# Fianna Fail at it Again



## belview (22 Nov 2010)

You might expect after all thats happened that Fianna Fail would try to put the country first for a change.

However, listening to Brian Lenihan speaking on RTE Radio this  morning about the viability of the Croke Park Agreement he said that it would remain in place and be reviewed in a years time.

Looks very much like they want to keep the public service voters on side  for the inevitable general election after christmas.

How can you cut social welfare  payments and at the same time leave public service pay untouched  

Stroke politics lives on!!!!


----------



## RonanC (22 Nov 2010)

belview said:


> Looks very much like they want to keep the public service voters on side for the inevitable general election after christmas.


 
This statement is comical and if the situation of where we are wasnt as serious as it is i'd be laughing at you and asking are you for real ? 

Public Sector workers have been hit by pay cuts, pension levies and other income levies, along with redundancies, job losses (contracts not renewed), as well as a moratorium on recruitment and promotion and you believe they will vote to keep this shower of wasters (FF & Greens)  in power ?


----------



## Slim (22 Nov 2010)

belview said:


> You might expect after all thats happened that Fianna Fail would try to put the country first for a change.
> 
> However, listening to Brian Lenihan speaking on RTE Radio this morning about the viability of the Croke Park Agreement he said that it would remain in place and be reviewed in a years time.
> 
> ...


 
Public servants have suffered an average of 14% pay cuts plus the income levies, whilst basic social welfare and state pension have not been reduced at all. In "fairness", the government did cut disability social welfare.

Many public servants will not vote for FF again. No one expects the Croke Park deal to survive after the next election. There will be more public service pay and new pension cuts. But there is a strong FF DNA in this country and it would not surprise me to see them in the mix for the next coalition government. Slim


----------



## Pique318 (22 Nov 2010)

RonanC said:


> ... job losses (contracts not renewed), ...


A contract not being renewed is NOT a job loss. It's just a non-renewal of a contract.


----------



## RonanC (22 Nov 2010)

Pique318 said:


> A contract not being renewed is NOT a job loss. It's just a non-renewal of a contract.


 
Try telling those who has had their contracts cancelled that they didnt lose their job


----------



## chrisboy (22 Nov 2010)

belview said:


> You might expect after all thats happened that Fianna Fail would try to put the country first for a change.
> 
> However, listening to Brian Lenihan speaking on RTE Radio this  morning about the viability of the Croke Park Agreement he said that it would remain in place and be reviewed in a years time.
> 
> ...




Your a gas man! Would it not have made more sense to look after the 450000 unemployed people than the 300000 public sector workers if all they were interested in was vote counting? And if the IMF werent happy with the Cpa that it would also be gone?


----------



## Shawady (22 Nov 2010)

Given Lenihan's track record on predictions, the very fact he has said PS pay will not be cut further, should be taken as evidence that PS pay will definitely be cut.

They are kicking it to touch until next year when this government is history.


----------



## belview (22 Nov 2010)

Shawady said:


> Given Lenihan's track record on predictions, the very fact he has said PS pay will not be cut further, should be taken as evidence that PS pay will definitely be cut.
> 
> They are kicking it to touch until next year when this government is history.



My point exactly

Anyway we will all get our chance to pass judgement in late January


----------



## DrMoriarty (22 Nov 2010)

When I saw this thread title I presumed it was about this.


----------



## bpb52 (22 Nov 2010)

Public servants are part of the problem. Too many of them and they cost too much. This cannot continue.

Compulsory redundancies or an immediate 25% cut in pay and pensions bill will help our economy right now.

Sticking our heads in the sands won't resolve this problem. We are moving to a situation where there will be no money to pay them. The cheques will bounce !

Thank God we have an IMF to save us.


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Nov 2010)

bpb52 said:


> Public servants are part of the problem. Too many of them and they cost too much. This cannot continue.
> 
> Compulsory redundancies or an immediate 25% cut in pay and pensions bill will help our economy right now.
> 
> ...




Everything I've read in the newspapers over recent days indicates that the IMF have scrutinised the Governments 4 year plan and have agreed that the Croke Park agreement is workable and should be honoured.

Even the Indo has given up on bringing down the agreement and stated on the front page yesterday that PS pay would not be cut in the forthcoming budget.


