# ICTUs 'Get Up, Stand Up campaign'



## DerKaiser

Basically ICTU have mail dropped every home in the country, here are their demands:

1.Tackle the Jobs’ Crisis
2.Stop cuts to peoples’ incomes
3.Protect vital services
4.Safeguard peoples’ homes
5.Make the wealthy pay their fair share

I've nothing to say on this other than point 2 is in direct conflict to points 1 and 3.  

Protecting incomes at current levels will only lead to further job losses and less money for providing services.

How about a 'Get real' campaign?


----------



## bond-007

This country really needs a good old fashioned coup.


----------



## z107

They obviously must have plenty money to be sending crap to every home in the country.


----------



## Teatime

bond-007 said:


> this country really needs a good old fashioned coup.


 
+1


----------



## baldyman27

I hope that they include a return address on any correspondence. Anything that comes through my door will promptly be returned and I hope that their offices are flooded with returned mail.


----------



## Deas

baldyman27 said:


> I hope that they include a return address on any correspondence. Anything that comes through my door will promptly be returned and I hope that their offices are flooded with returned mail.


 

+1.  Return without stamp so they pay the postage.


----------



## Latrade

I wonder if point 5 also includes the top officials within the unions earning 6 figures. Nice to direct and speak for the "most vulnerable" from that lofty and safe position. It's only other people's livelihoods and jobs you're playing with for your own personal gain.


----------



## Purple

Given that the top 6% of PAYE earners pay 40% of income tax what exactly do these clowns consider to be a fair share?


----------



## DerKaiser

Purple said:


> Given that the top 6% of PAYE earners pay 40% of income tax what exactly do these clowns consider to be a fair share?


 
Yeah, I was thinking about the concept of fair share.

*Scenario 1*

Take a single person on €100k p.a. It's a safe bet to assume they haven't exactly been bumming around all their lives and that they've worked hard to get to that level and end up paying €40k p.a. in tax

Take the reverse situation of someone with a family on the dole living in state sponsored accomodation. Between social welfare and supplemented housing the total benefits could add up to €40k.

Is it acceptable to take another €5k in taxes from the worker and leave the non workers benefits intact? What type signal does that send out in terms of rewarding effort? 

*Scenario 2*

A guy called Jack represents two groups of people. One group (private sector employees) has seen 10% of its members lose their jobs. The other group (public servants) earns 25% more on average than the remaining members of the first group.

The government proposes curring wages of the public servants to make up the public deficit. It feels this is fair due to the earnings gap with similarly qualified private sector workers. The alternative would be a uniform tax increase for all. How can Jack decide what is a fair stance for all the people he represents?


----------



## mathepac

Mr Begg and some of his esteemed union colleagues were on the boards of a number of institutions and were members of various oversight committees down the years. They got paid to do specific jobs. Have they forgotten?


----------



## Purple

I was thinking more along the lines that a family earning €100’000 already pays three and a half times as much income tax as a family earning €50’000. Twice the income, three and a half times the tax. That hardly seems fair and it’s definitely a disincentive to work.


----------



## z107

Begg's proposals is a double whammy for struggling Irish companies.

ONE: A company may be able to cope with reduced income, if their costs are also reduced. Example, if income is reduced 20%, salary bill is reduced 20%. 
However Begg wants to prop up cost of living, by keeping wages high for one sector of society.

TWO: Taxes will have to be increased to support his proposal. This will be another hammer blow to struggling companies. We may also be at the wrong side of the laffer curve.

Why doesn't he reduce his own enormous pay packet?


(I will also be sending back his rubbish in an unstamped envelope)


----------



## bullbars

Purple said:


> Twice the income, three and a half times the tax. That hardly seems fair and it’s definitely a disincentive to work.


 
Or an incentive to work but not inform the tax man about the second 50K


----------



## Purple

bullbars said:


> Or an incentive to work but not inform the tax man about the second 50K



Yes, that's called stealing from the people of Ireland.


----------



## pinkyBear

> Why doesn't he reduce his own enormous pay packet?


 As he said himself  it would be seen as a bad example...


----------



## Purple

pinkyBear said:


> As he said himself  it would be seen as a bad example...



and he's about the best of that lot... wow!


----------



## Latrade

pinkyBear said:


> As he said himself it would be seen as a bad example...


 
Well he has kind of backed himself into a corner on this. Hitting out at the "rich" of which he is a part. But also there is a significant problem with the "optics" (hate that term!) of the current situation for the unions. 

First, less people in employment, less subs. Other pay cuts, so any subs based on % of pay reduced. However, it would be a PR nightmare if any of the unions had to introduce pay cuts for their full time staff. No "membership" organisation is in a good position financially at the moment, I don't know how sustainable it will be for some of the unions.

However, back to the point is it not a hard pill to swallow to have someone on a six figure salary asking you to take industrial action and lose out on pay in order to support them? How exactly do they represent the most vulnerable in society?


----------



## dockingtrade

this campaign is an attempted clever ploy by the unions to get support behind them so they can show the govt "look at all these people out protesting" in support of us . So they throw a few issues in together. Its like a few weeks ago, I dont which union, had a survey done on peoples fears of cuts in public services and public pay. The results were something like 2/3 feared these cuts. But again more than one issue is wrapped up in this. Like i worry about cuts in public services but not worried about cuts in ps pay, so for me cut pay and maintain services! Yet If I answered that survey id be one on the "fear" side. 

Why dont the unions have a  survey asking are you  "for or against public sector pay cuts" or a day of protest "against public sector pay cuts" ???


----------



## dockingtrade

what shpuld happen on this day of protest is, the red c people ask protesters who are protesting against NAMA, banks, cuts in dole, farmers etc are they against public sector pay cuts. That would be interesting.


----------



## ashambles

So the unions have a plan, Get Up Stand Up or as it should be know GUSU. 

Grotesque, Unbelievable, Strange and Unprecedented.

When I hear the word "fair" from a wealthy trade unionist (all of them it seems) Ifeel a little sick. 

They're a long way from socialism these days, it looks they've their eye on squeezing the unemployed, state pensioners, low income workers, people with small savings and people trying to fund their own pensions


----------



## DerKaiser

ashambles said:


> They're a long way from socialism these days


 
What credibility could a self proclaimed socialist earning €150k p.a. have?


----------



## S.L.F

DerKaiser said:


> The other group (public servants) earns 25% more on average than the remaining members of the first group.


 
Can you provide evidence that this is the case?


----------



## DerKaiser

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pay-gap-widens-as-public-sector-earns-25pc-more-1891959.html

Would have thought this was fresh in the memory.  I'm not going to argue whether the ESRI got their sums wrong if that's where this is going.


----------



## oldtimer

The reality is the unions will get a huge mandate from the members for strike action which will be on November 24th. Where does that leave the country? No doubt worse off. The unions are very anxious to flex their muscles and will see this strike as a victory for them. They now look upon it as a war between unions and government and will treat November 24th as first battle won, encouraging them to bigger action ahead. I'm sure many do not want to go on strike but the big union stick is leading them down a road which could be disastrous for the whole country. Do the unions want a change of government? Aren't Fine Gael also stating they would cut the public sector. I think the unions are leading the members very much astray.


----------



## bond-007

> Do the unions want a change of government?


They desperately want FF and Green Party gone. That much is clear.


----------



## Complainer

DerKaiser said:


> http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pay-gap-widens-as-public-sector-earns-25pc-more-1891959.html
> 
> Would have thought this was fresh in the memory.  I'm not going to argue whether the ESRI got their sums wrong if that's where this is going.


Apples and Oranges. Let's start comparing people based on the jobs that they do.



DerKaiser said:


> What credibility could a self proclaimed socialist earning €150k p.a. have?


What do you want - cloth caps & mine dust? TUs are entitled to pay to get the best staff to represent them. If the members have a problem with this, they are well capable of addressing it through their own internal mechanisms.

Those who want to understand more about the ICTU campaign can find details at;
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]


----------



## Caveat

oldtimer said:


> The reality is the unions will get a huge mandate from the members for strike action which will be on November 24th. Where does that leave the country? No doubt worse off. The unions are very anxious to flex their muscles and will see this strike as a victory for them. They now look upon it as a war between unions and government and will treat November 24th as first battle won, encouraging them to bigger action ahead. I'm sure many do not want to go on strike but the big union stick is leading them down a road which could be disastrous for the whole country. Do the unions want a change of government? Aren't Fine Gael also stating they would cut the public sector. I think the unions are leading the members very much astray.



Well said, agree 100%.


----------



## csirl

> Do the unions want a change of government?


 
Unions want Labour in power. 

Public servants who have been hit by the pension levy can increase their take home pay by not paying the unions a percentage of their income in fees.


----------



## johnd

"What do you want - cloth caps & mine dust? TUs are entitled to pay to get the best staff to represent them. If the members have a problem with this, they are well capable of addressing it through their own internal mechanisms"

Do you really think Jack O'Connor is the best person SIPTU can get? If he is then God only know what the others were like. How can he claim to be a socialist when he is paid 125K and the average member of his union is paid 35k. I was a member of SIPTU so how could I have addressed the salary scale paid to officals and to whom could I have complained exactly? My local shop steward? They're just mouth pieces for the union bosses. 

I remember seeing a job advertised as a Trade Union offical some years ago. No qualifications or training were necessary only "good communication skills". That would be Jack and David ok


----------



## S.L.F

DerKaiser said:


> I'm not going to argue whether the ESRI got their sums wrong if that's where this is going.


 
But if you are using it to base your arguments on this report then you should back them up.

1. The ESRI report is flawed, it doesn't take into account the pension levy (wage cut).

2. It doesn't compare 'like for like jobs' I mean it compares a Garda's wage to a security guard wage as 'like for like'.

3. It has included the likes of the very highly paid semi-state employees in their deliberations, are semi-state employees paid by the dept of finance if not they should not have been included in the report.

4. The semi-state employees do not pay the pension levy.

5. The report is from 2006 ie out of date.



Complainer said:


> Apples and Oranges.


 
Or bicycles to bananas...


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> 5. The report is from 2006 ie out of date.



On that I agree; it understates the problem. Since 2006 wages in the public sector have continued to forge ahead at break-neck speeds while wages in the public sector have stagnated of reduced. The important point is that the public sector has increased massively as a proportion of the overall economy.


----------



## demoivre

DerKaiser said:


> What credibility could a self proclaimed socialist earning €150k p.a. have?



About as much as a pinko dining in Shanahans or a tree hugger having a chauffeur-driven car drive five hours from London to collect him from the Holyhead ferry has ie absolutely SFA.


----------



## Purple

bond-007 said:


> They desperately want FF and Green Party gone. That much is clear.


 Why wouldn't they? The unions want the Labour Party, the political wing of the public sector union movement, in power. They will then not only wag the dog but long the leash.


----------



## DerKaiser

S.L.F said:


> But if you are using it to base your arguments on this report then you should back them up.


 
NO I SHOULDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO REPLICATE AN ESRI STUDY FIRST HAND IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT HERE

This is a discussion forum and we all have our own jobs. I'm not going to live my life either saying nothing or having to back up the reports of reputable research institutes. I know you guys would love to silence the ESRI and will argue to the death with its findings. Take off your blindfold and accept that the findings of an independent research institute paint a pretty accurate picture of an unbiased reality.


----------



## orka

DerKaiser said:


> NO I SHOULDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO REPLICATE AN ESRI STUDY FIRST HAND IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT HERE
> 
> This is a discussion forum and we all have our own jobs. I'm not going to live my life either saying nothing or having to back up the reports of reputable research institutes. I know you guys would love to silence the ESRI and will argue to the death with its findings. Take off your blindfold and accept that the findings of an independent research institute paint a pretty accurate picture of an unbiased reality.


+1
The attempted obfuscation of every single attempt at debating these issues is really tiresome.


----------



## liaconn

*


S.L.F said:



			But if you are using it to base your arguments on this report then you should back them up.
		
Click to expand...

*


S.L.F said:


> *1. The ESRI report is flawed, it doesn't take into account the pension levy (wage cut).*
> 
> *2. It doesn't compare 'like for like jobs' I mean it compares a Garda's wage to a security guard wage as 'like for like'.*
> 
> *3. It has included the likes of the very highly paid semi-state employees in their deliberations, are semi-state employees paid by the dept of finance if not they should not have been included in the report.*
> 
> *4. The semi-state employees do not pay the pension levy.quote]*
> 
> 
> +1. Making these points is not obfuscation.


----------



## secman

Lets do nothing and try to borrow €400m per week indefinitely !!!!!!!!!!!

One of these days we will get a polite but definite NO
IMF will take no prisoners

Secman


----------



## Deiseblue

liaconn said:


> *
> 
> 
> S.L.F said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if you are using it to base your arguments on this report then you should back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> S.L.F said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The ESRI report is flawed, it doesn't take into account the pension levy (wage cut).*
> 
> *2. It doesn't compare 'like for like jobs' I mean it compares a Garda's wage to a security guard wage as 'like for like'.*
> 
> *3. It has included the likes of the very highly paid semi-state employees in their deliberations, are semi-state employees paid by the dept of finance if not they should not have been included in the report.*
> 
> *4. The semi-state employees do not pay the pension levy.quote]*
> 
> 
> +1. Making these points is not obfuscation.
> 
> 
> 
> + 1 , if posters feel that the above do not flaw the ERSI post then let's hear their arguments.
Click to expand...


