public sector workers I know have attempted to start private pension schemes in recent years (where income permitted). I've asked them why, given that they have a guaranteed pension. The answer has always been that nothing is guaranteed when you are at the whim of a bunch of gombeenman politicians who have already spent your contributions and can totally wipe out you pension at the stoke of a pen.


----------



## colin79ie (18 Nov 2009)

Example. A private sector company pays 5% of an employer's gross salary towards their pension. Company then comes along and says it cannot afford to do that anymore so the employees will have to pay that percentage in themselves. If they do this then their take home pay will be less. If an employee decides not to do this then their pension fund will be less.

Why then, can the public sector workers not be treated the same. If you don't like the levy, then opt out but your pension will be less.


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> 1 that the pension levy has nothing to do with pensions
> 2 the PS get nothing extra for paying this levy
> 
> Do you accept that the pension levy does not increase your pension when you retire?
> ...


 
As public sector pension money has to come from somerwhere how do you draw (1) that conclusion or what are you baseing it on?
(2) They are been asked to contribute toward their own pension (like everone else) and which should always have been the way, why on earth should they get anything else extra. 

I never said the levy increases your pension when you retire. This, in my view is to meet the *current* contributions needed that go toward PS guaranteed pensions. Which I may add the country cant afford in the current climate.

Your not a public service worker, wonder how people got that idea... Is someone close to you one??


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> Current public sector workers are worried that because the money they contribute is being used to pay the above mentioned people today instead of being put in a ring fenced pensions scheme, there will be no money left when they reach retirement age.
> 
> Pension levys and pay cuts dont help either - wipes out any disposable income that could be put in a privately purchased pensions scheme. A lot of public sector workers I know have attempted to start private pension schemes in recent years (where income permitted).
> I've asked them why, given that they have a guaranteed pension. The answer has always been that nothing is guaranteed when you are at the whim of a bunch of gombeenman politicians who have already spent your contributions and can totally wipe out you pension at the stoke of a pen.


 
Where is there any evidence to support this? apart from Union propaganda to strike fear into their members? This is using fear to access your situation. I bet if push came to shove they would change nothing.


----------



## liaconn (18 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> Your not a public service worker, wonder how people got that idea... Is someone close to you one??


 
Maybe he's just a private sector worker with a balanced view???

The point SLF is making is that Public Sector Workers get absolutely nothing extra for their pension levy that they weren't getting before. It is a pay cut by another name.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Maybe he's just a private sector worker with a balanced view???
> 
> The point SLF is making is that Public Sector Workers get absolutely nothing extra for their pension levy that they weren't getting before. It is a pay cut by another name.


well, we're all taking pay cuts. I've had a 5% cut, on top of that I've had my shifts cut. On top of that we've had tax /paye/whatever rises. My wife's lost her job. All in all, we're down about 20k pa. So its a bit hard for  me to feel sorry for those in the public sector that get "absolutely nothing extra" for their cuts. I got absolutely nothing for mine except the fun of trying to run a household on 1 income while my wife struggled, in vain, to get the dole

and further, this whole concept of getting nothing for taking a pay cut - ffs, the country is screwed and rather than accept a cut, it's whats in it for me if I take a cut... in other words it's not a cut, its a quid pro quo. a transfer of salary into benefit...


----------



## Sunny (18 Nov 2009)

Has all this not been argued to death by now. People have their views and these are not going to change by rehashing old arguments.


----------



## Shawady (18 Nov 2009)

colin79ie said:


> Why then, can the public sector workers not be treated the same. If you don't like the levy, then opt out but your pension will be less.


 
Don't want to get into the finer details of private pensions versus public pension, but its worth mentioning the point that the government could not afford to lose the pension contributions and levies from PS workers at the moment. Between the two they must be bringing in a couple of billion in revenue.
If this went into a ring fenced contributory pension fund the government would not have this money to spend and public servants would be entitled to the state old age pension on retirement.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> They are been *asked* to contribute toward their own pension (like everone else) and which should always have been the way, why on earth should they get anything else extra.


 
That's gas I didn't know they were asked anything.



Ceatharlach said:


> I never said the levy increases your pension when you retire.


 
What you said was...

_"From the point of view outside the Public service your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire"_

This implies to me that the pension levy is added to the pension when you retire, it is not.