----------



## frankmac (22 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> *Everything I've read in the newspapers over recent days indicates that the IMF have scrutinised the Governments 4 year plan and have agreed that the Croke Park agreement is workable and should be honoured.*
> 
> Even the Indo has given up on bringing down the agreement and stated on the front page yesterday that PS pay would not be cut in the forthcoming budget.


 
Unfortunately I have to say that this looks to be the case


----------



## mugga (22 Nov 2010)

Why is it that people are constantly so anti public servants???  We have taken pay cuts and will be taking more when the budget comes out.  You would think we were the cause of all the misfortune that has befallen Ireland. It's all over the papers and this website also. It's always the PAYE the easy targets for all. Social welfare here is excessive and it's about time it was cut. As should the pay of Judges and all others who havn't been cut.


----------



## frankmac (22 Nov 2010)

I actually thought that judges were public servants


----------



## PaddyW (22 Nov 2010)

I believe there is something in law or the constitution or something like that, that pay cuts cannot be forced on judges, although they can volunteer pay cuts themselves. Maybe someone can confirm that?


----------



## Birroc (22 Nov 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Everything I've read in the newspapers over recent days indicates that the IMF have scrutinised the Governments 4 year plan and have agreed that the Croke Park agreement is workable and should be honoured.


 
Yeah but the IMF are only in the door. Not hard for FF to pull the wool over the eyes on this great reform agreement. Once they start investigating, they will find all the waste.


----------



## pudds (22 Nov 2010)

Slim said:


> Public servants have suffered an average of 14% pay cuts plus the income levies, *whilst basic social welfare* and state pension *have not been reduced at all.* In "fairness", the government did cut disability social welfare.
> 
> Many public servants will not vote for FF again. No one expects the Croke Park deal to survive after the next election. There will be more public service pay and new pension cuts. But there is a strong FF DNA in this country and it would not surprise me to see them in the mix for the next coalition government. Slim




The usual basic social welfare payments were all cut by around 4.5% in last years budget.


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Nov 2010)

Birroc said:


> Yeah but the IMF are only in the door. Not hard for FF to pull the wool over the eyes on this great reform agreement. Once they start investigating, they will find all the waste.



The IMF/EU have been directing our budgetary strategy for months.


----------



## orka (22 Nov 2010)

mugga said:


> Why is it that people are constantly so anti public servants??? We have taken pay cuts and will be taking more when the budget comes out. You would think we were the cause of all the misfortune that has befallen Ireland.


Most people aren't anti-public servants per se. It's just that the public sector pay bill is so huge and has been wildly inflated over recent years because we thought we were a rich country. The pay bill has to come down, it hasn't come down enough and there seems to be a feeling of 'we've taken cuts, why should we take more'? The why is because the country can't afford to pay what it currently pays. End of. 

If a public servant was on 40K and is now on 35K - if the job is only worth 30K, then the job is only worth 30K. Sorry that you were disillusioned during the boomtime into thinking your job was worth 40K - have a look at what your equivalent would be on in the UK - pay scales are on line - even allowing for any cost of living differences, pay scales here are still too high.

And I agree with you on social welfare (incl pensions) - same thing - rates went up in the boomtime and they have to come back now - I don't appreciate the reluctance to reduce something that should never have been increased in the first place.


----------



## Calico (22 Nov 2010)

bpb52 said:


> Public servants are part of the problem. Too many of them and they cost too much. This cannot continue.
> 
> Compulsory redundancies or an immediate 25% cut in pay and pensions bill will help our economy right now.
> 
> ...


 
I could not agree more. I hope the IMF can do what our own government hadn't the courage to. It would be an awful injustice to cut welfare rates while leaving the clearly bloated and overpaid public service alone.


----------



## Complainer (22 Nov 2010)

orka said:


> Most people aren't anti-public servants per se. It's just that the public sector pay bill is so huge and has been wildly inflated over recent years because we thought we were a rich country. The pay bill has to come down, it hasn't come down enough and there seems to be a feeling of 'we've taken cuts, why should we take more'? The why is because the country can't afford to pay what it currently pays. End of.


Sorry, but you don't get away with 'end of' because it's just not true. We're not paying for public servants, we're paying for public services. Those who don't depend on public services are often very quick to find ways to dismantle them. Most Irish people see the value in public services and are prepared to pay for them.