----------



## Complainer

johnd said:


> I was a member of SIPTU so how could I have addressed the salary scale paid to officals and to whom could I have complained exactly? My local shop steward? They're just mouth pieces for the union bosses.


Unions are fairly democratic institutions. You could put down a motion at your local branch, and get your branch to raise the matter with the head honchos. You could run for office yourself, like other union members do, and use your influence to change things for the better.

Or maybe you could just sit back, do nothing and moan.


----------



## Sunny

Deiseblue said:


> + 1 , if posters feel that the above do not flaw the ERSI post then let's hear their arguments.


 
I could but can't be bothered arguing this topic anymore.

However on the subject of comparing jobs on a like for like basis, can I ask why the ERSI get told there is no way you can compare jobs and yet I didn't hear Unions coming out with that argument during benchmarking.


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> On that I agree; it understates the problem. Since 2006 wages in the public sector have continued to forge ahead at break-neck speeds while wages in the public sector have stagnated of reduced.


 
From the people I know in the PS all they want is fairness not to be scapegoated into being the bad guys because they are like you and me.

They are a highly educated work force and can see the writing on the wall and really have a problem with the way they are being treated.



Purple said:


> The important point is that the public sector has increased massively as a proportion of the overall economy.


 
Every time the govt decides to make a new agency more PS have to be employed in other words if you want someone to blame for the state of the PS blame the ones responsible, the FF govt.




DerKaiser said:


> NO I SHOULDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO REPLICATE AN ESRI STUDY FIRST HAND IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT HERE


 
Unless your point is based on flawed edivence



DerKaiser said:


> This is a discussion forum and we all have our own jobs.


 
Not me I'm off today



DerKaiser said:


> I'm not going to live my life either saying nothing or having to back up the reports of reputable research institutes.


 
Do you think you can compare a fully trained Gardas wage to that to a security guard then you can accept the ERSI report if not then you are only kidding yourself.



DerKaiser said:


> I know you guys would love to silence the ESRI and will argue to the death with its *flawed* findings.


 
Fixed that for you



DerKaiser said:


> Take off your blindfold and accept that the findings of an independent research institute paint a pretty accurate picture of an unbiased reality.


 
Do you not understand?

The ESB, RTE, Bord Na Mona, Bord Gas etc etc are all very highly paid people with great perks and a great pension they haven't been hit with the pension levy and I would doubt very much if a wage cut was decided that they would be hit with it.

I said I a different thread that I know a guy who is paid €80,000 a year as a wage clerk in the ESB, Please show me a wage clerk in the Civil Service who gets anything like that kind of money.

He has been included in the study.


----------



## Sunny

S.L.F said:


> Do you think you can compare a fully trained Gardas wage to that to a security guard then you can accept the ERSI report if not then you are only kidding yourself.
> 
> 
> Do you not understand?
> 
> The ESB, RTE, Bord Na Mona, Bord Gas etc etc are all very highly paid people with great perks and a great pension they haven't been hit with the pension levy and I would doubt very much if a wage cut was decided that they would be hit with it.
> 
> I said I a different thread that I know a guy who is paid €80,000 a year as a wage clerk in the ESB, Please show me a wage clerk in the Civil Service who gets anything like that kind of money.
> 
> He has been included in the study.


 
Have you actually read the methodology of the ESRI report?


----------



## S.L.F

Sunny said:


> Have you actually read the methodology of the ERSI report?


 
I don't read fiction!

On the off chance I get a chance today can you post a link to it


----------



## Sunny

S.L.F said:


> I don't read fiction!
> 
> On the off chance I get a chance today can you post a link to it


 
Probably better to read and understand something before dismissing its findings!

[broken link removed]


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> However on the subject of comparing jobs on a like for like basis, can I ask why the ERSI get told there is no way you can compare jobs and yet I didn't hear Unions coming out with that argument during benchmarking.


The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.

The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.
> 
> The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).


 
I think we can argue as to whether it was good or bad. Again judging by comments, you should read the methodology as well. It wasn't simply a case of looking at titles and qualifications


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.
> 
> The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).


 If the first part is correct how does the second part follow?


----------



## DerKaiser

S.L.F said:


> From the people I know in the PS all they want is fairness not to be scapegoated into being the bad guys because they are like you and me.
> 
> They are a highly educated work force and can see the writing on the wall and really have a problem with the way they are being treated


 
And it all circles back to this again and again.

How are you being treated?

99% of what I read these days in relation to public sector is about pay rather than performance.  

If I say that I think we can't afford to spend €40bn on social welfare and public sector pay, I am implying nothing about the individuals that will be impacted by this.

I was happy to see the dole go to €200pw a couple of years ago because we could afford it and there was inflation.

Now we can't afford it and there's deflation so I believe it should be cut.  This is in no way casting aspersions on people on the dole, in fact I believe the average person on the dole now has contributed more to society than would have been the case on average a couple of years ago.

It's the same with the public service.  I believe standards have improved over the years.

When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% I don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!


----------



## Purple

derkaiser said:


> and it all circles back to this again and again.
> 
> How are you being treated?
> 
> 99% of what i read these days in relation to public sector is about pay rather than performance.
> 
> If i say that i think we can't afford to spend €40bn on social welfare and public sector pay, i am implying nothing about the individuals that will be impacted by this.
> 
> I was happy to see the dole go to €200pw a couple of years ago because we could afford it and there was inflation.
> 
> Now we can't afford it and there's deflation so i believe it should be cut.  This is in no way casting aspersions on people on the dole, in fact i believe the average person on the dole now has contributed more to society than would have been the case on average a couple of years ago.
> 
> It's the same with the public service.  I believe standards have improved over the years.
> 
> When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% i don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!



+1


----------



## DerKaiser

Complainer said:


> The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.
> 
> The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).


 
The only information I have first hand on benchmarking is a friend in a pensions consultancy who worked on valuing the public sector pension.  The orginal unbiased figure they placed on it was deemed to high.  Figures were recalculated with a bias towards undervaluing it so that benchmarking would result in pay increases.


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> I think we can argue as to whether it was good or bad. Again judging by comments, you should read the methodology as well. It wasn't simply a case of looking at titles and qualifications


I did read the methodology. They had no data available to them on job content. The only data available in the database was superficial stuff about title, qualifications, years of experience, gender etc. They have never looked at job content.


DerKaiser said:


> The only information I have first hand on benchmarking is a friend in a pensions consultancy who worked on valuing the public sector pension. The orginal unbiased figure they placed on it was deemed to high. Figures were recalculated with a bias towards undervaluing it so that benchmarking would result in pay increases.


Doesn't say much for the ethics of private sector pensions consultancies if they are prepared to frig around with their figures like this?


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> I could but can't be bothered arguing this topic anymore.
> 
> However on the subject of comparing jobs on a like for like basis, can I ask why the ERSI get told there is no way you can compare jobs and yet I didn't hear Unions coming out with that argument during benchmarking.


 
Well, that argument could work both ways. During benchmarking there was a lot of scoffing from people in the Private Sector on the lines of 'who on earth were teachers compared with' etc. But those same people seem quite happy to accept the ESRI data.


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> I did read the methodology. They had no data available to them on job content. The only data available in the database was superficial stuff about title, qualifications, years of experience, gender etc. They have never looked at job content.


 
Thats not true. 

They used a propensity score matching approach that allowed them to to look at and give greater emphasis to job characteristics rather than human characteristics.


----------



## DerKaiser

Complainer said:


> Doesn't say much for the ethics of private sector pensions consultancies if they are prepared to frig around with their figures like this?


 
It certainly does not, it's absolutely indefensible.

I'm unsure why you included 'private sector' in the desription though. It's almost as if you thought I'd defend them because they're part of the 1.6m non public sector workers?

At the end of the day complainer, you and many like you are revelling in public sector bashing and diverting all reasoned arguements down that channel. It's actually better for you that threads like this become slagging matches as it undermines the valid arguements for public sector pay cuts.


----------



## Sunny

liaconn said:


> Well, that argument could work both ways. During benchmarking there was a lot of scoffing from people in the Private Sector on the lines of 'who on earth were teachers compared with' etc. But those same people seem quite happy to accept the ESRI data.


 
I don't get it. I was one of those people who never agreed with benchmarking but it was implemented and we have to live with it. I never wanted a process like this but the social partner geniuses did. Now they want to change the goalposts again.


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> Thats not true.
> 
> They used a propensity score matching approach that allowed them to to look at and give greater emphasis to job characteristics rather than human characteristics.


 

And that approach came up with the idea that a Guard and a security man should be a direct comparison.


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> I don't get it. I was one of those people who never agreed with benchmarking but it was implemented and we have to live with it. I never wanted a process like this but the social partner geniuses did. Now they want to change the goalposts again.


 
I'm just saying that your argument below works both ways.

*However on the subject of comparing jobs on a like for like basis, can I ask why the ERSI get told there is no way you can compare jobs and yet I didn't hear Unions coming out with that argument during benchmarking.*


----------



## S.L.F

Sunny said:


> Probably better to read and understand something before dismissing its findings!
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
OK read it!

I see a lot about "like for like" but don't see any methods of comparison, I know for a fact they have made a pigs ear of the soldiers wage because they didn't take into account that soldiers tend to live on site as such.



DerKaiser said:


> When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% I don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!


 
But if they are allowed to cut it once what is to stop them coming back time and time again when they think lets save a few million here.

At the stroke of a pen the minister cut average of 7.5% od the PS wage but didn't bother to do it to the PS pensioners which would have saved a good bit more money.



Complainer said:


> Doesn't say much for the ethics of private sector pensions consultancies if they are prepared to frig around with their figures like this?


 
This report was geared to making a set result and that is the reason the semi-states were included.


----------



## Deiseblue

DerKaiser said:


> And it all circles back to this again and again.
> 
> How are you being treated?
> 
> 99% of what I read these days in relation to public sector is about pay rather than performance.
> 
> If I say that I think we can't afford to spend €40bn on social welfare and public sector pay, I am implying nothing about the individuals that will be impacted by this.
> 
> I was happy to see the dole go to €200pw a couple of years ago because we could afford it and there was inflation.
> 
> Now we can't afford it and there's deflation so I believe it should be cut. This is in no way casting aspersions on people on the dole, in fact I believe the average person on the dole now has contributed more to society than would have been the case on average a couple of years ago.
> 
> It's the same with the public service. I believe standards have improved over the years.
> 
> When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% I don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!


Alan McQuaid , economist with Bloxhams suggests that we will see inflation again in 2010 , if his suggestion proves to be correct should we raise wages in line with the CPI if we deflate them now ?


----------



## Sunny

liaconn said:


> And that approach came up with the idea that a Guard and a security man should be a direct comparison.


 
Where in the report is that comparison?


----------



## johnd

Complainer I was a member of SIPTU - I did go to Union meetings but God how boring - the same faces every meeting going on about the same issues every time. Got the impression it was a home from home for some people. The discussion would go off in different directions and have to be brought back by the Chair. Then the arguments would start and it would be "Mr. Chairman point of order.." I gave up, moved jobs and left SIPTU. Life's too short


----------



## Sunny

Deiseblue said:


> Alan McQuaid , economist with Bloxhams suggests that we will see inflation again in 2010 , if his suggestion proves to be correct should we raise wages in line with the CPI if we deflate them now ?


 
I have nothing against payments in line with inflation. That's not what has been happening for a long long time in this Country.


----------



## DerKaiser

Deiseblue said:


> Alan McQuaid , economist with Bloxhams suggests that we will see inflation again in 2010 , if his suggestion proves to be correct should we raise wages in line with the CPI if we deflate them now ?


 
Yes, subject to not bankrupting the country


----------



## Complainer

johnd said:


> Complainer I was a member of SIPTU - I did go to Union meetings but God how boring - the same faces every meeting going on about the same issues every time. Got the impression it was a home from home for some people. The discussion would go off in different directions and have to be brought back by the Chair. Then the arguments would start and it would be "Mr. Chairman point of order.." I gave up, moved jobs and left SIPTU. Life's too short


Like most similar organisations, you get out of it what you put into it. If you don't like their style, then take a role, take some action, take control and change things.


----------



## liaconn

Sunny said:


> Where in the report is that comparison?


 
They said the data they used comes from NES.


----------



## S.L.F

Sunny said:


> Where in the report is that comparison?


 
From the report



> While sample restrictions and balancing concerns rendered a more detailed sub-sector breakdown (e.g. Security Services broken down into Guards, Prison Officers and Defence Forces) impractical in some cases, it is important to note that major levels of variation
> were also found within some sub-sectors.


----------



## DerKaiser

S.L.F said:


> But if they are allowed to cut it once what is to stop them coming back time and time again when they think lets save a few million here.


