# Vinne Browne on Gilmore & Rabbitt



## Firefly (9 Jan 2013)

A rather scathing attack from another leftie. Is it all going Pete Tong for Labour? 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Knuttell (9 Jan 2013)

Labour will be eviscerated at the next election,no problem for Tweedledum and Tweedledee as they will waddle off into the sunset with fine big pensions.


----------



## celebtastic (9 Jan 2013)

Labour are a disaster of a party - little more than a mouthpiece for their Union paymasters. Their refusal to tear up the Croker agreement will cost them dear.

But who will replace them? I cant see FG hooking up with SF/IRA, so it could well be a FG/FF coalition.


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Jan 2013)

The next red c poll will be awaited nervously by the current Government partners , the last poll showed Labour marginally up at 14 %.

Labour have never fallen below 10% since 1989 & I think that " evisceration " of the Party is unlikely - it was , to my mind , apparent that a lot of Public Sector votes were garnered by FG & Labour in the last election based on the fact that both Parties undertook to honour the Croke Park Agreement.

On the basis that Labour are viewed generally as being more committed to the CPA than FG I would imagine that their support within the Public Sector electorate rump will increase.

Much is of course dependant on putative forthcoming negotiations on CPA 2 & the electorates reluctance to commit more fully to the appalling Sinn Fein.

Perhaps the most obvious answer to the current Government's prayers is that things will have improved by 2015 thereby increasing their chances of capturing the majority of votes.


----------



## celebtastic (9 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> ...the electorates reluctance to commit more fully to the appalling Sinn Fein.



Disappointing that Gilmore is so evasive about his own relationship with Sinn Fein:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-on-former-links-with-sinn-fein-14968291.html

Still, at least him and his union cronies will enjoy healthy ministerial pensions for the rest of their days.


----------



## Firefly (9 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> On the basis that Labour are viewed generally as being more committed to the CPA than FG I would imagine that their support within the Public Sector electorate rump will increase.


 
I agree and the fact the PS numbers swelled in the "Good Times" is ultimately a good thing for Labour.

Sadly, I see CPA 2 focusing on more "efficiencies" with more lumpsum payoffs to early retirement coupled with ever decreasing services. With so many leaving our shores though, the question begs...*are we going to run out of taxpayers?*


----------



## dereko1969 (9 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> I agree and the fact the PS numbers swelled in the "Good Times" is ultimately a good thing for Labour.
> 
> Sadly, I see CPA 2 focusing on more "efficiencies" with more lumpsum payoffs to early retirement coupled with ever decreasing services. With so many leaving our shores though, the question begs...*are we going to run out of taxpayers?*


 
Ah yes the usual, I think you've forgotten again that public sector workers are also taxpayers.


----------



## Complainer (9 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> Their refusal to tear up the Croker agreement will cost them dear.


Would that be the same agreement that all three main parties supported in their election manifestos last time round?


----------



## celebtastic (10 Jan 2013)

Complainer said:


> Would that be the same agreement that all three main parties supported in their election manifestos last time round?



CLAUSE 1.28 of the Croke Park agreement on public service pay and  conditions states: “The implementation of this agreement is subject to  no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration.”

Time for the government to grow a spine and invoke that clause.

If they don't, future Irish generations will be burdened with huge debts for the current largesse. Why make our grandchildren pay?

As another poster has pointed out, if unemployment and emigration remain at current levels - it is really only a matter of time before we reach a break point.

The time to act on public sector pay and pensions is now - if we leave it much longer, it will require much much more severe remedial action in the future.


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2013)

dereko1969 said:


> Ah yes the usual, I think you've forgotten again that public sector workers are also taxpayers.


 
Hi dereko,

Say the government pays out 20bn in salaries & pensions to the public sector. Perhaps 12bn of this will come back in taxes (income, VAT etc). The shortfall of 8bn  comes from the private sector. It's these taxpayers that I fear are running out. Sadly the PS cannot fund itself - and this is perfectly understandable - no democratic country in the world has such a public sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a well-paid public sector, but strongly feel that it should only be funded from current taxation. 

Firefly.


----------



## Bill Struth (10 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> The time to act on public sector pay and pensions is now - if we leave it much longer, it will require much much more severe remedial action in the future.


 OK so, time to act! What do you propose and how much will your proposals save?


----------



## celebtastic (10 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Hi dereko,
> 
> Say the government pays out 20bn in salaries & pensions to the public sector. Perhaps 12bn of this will come back in taxes (income, VAT etc). The shortfall of 8bn  comes from the private sector. It's these taxpayers that I fear are running out. Sadly the PS cannot fund itself - and this is perfectly understandable - no democratic country in the world has such a public sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a well-paid public sector, but strongly feel that it should only be funded from current taxation.
> 
> Firefly.