The 'can't afford' arguement doesn't hold. We can easily afford decent public services with the right tax model. Let's get rid of the €11.4 billion in tax reliefs for middle and high earners for a start - then we can continue to provide decent public services for Irish people.


----------



## thedaras (22 Nov 2010)

Increments anyone?

How come no one mentioned the fact that most of those working n the private sector, have taken pay cuts as well ,but most of the private sector DO NOT get increments.

It wouldn't be that unpalatable to take  a pay cut knowing you were going to get an 1/2/3 % INCREMENT


----------



## becky (22 Nov 2010)

frankmac said:


> I actually thought that judges were public servants


Yes they are but their pay is protected.  I don't have a major problem with their top line being protected but believe they should pay the pension levy just like any other tax and levy paid by public servants.


----------



## Complainer (22 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> How come no one mentioned the fact that most of those working n the private sector, have taken pay cuts as well ,but most of the private sector DO NOT get increments.



Nonsense. I spent 20+ years in the private sector, across a broad range of MNCs and indigenous companies (including the dark dismal days of the 80s) and always got an increment every year.


----------



## thedaras (22 Nov 2010)

Nice try of a red herring there! Point out the nonsense please..
What you are failing to mention is that in the LAST few years as the private sector were losing jobs,not getting pay increases,not having job security,and taking a pay cut that the PS were and still are getting increments!And also compliments of the CP agreement no further cuts for the next four years..


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> Nice try of a red herring there! Point out the nonsense please..
> What you are failing to mention is that in the LAST few years as the private sector were losing jobs,not getting pay increases,not having job security,and taking a pay cut that the PS were and still are getting increments!And also compliments of the CP agreement no further cuts for the next four years..



Again I must correct you " the PS were and are still getting increments " is not correct - SOME are.

The Banks & Insurance companies employ incremental salaries as do Dunnes , Shaws , Penneys , Tescos etc. & still continue to do so , personally I don't have a particular difficulty with this system and indeed like Complainer I worked in the Private Sector for many years ( in 7 different companies ! ) and received increments in each.


----------



## thedaras (23 Nov 2010)

Did you receive them in the last two years?
You will also find that Dunnes Pennys Shaws etc are making a profit.Where is the money/profit in the PS?
The private sector is moving swiftly to a productivity type related increase..


----------



## Tentman (23 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> Nice try of a red herring there! Point out the nonsense please..
> What you are failing to mention is that in the LAST few years as the private sector were losing jobs,not getting pay increases,not having job security,and taking a pay cut that the PS were and still are getting increments!And also compliments of the CP agreement no further cuts for the next four years..



Of course you are conveniently forgetting that it was only in the early naughties that Public Service pay caught up with Private Sector pay. You are also forgetting that Public Service pay has been frozen since Sept 2008.


----------



## thedaras (23 Nov 2010)

Of course you are forgetting that they also have job security,a great pension,a guaranteed four years of no pay cuts,great time off for cashing non existant cheques.

There must be  a premium applied for the terms and conditions which the PS enjoy...

Frozen? de-frosting,, they still get increments..


----------



## becky (23 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> Of course you are forgetting that they also have job security,a great pension,a guaranteed four years of no pay cuts,great time off for cashing non existant cheques.
> 
> There must be  a premium applied for the terms and conditions which the PS enjoy...
> 
> Frozen? de-frosting,, they still get increments..



But do we have job security anymore?  I think my pension is okay, not great. 

No pay cuts for four years, really? Who can believe anything the brian's say at this stage?  

Even if we suffer no pay cuts from the top line, I expect more levies/taxes instead.

While I have a permanent job, anyone with 4 years service has acquired rights to a Contract of Indefinite Duration (CID) under the Fixed Term Workers Act.  While acts like this are more applicable (insofar as they are applied) in the public sector, they are also applicable to the private sector.

I'm waiting for the targeted compulsory redundancy scheme to be announced on the internal net in the next few weeks.


----------



## Leper (23 Nov 2010)

How is it that in nearly every thread here the issue becomes Private Sector -V- Public Sector.  As Maxwell Smart would say this is the old divide-and-conquer trick.

Also, there is a tendency here to blame "them out there" and not "us in here."  The bottom line is the IMF are here.  They are not here to negotiate they are here to tell all of us what they want done not what we want done.