 
I guess that explains why you would be unwilling to take any pay cut at all.

Sometimes employees need to accept a cut to increase their job security.



S.L.F said:


> At the stroke of a pen the minister cut average of 7.5% off the PS wage but didn't bother to do it to the PS pensioners which would have saved a good bit more money.


 
You'll get your wish this time if there is a pay cut


----------



## Deiseblue

Sunny said:


> I have nothing against payments in line with inflation. That's not what has been happening for a long long time in this Country.


So if deflation was not a factor you would be quite happy to see pay in the public sector remain unchanged ?
Particularly as deflation may not be a constant factor.


----------



## Sunny

Deiseblue said:


> So if deflation was not a factor you would be quite happy to see pay in the public sector remain unchanged ?
> Particularly as deflation may not be a constant factor.


 
Eh?

So you are saying people should only ever get payrises?


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Alan McQuaid , economist with Bloxhams suggests that we will see inflation again in 2010 , if his suggestion proves to be correct should we raise wages in line with the CPI if we deflate them now ?



All of these threads go around in circles. The bottom line is that the state, as an employer, doesn't have the money (or the means to raise the money) to pay its wage overheads.


----------



## Purple

DerKaiser said:


> What credibility could a self proclaimed socialist earning €150k p.a. have?


 Who, the one who lead the country for the last ten years? (Obviously I'm talking about Jack O'Connor)


----------



## S.L.F

DerKaiser said:


> I guess that explains why you would be unwilling to take any pay cut at all.


 
I keep saying this but some people, you included, just believe what you want to and make generalisations at the drop of a hat.

Just because someone is defending what they see as wrong doesn't mean they will be affected by it.

I don't work for or in the PS in any capacity, my take home pay won't be affected by a second wage cut.



DerKaiser said:


> Sometimes employees need to accept a cut to increase their job security.


 
I'm self employed and have been cutting my prices right to the bone for the last year to get work, 




DerKaiser said:


> You'll get your wish this time if there is a pay cut


 
It should have happened last year when they cut the pay for the PS.


----------



## Purple

jasus, I've just read the links posted by Complainer on page 2. I don't think even the bearded brethren are stupid enough to believe that rubbish!


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> jasus, I've just read the links posted by Complainer on page 2. I don't think even the bearded brethren are stupid enough to believe that rubbish!


 
You mean they read like the ERSI report


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> You mean they read like the ERSI report



No, they read like a 12 year old from the Soviet Union in the 1950's trying to write on economics.


----------



## Deiseblue

Sunny said:


> Eh?
> 
> So you are saying people should only ever get payrises?


You raised the question of benchmarking pay against deflation , presumably across all sectors ?
I simply asked if deflation was not a factor do you think that pay should remain unchanged ?


----------



## VOR

Just let ICTU strike. Day 1 will be easy. But what about the tenth day? Or the twentieth? 
Why wait a month? Why not strike now?


----------



## Sunny

Deiseblue said:


> You raised the question of benchmarking pay against deflation , presumably across all sectors ?
> I simply asked if deflation was not a factor do you think that pay should remain unchanged ?


 
Why shouldn't pay (across all sectors) and social welfare be in line with inflation or deflation as the case may be. I am on a pay freeze at the moment but I am better off than this time last year so if my employer came to me and cut my wages, I couldn't really have any complaints.


----------



## Latrade

S.L.F said:


> From the report


 
I think the point that was being made on the ESRI report is a fair one.

First, they identify the problems in trying to complete a like-for-like analysis and they show justification for the method they used. Given that the PMS method is a pretty standard and well accepted economic model that's fair enough. 

They also present the problems with the data source. One concern they really do skip over is the question of why was it so difficult to get the data on what the PS roles actually are? However, on the security services bit: not only does the ESRI admit there are weaknesses there, but in section two they describe how they countered these variables. So it is more than fair to say on a pure like-for-like there are huge differences between a Garda and a Nightclub bouncer. However, they took this into account and "upscaled" the private sector equivallent. 

Sure it's just some fancy numbers to equal it out, but it does mean a more accurate comparisson and it is a very well established economic model. 

So it's actually incorrect to say it was just comparing the gardai to the private security industry. They applied a long established "correction" to make this comparisson.


----------



## DerKaiser

Purple said:


> jasus, I've just read the links posted by Complainer on page 2. I don't think even the bearded brethren are stupid enough to believe that rubbish!


 
Had a quick skim through the 2nd link.


The fairer way suggested from the parts I've read involve:

Using the National Pensions Reserve Fund for day to day use now
Increasing borrowing because things might be better in 2010
What a lousy bunch. Make absolutely no reduction to living standards now and justify it by saying things might pick up.

Here's a thought, things will not pick up in 2010, they will get worse.

ICTU are asking will you look back and say that you let it happen?

The biggest risk at the moment is maintaining an artificially high standard of living now and looking back with regret in 10 years time when things will really have been cut to the bone and asking "How could we have let the foolishness continue for so long!"


----------



## peelaaa

I'd like to know the full cost of all these letters. What a waste of money, couldn't even use it in the toilet either, wrong type of paper grade....


----------



## S.L.F

peelaaa said:


> I'd like to know the full cost of all these letters. What a waste of money, couldn't even use it in the toilet either, wrong type of paper grade....


 
Made from the exact same stuff the "Fianna Fail manifesto 2007" was made from.

"Trust us to manage the economy".


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> Made from the exact same stuff the "Fianna Fail manifesto 2007" was made from.
> 
> "Trust us to manage the economy".




That's actually a good point... since the Unions were part of the coalition that ran the country for the last 10 years (they called themselves "Social Partners")


----------



## liaconn

As were IBEC and the Small Firms Association.


----------



## S.L.F

ERSI was discussed here before



It might not be a bad idea to get all the stuff about the ERSI and put it all onto that thread.


----------



## secman

I've done the decent thing........straight in the Green bin for recycling.


Secman


----------



## DonDub

Interesting to see the union brethern take such a blatant partisan approach - openly calling on private sector workers to pay extra taxes to protect pay levels in the PS. They obviously believe that they have the muscle to force the government to impose even more taxes, to avoid cutting their PS members pay.
Very many tens of thousands of private sector employees were made compulsory redundant this year - whilst not one permanent PS employee has suffered the same faith. PS pensions were always and are most certainly now, a luxury that the tax payer cannot afford.  And PS pay levels are amongst the best in the world.
The nonsense that the unions peddal about frontline services is pathetic. Private businesses have  had to (and continue to) retrench massively, whilst simultaneously maintaining service levels, quality etc. 
The formula for the PS is simple i.e. copy the private sector i.e. drastically cut headcount, cut payroll costs, implement more flexible work practices to maintain services, foster innovation.
If Cowen et al roll-over again to the PS unions, I believe that it will signal the end of any prospect of the recession ending within the next 3-4 years, as further tax hikes will choke off any hope of consumer spending recovering. On one level, this might not be a bad thing - it would virtually guarantee external (IMF or EU) intervention to force massive and radical changes in the PS.....


----------



## Green

Purple said:


> That's actually a good point... since the Unions were part of the coalition that ran the country for the last 10 years (they called themselves "Social Partners")


 
The people were obvioulsy happy enough sure didnt they vote back in the Govt on three different occassions.


----------



## Sunny

YOBR said:


> The people were obvioulsy happy enough sure didnt they vote back in the Govt on three different occassions.


 
We can vote the Government out. How do we get trade unions back into the hole they crawled out of


----------



## VOR

I have looked at the "Key Questions about the Crisis" and find the statements absurd:

*"Equally, prompt Government intervention could help prevent a 'wipeout' in the construction industry and simultaneously fill gaps in our social and public infrastructure. And the delivery of new schools and clinics and better public transport could be funded through the setting up of a National Recovery Bond*."
This is a short term measure which looks after the construction sector and the public sector. As we all have seen, the civil and public sector have really done well with the money to date. So now we should give them the last few euro we have? Money needs to be put in to private sector industries in areas such as financial services (to create jobs), energy, tele-services, I.T. and certain manufacturing sectors.

*"And there is no iron clad rule that says that our 'period of adjustment' must be completed by 2013. That timeframe is the result of a political decision and, like all decisions, is liable to change.**Congress has proposed stretching the period of adjustment over a longer timeframe. In doing so, you remove the need to cut hard and fast, softening the impact and scale of cuts.* "
So this advocates letting the private sector rot as more and more lose their jobs just so the union members in the public sector don't have to feel any pain now? Can it read any other way?

*"In the event of an upturn, the cost of servicing the debt will be far less problematic and less painful."*
P-A-R-T-Y!!! The milky bars are on me!! Let's spend, spend, spend. Just keep the curtains closed because we don't want the 400,000 unemployed seeing this.

*"Ireland's public spending is among the lowest in the EU 15 and is comparable with levels often found in the poorer accession states."* 
We don't have a military worth a damn. Could that explain some of the difference? Hey beardy brigade, wanna get 50,000 new public servants? Why not campaign for a fighting army!! That should increase our public spend.

*"If we are to rebuild and rebuild in a sustainable manner, the tax base will have to be reconstructed...**Simply cutting spending will not solve the enormous problems we face. Over the last 12 months, the Government has introduced two budgets, both of which took money out of the economy. But the situation has not improved, it has worsened."*
And the two budgets increased taxes!! That's your "money out of the economy" piece, isn't it??? So if the situation has worsened then why not try the cuts? 
Perhaps, and I am just pulling this one out of the sky, a mix of tax and cost-cutting could be the answer. We taxed already and have a report to tax more. Novel idea, let's look at cutting the spend. 

So there you have it. They want the already suffering to suffer more with additional taxes and those that can't lose their jobs, get paid more and also get good pensions should be left alone. And when the upturn does come, you'll continue to pay for the borrowed money. But don't fret, it might be more money to pay back but it will be at a lower rate. Phew!
Social democracy has left the building.


----------



## Mpsox

What disappointed me about the mail shot from the unions was that it was decidedly short on practical things that could be achieved. "let's tackle the job crisis for example". What a great idea, I'm wondering why the Government hadn't thought of it !!!! I'm sure they sit in Dublin thinking the doles queues are awful, but we can't do anything about it. For me to take the unions more seriously they should come out with detailed proposals about what the union movement can do to assist in job creation and reducing the public deficit, not wishy washey statements about "reform". Fine, let's reform, what are they volunteering to give up as part of this?

As expected, this thread has turned into another public/private sector split. As someone who works in the private sector, it always disappoints me when public sector workers raise the pension levy. We pay that in the private sector, perhaps not as much, but the paycuts most of us have taken more then make up for it. Likewise, permanent private sector employees do not have the same job security as those in the public sector.

The issue of what a job is "worth" and ESRI reports and comparing Gardai with security guards is largely irrelevant. There is one very simple fact that we need to remember here. We dont have the money to keep paying the current public sector wage bill. Personnaly speaking, I would like to see Gardai, firemen and teachers paid more and bureaucrats less, but it actually doesn't matter any more, We don't have the money at the minute. Private sector employees have learnt that when a company is in that position, costs and services have to be cut to keep the company afloat. No one likes it, I've laid 25 people off this year and taking a paycut myself, but for the long term good of the organisation, it's shareholders, customers and remaining employees, it had to be done.

I know a number of union members in the private sector. From talking to them, if there is no effort to tackle the public sector wage bill, if taxes are increased instead to pay for it, their view is that there will be blood on the walls within the unions. There is the beginning of a clear split in some unions with private sector employees feeling that they are 2nd class members against their public sector counterparts


----------



## Latrade

The thing is that overall this document is a call to protect the public sector and construction industry. Pretty much be damned with the rest of you.

Couple of things we really have to start calling them out on in the media.



> *"Ireland's public spending is among the lowest in the EU 15 and is comparable with levels often found in the poorer accession states."*


This old chestnut annoys the hell out of me. First, why just the EU15? Is it because when you compare Ireland to countries of a similar size and population you get a less useful statistic? No it's better to compare us to higher tax economies with large public services. And again, must we not also include the statistic that we're among the highest spend on wages in the EU15. More of what we do spend goes on wages. Funny how that bit is never mentioned.



> *"If we are to rebuild and rebuild in a sustainable manner, the tax base will have to be reconstructed...**Simply cutting spending will not solve the enormous problems we face. Over the last 12 months, the Government has introduced two budgets, both of which took money out of the economy. But the situation has not improved, it has worsened."*


 
Yes the defict has worsened because they never cut public expenditure in the last budget and tried to just use tax. And the government has every intention of restructuring tax that was the whole point of the Tax Commission report. You can't use that against them. The problem is that it will take years to introduce those taxes and we don't have years to cut the current deficit.


----------



## Latrade

S.L.F said:


> ERSI was discussed here before
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be a bad idea to get all the stuff about the ERSI and put it all onto that thread.


 
I'd agree, but you seemed happy enough to discuss it and indeed label it as fiction on this thread right up until it was pointed out that they had made reasonable corrections in their figures to ensure a more accurate like-for-like comparisson.


----------



## secman

Heard one of the Brothers on radio yesterday and he questioned where the evidence was that reflected cuts in pay in private sector !!!!