+1

 Taxing the already hard pressed private sector worker is the easy option for the Labour party, rather than addressing massive overspending on social welfare and public sector pay and pensions

In the words of Winston Churchill:

"_a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."_


----------



## cork (10 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> CLAUSE 1.28 of the Croke Park agreement on public service pay and  conditions states: “The implementation of this agreement is subject to  no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration.”.



Could be any clearer.

Brian Lenihan had the courage to bring in the pensions levy.

This reform of the public sector by this government has been pretty poor.


----------



## celebtastic (10 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> OK so, time to act! What do you propose and how much will your proposals save?



My proposal is another round of benchmarking.

Payrates for similar jobs in the public sector are anything up to 20% higher than equivalent roles in the private sector:
[broken link removed]

Also we need to substantially address our over-generous welfare system. How can a country that is almost broke, afford to pay our young people up to €188 per week to sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle? 

For too long we have been bribing ourselves with our own money. By addressing payment rates in the welfare and public sector, we can make the cuts we need without damaging frontline services.


----------



## Bill Struth (10 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> My proposal is another round of benchmarking.
> 
> Payrates for similar jobs in the public sector are anything up to 20% higher than equivalent roles in the private sector:
> [broken link removed]
> ...


 From your link:



> But statisticians warned the analysis does not compare similar jobs between the public and private sectors.


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> My proposal is another round of benchmarking.


 
Although I've called for this before, I don't think this is the answer. Making salaries in the public sector match those in the private sector ignores the numbers of workers in either sector. In our situation with a recently expanded public sector and lots of people unemployed, equating the two salaries could still leave us unable to pay.

Funding government expenditure from current taxation is a better way.

What would it save - hard to estimate without being privy to the figures available to the Dept of Finance.


----------



## Complainer (10 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> From your link:



Ah here, don't let facts get in the way of his argument.


----------



## celebtastic (11 Jan 2013)

And yet, the public sector unions were perfectly happy to agree such comparators when it suited them during the infamous "benchmarking" excercises,

Remember Joe O'Toole's free ATM?

So much for the "we're all in it together" mullarkey


----------



## Firefly (11 Jan 2013)

Complainer said:


> Ah here, don't let facts get in the way of his argument.


 
The fact is that it doesn't really matter that the jobs are different...the employer can't pay for them without borrowing money, which will have to be repaid by your kids and mine. Of course, it might be convenient for some people to tell them it was all down to bailing out the banks..


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2013)

Vincent Browne is in favour of a maximum salary in all sectors (what very successful business owners, authors, artists, musicians, patent holders and people who gamble or trade shares etc are meant to do with their excess income is unclear). He’s spoken glowingly about the 90% income tax rate that the USA had in the 1950’s, though he conveniently ignored all the exemptions that applied and the fact that when index linked it would apply only to incomes over $1.6 million. I won’t comment on his own record in business other to say that it’s not what would be termed as “glowing”. 
He is the quintessential smoked salmon socialist; well meaning but destructive to the interests of the people whose interests he earnestly champions. He is destructive not because he’s not clever; he’s a very smart man. He is destructive because he’s blinded by a bankrupt ideology called socialism and he feels betrayed when others who have espoused that dogma come to see that it just doesn’t do what it’s meant to do and so move to a more pragmatic and productive position which may actually help those most in need.


----------



## callybags (11 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> CLAUSE 1.28 of the Croke Park agreement on public service pay and conditions states: “The implementation of this agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration.”
> 
> Time for the government to grow a spine and invoke that clause.


 
I have often seen this clause referred to as a way for the government to cut public sector pay within the parameters of the CPA.

However, I cannt see where there has been "unforseen budgetary deterioration" since the agreement was put in place.

Maybe I am wrong.


----------



## celebtastic (11 Jan 2013)

You may have missed the bit where we had to go begging to the IMF to get them to bail the country out due to unforseen budgetary deterioration


----------



## callybags (11 Jan 2013)

The CPA was signed on 06th June 2010.

The bailout was finally agreed on or about 29th November 2010.

I think the 2dogs in the street" knew in June that we were headed for a bailout from the IMF.

I don't think there were any "unforseen budgetary deteriorations" between June and November 2010.

Again, maybe I am wrong and would welcome the details of such "unforseen deterioration".


----------



## Firefly (11 Jan 2013)

callybags said:


> Again, maybe I am wrong and would welcome the details of such "unforseen deterioration".


 
Hi callybags,

You're probably right. It still doesn't change the fact though that the next generation, as well as trying to pay for their own current expenditure will also have to pay for ours, along with interest.

Firefly.