----------



## PaddyW (23 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Sorry, but you don't get away with 'end of' because it's just not true. We're not paying for public servants, we're paying for public services. Those who don't depend on public services are often very quick to find ways to dismantle them. Most Irish people see the value in public services and are prepared to pay for them.
> 
> The 'can't afford' arguement doesn't hold. We can easily afford decent public services with the right tax model. Let's get rid of the €11.4 billion in tax reliefs for middle and high earners for a start - then we can continue to provide decent public services for Irish people.




How come it is the services that will be cut in this budget then, rather than wages.

Interestingly, John Gormley seemed to think that they will begin to target these tax reliefs.


----------



## Sunny (23 Nov 2010)

Complainer, this €11.4 billion tax relief has been thrown around for a while now. Does anyone actually have a copy of the report that shows the breakdown of these reliefs? I have only heard a statement saying this money could be saved but no details.


----------



## Sunny (23 Nov 2010)

By the way interesting piece in the Irish Times today showing public sector pay in the South compared to the North. Without even discussing the rights or wrongs about the level of pay, isn't it interesting that the Guards were paid the same or less than their Northern Counterparts while politicans, civil servants, health and education workers were all paid significantly more. 

So the next time a Trade Union says they played no part in this crisis, maybe they should ask themselves why is that the one section of the public service that is not represented by a trade union is the only part that is competitive compared to our nearest neighbour?


----------



## Caveat (23 Nov 2010)

becky said:


> I think my pension is okay, not great.


 
Well mine is crap - and it costs me 100s of € every month.



Sunny said:


> So the next time a Trade Union says they played no part in this crisis, maybe they should ask themselves why is that the one section of the public service that is not represented by a trade union is the only part that is competitive compared to our nearest neighbour?


 
Very good point.


----------



## Shawady (23 Nov 2010)

Sunny, I did not see article but my understanding is guards have very generous overtime and allowance payments. For example, I have heard that plain clothes guards get a 'plain clothes allowance'.
Maybe the core pay is comparable?


----------



## Shawady (23 Nov 2010)

orka said:


> And I agree with you on social welfare (incl pensions) - same thing - rates went up in the boomtime and they have to come back now - I don't appreciate the reluctance to reduce something that should never have been increased in the first place.


 
Do you include the old age pension in that?

I don't mind taking another pay cut if I thought it would help the economy but what frustrates me is the arguement used for cutting PS pay (we can't afford it, it was paid for with property boom taxes that are no longer there, it is much higher than our nearest neighbours) can be used for social welfare payments.
Yet there are many people that call for PS pay to be slashed but don't want to touch social welfare because it damages the 'most vulnerable in society.

I also think that the governments failure to have a stable source of income tax in the boom years is sometimes brushed under the carpet.


----------



## orka (23 Nov 2010)

Shawady said:


> Do you include the old age pension in that?


Yes.  Anything that went up because we thought we were rolling in money should come back down now we know that we are not as rich as we thought.  That is what’s fair to the tax payers


----------



## orka (23 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Sorry, but you don't get away with 'end of' because it's just not true.


“_the country can't afford to pay what it currently pays. End of.”_ This is absolutely true. Income 30B; expenditure 50B. No way on earth to get income back up to 50B in a short time frame – therefore expenditure must be cut. End of.



Complainer said:


> Those who don't depend on public services are often very quick to find ways to dismantle them.


We all depend on public services.




Complainer said:


> Most Irish people see the value in public services and are prepared to pay for them.


 Most Irish people are prepared to pay a reasonable amount that the country can afford.




Complainer said:


> The 'can't afford' arguement doesn't hold.


30B in ... 50B out...




Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of the €11.4 billion in tax reliefs for middle and high earners for a start


This €11.4B is another of your (many) oft-quoted chestnuts. Do you know what is in the €11.4B? I do (because I bothered to look). Do you know that it includes €2.5B for the employee tax credit that exempts the first few thousand euros of income from tax? I would have thought this was more beneficial to low income earners than middle and high? I would be quite happy to see this go – thanks for the idea.
The €11B also includes €2.5B from the exemption of main homes (PPR) from CGT when they are sold. I can’t see the disappearance of this sitting well with the vast majority of people.
I've already said in another thread that I would be quite happy for pension reliefs (€3B) to go - preferably ALL of them - right up to charging BIK on TD/minister pension accrual.