He siad it was not in recent CSO reports so like  " its not happened" !!

Another guy who employs 11 people and struggling to survive in business was going beserk asking what planet the Brothers are living on. If it wasn't so serious it would be so funny, a great subject for a sit com, no acting required, just be themselves !!

We are involved in a sector wherby outside staff are covered by an REA, the emplyees have told us that they would take a pay cut to save jobs, but we have explained to them that we cannot touch their rates as we could be proscecuted ! The Directors have taken 2 10 % pay cuts, rest of office and management have taken a 10% pay cut. Its absurd that a business trying to survive cannot accept pay cuts offered by loyal staff.

secman


----------



## VOR

Latrade said:


> The thing is that overall this document is a call to protect the public sector and construction industry. Pretty much be damned with the rest of you.


 
Agree completely. I wonder what sector union members come from? 

As an aside Latrade, it looks like that tosh was written by me now!!!


----------



## Latrade

VOR said:


> As an aside Latrade, it looks like that tosh was written by me now!!!


 
Yikes! Corrected! 



secman said:


> He siad it was not in recent CSO reports so like " its not happened" !!


 
I honestly think we need to keep this going and keep calling out these statements. The amount of hypocrasy attached to that statement is so vast I honestly don't know where to begin. First is that they trot out one report as proof and won't accept criticism of it when it suits their argument and then other equally, if not more accurate, reports are to be ignored because they're contradict what they wish to be heard. 

Second, there are more reports that the CSO. The IBEC quarterly business survey has far more accurate statistics direct from employers about cuts. Well that and an addition 200,000 on the live register. 

It's like the recent statement of proof that the pension levy has saved any money. Fine, it's a valid question. But then they say tax everyone some more, erm but don't you say in your call to action that the tax increases haven't worked? So where's the proof that it will work this time around?


----------



## Green

Sunny said:


> We can vote the Government out. How do we get trade unions back* into the hole they crawled out of*


 
A really ignorant statement. There is no point even trying to debate with those who hold such a shockingly ignorant view.


----------



## Purple

YOBR said:


> A really ignorant statement. There is no point even trying to debate with those who hold such a shockingly ignorant view.



No, this is schocking:



secman said:


> We are involved in a sector wherby outside staff are covered by an REA, the emplyees have told us that they would take a pay cut to save jobs, but we have explained to them that we cannot touch their rates as we could be proscecuted ! The Directors have taken 2 10 % pay cuts, rest of office and management have taken a 10% pay cut. Its absurd that a business trying to survive cannot accept pay cuts offered by loyal staff.
> 
> secman



Q) What sort of complete enpty-heads think that what secman describes is a good idea?
A) The Bearded Brethren and their political wing Congress-The Labour Party.


----------



## Sunny

YOBR said:


> A really ignorant statement. There is no point even trying to debate with those who hold such a shockingly ignorant view.


 
I am not looking for a debate. I admire and respect the history of Trade Unions but the present bunch of union leaders are overpaid, egotistical loonies who have had their noses in the trough of social partnership for the past ten years and have got fat and greedy on the back of it.

They will bring this country to its knees and so be it. I work in a non-unionised company and I fancy our chances our survival are a lot greater than ones that have to deal with those crackpots.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I am not looking for a debate. I admire and respect the history of Trade Unions but the present bunch of union leaders are overpaid, egotistical loonies who have had their noses in the trough of social partnership for the past ten years and have got fat and greedy on the back of it.
> 
> They will bring this country to its knees and so be it. I work in a non-unionised company and I fancy our chances our survival are a lot greater than ones that have to deal with those crackpots.


+1
We saw nothing out of the boom except an erosion of our competitiveness due to increasing service charges and wage pressures fuelled by the Celtic Bubble. In real terms wages here have dropped each year for the last 10 years (starting from a high base) because we have had to compete with emerging competition in the Far East, Eastern Europe and Central America. We are accepting orders at lower unit prices than we did 12 years ago and we are still making a profit because we’ve got so much better at what we do. 
From a business perspective it doesn’t matter one bit what the Irish economy does since none of our customers do any business here but I want my children to have a future here and if the cancer that is the present trade union movement get their way I know that as a nation we will be facing into decades of gloom and depression.


----------



## S.L.F

Latrade said:


> I'd agree, but you seemed happy enough to discuss it and indeed label it as fiction on this thread right up until it was pointed out that they had made reasonable corrections in their figures to ensure a more accurate like-for-like comparisson.


 
Latrade I like you work for a living and have other pulls on my time besides AAM.

You are not being fair to me by suggesting I have given up or whatever thoughts were going through your head.


----------



## Green

Purple said:


> and if the *cancer* that is the present trade union movement get their way I know that as a nation we will be facing into decades of gloom and depression.


 
It is simplistic to suggest that unions are our sole problem either in the past or in the future.


----------



## Purple

YOBR said:


> It is simplistic to suggest that unions are our sole problem either in the past or in the future.


 I agree... that's why I didn't suggest it.


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> Thats not true.
> 
> They used a propensity score matching approach that allowed them to to look at and give greater emphasis to job characteristics rather than human characteristics.


The database that all the ESRI analyses were based on has no information about job content. It has no information about the work that people do, probably because this information doesn't lend itself to being structured in a database form. None of the ESRI reports looked at job content.


----------



## sidzer

The argument that 'the banks caused this problem so they should pay for it not the poor ordinary workers' doesn't make sense. 
We all bought into the illusion - well most of us did. 

I didn't hear unions shout don't pay our workers higher rates because the economic fundamentals are not sound. The rates of pay we all enjoyed were only affordable because we had a property bubble. The bubble has now well and truly burst.

Aswell as major reform of how we do our jobs in the public service we need to accept substantial adjustments in pay to reflect the economic realities that we now face as a nation.

I will not be joining the day of protest - I hope to be in my classroom doing my job.


----------



## Purple

sidzer said:


> The argument that 'the banks caused this problem so they should pay for it not the poor ordinary workers' doesn't make sense.
> We all bought into the illusion - well most of us did.
> 
> I didn't hear unions shout don't pay our workers higher rates because the economic fundamentals are not sound. The rates of pay we all enjoyed were only affordable because we had a property bubble. The bubble has now well and truly burst.
> 
> Aswell as major reform of how we do our jobs in the public service we need to accept substantial adjustments in pay to reflect the economic realities that we now face as a nation.
> 
> I will not be joining the day of protest - I hope to be in my classroom doing my job.


 Well said, I agree 100%


----------



## becky

Sidzer, I fully agree with your post. If this strike goes ahead chances, are you will in the staff room.  Do you mind if I ask are you in a union? Am considering my own sisuation at the moment.


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> What's the standard sentence for assaulting a union official I wonder?  It might be worth it.
> 
> Although knowing their influence the sentence is probably death.


This is completely inappropriate, with or without smileys. You need to remove it.



Latrade said:


> Second, there are more reports that the CSO. The IBEC quarterly business survey has far more accurate statistics direct from employers about cuts.


You are joking, right? You believe that an in-house IBEC survey is 'more accurate' than a CSO report! So the CSO which has the best statisticians in the country, and the statutory weight to oblige employers to report is less accurate than some flimsy IBEC yoke? Get off the stage, will ya and get real.



Latrade said:


> Well that and an addition 200,000 on the live register.


Many of whom came from the public sector - the private sector don't have a monopoly on job losses.



DonDub said:


> Interesting to see the union brethern take such a blatant partisan approach - openly calling on private sector workers to pay extra taxes to protect pay levels in the PS. They obviously believe that they have the muscle to force the government to impose even more taxes, to avoid cutting their PS members pay.
> Very many tens of thousands of private sector employees were made compulsory redundant this year - whilst not one permanent PS employee has suffered the same faith.


Speaking of blatant partisanship, let's look at the full picture. Taxes are not just paid by private sector workers. Taxes are paid by everybody with substantial income. The beauty of the tax system is its general fairness. Those who earn, pay. Those who don't, don't. If you're pay has been cut, you pay less. If your pay is low, you pay nothing. Private sector workers don't have a monopoloy on tax.

Private sector workers don't have a monopoly on job losses. Many fixed-term contract and agency staff in the public sector have already lost their jobs. All other contract staff will lose their jobs as their current contracts expire. 

And for the record, the public sector is the one sector where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE has already taken their share of the pain through the pension levy.


----------



## ashambles

The CSO - who I've huge respect for - gave a figure of around 3000 for the reduced figured working in the public sector. This figure would include retirements.

To be honest I would have thought it would be more, perhaps they never fully included contractors in the first place? If so that raises even more questions.

Even so looks like the private sector is providing almost all of the the live register increase. 

(Odd to see the CSO defended here when last week public servants were deriding it because they couldn't get their heads around the simple idea of a gross wage comparison.)


----------



## Complainer

ashambles said:


> To be honest I would have thought it would be more, perhaps they never fully included contractors in the first place?


I guess agency staff would be considered as private sector.


----------



## orka

Complainer said:


> And for the record, the public sector is the one sector where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE has already taken their share of the pain through the pension levy.


Not quite.  Some judges don't pay.


----------



## Fintan

Complainer said:


> And for the record, the public sector is the one sector where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE has already taken their share of the pain through the pension levy.



lol


----------



## S.L.F

Latrade said:


> I'd agree, but you seemed happy enough to discuss it and indeed label it as fiction on this thread right up until it was pointed out that they had made reasonable corrections in their figures to ensure a more accurate like-for-like comparisson.


 
Who says they were reasonable?

Simple question how on earth can you possibly compare a fully trained Garda with a security guard, even with all the reasonable corrections in the world you are never going to get it right.

My own thoughts would be 

1 to pick 10 countries at random.

2 get their GNP of the 10 countries.

3 get the wages of the various police officers in the 10 countries

4 get the average police officer wage

5 then compare Irelands GNP to the average GNP of the 10 countries

6 using the difference in porportion figure out what the wage should be.

I have no idea what the wage would be but it sure would be more accurate than what the ERSI came out with


----------



## S.L.F

Fintan said:


> lol


 
You think it is funny that 380,000 people have taken a pay cut.


----------



## ajapale

Complainer said:


> And for the record, the public sector is the one sector where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE has already taken their share of the pain through the pension levy.



This is not true! ESB employees are a large and important part of the public _sector_ yet do not pay the pension levy. Indeed they got a 3% increase! Hardly sharing the pain!

And Judges who are part of the Public service do not pay this levy.

It is true to say however that nearly all employees of the public _service _pay the levy.


----------



## DerKaiser

S.L.F said:


> You think it is funny that 380,000 people have taken a pay cut.



I'd say the funny part is the notion that a cut of about 4% of net pay for public servants represents the full extent of the contribution they need to make in addressing runaway public spending


----------



## S.L.F

ajapale said:


> This is not true! ESB employees are a large and important part of the public _sector_ yet do not pay the pension levy. Indeed they got a 3% increase! Hardly sharing the pain!
> 
> And Judges who are part of the Public service do not pay this levy.
> 
> It is true to say however that nearly all employees of the public _service _pay the levy.


 
The ESB workers are not goverment employees and not paid by the govt



DerKaiser said:


> I'd say the funny part is the notion that a cut of about 4% of net pay for public servants represents the full extent of the contribution they need to make in addressing runaway public spending


 
People keep saying the pension levy goes into the pension fund and they get it back when they retire, they don't.

DerKaiser is the pension levy a pay cut or not?


----------



## z107

> DerKaiser is the pension levy a pay cut or not?


It didn't affect gross pay, so it's not a pay cut.

Public sector employees are contributing more to cover the cost of (very lucrative) pensions.

Consider also that wages across the private sector have been falling over the last few months, so the cost of living will go down. In effect, by standing still, the public sector will experience a pay rise.


----------



## DerKaiser

S.L.F said:


> DerKaiser is the pension levy a pay cut or not?



Well yeah, as I've said it's an approximate cut in net pay of 4% on average.

The following will all happen in both public and private sectors over the next few years:
Job losses
Pay cuts
Higher Taxes
Service cutbacks

It would be naive to think that any pain suffered to date will be the end of it.


----------



## Pique318

Complainer said:


> Many of whom came from the public sector - the private sector don't have a monopoly on job losses..



Ahem... http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018290.shtml

You wanna explain how 2700 can be classified as 'many' compared to 209000 ?

Considering contract staff are constantly 'hoping' their contracts will be extended, rather than 'expecting' that, it's hard to see how they can be considered casualties of the Public Sector layoffs, as no redundancy pay will be paid. Temp staff the same.

But sure Public sector staff have 'shared the pain' I suppose, Complainer ?


----------



## Caveat

umop3p!sdn said:


> It didn't affect gross pay, so it's not a pay cut.
> 
> Public sector employees are contributing more to cover the cost of (very lucrative) pensions.



+1 

Simple as that.


----------



## Complainer

Pique318 said:


> Ahem... http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018290.shtml
> 
> You wanna explain how 2700 can be classified as 'many' compared to 209000 ?
> 
> Considering contract staff are constantly 'hoping' their contracts will be extended, rather than 'expecting' that, it's hard to see how they can be considered casualties of the Public Sector layoffs, as no redundancy pay will be paid. Temp staff the same.
> 
> But sure Public sector staff have 'shared the pain' I suppose, Complainer ?