----------



## callybags (11 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Hi callybags,
> 
> You're probably right. It still doesn't change the fact though that the next generation, as well as trying to pay for their own current expenditure will also have to pay for ours, along with interest.
> 
> Firefly.


 
I fully agree.

I just think it doesn't do the debate any good to introduce red herrings.

There should be targeted redundancies- not voluntary in the public service to reduce the payroll substantially. This should be insisted upon in the next round of negotiations.

From what I can see the majority of salaries ( or where most of the overall spend on salaries goes) are not excessive, so apart from the optics of reducing the higher paid people the savings will have to come from a reduction in the numbers, but as I said above it will have to be targeted to reduce the cuts to services.


----------



## celebtastic (11 Jan 2013)

callybags said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> I just think it doesn't do the debate any good to introduce red herrings.
> 
> There should be targeted redundancies- not voluntary in the public service to reduce the payroll substantially. This should be insisted upon in the next round of negotiations.



I fully agree.

Both the numbers and the pension and salary levels need to be dramatically cut.



callybags said:


> From what I can see the majority of salaries ( or where most of the  overall spend on salaries goes) are not excessive, so apart from the  optics of reducing the higher paid people the savings will have to come  from a reduction in the numbers, but as I said above it will have to be  targeted to reduce the cuts to services.



Not sure I agree on that one. A more detailed analysis, similar to that dine under the benchmarking fiasco needs to be done to answer this authoritatively.

The CSO's latest report makes interesting reading.

According to Table 1 on Page 6, average earnings in the public sector are, in fact, 50% higher than those in the private sector. 
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/re...cuments/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q32012.pdf


With the country broke, and the Government themselves forecasting that we need to borrow €15,000,000,000 this year alone - something dramatic needs to be done. 
http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2013/Documents/Budget 2013 - Economic and Fiscal Outlook.pdf


We owe it to future generations of Irish taxpayers not to cut back dramatically now.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2013)

The issue isn’t that people in the public sector are overpaid; that’s a subjective argument. 
The issue is that Ireland Inc. can’t afford the bill. That’s what needs to be addressed; how do we deliver the same services for less money overall. If the Croke Park agreement can achieve that then great but so far there’s little evidence of that. It’s made savings and under normal circumstances it would be great but these aren’t normal circumstances.
Vinnie doesn't seem to be willing to accept that.


----------



## T McGibney (14 Jan 2013)

callybags said:


> The CPA was signed on 06th June 2010.
> 
> The bailout was finally agreed on or about 29th November 2010.
> 
> I think the 2dogs in the street" knew in June that we were headed for a bailout from the IMF.



A number of senior government ministers of the time certainly didn't - and at least one political career was badly damaged as a result.


----------



## Complainer (15 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> The CSO's latest report makes interesting reading.
> 
> According to Table 1 on Page 6, average earnings in the public sector are, in fact, 50% higher than those in the private sector.
> http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/re...cuments/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q32012.pdf


You still haven't got the hang of the averages thing, have you? On average, houses in Dublin are more expensive than houses outside Dublin. Does that mean that all house prices in Dublin are over-priced?


----------



## Firefly (16 Jan 2013)

Complainer said:


> You still haven't got the hang of the averages thing, have you? On average, houses in Dublin are more expensive than houses outside Dublin. Does that mean that all house prices in Dublin are over-priced?


 
And what happened when everyone knew that they had become too expensive and no-one could afford them? Their prices came down...


----------



## Chris (16 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Say the government pays out 20bn in salaries & pensions to the public sector. Perhaps 12bn of this will come back in taxes (income, VAT etc). The shortfall of 8bn  comes from the private sector. It's these taxpayers that I fear are running out. Sadly the PS cannot fund itself - and this is perfectly understandable - no democratic country in the world has such a public sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a well-paid public sector, but strongly feel that it should only be funded from current taxation.



You forget one important thing. Anybody who gets paid out of the tax coffers, does not contribute to the tax revenue by being taxed on income. The government does not end up with something that it didn't already have before it paid someone. The €20bn used for salaries has to originally come from the private economy. Government does not have any money of its own and cannot perpetuate income from its direct employees.
I agree that we do want a well paid public sector for the services we actually really need. Instead of pay cuts we should be getting rid of services that are not critical and in many cases completely unnecessary or useless.


----------



## celebtastic (17 Jan 2013)

Chris said:


> Y...we should be getting rid of services that are not critical and in many cases completely unnecessary or useless.


 
+1

We should be doing this in addition to dramatically cutting public sector pay and pensions.

The precedent is there - the unions have signed up to substantially inferior terms and conditions for new joiners (ie non-members). 

If such terms are acceptable for new joiners, surely they should be acceptable for existing members.