Ceatharlach said:


> Your not a public service worker, wonder how people got that idea... Is someone close to you one??


 
Yes, you are very good, someone close to me, in fact you too.

The guy who sweeps the road, the nurse, teacher...



colin79ie said:


> Why then, can the public sector workers not be treated the same. If you don't like the levy, then opt out but your pension will be less.


 
Tell that to the temporary staff who pay it but don't get the pension


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Has all this not been argued to death by now. People have their views and these are not going to change by rehashing old arguments.


 
I agree

Bring back the ceasefire.


----------



## liaconn (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> well, we're all taking pay cuts. I've had a 5% cut, on top of that I've had my shifts cut. On top of that we've had tax /paye/whatever rises. My wife's lost her job. All in all, we're down about 20k pa. So its a bit hard for me to feel sorry for those in the public sector that get "absolutely nothing extra" for their cuts. I got absolutely nothing for mine except the fun of trying to run a household on 1 income while my wife struggled, in vain, to get the dole
> 
> and further, this whole concept of getting nothing for taking a pay cut - ffs, the country is screwed and rather than accept a cut, it's whats in it for me if I take a cut... in other words it's not a cut, its a quid pro quo. a transfer of salary into benefit...


 
The point though is that many people are saying that Public Servants haven't taken a pay cut and totally dismiss the pension levy as irrelevant. We _have_  taken a pay cut. And we've had the same tax/paye/whatever rises that you've had. Also, I would dispute that 'we're all taking pay cuts'. There are lots of private sector workers hiding behind those who have taken cuts or lost their jobs and using 'we,we,we' very disingenuously.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> The point though is that many people are saying that Public Servants haven't taken a pay cut and totally dismiss the pension levy as irrelevant. We _have_  taken a pay cut. And we've had the same tax/paye/whatever rises that you've had. Also, I would dispute that 'we're all taking pay cuts'. There are lots of private sector workers hiding behind those who have taken cuts or lost their jobs and using 'we,we,we' very disingenuously.


wee, we've all taken a cut in the sense taxes are up. I and many other private sector workers have taken a double hit - firstly in the form of a pay cut. Second in the form of massive devaluation of our pension pot

Public sector workers have got a guaranteed pension pot and are being asked to take a relatively modest cut/levy to ensure its continuance. 

I think thats more than fair.


----------



## liaconn (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> wee, we've all taken a cut in the sense taxes are up. I and many other private sector workers have taken a double hit - firstly in the form of a pay cut. Second in the form of massive devaluation of our pension pot
> 
> Public sector workers have got a guaranteed pension pot and are being asked to take a relatively modest cut/levy to ensure its continuance.
> 
> I think thats more than fair.


 
Oh I forgot, Public Servants don't pay taxes . 


To use your logic all Public Servants have taken a double hit and are now about to get a treble hit. 
I agree, this thread has just turned into the same old arguments.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Oh I forgot, Public Servants don't pay taxes .
> 
> 
> To use your logic all Public Servants have taken a double hit and are now about to get a treble hit.
> I agree, this thread has just turned into the same old arguments.


rubbish
where did I say public servants dont pay taxes. I clearly said we've all taken a hit re taxes. I went on to say private sector workers got their pensions hit and also have had pay cuts. not sure how you got out of that, that public sector workers are even worse off...


----------



## csirl (18 Nov 2009)

> I went on to say private sector workers got their pensions hit


 
Bit of a sweeping statement. Obviously you have a crystal ball that has told you how well the stock markets will perform for the next 20, 30, 40 odd years.  Its not possible to say at this point in time whether or not the recent temporary drop in share prices has had any impact on the pensions people will receive in future decades.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree, this thread has just turned into the same old arguments.


 
Yeah but 'they' are the ones who are wrong.

"Up the Public Service"


----------



## Caveat (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree, this thread has just turned into the same old arguments.


 
In fairness, a public sector worker started the thread and it seems to me that it was you and SLF who were the first to make emotive posts about all of this - what do you expect?

BTW have you seen Cork's last post on the Nov 24th thread?


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> That's gas I didn't know they were asked anything.
> What you said was...
> 
> _"From the point of view outside the Public service your pension levy is a contribution toward your own pension so you'll get value for this income when you retire"_
> ...