You need to get out more. More than 3000 staff have gone from the local authorities alone (http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-new...r-3000-council-staff-let-go-during-recession/), that without even looking at the big employers in health and education. I wonder if perhaps teachers are classified as 'private', because their direct employer is not the state in many cases. I'd guess that agency nurses and other medical staff would also be classified as private.


----------



## S.L.F

ajapale said:


> This is not true! ESB employees are a large and important part of the public _sector_ yet do not pay the pension levy. Indeed they got a 3% increase! Hardly sharing the pain!
> 
> And Judges who are part of the Public service do not pay this levy.
> 
> It is true to say however that nearly all employees of the public _service _pay the levy.


 
Hi aj, I have read your post again and see where you are coming from, the public _sector_ would include the public service, civil service and the semi-states.

I think the ones that should have been included in the ERSI report should have been the ones paid by the dept of finance.



umop3p!sdn said:


> Public sector employees are contributing more to cover the cost of (very lucrative {*if you are in the public sector for a full 40 years*}) pensions.


 
Fixed that for you

Public sector employees include the semi-state bodies who have not been hit with the pension levy.

The pension levy has nothing to do with the pension, it is not put into the pension fund so it does not cover the cost of the pensions.


----------



## DerKaiser

S.L.F said:


> Fixed that for you



What's your point about 40 years?

Will the lump sum and total retirement income of someone who works for 30 years not be 75% that of someone who works 40 years?


----------



## S.L.F

DerKaiser said:


> Will the lump sum and total retirement income of someone who works for 30 years not be 75% that of someone who works 40 years?


 
Not being PS myself I don't know but I do know the pension will not be 75% it is far less maybe 66%.


----------



## DerKaiser

S.L.F said:


> Not being PS myself I don't know but I do know the pension will not be 75% it is far less maybe 66%.



Please elaborate.

I thought that 3/80 of salary is accrued as a lump sum benefit for each year of service with 1/80th accrued as a retirement pension for each year of service.  That would seem pro-rata to me


----------



## z101

dockingtrade said:


> this campaign is an attempted clever ploy by the unions to get support behind them so they can show the govt "look at all these people out protesting" in support of us . So they throw a few issues in together.  ???


 
I thought they actually have made a mess of this. If it were after the budget there would no doubt be other groups who will be agrieved about issues that effected them, to partner up with and pump the numbers for protest. They have made a judgement on this and believe they have enough public support. This is a mistake as the public is turning against them. The tactic seems to try to get a deal before the budget. This may work if lenihan bottles it. 

I got that union leaflet also. I thought it was a take away menu. Some very selective facts on there with far more important ones left out. Saving Ireland is clearly not high on their agenda.


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> More than 3000 staff have gone from the local authorities alone


 
*Temporary* staff.

By definition their jobs were never secure anyway.  That there was a culture of treating them or regarding them as secure is different matter.


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> *Temporary* staff.
> 
> By definition their jobs were never secure anyway.  That there was a culture of treating them or regarding them as secure is different matter.



Yes, it's like hiring a plumber to fix your jacks and then saying he had lost his job when it was fixed.


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> *Temporary* staff.
> 
> By definition their jobs were never secure anyway.  That there was a culture of treating them or regarding them as secure is different matter.


Indeed, they were temporary staff. But isn't it strange how there wasn't the same mad rush to clarify how many of the extra private sector people on the register were permanent or temporary? Usual double-standards that one expects here on AAM I suppose.


----------



## Latrade

Complainer said:


> You are joking, right? You believe that an in-house IBEC survey is 'more accurate' than a CSO report! So the CSO which has the best statisticians in the country, and the statutory weight to oblige employers to report is less accurate than some flimsy IBEC yoke? Get off the stage, will ya and get real.


 
So when evidence of other reports are put forward they're rejected immediately because they don't suit your argument? The IBEC quarterly reports surveys their members from all sectors and it is simply looking at many areas of their business. There's no disputing the facts that employers have had to cut costs, the difference is that it shows in what areas.

Seriously, at least have the common courtesy to read and look at the report before dismissing it out of hand. You don't do your arguments any favours being so immediately judgemental.

And it doesn't matter how good the CSO's statisticians are if the questions they're asking are the wrong ones. Like the simple question have you reduced pay. The difference in other reports like the IBEC one is they go deeper than just basic pay and show where other cost cuts have had to take place.



S.L.F said:


> Who says they were reasonable?
> 
> Simple question how on earth can you possibly compare a fully trained Garda with a security guard, even with all the reasonable corrections in the world you are never going to get it right.
> 
> My own thoughts would be
> 
> 1 to pick 10 countries at random.
> 
> 2 get their GNP of the 10 countries.
> 
> 3 get the wages of the various police officers in the 10 countries
> 
> 4 get the average police officer wage
> 
> 5 then compare Irelands GNP to the average GNP of the 10 countries
> 
> 6 using the difference in porportion figure out what the wage should be.
> 
> I have no idea what the wage would be but it sure would be more accurate than what the ERSI came out with


 
So how does that give a comparisson of Public sector pay to Private which was the remit of the report? 

Their method wasn't perfect, but then they say that in the report. It's reasonable because it is a recognised model of comparisson. To start picking up on this issue of a the gardai and a security company is irrelevant to the whole report. The other jobs used seem comparable to me. And to dismiss it on this one fractional issue means you also dismiss their conclusions on how a certain percentage of better wages in the PS is justified due to experience, knowledge and qualifications? Or again do we just cherrypick the ones that suit our argument?


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> Indeed, they were temporary staff. But isn't it strange how there wasn't the same mad rush to clarify how many of the extra private sector people on the register were permanent or temporary?


 
Only because I don't know - but it is a fact that the 3000 you refer to were temporary. 

Maybe _you_ know what proportion of the private sector lay offs were temporary staff?

In practice, temporary/permanent have tend to have quite different status in private as opposed to public. Unless they are hired specifically to meet seasonal demands etc it is unusual for staff in the private sector to remain 'temporary' indefinitely but not so in the public sector.


----------



## Complainer

Latrade said:


> So when evidence of other reports are put forward they're rejected immediately because they don't suit your argument? The IBEC quarterly reports surveys their members from all sectors and it is simply looking at many areas of their business. There's no disputing the facts that employers have had to cut costs, the difference is that it shows in what areas.
> 
> Seriously, at least have the common courtesy to read and look at the report before dismissing it out of hand. You don't do your arguments any favours being so immediately judgemental.
> 
> And it doesn't matter how good the CSO's statisticians are if the questions they're asking are the wrong ones. Like the simple question have you reduced pay. The difference in other reports like the IBEC one is they go deeper than just basic pay and show where other cost cuts have had to take place.
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that give a comparisson of Public sector pay to Private which was the remit of the report?
> 
> Their method wasn't perfect, but then they say that in the report. It's reasonable because it is a recognised model of comparisson. To start picking up on this issue of a the gardai and a security company is irrelevant to the whole report. The other jobs used seem comparable to me. And to dismiss it on this one fractional issue means you also dismiss their conclusions on how a certain percentage of better wages in the PS is justified due to experience, knowledge and qualifications? Or again do we just cherrypick the ones that suit our argument?


IBEC clearly have a vested interest in producing a view that suits their purposes. To suggest that it carries more weight than an independent report produced by a statutory body is foolish.


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> In practice, temporary/permanent have tend to have quite different status in private as opposed to public. Unless they are hired specifically to meet seasonal demands etc it is unusual for staff in the private sector to remain 'temporary' indefinitely but not so in the public sector.


Not unusual at all in my experience, where many private sector (and some public sector) employers use fixed term contracts to evade their responsibilities to staff that are effectively full time staff. This approach has been facilitated by the wave of outsourcing, often used simply as a device to distance employees rather than a genuine development to allow a business to focus on its core objectives.


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> IBEC clearly have a vested interest in producing a view that suits their purposes. To suggest that it carries more weight than an independent report produced by a statutory body is foolish.


 
This is the same CSO who also point out the huge gap between public and private sector pay?

So what are we arguing about


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> This is the same CSO who also point out the huge gap between *average *public and *average *private sector pay?


Fixed that for ya there.


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> Fixed that for ya there.


 
So that changes the argument? So let me get this straight. Every report that shows that public sector workers earn a premium over their private sector counterparts is flawed.


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> You are joking, right? You believe that an in-house IBEC survey is 'more accurate' than a CSO report! So the CSO which has the best statisticians in the country, and the statutory weight to oblige employers to report is less accurate than some flimsy IBEC yoke? Get off the stage, will ya and get real.


 
So the CSO is wrong as well then.


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> So that changes the argument? So let me get this straight. Every report that shows that public sector workers earn a premium over their private sector counterparts is flawed.


The CSO report itself is not flawed, just as the ESRI report itself is not flawed. They both do indeed show that on average, public sector staff are paid more than private sector staff.

On average, aeroplanes cost more than bicycles. On average, a flight to America costs more than a flight to Kerry. On average, a television costs more than a chocolate bar.

Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector. 

So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.


----------



## Latrade

Complainer said:


> IBEC clearly have a vested interest in producing a view that suits their purposes. To suggest that it carries more weight than an independent report produced by a statutory body is foolish.


 
The point was there are other reports out there showing the true picture for the private sector. The CSO report has limitations in the data it asks for. On the basis of what the CSO don't ask, then yes for that area the IBEC reports do have more weight because:

1. It addresses a huge gap in the CSO survey
2. It is Quarterly and more up-to-date
3. Its responses are from CFO/CEOs giving precise payroll and other information affecting their organisations.

Your suggestion (again without any actual look at or reading of the report) that the data is irrelevant and possibly even biased/inaccurate just because it has come from IBEC's members.

It is not foolish to point out the CSO survey is limited to certain areas and that this report expands on where the CSO remit is limited. For you this might be too huge a leap, especially when you haven't read the reports, however, it is a quarterly report that does have credence.


----------



## Sunny

Complainer said:


> The CSO report itself is not flawed, just as the ESRI report itself is not flawed. They both do indeed show that on average, public sector staff are paid more than private sector staff.
> 
> On average, aeroplanes cost more than bicycles. On average, a flight to America costs more than a flight to Kerry. On average, a television costs more than a chocolate bar.
> 
> Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.
> 
> So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.


 
Seriously read the reports and stop spouting rubbish. You yourself admit that the CSO have the best statisticians. The ESRI are not exactly fools either. Do you think they don't recognise the differences between the two sectors and adjust their findings as best they can. The CSO adjusted their gap down from over 30% to below 20% to take account of the various differences such as education between the two sectors. Just because they use averages doesn't make the figures meaningless. These guys are not using simple models done on the back of envelopes. Nobody is suggesting that these models are 100% accurate but they all come to the same general conclusion.


----------



## Latrade

Complainer said:


> The CSO report itself is not flawed, just as the ESRI report itself is not flawed. They both do indeed show that on average, public sector staff are paid more than private sector staff.
> 
> On average, aeroplanes cost more than bicycles. On average, a flight to America costs more than a flight to Kerry. On average, a television costs more than a chocolate bar.
> 
> Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.
> 
> So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.


 
You forgot that the average person has one breast and one testicle too. For all the problems with "averages" they are a necessary evil in establishing a baseline.

Again though the ultimate question is how with all these suddenly irreconcilable differences comparing public to private we managed to run the benchmarking system that shifted pay upwards for so many years?


----------



## Mpsox

Complainer said:


> Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.
> 
> So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.


 
No arguement with this in certain areas, eg, medical staff. However, a lot of public sector jobs are mundane repetitive tasks where an individual has to work to basic procedures and which are no more difficult then working on a shop floor where an individual would normally only be paid minimum wage.  The starting salary in one country council for a clerical officer is €23232 which is ballpark 25% above the minimum wage, yet I'd question if the complexity of much of their roles warrents that


----------



## Complainer

Sunny said:


> Seriously read the reports and stop spouting rubbish. You yourself admit that the CSO have the best statisticians. The ESRI are not exactly fools either. Do you think they don't recognise the differences between the two sectors and adjust their findings as best they can. The CSO adjusted their gap down from over 30% to below 20% to take account of the various differences such as education between the two sectors. Just because they use averages doesn't make the figures meaningless. These guys are not using simple models done on the back of envelopes. Nobody is suggesting that these models are 100% accurate but they all come to the same general conclusion.


I've read both reports, thanks. I'm not a statistician and admit to struggling with some of the trickier statistical stuff, but regardless, I can read enough to see what both reports are based on, and more importantly, what they are not based on. They are not based on any analysis of job content.