Ni neart go cur le ceile, and all that ...


----------



## brigade (17 Jan 2013)

So, by how much do you think pay and pensions should be "dramatically" cut by?


----------



## Marion (17 Jan 2013)

The precedent is there - the unions have signed up to substantially inferior terms and conditions for new joiners (ie non-members). 


What evidence do you have of this? Ie:new joiners are non members?


Marion


----------



## Purple (18 Jan 2013)

Marion said:


> What evidence do you have of this? Ie:new joiners are non members?
> 
> Marion




Good question. I don’t see how it can be said one way or the other if new entrants have joined a union. 

Mind you, if I saw my future career prospects and pay and pension eviscerated by the union fat cats in order to protect their mates I would be slow to join up in order to fund their salaries and pensions.


----------



## Deiseblue (18 Jan 2013)

Purple said:


> Good question. I don’t see how it can be said one way or the other if new entrants have joined a union.
> 
> Mind you, if I saw my future career prospects and pay and pension eviscerated by the union fat cats in order to protect their mates I would be slow to join up in order to fund their salaries and pensions.



On the bright side , as you have opined from time to time , nobody can deny that the Unions have done great work on behalf of their members particularly in terms of pay !

Betcha the members of SIPTU ( Ireland's biggest Union ) in general are happy with Jack O'Connor ( current salary euro 112,600 per annum ) - certainly happier than the shareholders of AIB , BOI & Anglo where the true fat cats Sheehy , Goggin & Seanie earned millions , Goggin alone in his last full year earned  a salary of 3 million euros !


----------



## Complainer (20 Jan 2013)

Chris said:


> You forget one important thing. Anybody who gets paid out of the tax coffers, does not contribute to the tax revenue by being taxed on income. The government does not end up with something that it didn't already have before it paid someone. The €20bn used for salaries has to originally come from the private economy. Government does not have any money of its own and cannot perpetuate income from its direct employees.


I see, so civil and public servants don't pay tax. Interesting. I guess you'll be happy to use my net salary and not my gross in any future salary comparisons then, given that I don't pay any tax - right?




Chris said:


> Instead of pay cuts we should be getting rid of services that are not critical and in many cases completely unnecessary or useless.


Would you care to be specific about which services are 'completely unnecessary or useless'?


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Complainer said:


> I see, so civil and public servants don't pay tax. Interesting. I guess you'll be happy to use my net salary and not my gross in any future salary comparisons then, given that I don't pay any tax - right?


 
That's probably a good idea actually, as your net salary is exactly what has to be raised via taxation from the private sector.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> That's probably a good idea actually, as your net salary is exactly what has to be raised via taxation from the private sector.



You'd have to include allowances and the cost of pension funding to get that figure. It may be higher than the gross figure!


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> On the bright side , as you have opined from time to time , nobody can deny that the Unions have done great work on behalf of their members particularly in terms of pay !


 
I fully agree..the unions have done a great job for their members. For real proof, all you have to look at is ballooning in our national debt. Who cares though right, cos it's our kids/grand kids that will have to pay for it eh?

Croke Park has resulted in Services rather than Salaries being cut. This protects those in the PS in the short-term, but when say someone who retires from the PS gets sick and ends up on a trolley in A&E for a few days, or when their disabled grand son can't get special care or if God forbid they are burgled and beaten in the middle of the night but their nearest Garda station has been closed? Would it not be better to reduce pay and maintain services?


----------



## Bill Struth (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> That's probably a good idea actually, as your net salary is exactly what has to be raised via taxation from the private sector.


And how much of that tax take comes from the pocket of Public Servants when they pay VAT, VRT, etc. So how is it 'exactly' the amount?


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Purple said:


> You'd have to include allowances and the cost of pension funding to get that figure. It may be higher than the gross figure!


 
I was thinking about the lumpsum payments the other day. 1.5 times final salary...that's 100k for someone on 60k. I would seriously doubt that the salary deductions for pensions brought in last year / 2 years ago would even pay for the lumpsum never mind the pension itself.

The writing's on the wall. Jersey is looking very attractive to me I must say.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> And how much of that tax take comes from the pocket of Public Servants when they pay VAT, VRT, etc. So how is it 'exactly' the amount?


 
That's a fair point. More money is returned via VAT, VRT. However, as Purple points out I didn't include pensions which will dwarf all that anyway..

Every civilised country in the world has a public sector that has to fund from taxation. The function of the public sector is not to make a profit for the taxpayer in economic terms. The point I am making though, is that, IMO, the public sector should be funded from current taxation (what we can afford) as opposed to putting it on the credit card.