Your are misunderstanding that. A private sector worker pays into a pension which they get when they retire, not as good as a public sector workers guaranteed pension I know, but a pension of some sorts. 
A public sector worker also get a pension for which they are been asked to contribute towards now. So they will get value for what they pay now ,then. Fair enough. (regardless of what semantical twist you want to put on it). As I said I actually agree that temporary staff shouldn't have to pay for the guaranteed pensions of their full time PS colleagues.

So your getting hot under the collar and ducking and diving your arguments because your worried about the income of bin men et al and not the income of a family member or maybe yourself.. 
Yeah Right!

Disclosure is not asked for I guess on AAM but people are not stupid either.


----------



## liaconn (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> rubbish
> where did I say public servants dont pay taxes. I clearly said we've all taken a hit re taxes. I went on to say private sector workers got their pensions hit and also have had pay cuts. not sure how you got out of that, that public sector workers are even worse off...


 
You were using tax increases as an example of how private sector workers have all taken pay cuts. I was making the poiint that everyone pays taxes. 

SLF, you are so right, as always.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> Bit of a sweeping statement. Obviously you have a crystal ball that has told you how well the stock markets will perform for the next 20, 30, 40 odd years.


jaysus. you have a brilliant way of misrepresenting what people say. no, I dont have a crystal ball. I do however have statements showing the value of my investments and pensions going back 20 years. Perusing those I can clearly see how their value has fallen in the current economic climate. I note that when I retire my pension pot will therefore be lower than it would have been had there not been a recession. 
I also note that this does not apply to the public sector. 

now, lets try this again - double whammy - pay cuts and pension worth less...



> Its not possible to say at this point in time whether or not the recent temporary drop in share prices has had any impact on the pensions people will receive in future decades.


er... yes, it is. mathematics 101.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> You were using tax increases as an example of how private sector workers have all taken pay cuts. I was making the poiint that everyone pays taxes.
> 
> SLF, you are so right, as always.


no I wasn't I said we've ALL had tax rises. I went on to say... oh, go and read it again...


----------



## liaconn (18 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> In fairness, a public sector worker started the thread and it seems to me that it was you and SLF who were the first to make emotive posts about all of this - what do you expect?
> 
> BTW have you seen Cork's last post on the Nov 24th thread?


 
We were not being any more 'emotive' than the people attacking the Public Sector.

Yes, I've seen Cork's last post which I'll answer on that thread.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> We were not being any more 'emotive' than the people attacking the Public Sector.


oh, I wouldnt say emotive - everyone is reasonably civil. I'd say disingenuous


----------



## Caveat (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> We were not being any more 'emotive' than the people attacking the Public Sector.


 
I was talking about page 1 of the thread BTW - before anyone attacked anyone.

This is getting silly now anyway.

The weather's awful isn't it - have you done much of your Christmas shopping yet?


----------



## liaconn (18 Nov 2009)

galleyslave said:


> oh, I wouldnt say emotive - everyone is reasonably civil. I'd say disingenuous


 
Eh, I think I've already used that word (in connection with the Private Sector).

Pleeeease lets close this thread. 

Yes, Caveat the weather is frightful. I see the decorations are up around town. Don't they look gorgeous.


----------



## galleyslave (18 Nov 2009)

I dunno, this thread is reflective of society as a whole, the unions negotiations with the govt. it's almost a metaphor for the ills of our society!


----------



## Shawady (18 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> In fairness, a public sector worker started the thread and it seems to me that it was you and SLF who were the first to make emotive posts about all of this - what do you expect?
> 
> BTW have you seen Cork's last post on the Nov 24th thread?


 
To be fair Caveat, the thread was not about pensions but about the different approaches the union might take for pay cuts. 
Unfortunately this happens with most threads about the public sector. It has become an emotive issue for both sides of the debate.


----------



## DB74 (18 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> have you done much of your Christmas shopping yet?


 
Not yet - I'll have to brave the crowds some weekend soon though - I don't get privilege days in my private sector job you see!


----------



## dockingtrade (18 Nov 2009)

liaconn said:


> Pleeeease lets close this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> > why ... we didnt cause this mess


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

Your right folks. Lets have the PS Unions and some of their members on here tell us how to run the country. That way the IMF will be in by the spring and bring the whole lot to a shuddering reality.
They can strike and moan all they like then as little do the realise the IMF dont and wont listen to Unions. 
It'll be a 10 'pint' plan after that.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> why ... we didnt cause this mess


 
In keeping with the Xmas spirit

Oh yes you did...