Latrade said:


> The point was there are other reports out there showing the true picture for the private sector. The CSO report has limitations in the data it asks for. On the basis of what the CSO don't ask, then yes for that area the IBEC reports do have more weight because:
> 
> 1. It addresses a huge gap in the CSO survey
> 2. It is Quarterly and more up-to-date
> 3. Its responses are from CFO/CEOs giving precise payroll and other information affecting their organisations.
> 
> Your suggestion (again without any actual look at or reading of the report) that the data is irrelevant and possibly even biased/inaccurate just because it has come from IBEC's members.
> 
> It is not foolish to point out the CSO survey is limited to certain areas and that this report expands on where the CSO remit is limited. For you this might be too huge a leap, especially when you haven't read the reports, however, it is a quarterly report that does have credence.


I can only assume that you haven't looked at the CSO report. It is quarterly, and it also requires CEOs/CFOs to give precise information. It may not ask all the same questions as IBEC, but it is far more rigourous (including statutory penalties for non-cooperation) and independent than anything IBEC produce.


Mpsox said:


> No arguement with this in certain areas, eg, medical staff. However, a lot of public sector jobs are mundane repetitive tasks where an individual has to work to basic procedures and which are no more difficult then working on a shop floor where an individual would normally only be paid minimum wage.  The starting salary in one country council for a clerical officer is €23232 which is ballpark 25% above the minimum wage, yet I'd question if the complexity of much of their roles warrents that


I'm not sure that I agree with the approach of minimum wage as being the target for entry level staff, but regardless, wouldn't it be nice to see a comparison based on the job content?



Latrade said:


> You forgot that the average person has one breast and one testicle too.


Great line - I look forward to using it soon.


Latrade said:


> For all the problems with "averages" they are a necessary evil in establishing a baseline.


But that is not how they are being used. They are being used here on AAM and in the media at large to fuel the public vs private 'divide and conquer' tactic that the Govt are playing. So don't be surprised when I and others seek to clarify the context and content of these reports every time they are used in evidence.



Latrade said:


> Again though the ultimate question is how with all these suddenly irreconcilable differences comparing public to private we managed to run the benchmarking system that shifted pay upwards for so many years?



We don't know, because of couse the benchmarking process was confidential. But possibly, the key difference between bechmarking and the ESRI/CSO tsunami is that benchmarking did exactly what I pointed out that the ESRI/CSO did not - it looked at the actual content of the job and came to view on that.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> They are being used here on AAM and in the media at large to fuel the public vs private 'divide and conquer' tactic that the Govt are playing. So don't be surprised when I and others seek to clarify the context and content of these reports every time they are used in evidence.



I love that line that the Bearded Brethren and their barbate cohort keep trotting out. Basically it means if you are annoyed/upset/concerned about public sector spending and think that pay levels in the public sector are too high then you are an idiot and have been duped by the evil government and media who are attempting to divide the proletariat for their own Machiavellian reasons (possible to forestall the inevitable workers revolution which will sweep away the oppressive ruling classes ). 

I’m used to those who spout socialist dogma being condescending and patronising but the divide and conquer line is really something special.

I’ve got news for you comrades; people are annoyed because they understand what is going on and no amount of pseudo-socialist didactic rhetoric will distract them from the plain truth.


----------



## z107

> Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.


So you are suggesting that the CSO made such a fundamental error in their analysis that they neglected to check that the two distributions were based on similar data?


----------



## Pique318

Nobody in the public sector was complaining about the accuracy of the findings/comparisons/weightings when they suggested a pay RISE back when we could afford it !

Cherry picking the details to agree with when it suits and disagree with when it doesn't suit. Brilliant strategy.


----------



## Latrade

Complainer said:


> I can only assume that you haven't looked at the CSO report. It is quarterly, and it also requires CEOs/CFOs to give precise information. It may not ask all the same questions as IBEC, but it is far more rigourous (including statutory penalties for non-cooperation) and independent than anything IBEC produce.


 
Nope, I have looked and it was a poor effort to show that they actually share the same statistical bases and methodology. The key difference is that the CSO ones are quite some way behind once published. And in reality your only reason for rejecting the IBEC report is because of the authors rather than any actual proof that it is biased. It doesn't contradict the CSO reports, it just goes further than simply basic pay levels.

Just as an aside, there was never a problem with the IBEC surveys when they indicated a positive trend during National Wage agreements. 



Complainer said:


> We don't know, because of couse the benchmarking process was confidential. But possibly, the key difference between bechmarking and the ESRI/CSO tsunami is that benchmarking did exactly what I pointed out that the ESRI/CSO did not - it looked at the actual content of the job and came to view on that.


 
Here's the root of the problem, whether with the media, the ESRI or anything else: we don't know. The frustration for the ESRI and the need to make adjustments is that there is no clear description of roles and tasks. In effect we just don't know what some parts of the Public Service do on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day, etc basis. This makes the comparisson difficult, but that's hardly the fault of the ESRI.

While the benchmarking process was confidential, if there was any clear criteria it would be available to the ESRI and it would be available through an FOI request. The problem is it just doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.

However, if benchmarking was so confidential how can you be so sure it did compare like-with-like? 



Complainer said:


> But that is not how they are being used. They are being used here on AAM and in the media at large to fuel the public vs private 'divide and conquer' tactic that the Govt are playing. So don't be surprised when I and others seek to clarify the context and content of these reports every time they are used in evidence.


 
The media will always use the worst part of a study for a story. It happens all the time (such as the Union stat on Public Sector funding compared to the EU15). It works both ways and it is unfair to only take issue when this technique is used against you.

Just like this morning and the Teacher's union stating "slashing of promotion opportunities" as a "loss" to pay incurred in their profession. They mention nothing of the skew in numbers of higher grades in teaching nor that the cut in promotions was on the basis of a far more reasonable model, i.e. promotion based on performance and merit and not service. The media missed this one.

However, averages are a necessary evil. They aren't just plucked out the air economists always account for variables as best the can. There simply is no other way to present the information.

As for their use here. Well I see enough people with enough cop on around to mostly see through the headlines. Some don't, but it works both ways. Some people are happy to ignore reports that point to a certain trend on the basis of the authors or that it doesn't suit their current argument.


----------



## Sunny

Pique318 said:


> Nobody in the public sector was complaining about the accuracy of the findings/comparisons/weightings when they suggested a pay RISE back when we could afford it !
> 
> Cherry picking the details to agree with when it suits and disagree with when it doesn't suit. Brilliant strategy.


 
Don't you know that it's because the benchmarking body were able to do what other people couldn't and compare private v public sector jobs. 

And it was such a masterpiece of statistical analysis, they kept the entire thing confidential.

Meanwhile the numbnuts in places like the CSO and the ESRI are talking through their bums when they release any sort of research.

If the benchmarking process was so correct and the current analysis so wrong, lets do another benchmarking process in open instead of behind closed doors. I will accept their results.


----------



## Complainer

umop3p!sdn said:


> So you are suggesting that the CSO made such a fundamental error in their analysis that they neglected to check that the two distributions were based on similar data?


I've no idea whether they checked it or not. That doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the public sector and the private sector was very different. 



Latrade said:


> Nope, I have looked and it was a poor effort to show that they actually share the same statistical bases and methodology. The key difference is that the CSO ones are quite some way behind once published. And in reality your only reason for rejecting the IBEC report is because of the authors rather than any actual proof that it is biased. It doesn't contradict the CSO reports, it just goes further than simply basic pay levels.


So if you had looked at the CSO stuff, why did you repeatedly highlight the fact that the IBEC one was quarterly as a major benefit?

As an aside, the time taken to publish the CSO one in indicitive of the quality of the end of result, unlike the IBEC stuff.



Latrade said:


> Here's the root of the problem, whether with the media, the ESRI or anything else: we don't know. The frustration for the ESRI and the need to make adjustments is that there is no clear description of roles and tasks. In effect we just don't know what some parts of the Public Service do on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day, etc basis. This makes the comparisson difficult, but that's hardly the fault of the ESRI.
> 
> 
> While the benchmarking process was confidential, if there was any clear criteria it would be available to the ESRI and it would be available through an FOI request. The problem is it just doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.


Rubbish. All the information exists in the public sector, in terms of job descriptions and PMDS objectives. The problem is that no-one is looking at this stuff. Yes, this kind of comparision would be very difficult and time-consuming. But it is the only kind of comparison that is valid.



Latrade said:


> However, if benchmarking was so confidential how can you be so sure it did compare like-with-like?


You might want to go back and read what I actually said about benchmarking and then see if you really need to ask this question.



Latrade said:


> Just like this morning and the Teacher's union stating "slashing of promotion opportunities" as a "loss" to pay incurred in their profession. They mention nothing of the skew in numbers of higher grades in teaching nor that the cut in promotions was on the basis of a far more reasonable model, i.e. promotion based on performance and merit and not service. The media missed this one.


The cut in promotions is nothing to do with the model chosen. The number of posts is nothing to do with the method used to fill those posts. This is another red herring. 



Sunny said:


> If the benchmarking process was so correct and the current analysis so wrong, lets do another benchmarking process in open instead of behind closed doors. I will accept their results.


Yep, agreed. I'll accept this too, provided that it is done properly, thoroughly, and there is a committment to revisit it at regular intervals, say every 2 years.


----------



## Booter

Latrade said:


> Again though the ultimate question is how with all these suddenly irreconcilable differences comparing public to private we managed to run the benchmarking system that shifted pay upwards for so many years?



Presumably by "for so many years", you mean "once". That's the number of times benchmarking was applied in the PS/CS


----------



## Latrade

Complainer said:


> So if you had looked at the CSO stuff, why did you repeatedly highlight the fact that the IBEC one was quarterly as a major benefit?
> 
> As an aside, the time taken to publish the CSO one in indicitive of the quality of the end of result, unlike the IBEC stuff.


 
I highlighted the criteria for the IBEC survey that showed it followed the same criteria as the CSO. They are comparable. 

You last point is pure nonesense and one you can't state because you haven't looked at the IBEC reports. You've no idea of how the results are compiled or collated to suggest that because the CSO take longer it somehow makes their survey better. C'mon, you have to do better than that.

The simple point being made is that there are additional surveys beyond the CSO that point to cuts in the private sector. Not one economist or statistician seems to doubt the validity or credibility of these reports. Yet somehow you feel it is invalid without any notion of what it contains only because of the author.

You state that because IBEC represents employers in the Private Sector that it is in their reports are biased, even suggesting at the least "inaccuracies" in the data. Well we can all cast aspersions, after all aren't the CSO also Civil Servants? Difference is that knowing their data and statistics I've no intention of getting into meaningless accusations. There are limitations on the data collected by the CSO due to the nature of the questions they ask and that's it. More information on this gap is presented by the IBEC survey.



Complainer said:


> Rubbish. All the information exists in the public sector, in terms of job descriptions and PMDS objectives. The problem is that no-one is looking at this stuff. Yes, this kind of comparision would be very difficult and time-consuming. But it is the only kind of comparison that is valid.


 
It may well do, but the question has to be why the CSO, ESRI and any other data collection means doesn't get it and has to try to make adjustments and estimates. If it were as simple as making a phone call or a couple of emails do you not think they would have done this?

There is a huge gap in the data available.



Complainer said:


> The cut in promotions is nothing to do with the model chosen. The number of posts is nothing to do with the method used to fill those posts. This is another red herring.


 
It's an example to back up what you said about the media not bothering to check up or question people who present "averages" or "facts". The problem is though at least they're consistent and don't bother checking the facts of anyone, no matter how big a nut job.

As for the promotions issue, I'm going off the McCarthy report and also the prior discussion on promotion based on service.


----------



## Complainer

Latrade said:


> It may well do, but the question has to be why the CSO, ESRI and any other data collection means doesn't get it and has to try to make adjustments and estimates. If it were as simple as making a phone call or a couple of emails do you not think they would have done this?
> 
> There is a huge gap in the data available.


This isn't a data problem. The problem is the complexity of the comparison involved. Job descriptions don't fit into nice neat categories that can be structured in a database. Also, job descriptions vary widely across the public sector - the role of a CO in a HSE health centre is very different to a CO in a central Govt dept or a CO in a local authority call centre.

The differences get even bigger as you go up the levels.



Latrade said:


> I'm going off the McCarthy report


I went off it the day it was published.


----------



## Latrade

Complainer said:


> This isn't a data problem. The problem is the complexity of the comparison involved. Job descriptions don't fit into nice neat categories that can be structured in a database. Also, job descriptions vary widely across the public sector - the role of a CO in a HSE health centre is very different to a CO in a central Govt dept or a CO in a local authority call centre.
> 
> The differences get even bigger as you go up the levels.



No job description does. Whether it be mechanical engineer, sales, clerical, production, operative, financial officer etc, depending on sector and employer they can vastly different roles encompassing vastly different skill sets, competencies, working hours, etc.

So in all cases there had to be compromises in the "average" employee for that sector. In all cases the very well paid in those jobs skewed the figures up (or vice versa). However, to say that there is no direct comparison between them is wrong, there are always points of correlation and comparison.

However, there are grey areas in the data set from the PS for these studies (not just the ERSI), they could only go off the data they were supplied with. 

If more accurate data was used for the benchmarking then it would have been available somewhere. However, if it does exist and if it is more accurate, then surely the unions would be waving this or at least hinting at this more accurate data as part of their action and continual press attention? 