----------



## Bill Struth (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> That's a fair point. More money is returned via VAT, VRT. However, as Purple points out I didn't include pensions which will dwarf all that anyway..
> 
> Every civilised country in the world has a public sector that has to fund from taxation. The function of the public sector is not to make a profit for the taxpayer in economic terms. The point I am making though, is that, IMO, the public sector should be funded from current taxation (what we can afford) as opposed to putting it on the credit card.


You make it sound like public servants make no contribution whatsoever. 

My gross pay for last week was 628.49. 

Out of that came 107.49 in PAYE, PRSI and USC.
Pension related deductions amounted to 53.94.

If I was to retire tomorrow at the top of my gold plated pay scale, my rolls royce pension would amount to not much more than the state old age pension. 

Put it this way, if my pay is cut again, I'm off. I've a mortgage and a six month old daughter, We'd be better off on the dole.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> You make it sound like public servants make no contribution whatsoever.


 
Hi Bill,

I'm not making that point at all and no offense intended. The point I am making is that your net pay, plus you pension etc minus the taxes you pay are funded by the private sector (either currently via taxation or from borrowings which will be paid from future taxation).



Bill Struth said:


> My gross pay for last week was 628.49.
> 
> Out of that came 107.49 in PAYE, PRSI and USC.
> Pension related deductions amounted to 53.94.
> ...


 
That is probably true for you, but if you watched the Prime Time program on pensions last year, you will have seen how a worker in the private sector would need a pension pot of over 1 million euro to have a comparable pension as an average retired Garda.




Bill Struth said:


> Put it this way, if my pay is cut again, I'm off. I've a mortgage and a six month old daughter, We'd be better off on the dole.


 
Please don't take this the wrong way and it's not directed at you specifically, but is unemployment & emigration the preserve of the private sector?


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> I fully agree..the unions have done a great job for their members. For real proof, all you have to look at is ballooning in our national debt. Who cares though right, cos it's our kids/grand kids that will have to pay for it eh?
> 
> Croke Park has resulted in Services rather than Salaries being cut. This protects those in the PS in the short-term, but when say someone who retires from the PS gets sick and ends up on a trolley in A&E for a few days, or when their disabled grand son can't get special care or if God forbid they are burgled and beaten in the middle of the night but their nearest Garda station has been closed? Would it not be better to reduce pay and maintain services?



That's life , the PS have suffered two arbitrary paycuts - I would imagine that those employees feel that they have given enough & the Unions will have a massively difficult time in selling such employees any further Agreement that includes cuts to core pay.

Maintaining services has never been an option since the last Government decided to tackle matters by introducing a voluntary redundancy scheme which has been further extended by the current Government.

Granted this was done to guarantee Industrial peace - something that given the measures apparently being sought by the Government under CP2 may prove more difficult , I sure the Unions have been heartened somewhat by Minister Howlin's comments that he doesn't expect to achieve everything sought.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> That's life , the PS have suffered two arbitrary paycuts


 
I know one "cut" was where the PS have to make a contribution to their pension (as I've already posted...this cut probably won't even cover the lumpsum that they'll get on retirement, nevermind the pension itself).

What was the other paycut?




Deiseblue said:


> Maintaining services has never been an option since the last Government decided to tackle matters by introducing a voluntary redundancy scheme which has been further extended by the current Government.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> I know one "cut" was where the PS have to make a contribution to their pension (as I've already posted...this cut probably won't even cover the lumpsum that they'll get on retirement, nevermind the pension itself).
> 
> What was the other paycut?
> 
> ...



Brian Lenihan's 2010 Budget introduced further paycuts arbitrarily across the Public Sector.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> That's life , the PS have suffered two arbitrary paycuts - I would imagine that those employees feel that they have given enough & the Unions will have a massively difficult time in selling such employees any further Agreement that includes cuts to core pay.
> 
> Maintaining services has never been an option since the last Government decided to tackle matters by introducing a voluntary redundancy scheme which has been further extended by the current Government.
> 
> Granted this was done to guarantee Industrial peace - something that given the measures apparently being sought by the Government under CP2 may prove more difficult , I sure the Unions have been heartened somewhat by Minister Howlin's comments that he doesn't expect to achieve everything sought.


That shows the real gulf between the public sector and the commercial sector. In a business operating in an open market that had to make a profit the idea that the services they offer could be cut in order to reduce costs is nonsense. Would a shop stop selling things because the cost of employing sales staff was too high or would they reduce staff costs while still providing enough staff to satisfy customer needs?


----------



## Bill Struth (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way and it's not directed at you specifically, but is unemployment & emigration the preserve of the private sector?


Certainly not, a clerical officer colleague of mine emigrated to Australia recently with her husband and three kids.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> Brian Lenihan's 2010 Budget introduced further paycuts arbitrarily across the Public Sector.