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Just one last thing before I have to leave I came across this post on boards.ie and I thought it summed up the whole thing perfectly.




> As a non public sector worker...before people start to think I am.
> 
> What do you expect them to do...sit back and take it? Maybe the people who you have mentioned will realise how much we rely on public sector workers in our day to day lives.
> *The pay cuts suggested and the pension levy are the governments way of not dealing with the real problems...the pension levy conviently arrived after the government stated that they would use the pension reserve to help out the banks...da dah the pension levy was born! *
> ...


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

I though if I put that you would conclude the 'others' outside of the 'some' was aimed at the public service. Dont want you making facts out what is not the case do we.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

So anybody going to the birthday on Friday night.

Looking forward to it meself.

Mods close this thread


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

OLD MONEY said:


> I am a public sector employee and I don`t agree with the stand being taken by our unions, and neither do a lot of my colleagues.I believe that the cuts have to be made in the best interests of the country.The best option for the government is to face down the unions-let them strike-there will be no public sympathy for the strikes only anger. After a while common sense will prevail and there will be a return to work.As well, every day the unions are on strike the government will save a small fortune on pay.
> .


 
Seeing as we are picking random quotes from either side this is from another thread. Does that mean my quote is correct or SLFs? 
Mr Lenihan your decision.


----------



## dockingtrade (18 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> So anybody going to the birthday on Friday night.
> 
> Looking forward to it meself.
> 
> Mods close this thread


 
how does that work. Ye all go to the pub and say your a user on AAM and enjoy the night or do ye actually say what your username is and kill each other  ..seriuosly do ye tell who ye are by username at these things?


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

My non double paid persona has to work Friday night. Enjoy


----------



## DB74 (18 Nov 2009)

_If they tackled public sector reform they would find the savings they need but that is too big a job so what the hell lets just take a chunk from everyone._

Public Sector Unions won't tolerate reform of the Public Sector because it will, more than likely involve job losses. And where reform involves new training, public sector unions expect higher pay to "compensate" for that training (eg Gardai in recent years). That is the problem.


This says a lot for me:

_Speaking on RTE's 6.1 News, Dave Thomas, Secretary General of the AHCPS, said members have lost up to 17% of their salaries as a result of the introduction of the various levies._

_He conceded that his group's members, who are paid between €60,000 and €100,000 a year, are on significant wages._

_But Mr Thomas said they should be treated in a similar way to those who are on comparable wages in the private sector and recent surveys had found that 70% of companies in the private sector had not reduced wages at all._

_*He conceded that none of his members had lost their jobs, but added that higher civil and public servants are not indifferent to the job losses in the private sector and know the pain some people are going through.*_


So the higher-paid public servants are striking to show solidarity with their brethren in the private sector who have lost their jobs.


----------



## z101 (18 Nov 2009)

Monthy Python couldn't come up with that.!


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> how does that work. Ye all go to the pub and say your a user on AAM and enjoy the night or do ye actually say what your username is and kill each other  ..seriuosly do ye tell who ye are by username at these things?


 
Well I'm gonna go in with a badge with "I wanna be Clubman"

Or walk in and stand in the circle and say "I'm addicted to Askaboutmoney" then everyone will applaud.

Or claim I'm someone else and make a complete show of myself.

I think option 3 sounds the best


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2009)

I think you'll make a complete show of yourself either way.


----------



## S.L.F (18 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> I think you'll make a complete show of yourself either way.


 
Always the same with some people you can only bring them somewhere twice, once then once back to apologize


----------



## bogle (18 Nov 2009)

dockingtrade said:


> how does that work. Ye all go to the pub and say your a user on AAM and enjoy the night or do ye actually say what your username is and kill each other  ..seriuosly do ye tell who ye are by username at these things?



I hear they've booked extra bouncers for the pub that night.
All the private sector capitalists will have the keys of their BMs and Mercs confiscated at the door, while the CS/PS bods will have to remove all facial hair (including the women) before being admitted 

I also hear the Secret Service and Special Branch are seriously worried about certain attendees plotting simultaneous right wing and left wing coups on the night! 

As precaution extra security will be placed on the GPO next Tuesday morning!


----------



## S.L.F (19 Nov 2009)

It was quite obovious that the ref last night was a private sector worker, had he been public or civil service he wouldn't have gotten it wrong.