Why is there not even a hint of this more accurate data?

Perhaps the answer here is to release the data from the benchmarking and use this as a comparative study for current PS pay against Private Sector?


----------



## DerKaiser

Ictu has now upped the ante from 5 demands to a 10 point recovery plan
[broken link removed]


----------



## oldtimer

I have just watched Jack O'Connor with Pat Kenny on Frontline and what a grilling he got on the ten point plan. At times Jack looked foolish as Pat Kenny, McDowell and the Tax Lawyer tore him apart.


----------



## Purple

oldtimer said:


> I have just watched Jack O'Connor with Pat Kenny on Frontline and what a grilling he got on the ten point plan. At times Jack looked foolish as Pat Kenny, McDowell and the Tax Lawyer tore him apart.



I only disagree with the “at times” bit.

There are way better, more intelligent and more articulate union officials. Why do they let Jack out in public. At least some of the other Brethren have the smarts to bluster and waffle enough to hide the fact that their economic policies are utterly stupid. Jack just sits there, completely out of his depth, repeating the same banal lines in his bland and deadpan way. If his foolishness didn’t have the potential to do so much damage to the country he’d put me to sleep.


----------



## Latrade

DerKaiser said:


> Ictu has now upped the ante from 5 demands to a 10 point recovery plan
> [broken link removed]


 
I do like how they skip over stuff like the reason we're now allowed to borrow finally (we weren't in February) is because we've promised to make these cuts. The only reason we're in any position to negotiate this with the unions (as opposed to the IMF doing it) is because we were given money on the understanding we would begin making cuts. 

Talk about ungrateful, because of a long term plan to reduce the public expenditure, the government managed to secure borrowing that kept people in PS employment. Not only that, but allowed the judgement on cuts to be done by the government rather than IMF.

In effect they're giving the government a huge compliment though in stating that we can now borrow money as the reason we're no longer blacklisted is because of the plans put in place by the government...which includes NAMA.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> I only disagree with the “at times” bit.
> 
> There are way better, more intelligent and more articulate union officials. Why do they let Jack out in public. At least some of the other Brethren have the smarts to bluster and waffle enough to hide the fact that their economic policies are utterly stupid. Jack just sits there, completely out of his depth, repeating the same banal lines in his bland and deadpan way. If his foolishness didn’t have the potential to do so much damage to the country he’d put me to sleep.


 
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that there is a general acceptance of what must be done within the unions and even their officials. However to acquiesce to this in public would be disastrous. So we just have a chest beating exercise of no purpose other than to convince some of the more militant members that cuts will be over their dead body.

I honestly think people like O'Connor are trotted out in public to spew the standard lines about not backing down, tax the rich etc to pretend they're going to fight. We'll have the chest beating, the discussions with govenrment going on until 5am, before breaking down and then starting again in a "last ditch attempt" and finally at the last minute, after 20 hours of solid discussion and debate, there'll be an agreement which probably won't be too far from the government plan, except with one or two wording changes that give the unions the chance to claim victory.


----------



## csirl

Reading between the lines from O'Connors appearance on TV last night and media reports over the past couple of days, it appears that the unions are willing to accept cuts in public sector numbers to reduce the public sector pay bill instead of across the board % pay cuts.

Does anyone advise these people on PR and how to present their point of view on TV? I would have thought that if the unions came out and said something akin to "we'll help cut the public service pay bill........we'll support cutting public sector numbers by e.g. 10%......and the remaining employees will agree to redeployments and taking on the workload of the 10% who leave...etc. etc." then they would be taken seriously as, to be honest, cutting surplus staff in programme areas that have their funding (workload) reduced is the best way to cut the public sector pay bill.

Instead they appear on TV as being evasive and militant.


----------



## DerKaiser

csirl said:


> I would have thought that if the unions came out and said something akin to "we'll help cut the public service pay bill........we'll support cutting public sector numbers by e.g. 10%......and the remaining employees will agree to redeployments and taking on the workload of the 10% who leave...etc. etc." then they would be taken seriously as, to be honest, cutting surplus staff in programme areas that have their funding (workload) reduced is the best way to cut the public sector pay bill


 
I don't think that would look too good. Sacrifice 10% so that 90% continue to enjoy their current level ofl wages?


----------



## csirl

DerKaiser said:


> I don't think that would look too good. Sacrifice 10% so that 90% continue to enjoy their current level ofl wages?


 
Its a starting point. A saving of 10% from staff cuts is the same as a 10% saving from pay cuts from the exchequer's point of view. As I've said many times on various threads before, it is better to get rid of surplus employees than to have the remainder of the workforce take a pay cut in order to keep these surplus employees on the payroll doing nothing.

I actually believe that there is more scope for savings from staff cuts than pay cuts. With pay cuts, politically speaking, you're not going to be able to go beyond single digit percentages for most, particularly since a 7.5% pay cut has already taken place. There are politically inspired agencies where you could cut 100% of the staff without any impact on public services. In admin heavy local politics dominated organisations such as the HSE, you could easily cut around 20% of the staff (mostly on the admin side - hangover from health boards e.g.the plethora of "assistant national directors" and their staff) and have little or no impact on services.


----------



## Latrade

csirl said:


> Its a starting point. A saving of 10% from staff cuts is the same as a 10% saving from pay cuts from the exchequer's point of view. As I've said many times on various threads before, it is better to get rid of surplus employees than to have the remainder of the workforce take a pay cut in order to keep these surplus employees on the payroll doing nothing.


 
What union official could ever say that publically though? It may be what they'd accept and may be what will happen, but it would have to be behind closed doors. There's no way they could ever say that before any discussion in public.


----------



## oldtimer

So, how many AAM posters are ready for the ''Get UP, Stand Up campaign on Friday. From the count on this thread it appears about 2.


----------



## DerKaiser

csirl said:


> Its a starting point. A saving of 10% from staff cuts is the same as a 10% saving from pay cuts from the exchequer's point of view. As I've said many times on various threads before, it is better to get rid of surplus employees than to have the remainder of the workforce take a pay cut in order to keep these surplus employees on the payroll doing nothing
> 
> I actually believe that there is more scope for savings from staff cuts than pay cuts. With pay cuts, politically speaking, you're not going to be able to go beyond single digit percentages for most, particularly since a 7.5% pay cut has already taken place. There are politically inspired agencies where you could cut 100% of the staff without any impact on public services. In admin heavy local politics dominated organisations such as the HSE, you could easily cut around 20% of the staff (mostly on the admin side - hangover from health boards e.g.the plethora of "assistant national directors" and their staff) and have little or no impact on services.


 
I don't think putting 30,000 public sector workers on the dole would be a good idea.

I would agree, however, that a uniform across the board cut without reform is not the best solution either.


----------



## Complainer

oldtimer said:


> So, how many AAM posters are ready for the ''Get UP, Stand Up campaign on Friday. From the count on this thread it appears about 2.


Let's not pretend that AAM is representative or balanced in this matter.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Let's not pretend that AAM is representative or balanced in this matter.



Maybe it is...


----------



## sunrock

I`d be in favor of a pay cut for all public sector employees.Say 10% for each public servant.If one cut 10% of the jobs,then these workers would just go straight on the dole which would cost the government more than the reduced tax from the pay cut.The other thing to bear in mind is the real cost of the downturn is going to be borne by all those people coming into the job market.....school leavers and graduates who will find a public sector embargo.This will result in the greying ..hair that is... of the remaining public sector employees  and unemployed youth. The problem is there is no where to emigrate to anymore.


----------



## Sunny

Nobody here is qualified to give a precise % pay cut that should be inflicted on people. I don't care how the Government save the money on the public sector pay bill as long as they do it.


----------



## johnd

Besides the Public Sector Trade Unions who else do you think will turn up? - let me guess - Sinn Fein, People before Profit, Socialist Party of Ireland, Communist Party of Ireland, Youth Defence, Shell to Sea, every other protest group with an axe to grind and nowhere to protest. In short all the usual suspects. All we need now is for Joe Coleman to show up too.


----------



## Deiseblue

johnd said:


> Besides the Public Sector Trade Unions who else do you think will turn up? - let me guess - Sinn Fein, People before Profit, Socialist Party of Ireland, Communist Party of Ireland, Youth Defence, Shell to Sea, every other protest group with an axe to grind and nowhere to protest. In short all the usual suspects. All we need now is for Joe Coleman to show up too.


And me !
Not alligned to any of the groups mentioned above.


----------



## Caveat

Deiseblue said:


> And me !
> Not alligned to any of the groups mentioned above.


 
Personally speaking, what exactly will you be protesting about?

If it is simply a case of "leave my job, pay and all conditions associated with it alone", what do you suggest as an alternative to the dept. of finance deficit?


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> And me !
> Not alligned to any of the groups mentioned above.



In the Jack O'Connor thread you said that you are a committed trade unionist.


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> In the Jack O'Connor thread you said that you are a committed trade unionist.


Indeed I am but I am not a member of a Public Sector Trade Union or any of the other bodies mentioned.


----------



## liaconn

sunrock said:


> I`d be in favor of a pay cut for all public sector employees.Say 10% for each public servant.


 
What a deeply analytical and well thought out comment


----------



## sunrock

Well how thought out was benchmarking over the last 10 years?
Roll back benchmarking then to 2000 levels.
The problem is our public service is overpaid.Also the public sector employees should be flexible enough to be moved to areas where the workload is heavier..like in our social welfare offices.The alternative is job cuts and redundancies and a public sector embargo. There will still be a small amount of jobs coming on stream but one would need serious connections to get them.
I also think job sharing or part time work is a good idea.


----------



## DerKaiser

sunrock said:


> Well how thought out was benchmarking over the last 10 years?
> Roll back benchmarking then to 2000 levels.


Close to 30% cuts there (if we allow for inflation), maybe 10% shouldn't be so unpalatable to public servants after all!


----------



## liaconn

sunrock said:


> Well how thought out was benchmarking over the last 10 years?
> Roll back benchmarking then to 2000 levels.
> The problem is our public service is overpaid.Also the public sector employees should be flexible enough to be moved to areas where the workload is heavier..like in our social welfare offices.The alternative is job cuts and redundancies and a public sector embargo. There will still be a small amount of jobs coming on stream but one would need serious connections to get them.
> I also think job sharing or part time work is a good idea.


 
Job sharing and part time hours have been available for years in the Public Service. Staff have already been moved from Govt Departments to ramp up the service in social welfare offices. There is already a Public Service embargo and 'connections' will not get you a job in most public service organisations. In fact, trying to use connections will get you barred from competitions for jobs in the public service and this is stated on all application forms.


----------



## thedaras

Purple said:


> In the Jack O'Connor thread you said that you are a committed trade unionist.


 Well spoted..god your quick!


----------



## thedaras

johnd said:


> Besides the Public Sector Trade Unions who else do you think will turn up? - let me guess - Sinn Fein, People before Profit, Socialist Party of Ireland, Communist Party of Ireland, Youth Defence, Shell to Sea, every other protest group with an axe to grind and nowhere to protest. In short all the usual suspects. All we need now is for Joe Coleman to show up too.


 
Did you forget the very militant employees of private companys whom will be put at the top of the march (to show the private sector support), with big banners like ;SR Technics or maybe Coca Cola !! Was thinking of waterford crystal ,oh but they dont exsist any longer.....


----------



## johnd

I guarantee you that children will again be pushed to the front with placards saying "No cutbacks in education" and "Save our Schools" while the adults in the background who shamefully uses them will look for any passing photographer to "capture the angry mood".


----------



## Deiseblue

thedaras said:


> Well spoted..god your quick!


Indeed it's good to see that my posts are read !
I am however a member of a private sector union that has no members in the public sector nor do I belong to any of the other bodies detailed and as such fit none of the categories mentioned by JohnD.


----------



## dockingtrade

loads will turn out for different reasons  on Friday and basically what will happen is the unions will spin it the govt on how much support they have and how much support they have against cuts to ps pay.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Indeed it's good to see that my posts are read !



I sit up at night waiting for them!


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> I sit up at night waiting for them!


 
Sarky devil !


----------



## z107

Someone's hacked [broken link removed]

They're running an adwords campaign too.


----------



## DrMoriarty

> This crisis demands fresh thinking. So far all we've seen are reruns and reheats of the same failed red dawn attitudes.


 Presuming that they're referring to that (awful) 1984 film, what has ICTU's campaign got to do with Russian and Cuban armies invading Uncle Sam? 

This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, maybe [broken link removed] _is_ going to show up!


----------



## Firefly

I can see the gubbernment playing verbal hardball on this but all that will happen is that recruitment will be freezed (hopefully) pay rates will remain the same and that the numbers retiring willl facilitate a reduction in the work force.  

If I had my way I would introduce a policy whereby all staff in quangos would be made reapply for their positions and all such positions are of a temporary nature. I'd then apply this model to the general civil service. I think standards and efficiency would increase if people were hired on a contract basis.


----------



## Caveat

So when is this all kicking off - this afternoon isn't it?

What exactly will be happening?! I'm not entirely sure.

Is this simply a show of strength/unofficial mini strike?