 
Can you provide a link to any of them please?


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

Purple said:


> That shows the real gulf between the public sector and the commercial sector. In a business operating in an open market that had to make a profit the idea that the services they offer could be cut in order to reduce costs is nonsense. Would a shop stop selling things because the cost of employing sales staff was too high or would they reduce staff costs while still providing enough staff to satisfy customer needs?



That in reality merely reflects the fact that the commercial sector exists to make profits whereas the Public Sector exists to provide services to the public.

A further reality is that the previous Government & the current Government accepted the fact that PS employees had made major sacrifices in terms of pay & the blunt implement of major voluntary redundancy was essential to guarantee Industrial peace & indeed to play to the generally held belief that the PS was massively over staffed - unfortunately as anybody with any sense would have foreseen this led to a dimunition of services .


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Can you provide a link to any of them please?



Simply google " Irish budget 2010 " - there is a plethora of info.


To be honest I am very surprised that you did not know that there have been 2 paycuts imposed.


----------



## ajapale (21 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> Brian Lenihan's 2010 Budget introduced further paycuts arbitrarily across the Public Sector.



Across the public _*service*_ certainly but not across the entire broader public _*sector*_ (ESB, Bord Gais etc).


----------



## Protocol (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> I know one "cut" was where the PS have to make a contribution to their pension (as I've already posted...this cut probably won't even cover the lumpsum that they'll get on retirement, nevermind the pension itself).
> 
> What was the other paycut?


 

Firefly,

one cut is called the PRD or Pension levy, where PS workers make *more* pension conts.

NB: this is on top of existing 6.5% pension conts, i.e. it is an additional pension payment of approx 6-8%

So public servants pay up to 14% of pay in pension conts and PRD.

The PRD levy does not entitle you to any benefits.

The other cut was a straight cut to gross pay.


----------



## Protocol (21 Jan 2013)

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2010/Documents/Annexes%20to%20the%20Summary%20of%20Budget%20Measures%20Final.pdf

See page 27 for details of the 2010 cut to gross pay across the PS.


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

ajapale said:


> Across the public _*service*_ certainly but not across the entire broader public _*sector*_ (ESB, Bord Gais etc).



The commercial semi state bodies pay structures do not fall under the Government's bailiwick.


----------



## celebtastic (21 Jan 2013)

The Enda Kenny interview on RTE seems to suggest that the government is considering imposing a palty €1bn pay cut over the next three years:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0120/enda-kenny-twip.html

Too little, too late in my opinion.

At a bare minimum all the "increments" should be frozen, and "flexi" eliminated, in addition to a round of benchmarking. The unions seems very keen on the concept a few years ago. Why are they so reluctant to do it now?


----------



## dereko1969 (21 Jan 2013)

Including "flexi-time" in your eliminations just speaks to me of someone who hates civil and public service workers, I'm not sure what benefit you think will accrue from having people work a strict 9-5.


----------



## ajapale (21 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> At a bare minimum all the "increments" should be frozen, and "flexi" eliminated, in addition to a round of benchmarking.


I worked in a private sector organisation who operated a pay scale system similar to the public service. When the company was in financial difficulties the increments were frozen for about 4 years. Back increments were never paid but some got double increments on promotion.

Flexi time as operated in the civil service (and parts of the public service) is used by many private sector companies. Do you have any evidence that the elimination of the flexi time system would lead to net gains in productivity or significant net savings? If so why do many large private sector organisations use the system for its employees?

Finally in relation to reverse benchmarking, I am aware of a small number of public service employees who got 0% increase (or less than 1%). Would these employees only get a 0%-1% cut?


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> The Enda Kenny interview on RTE seems to suggest that the government is considering imposing a palty €1bn pay cut over the next three years:
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0120/enda-kenny-twip.html
> 
> ...



Well that's not quite what he said is it ?

He simply stated that the State had the power to arbitrarily cut pay for a third time in the absence of his preferred option - a mutually agreed settlement.

We are going to be inundated with posturing from both sides in coming weeks.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Protocol said:


> http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2010/Documents/Annexes to the Summary of Budget Measures Final.pdf
> 
> See page 27 for details of the 2010 cut to gross pay across the PS.


 
Hi Protocol,

Does that refer to existing staff or new staff?

Firefly.


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Hi Protocol,
> 
> Does that refer to existing staff or new staff?
> 
> Firefly.



Both .


----------



## Bill Struth (21 Jan 2013)

If Celebtastic has his/her way and flexible working hours are scrapped, the next time I'm asked to work late I'll have to be paid overtime. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Protocol (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly,

existing PS pensioners = 1 cut

exisiting PS staff = 2 cuts

new PS staff = 3 cuts, as new pay scales are 10% less


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Protocol said:


> Firefly,
> 
> existing PS pensioners = 1 cut
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for clarifying.