----------



## DB74 (19 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> It was quite obovious that the ref last night was a private sector worker, had he been public or civil service he wouldn't have gotten it wrong.


 
I don't know. The way he won't pay for his mistakes makes it look more public sector to me!


----------



## Caveat (19 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> It was quite obovious that the ref last night was a private sector worker, had he been public or civil service he wouldn't have gotten it wrong.


 
No you fool - had he been private sector he would have been flexible and used his cop-on and adapted.

He was _obviously_ public sector - jobsworth, stickler for guidelines, won't listen to common sense, nothing to do with me...etc etc


----------



## liaconn (19 Nov 2009)

Private sector banker or Public Sector Minister for Finance I would say. F*cked up and the whole of Ireland ends up paying.


----------



## Sunny (19 Nov 2009)

He is actually public sector. He's a firefighter! I say double the pension levy


----------



## S.L.F (20 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> No you fool - had he been private sector he would have been flexible and used his cop-on and adapted.
> He was _obviously_ public sector - jobsworth, stickler for guidelines, won't listen to common sense, nothing to do with me...etc etc



Caveat, that sounds like a french name to me

it was obvious he was private sector, badly trained, doesn' give a toss about the big picture, only happy to do what the corporation says....ugly!!!


----------



## S.L.F (20 Nov 2009)

Just so everyone remembers down in Cork and out lying areas the people who have worked through the night to rescue others and who have been digging and all sorts have been from the public service.

Fair play to them


----------



## DB74 (20 Nov 2009)

Fair play to them for *doing the job they are paid to do*

Hopefully there will be no floods on the 24-Nov then eh?


----------



## Complainer (20 Nov 2009)

DB74 said:


> Fair play to them for *doing the job they are paid to do*
> 
> Hopefully there will be no floods on the 24-Nov then eh?


[broken link removed]


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Originally posted by Purple here



  From Ronan Lyons we get this graph










Purple said:


> the fact remains that the public sector benefited most from the boom (the pay gap has increased considerably between public and private sector over the last 10 years) and, along with social welfare, are the biggest areas of public spending so they have to be targeted for major cuts.


 


Purple said:


> The public sector has, in broad terms, benefitted from the boom far more than the private sector


 
Hi Purple I have had a good look at the figures which are quoted in the CSO report and they don't confirm your theory.


1998 Private sector pay was 74% of Public sector pay
1999 Private sector pay was 75% of Public sector pay
2000 Private sector pay was 77.9% of Public sector pay
2001 Private sector pay was 77.4% of Public sector pay
2002 Private sector pay was 77.8% of Public sector pay
2003 Private sector pay was 79% of Public sector pay
2004 Private sector pay was 77% of Public sector pay
2005 Private sector pay was 77% of Public sector pay
2006 Private sector pay was 77.24% of Public sector pay
2007 Private sector pay was 77.18% of Public sector pay
2008 Private sector pay was 77% of Public sector pay
These figures don't include the pension levy which is a pay cut so the gap has narrowed even further to being 83%.

The thing most people don't consider when talking about the public and civil service is that it has far more professionals in it than the private service.

For example how do you compare the likes of architects, engineers, solicitors, librarians, historians, veterinarians, art experts, nurses, doctors, teachers with the likes of tool makers, barmen, waitresses, hairdressers, florists, mechainics, builders, carpenters.


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> The thing most people don't consider when talking about the public and civil service is that it has far more professionals in it than the private service.
> 
> For example how do you compare the likes of architects, engineers, solicitors, librarians, historians, veterinarians, art experts, nurses, doctors, teachers with the likes of tool makers, barmen, waitresses, hairdressers, florists, mechainics, builders, carpenters.


 
Actually most reports including the recent one by the ESRI do take into account professional qualifications in the public sector. There didn't seem to any problem comparing these jobs when it came to benchmarking. Nobody attempts to compare a nurse with a barman.


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

Post in error


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Actually most reports including the recent one by the ESRI do take into account professional qualifications in the public sector. There didn't seem to any problem comparing these jobs when it came to benchmarking. Nobody attempts to compare a nurse with a barman.


 
That graph came from the CSO not the flawed ESRI report.

People on this forum have been saying that the gap between the public and private sectors has widened and I believe this graph proves otherwise.