----------



## Complainer (23 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> Nice try of a red herring there! Point out the nonsense please..
> What you are failing to mention is that in the LAST few years as the private sector were losing jobs,not getting pay increases,not having job security,and taking a pay cut that the PS were and still are getting increments!And also compliments of the CP agreement no further cuts for the next four years..


The nonsense is your assumption that ALL salaries have dropped in the private sector - they haven't. The nonsense is your assumption that the private sector has a monopoly on job losses - they haven't. The nonsense is your assumption that parts of the private sector aren't continuing to do quite nicely thank you and are keeping their heads down to avoid attention (e.g. international financial services, pharmacueticals, software etc etc).




Sunny said:


> Complainer, this €11.4 billion tax relief has been thrown around for a while now. Does anyone actually have a copy of the report that shows the breakdown of these reliefs? I have only heard a statement saying this money could be saved but no details.


The recent press reports were based on the Commission of Taxation reports.



PaddyW said:


> How come it is the services that will be cut in this budget then, rather than wages.


Because wages have already been cut, right across the board in the public sector.



thedaras said:


> Of course you are forgetting that they also have job security,a great pension,a guaranteed four years of no pay cuts, [...]
> 
> There must be  a premium applied for the terms and conditions which the PS enjoy...


If you want to apply a premium, then you'll have to provide real job security. My public sector contract is pretty much the same as any private sector contract - I have no guarantee of job for life. I have no guarantee of 'great pension', as my public sector pension will be at the discretion of the Govt of the day. I have no guarantee of the Croke Park agreement, as any Govt can opt out under the 'conditions have changed' clause.



thedaras said:


> Did you receive them in the last two years?
> You will also find that Dunnes Pennys Shaws etc are making a profit.Where is the money/profit in the PS?


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the public sector is not about making money. It is about providing public services to all citizens - a basic building block of society.


orka said:


> Do you know that it includes €2.5B for the employee tax credit that exempts the first few thousand euros of income from tax? I would have thought this was more beneficial to low income earners than middle and high? I would be quite happy to see this go – thanks for the idea.
> The €11B also includes €2.5B from the exemption of main homes (PPR) from CGT when they are sold. I can’t see the disappearance of this sitting well with the vast majority of people.


We can't afford it. End of. [That makes it all OK, doesn't it?]



Caveat said:


> Well mine is crap - and it costs me 100s of € every month.


Sorry to hear it is crap, but it leaves me a bit confused. We get repeatedly hectored and lectured here about the private sector, and how companies that sell crap products don't survive. How is it that you are paying €100s per month for a crap product. Surely it couldn't be the case that the free market isn't effective in providing great value for money for consumers? [I'm just wondering how it will take for somebody to blame crap pension products on public servants]


----------



## Sunny (23 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> The recent press reports were based on the Commission of Taxation reports.


 
I am pretty sure the Commission Of Taxation never mentioned that figure in their report.


----------



## Sunny (23 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Sorry to hear it is crap, but it leaves me a bit confused. We get repeatedly hectored and lectured here about the private sector, and how companies that sell crap products don't survive. How is it that you are paying €100s per month for a crap product. Surely it couldn't be the case that the free market isn't effective in providing great value for money for consumers? [I'm just wondering how it will take for somebody to blame crap pension products on public servants]


 
What do you want him to do? Magically make stock markets rocket in value? The majority of people have to take risk if they want to provide a decent pension on their retirement. They don't enjoy the security of defined benefit pensions. And before you ask why shouldn't people enjoy access to a defined benefit scheme, it is because the cost of such schemes make them economic suicide due to changing demographics. The cost of pensions in Ireland and across the world (especially in the public sector where they don't have to be funded) is an economic timebomb.


----------



## Complainer (23 Nov 2010)

Sunny said:


> What do you want him to do?


I want him (or you) to explain the paradox between the oft-quoted "private sector is always efficient/effective/competitive/great-in-bed" and the "my pension is crap".


----------



## Sunny (23 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> I want him (or you) to explain the paradox between the oft-quoted "private sector is always efficient/effective/competitive/great-in-bed" and the "my pension is crap".


 
I don't understand your point. What are comparing private sector pension providers to? Are you saying the public sector would have been able to provide a better service or something?