----------



## levelpar

Great stroke by the Union bosses. Organise a national one day stoppage.  Divert attention away from the publicity around their €3000  to €4000 PER WEEK salaries 

The only ones who will suffer will be those who  lose a day's pay


----------



## Purple

levelpar said:


> Great stroke by the Union bosses. Organise a national one day stoppage.  Divert attention away from the publicity around their €3000  to €4000 PER WEEK salaries
> 
> The only ones who will suffer will be those who  lose a day's pay



There's be a plethora of wet beards in town this sfternoon so we'll all have to pay for their week of while they recover from their colds.


----------



## levelpar

> There's be a plethora of wet beards in town this sfternoon so we'll all have to pay for their week of while they recover from their colds


 
I hope that one of them is not Santa. I would hate if he got the flu as I am hoping that he will bring me a photo album of Nigella Lawson.


----------



## smiley

Purple said:


> There's be a plethora of wet beards in town this sfternoon so we'll all have to pay for their week of while they recover from their colds.



Are you a member of a trade union?? From reading your posts it doesn't look like you are.

If you are not a trade union member you don't contribute to the leaders salaries...or the wet beards as you call them.


----------



## Purple

smiley said:


> Are you a member of a trade union?? From reading your posts it doesn't look like you are.


 You have me pegged.



smiley said:


> If you are not a trade union member you don't contribute to the leaders salaries...or the wet beards as you call them.


 No, but I contribute a large amount to their members salaries.


----------



## smiley

Purple said:


> You have me pegged.
> 
> No, but I contribute a large amount to their members salaries.




Sorry, but i couldn't let you off with that lol

Keep up the good work regarding contributing to the members salaries!


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> There's be a plethora of wet beards in town this sfternoon so we'll all have to pay for their week of while they recover from their colds.


Bit previous there Purple !
The sun shone brightly on us , as we knew it would !


----------



## RMCF

We're heading for a lot of strikes !!!


----------



## Purple

RTE, the public sector broadcaster, had its usual sycophantic pro-union report on the news last night. It was good to see Jack O’Connor say that they would ensure that the top 5% pay their fair share. Since he’s one of that 5% it’s the first time I have seen a union boss step up to the plate and offer to take his fair share.
I realise that many of the union members posting here are not as wealthy as Jack O’Connor or the other members of the elite in Ireland but never the less they should follow his lead; stop whining, stop being selfish, but the country and its children’s future first, and offer to take their fair share of the pain.

Well done Jack.


----------



## bogle

RMCF said:


> We're heading for a lot of strikes !!!



Not necessarily. By and large the Irish PS/CS don't really do strikes in the same manner as our continental cousins do. As I said before I've been a member of Impact since 1995 and have never been involved in industrial action. 

Everybody accepts there needs to be cutbacks. Its just a question of how they are to be done - optics are very important in this situation. A bit of imagination is needed from all sides. I hope all parties can show some flexibility and hammer out some sort of deal.

Aside:
I've just finished reading David Murphy's and Martina Devlin's book Banksters. Amazing stuff - and these are just the bits that they could publish!


----------



## thedaras

Purple said:


> [*QUOTE]RTE, the public sector broadcaster, had its usual sycophantic pro-union report on the news last night*.


 
It was for this very reason that Id take the news reports with a pinch of salt.
I do hope  people realise turkeys wont vote for Christmas.


----------



## Complainer

peelaaa said:


> I have my collection of rotten eggs at the ready for those picket lines. Can't wait.


Nice - why don't you go for a drive with a few teenage boys and see if you can cause permanent injury 



Firefly said:


> If I had my way I would introduce a policy whereby all staff in quangos would be made reapply for their positions and all such positions are of a temporary nature. I'd then apply this model to the general civil service. I think standards and efficiency would increase if people were hired on a contract basis.


Why limit the efficiency improvements to the public service? Surely this would improve efficiency in the banks and the retailers and the factories too? Let's take the same approach with your job and every job - right?



thedaras said:


> It was for this very reason that Id take the news reports with a pinch of salt.


Me too - every time I read that anti-public-service stuff in the Indo or the Sunday Times.


----------



## Caveat

Well various media will always give different slants - that's a given.

Based on the people from around the country I have spoken to, I don't think this had the desired affect yesterday.  Support in numbers wasn't huge seemingly - coupled with perhaps a greater than expected level of hectoring/displays of disapproval etc.


----------



## thedaras

Complainer said:


> Nice - why don't you go for a drive with a few teenage boys and see if you can cause permanent injury
> 
> *Thats an awfull thing to happen to anyone...*
> 
> *I thought nurses were very badly paid,so how come she said she had lost earnings of €1.5m --,maybe that is badly paid..*
> 
> 
> 
> Why limit the efficiency improvements to the public service? Surely this would improve efficiency in the banks and the retailers and the factories too? Let's take the same approach with your job and every job - right?
> 
> *Its called being sacked*.*Which does happen out here..but not in there!*
> *I worked in the public sector by the way and the most appalling behaviour had absolutly no repercussions.*
> 
> 
> Me too - every time I read that anti-public-service stuff in the Indo or the Sunday Times.


 
*And Espcially  RTE ,one must keep in mind that they are public service..*


----------



## Complainer

thedaras said:


> *Its called being sacked*.*Which does happen out here..but not in there!*


Tell that to these 3,000 http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-new...r-3000-council-staff-let-go-during-recession/ and that's just one sector. But Firefly's suggestion was not just about non-performers - he wants to sack everybody.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Tell that to these 3,000 http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-new...r-3000-council-staff-let-go-during-recession/ and that's just one sector. But Firefly's suggestion was not just about non-performers - he wants to sack everybody.



That's not the same thing at all and you know it.
I have never read a direct answer from Complainer to a hard question, just deflection and negative insinuations that do not share his socialist dogma.


----------



## S.L.F

csirl said:


> Its a starting point. A saving of 10% from staff cuts is the same as a 10% saving from pay cuts from the exchequer's point of view. As I've said many times on various threads before, it is better to get rid of surplus employees than to have the remainder of the workforce take a pay cut in order to keep these surplus employees on the payroll doing nothing.
> 
> I actually believe that there is more scope for savings from staff cuts than pay cuts. With pay cuts, politically speaking, you're not going to be able to go beyond single digit percentages for most, particularly since a 7.5% pay cut has already taken place. There are politically inspired agencies where you could cut 100% of the staff without any impact on public services. In admin heavy local politics dominated organisations such as the HSE, you could easily cut around 20% of the staff (mostly on the admin side - hangover from health boards e.g.the plethora of "assistant national directors" and their staff) and have little or no impact on services.


 
Try this for size-you get rid of 10% of the PS that is 38,000 people  so every week you'll have another bill of 8,000,00 for dole payments plus what ever other things people on the dole get.

I'm sure most people in the public service would rather work an extra 5 hours per week rather than lose their hard earned money.


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> That's not the same thing at all and you know it.
> I have never read a direct answer from Complainer to a hard question, just deflection and negative insinuations that do not share his socialist dogma.


 
Maybe if you asked a question like Complainer, "what do you think we should do?", rather than the "have you quit beating your wife up type questions" or the "we are going to cut one of your hands off, which one do you want to lose" type of questions.

Just thought of something the ERSI report took the pay of the entire PS and said it was overpaid.

Rates of pay are pretty much the same where ever you go in Ireland.

It did not go region by region, things are cheaper down the country.

eg a teacher or a nurse down in Kanturk would be far better off than a teacher in Dublin.


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> Rates of pay are pretty much the same where ever you go in Ireland.
> 
> It did not go region by region, things are cheaper down the country.
> 
> eg a teacher or a nurse down in Kanturk would be far better off than a teacher in Dublin.


 Are you saying that teachers in rural areas should be paid less?


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> Are you saying that teachers in rural areas should be paid less?


 
This is the type of question you ask Complainer.

I believe that if you live in a high cost area you should have an allowance to allow you to live there ie in London Nurses get a "London Allowance" (or something similiar) to live in the city


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> Maybe if you asked a question like Complainer, "what do you think we should do?", rather than the "have you quit beating your wife up type questions" or the "we are going to cut one of your hands off, which one do you want to lose" type of questions.



There have been lots of threads about what we should do. You have posted your ideas, I have posted mine, others have posted their. Not once have I read anything constructive from our friend. I have only seen a stream of condescending negativity aimed at the constructive posts of others.


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> There have been lots of threads about what we should do. You have posted your ideas, I have posted mine, others have posted their. Not once have I read anything constructive from our friend. I have only seen a stream of condescending negativity aimed at the constructive posts of others.


 
Here lies the crux of the matter a good few people have written stuff that is total nonsense and he and I and a few other have exposed all of them as being total nonsense but at a certain point you get tired of doing constructive posts to refute nonsensical arguments and get well tired and end up being, well, negative and since his name is Complainer well what do you expect?...


----------



## thedaras

S.L.F said:


> This is the type of question you ask Complainer.
> 
> I believe that if you live in a high cost area you should have an allowance to allow you to live there ie in London Nurses get a "London Allowance" (or something similiar) to live in the city


 
Dont ALL gardai get a rent allowence ,regardless of where they live??


----------



## thedaras

Purple said:


> Are you saying that teachers in rural areas should be paid less?


 
This is a very good question and these type of questions are not "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions,but are nessasary to try to establish exactly what a poster is saying .

They are also nessasary as some posters will say things without making their point clear,therby making other posters post claifaction posts.


----------



## S.L.F

thedaras said:


> Dont ALL gardai get a rent allowence ,regardless of where they live??


 
Yes they do because they can be posted to the other side of the country at the drop of a hat.

I know one Garda who is from Kerry lives in Dublin but works in Donegal.



thedaras said:


> This is a very good question and these type of questions are not "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions,but are nessasary to try to establish exactly what a poster is saying .
> 
> They are also nessasary as some posters will say things without making their point clear,therby making other posters post claifaction posts.


 
Yes but he is not being clear is he saying the country folk should be paid less then the Dublin workers or should Dublin workers be paid more than country workers.


----------



## thedaras

S.L.F said:


> Yes they do because they can be posted to the other side of the country at the drop of a hat.
> 
> I know one Garda who is from Kerry lives in Dublin but works in Donegal.
> 
> 
> *I think that if they do get moved to the other side of the country then and only then should they recieve a rent allowence!*
> 
> *It is crazy  that they get it as just in case.*
> 
> *I know a lot of guards and they have lived in the same house / same area all their lives and they get this allowence.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but he is not being clear is he saying the country folk should be paid less then the Dublin workers or should Dublin workers be paid more than country workers.


 
*When I lived in the country ,certaintly house/car insurance was cheaper.*
*Houses are cheaper too.*
*so maybe the allowence should be looked at and those who are moved to the country should have their wages reduced..*


----------



## S.L.F

thedaras said:


> *When I lived in the country ,certaintly house/car insurance was cheaper.*
> *Houses are cheaper too.*
> *so maybe the allowence should be looked at and those who are moved to the country should have their wages reduced..*


 
Well since the Garda are are of the public service maybe everyone who has to leave their home or travel (big distances) to work in the public service should get it.


----------



## thedaras

S.L.F said:


> Well since the Garda are are of the public service maybe everyone who has to leave their home or travel (big distances) to work in the public service should get it.


I dont get you there?

Many people I know have to travel from areas such as Kilkenny,carlow ,wexford,waterford o Dublin for example,each and every day and they dont get a rent allowence .

They just have to do it so they can have a job...


----------



## Complainer

thedaras said:


> I dont get you there?
> 
> Many people I know have to travel from areas such as Kilkenny,carlow ,wexford,waterford o Dublin for example,each and every day and they dont get a rent allowence .


But they are not going to find themselves moved from Kilkenny to Sligo at the drop of a hat.


----------



## thedaras

Complainer said:


> But they are not going to find themselves moved from Kilkenny to Sligo at the drop of a hat.


 
No,but for work they may have too.
In fairness,come on now ,how many Gardai are moved at the drop of a hat?
If they are ,I for one have no problem with them being paid an allowence.
Presuming its subjected to BIK?
As an aside Ive started a thread on this subject as I feel its not relevant to the this post..


----------



## z107

Maybe if you're the government right now, it makes sense to keep the guards and army happy. They would be my top priority if I were brian cowen.


----------



## S.L.F

thedaras said:


> As an aside Ive started a thread on this subject as I feel its not relevant to the this post..


 
Eh but it was your good self who brought the matter up in the first place.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=956712&postcount=212



> Dont ALL gardai get a rent allowence ,regardless of where they live??


----------



## thedaras

S.L.F said:


> Eh but it was your good self who brought the matter up in the first place.
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=956712&postcount=212


 
I think you will find it was in fact you who brought up the subject



			
				[B said:
			
		

> _S.L.F_[/B];956693]
> 
> *I believe that if you live in a high cost area you should have an allowance to allow you to live there ie in London Nurses get a "London Allowance" (or something similiar) to live in the city*


----------



## Brendan Burgess

OK Folks

as the mods have now had to intervene twice in this thread, I am closing it.

Brendan


----------