Since the public service (on average if that is possible when you are dealing with an organisation of 350,000 people) is top heavy with relevant degrees you can't really compare it to the private sector.


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> That graph came from the CSO not the flawed ESRI report.
> 
> People on this forum have been saying that the gap between the public and private sectors has widened and I believe this graph proves otherwise.
> 
> Since the public service (on average if that is possible when you are dealing with an organisation of 350,000 people) is top heavy with relevant degrees you can't really compare it to the private sector.


 
So how did benchmarking work?

That graph that you put so much faith in also shows that the gap has increased in the past 5 years.


----------



## Latrade (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> That graph came from the CSO not the flawed ESRI report.


 
Doesn't matter how many times you say it, the ESRI report is not flawed, unless you decide standard economic modelling with built in correction factors is flawed.

Interesting summary of the two reports here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1124/1224259339119.html


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> So how did benchmarking work?
> 
> That graph that you put so much faith in also shows that the gap has increased in the past 5 years.


 
Last 5 years you said, I'm going to use 6 years so we can properly compare them

The difference in wage in % between public and private was


03-79.09% high point
04-77.3% down
05-77.03% back up
06-77.24% up a bit more
07-77.18% down again
08-76.97% and down even more
Sunny, I'm not sure which figures you are reading but I'm going by what I see before me. 

*Edit* Took the sun glasses off and see Sunny was correct


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Last 5 years you said, I'm going to use 6 years so we can properly compare them
> 
> The difference in wage in % between public and private was
> 
> ...


 

Eh in 2003 Private sector pay was 79% of Public sector pay and in 2008 Private sector pay was 77% of Public sector pay. How has the gap between private sector and public pay not widened using those figures?????


----------



## Firefly (25 Nov 2009)

This thread is getting like the "Sentiment Thread" - going round and round. The reality is that it doesn't matter what the rates of pay are in the Public Sector are versus those in the Private Sector, we as a country can't afford them!


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Originally posted by Purple here
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With all due respect (and I mean that) that’s utter nonsense. In euro terms the gap is widening and as a percentage of each other’s pay the gap is widening. As I said already if you earned €1 million one year and got a €200’000 pay increase the next and I earned €20’000 a year and got a €5’000 pay rise I would be getting a bigger percentage pay increase but the gap between our total pay rates would have increased by €195’000. 

Would that then by justification for you to ask for another pay increase?


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> With all due respect (and I mean that) that’s utter nonsense. In euro terms the gap is widening and as a percentage of each other’s pay the gap is widening. As I said already if you earned €1 million one year and got a €200’000 pay increase the next and I earned €20’000 a year and got a €5’000 pay rise I would be getting a bigger percentage pay increase but the gap between our total pay rates would have increased by €195’000.
> 
> Would that then by justification for you to ask for another pay increase?


 
Do please correct me if I'm wrong here but if in 1998 you are getting 74% of my wage and in 2008 you are getting 77% of my wage you don't think that rates have decreased and since the pension levy has come in those differences have decreased further


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Do please correct me if I'm wrong here but if in 1998 you are getting 74% of my wage and in 2008 you are getting 77% of my wage you don't think that rates have decreased and since the pension levy has come in those differences have decreased further


 
But I was getting 79% of your wage in 2003 and only 77% in 2008 so I really don't get what you are trying to say with all this


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Sorry sunny I have re-read it and you are correct but the pension levy would have taken all of that back and more.


----------



## Sunny (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Sorry sunny I have re-read it and you are correct but the pension levy would have taken all of that back and more.


 
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't going mad!


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Sorry sunny I have re-read it and you are correct but the pension levy would have taken all of that back and more.



But the extra value of the public sector pension was not factored in to the figures and we won't know what the real situation is in the private sector for  months.


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Just wanted to make sure I wasn't going mad!


 
You probably are but I won't tell a soul...Hey Lex you'll never guess what


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> With all due respect (and I mean that) that’s utter nonsense. In euro terms the gap is widening and as a percentage of each other’s pay the gap is widening. As I said already if you earned €1 million one year and got a €200’000 pay increase the next and I earned €20’000 a year and got a €5’000 pay rise I would be getting a bigger percentage pay increase but the gap between our total pay rates would have increased by €195’000.
> 
> Would that then by justification for you to ask for another pay increase?