I think the increased pension contributions, although they result in a reduction in pay, are still pretty good value considering the pension of 2/3 final salary for existing staff along with a bonus of 1.5 times final pay. I'd be happy to sign up to such a pension 

The 2010 budget pay cuts, in fairness, seem large enough and it's probably a numbers game rather than a salary game at this stage. As customers, I think the taxpayer would be better served with a lot less quangos rather than a reduction in critical services such as Garda stations.


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> I think the increased pension contributions, although they result in a reduction in pay, are still pretty good value considering the pension of 2/3 final salary for existing staff along with a bonus of 1.5 times final pay. I'd be happy to sign up to such a pension
> 
> The 2010 budget pay cuts, in fairness, seem large enough and it's probably a numbers game rather than a salary game at this stage. As customers, I think the taxpayer would be better served with a lot less quangos rather than a reduction in critical services such as Garda stations.



PS pensions include the standard old age pension so unless you retire at a high grade they aren't that great. The lump sum on top of the pension is though.


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> I think the increased pension contributions, although they result in a reduction in pay, are still pretty good value considering the pension of 2/3 final salary for existing staff along with a bonus of 1.5 times final pay. I'd be happy to sign up to such a pension
> 
> The 2010 budget pay cuts, in fairness, seem large enough and it's probably a numbers game rather than a salary game at this stage. As customers, I think the taxpayer would be better served with a lot less quangos rather than a reduction in critical services such as Garda stations.



It really isn't your day Firefly !

PS pensions are a maximum of 50% of final salary for existing staff.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> It really isn't your day Firefly !
> 
> PS pensions are a maximum of 50% of final salary for existing staff.



Corrected again! 

This is great stuff...we'll balance the budget in no time!


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Jan 2013)

Firefly said:


> Corrected again!
> 
> This is great stuff...we'll balance the budget in no time!



Good one


----------



## celebtastic (22 Jan 2013)

Purple said:


> PS pensions include the standard old age pension so unless you retire at a high grade they aren't that great. The lump sum on top of the pension is though.


 
How much does this "lump sum" payout cost the taxpayer annually?


----------



## Bill Struth (22 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> How much does this "lump sum" payout cost the taxpayer annually?


More money than you could possibly ever imagine. That the answer you want???


----------



## orka (22 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> Put it this way, if my pay is cut again, I'm off. I've a mortgage and a six month old daughter, We'd be better off on the dole.


Why do you say you would be better off on the dole rather than saying you would be better off in the private sector?


----------



## celebtastic (22 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> More money than you could possibly ever imagine. That the answer you want???


 
Not really.

I was hoping for something a little bit more thoughtful than that.

The fact is that Ireland will borrow €15,000,000,000 this year, to finance, in no small part, the pay and pensions of public servants.

Public services have been cut to the bone, taxes have risen, and the terms and conditions of new joiners to the civil service have been adversely impacted while the unions steadfastly protect their members interest at the cost of everyone else.

It simply can't continue. It is completely immoral to burden future generations with the sort of debt required to pay for this largesse.

So again, how much could we save if the "lump sum" payment was elimintated?


----------



## Bill Struth (22 Jan 2013)

orka said:


> Why do you say you would be better off on the dole rather than saying you would be better off in the private sector?


The two jobs I had in the private sector before I joined the Civil Service were paid better than my current job. So by that reasoning, yes, I would be better off in the private sector also.


----------



## Purple (22 Jan 2013)

celebtastic said:


> So again, how much could we save if the "lump sum" payment was elimintated?



Why not get rid of their pensions altogether?
The lump sum is part of their terms and conditions of employment, a very major one at that. It’s not something a bonus or sweetener that Public Sector employees somehow scammed out of the state.


----------



## Chris (25 Jan 2013)

Complainer said:


> I see, so civil and public servants don't pay tax. Interesting. I guess you'll be happy to use my net salary and not my gross in any future salary comparisons then, given that I don't pay any tax - right?


Yes, as a net cost to the taxpayer, i.e. the private sector, I have no problem with that calculation being used. I don't think I have ever criticized public sector pay in general. There are things that governments should be doing and I have no problem paying those people adequately for their efforts and looking at the net cost to the taxpayer. My issue has always been with the size of government in total being far far too large.
I am personally not in favour of arbitrary pay cuts, but rather to limiting government in size at the very least to its revenue, by getting rid of services that are not crucial, or are totally unnecessary and useless.



Complainer said:


> Would you care to be specific about which services are 'completely unnecessary or useless'?