----------



## orka (23 Nov 2010)

Sunny said:


> I am pretty sure the Commission Of Taxation never mentioned that figure in their report.


They don’t seem to quote it directly but the various tax relief costs in the report do add up to just over 11B.  I don’t quite get 11.4B – just under 11.1B.  The tax costs are in section 8 of the report. http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/Report.asp  An important thing to bear in mind is that a lot of the figures are based on 2006 & 2007 data (most recent available when the report was done) – so the savings would be a lot lower if applied to 2010 or 2011.  CGT on PPRs (€2.5B) for example would be based on numbers of PPRs being sold – many more in 2006 compared to 2010.  Pension contributions would have been based on available cash to put aside – undoubtedly considerably lower now.




Complainer said:


> We can't afford it. End of. [That makes it all OK, doesn't it?]


That’s it?  I’m a bit disappointed you don’t have a more spirited response to the loss of one of your favourite chestnuts.  The difference between retaining public sector boomtime increases and retaining some of these reliefs is that the reliefs have been around for a long time and are proportional to the prevailing economic climate [CGT on PPR will automatically reduce as fewer houses are sold, pension relief will reduce as less money is available to put into pensions, gross rollup relief for pensions cost €1.2B in the report but when funds make a loss (or a lower return as people run scared into deposit vs equity funds), the difference between net and gross isn’t anywhere near as much].  So all of the reliefs naturally cost a lot less in bad times. Of the three largest reliefs (CGT on PPR, pension relief and employee tax credit - €8B between them), the employee tax credit is the only one I can see holding up its value in 2010 and 2011.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> Did you receive them in the last two years?
> You will also find that Dunnes Pennys Shaws etc are making a profit.Where is the money/profit in the PS?
> The private sector is moving swiftly to a productivity type related increase..


 
Did I receive them in the last 2 years - no , top of the scale but I did receive the 3.5 % increase due under the national wage agreement towards 2016 and yes I 'm private sector.

No 17 % pay reduction for me !


----------



## Complainer (23 Nov 2010)

orka said:


> That’s it?  I’m a bit disappointed you don’t have a more spirited response to the loss of one of your favourite chestnuts.  The difference between retaining public sector boomtime increases and retaining some of these reliefs is that the reliefs have been around for a long time and are proportional to the prevailing economic climate


Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. Are we back to evaluating options in terms of their costs, their benefits and their impacts? I thought we have moved to something like 'We cant afford it. End of'. If you can let me know which kind of evaluation approach you want to use, I'll be happy to join in. If you're proposing on using different evaluation approaches for different options in order to get the outcome you want, then you leave me out - no point in engaging in that kind of debate.




Sunny said:


> I don't understand your point. What are comparing private sector pension providers to? Are you saying the public sector would have been able to provide a better service or something?



I'm not comparing them to anything. It was Caveat who told us it was crap, so I'm just wondering how this is possible, given that the super-effective and super-efficient private sector always provides great value to consumers and those companies that don't provide value go out of business?


----------



## mugga (23 Nov 2010)

While cuts may be needed I constantly am amazed at the ire that is direcred at public sector workers.  It seems to me that when people start giving out at the moment , no matter what causes them to start it always ends in the crucifixion of public servants.


----------



## Leper (23 Nov 2010)

Mugga you are correct. I pointed out on another thread on this Forum that everything failed is blamed on the Public Servants. It is an old political solution i.e. when all else fails . . . blame the Public Service. The old Divide-and-Conquer-Trick never fails.

In the past year or so we have seen a derivitave of this:- Front Line Public Service (Nurses, Gardaí etc) = Brilliant; all others = useless. Master Stroke which led to some of the Public Service being criticised by the rest of the Public Service.

The unions have not helped either e.g Irish Nurses & Midwives Organisation opting to represent their own members only to the detriment of other union members. Consequently, we have some unions fighting other trades unions instead of uniting against unfair attacks from government, SMEs etc

Easy targets will always be easy targets.


----------



## orka (23 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. Are we back to evaluating options in terms of their costs, their benefits and their impacts? I thought we have moved to something like 'We cant afford it. End of'. If you can let me know which kind of evaluation approach you want to use, I'll be happy to join in. If you're proposing on using different evaluation approaches for different options in order to get the outcome you want, then you leave me out - no point in engaging in that kind of debate.