 
It is possible to play with figures for hours going by your example

Ok first year is 1,000,000 and you have 20,000 % would be 2%

Second year is 1,200,000 and you have 25,000 % would be 2.08%

Most peoples wages increase by %...what other way is there.

The private sector wages % compared to public sector have increased in the last 10 years from 74% compared to 77% today (excluding the 7.5% pension levy which brings it up to 83%).


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> It is possible to play with figures for hours going by your example
> 
> Ok first year is 1,000,000 and you have 20,000 % would be 2%
> 
> ...



So in answer to my question _"Would that then by justification for you to ask for another pay increase?" _you are saying 'yes'.

Strange logic but I'm starting to understand Brethren logic. Is there a "Beared statistics 101" evening class in Liberty Hall (they do irony very well!) that I can attend?


----------



## S.L.F (25 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> So in answer to my question _"Would that then by justification for you to ask for another pay increase?" _you are saying 'yes'.
> 
> Strange logic but I'm starting to understand Brethren logic. Is there a "Beared statistics 101" evening class in Liberty Hall (they do irony very well!) that I can attend?


 
Ok can we accept that the public sector has by far more people with degrees than the private sector.

All the various professionals that work in the Public service all have to be paid better than burger flippers.

If you have a head architect in the PS who is in charge of a hundred architects you don't pay him the minimum wage, you pay him far more than that.

I don't believe there should be more pay increases but trying to compare the likes of the public sector and the private sector is just impossible.

In a thread recently someone mentioned they would like to have Michael O' (R)Leary take over the public service, Ryanair staff don't understand the phrase "Service" so how on earth would he know anything about it.

And most importantly the Public Service is about just that, Service.


----------



## Sunny (26 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Ok can we accept that the public sector has by far more people with degrees than the private sector.
> 
> All the various professionals that work in the Public service all have to be paid better than burger flippers.
> 
> ...


 
Who has suggested that architects get paid the minimum wage? The biggest gap in the public v private sector pay is at the lower levels where professional qualifications don't come into it.

The public service is about service but it is not about service at any price.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Ok can we accept that the public sector has by far more people with degrees than the private sector.


 As Sunny pointed out, the more qualified people in the public sector are less well paid than the semiskilled clerical staff relative to their counterparts in the private sector.
That’s not the point though, the lie is continuously trotted out by the bearded brethren that the public sector didn’t benefit from the boom. I am simply pointing out that the facts are that the overall pay gap between private and public sector has increased over the last few years so in fact the public sector benefited most from the boom.  



S.L.F said:


> All the various professionals that work in the Public service all have to be paid better than burger flippers.


 I agree, as the various professionals that work in the private sector have to be paid more than the unskilled people in the public sector.



S.L.F said:


> If you have a head architect in the PS who is in charge of a hundred architects you don't pay him the minimum wage, you pay him far more than that.


 Nobody suggested otherwise.



S.L.F said:


> I don't believe there should be more pay increases but trying to compare the likes of the public sector and the private sector is just impossible.


 No it’s not.



S.L.F said:


> In a thread recently someone mentioned they would like to have Michael O' (R)Leary take over the public service, Ryanair staff don't understand the phrase "Service" so how on earth would he know anything about it.


 Not me, I just posted a link to his comments. That said there’s many areas of the public sector that would run rings around Ryanair when it comes to giving bad service.



S.L.F said:


> And most importantly the Public Service is about just that, Service.


 Lol, good one!


----------



## Shawady (26 Nov 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Ok can we accept that the public sector has by far more people with degrees than the private sector.


 
From memory, in one of the ERSI reports the public sector premium for third level graduates was small compared to other groups.


----------



## Caveat (26 Nov 2009)

Shawady said:


> From memory, in one of the ERSI reports the public sector premium for third level graduates was small compared to other groups.


 
IRRELEVANT YOUR HONOUR! 

(Well, considering most 'sentinels of the sector' on this site regard the ESRI report as deeply flawed - in particular, S.L.F as it happens )


----------



## csirl (26 Nov 2009)

As a general rule in the public service, general operative/clerical grade types of jobs are overpaid and management (excluding politically appointed people at very top) is under paid.


----------



## Complainer (27 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> A management (excluding politically appointed people at very top) is under paid.


Just for the record, the only politically appointed people are non-executive board members, with a very small number of exceptions for some individual office holders (Ombudsman, FS Ombudman, etc).


----------