Ha - classic Complainer deflection! I know and you know that the following:





Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of the €11.4 billion in tax reliefs for middle and high earners for a start


... will not rear its untrue head in your posts again. My work here is done.


----------



## thedaras (23 Nov 2010)

Ah you poor pets..
You should try get net nanny or something similar to filter out all the negative things that people are saying about the PS.With no reason!! They are just picking on ye..

Just as well the rest of us aren't so sensitive!
Mind you if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck,quacks like a duck......


----------



## Complainer (24 Nov 2010)

orka said:


> Ha - classic Complainer deflection! I know and you know that the following:... will not rear its untrue head in your posts again. My work here is done.





thedaras said:


> Ah you poor pets..
> You should try get net nanny or something similar to filter out all the negative things that people are saying about the PS.With no reason!! They are just picking on ye..
> 
> Just as well the rest of us aren't so sensitive!
> Mind you if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck,quacks like a duck......


It's a bit sad to see that people seem to be unable to debate the issues.


----------



## thedaras (24 Nov 2010)

Pot and kettle come to mind!

For what its worth every-time any poster has a legitimate concern about how the PS is run/how much it costs/lack of productivity/time off for non existent cheques/time wasters/security of jobs/pensions/demands etc there is always a defence put forward by a select few.

In fairness so many people complain about the  PS that there is a fair chance that a lot of it is true,.

Consistently denying there are problems that must be addressed is just plain irritating.Not acknowledging there are any problems is wrong.

Acknowledging there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery!

For the record, I do not blame anyone in the PS for taking all they are legitimately given by the government,you would have to be off your head to refuse a pay increase/time off/increments etc.
I blame the government for bowing to the vested interests that caused this issue in the first place.
We can compare  the PS to the Private sector all we want ,but this is comparing apples and oranges,until the PS for example can be sacked and are sacked and are seen to be sacked there will never be any incentive to provide the same level of service which those in the Private sector must do or face the consequences.


----------



## Complainer (24 Nov 2010)

thedaras said:


> Consistently denying there are problems that must be addressed is just plain irritating.Not acknowledging there are any problems is wrong.


And who has been doing this 'denying there are problems'?



thedaras said:


> We can compare the PS to the Private sector all we want ,but this is comparing apples and oranges,until the PS for example can be sacked and are sacked and are seen to be sacked there will never be any incentive to provide the same level of service which those in the Private sector must do or face the consequences.


What is this obsession with sackings? You do realise that sackings are a sign that;
1) You are bad at recruiting people
2) You are bad at managing performance

Why do you see sackings as a positive?


----------



## Caveat (24 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> I'm not comparing them to anything. It was Caveat who told us it was crap, so I'm just wondering how this is possible, given that the super-effective and super-efficient private sector always provides great value to consumers and those companies that don't provide value go out of business?


 
One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.

Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.


----------



## Complainer (24 Nov 2010)

Caveat said:


> One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.


I don't understand this. The return isn't related to how much you put. The return is related to the investment strategy of the funds you invest in. It's a percentage, regardless of how much you put in.



Caveat said:


> Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.



There is no guarantee for public sector pensions. They are at the discretion of the Govt of the day.


----------



## Caveat (24 Nov 2010)

'Return' is maybe the wrong word. What I'm getting at is, the more you contribute now, the more you will get come retirement - hopefully.

I can't afford to contribute any more than I am already.


----------



## Complainer (24 Nov 2010)

Caveat said:


> 'Return' is maybe the wrong word. What I'm getting at is, the more you contribute now, the more you will get come retirement - hopefully.
> 
> I can't afford to contribute any more than I am already.


OK, now I get it. And many of us (public sector and private sector) are in the same boat.


----------



## Ruam (24 Nov 2010)

Caveat said:


> One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.
> 
> Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is guaranteed - which mine isn't.



With the state bankrupt Becky's pension it is not safe anymore


----------



## Bill Struth (24 Nov 2010)

Caveat said:


> One glaring reason is that I cannot afford to pay any more for a PRSA with a better return - that was my point.
> 
> Becky admits her pension is 'alright' - I'll warrant it's a bit better than alright, certainly better than mine, costs her a lot less, and is *guaranteed* - which mine isn't.


 Tell that to the pensioners who found out half an hour ago that their pensions will be cut.


----------