We've had these discussion many times, but here are some off the top of my head:
- Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: get rid of it; farmers will still farm, and food producers will still produce food; despite fishing quotas that nobody understands fish stocks are apparently still on the brink making this department either incompetent or incapable (saving €870ml)
- Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht: get rid of it altogether, people will survive (saving €260ml)
- Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation: get rid of it altogether, governments cannot create jobs, they can only pose a barrier (saving €805ml)
- Department of Public Expenditure and Reform: get rid of it, we do not need a department to get rid of other departments (saving €865ml)
- Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport: get rid of it; people will still visit here and play sports, and government should not be monopolizing the transport market (saving €1.6bn)
- Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: get rid of it, government does not facilitate trade, companies are perfectly able to trade; and in today's day and age we do not need consulates all over the world (saving €660ml)
- get rid of all motor tax offices; they are totally unnecessary when you can pay over the internet, phone, post and I think even in the post office (savings ???)
- sell off all semi-state bodies and open the markets to competition (generating several billion in one time payments)

These are all luxuries we simply cannot afford. The Irish economy and people do not need these services to survive and thrive.

And finally, the biggest saving would come from a 70% (minimum) default on all debt held by the state, saving about €4.5bn in 2012 based interest, and a lot more in the future.

There are almost €8bn in savings straight off the table, and this hasn't even taken into account cuts in the department of social welfare, moving to a private health insurance system or moving to a school voucher system that will save money in the future.


----------



## Bill Struth (25 Jan 2013)

Chris said:


> - - Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation: get rid of it altogether, governments cannot create jobs, they can only pose a barrier (saving €805ml).


The ENTIRE department?

 We don't need the CRO? ODCE? Employment rights enforcement and a court of arbitration? HSA? An office to issue work permits? Labour court? Import/export licencing? Consumer agency? Competition authority?


----------



## dereko1969 (25 Jan 2013)

Chris - Ayn Rand called she's looking for copyright infringement!


----------



## Purple (25 Jan 2013)

dereko1969 said:


> Chris - Ayn Rand called she's looking for copyright infringement!



It must have been a long distance call!


----------



## Chris (28 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> We don't need the CRO? ODCE? Employment rights enforcement and a court of arbitration? HSA? An office to issue work permits? Labour court? Import/export licencing? Consumer agency? Competition authority?



CRO: No need for it, companies will exist without a piece of paper that say they are registered. It is red tape, nothing more.

ODCE: Enforcement of laws should be done through the justice system, we do not need a separate office to complicate matters.

Employment rights/court of arbitration/labour court: Same thing, we have a justice system, which needs to be overhauled, but that is no reason for a separate court system.

Work Permits: I'm an open boarders kind if guy. If someone wants to come here and work in a legal activity, then let them do it (without the support of the taxpayer). Ireland once supported a population of more than 8 million; the US and Canada became great economies because of immigration.

Import/export licencing: Why do we need to restrict who imports or exports what and when, by handing out licences? This restricts trade and does not advance it.

Consumer agency: Consumers are perfectly capable of looking after themselves, without the help of the NCA. When people buy stuff, do they go to the NCA for advice or do they do a bit of research online to find consumer and expert reviews? And if they believe they have been wronged or defrauded with their purchase the there is at the very least the small claims court. And in bigger cases the justice system.

Competition authority: Competition is a natural phenomenon in a free market environment. We do not need an "authority" to check if a company is being anti-competitive. If there is lack of competition, and there is actually a viable market, but there are no new companies entering the market, then it is due to restrictions put in place by government, like the above mentioned licencing for example.


----------



## Chris (28 Jan 2013)

Bill Struth said:


> The ENTIRE department?
> 
> We don't need the CRO? ODCE? Employment rights enforcement and a court of arbitration? HSA? An office to issue work permits? Labour court? Import/export licencing? Consumer agency? Competition authority?





dereko1969 said:


> Chris - Ayn Rand called she's looking for copyright infringement!



Hahaha, she was in favour of term limiting intellectual property rights, maybe 30 years was enough in her opinion ;-)


----------



## Complainer (29 Jan 2013)

Chris said:


> Yes, as a net cost to the taxpayer, i.e. the private sector, I have no problem with that calculation being used. I don't think I have ever criticized public sector pay in general. There are things that governments should be doing and I have no problem paying those people adequately for their efforts and looking at the net cost to the taxpayer. My issue has always been with the size of government in total being far far too large.
> I am personally not in favour of arbitrary pay cuts, but rather to limiting government in size at the very least to its revenue, by getting rid of services that are not crucial, or are totally unnecessary and useless.


Great - I look forward to bringing my net salary up to the levels of the gross salary of my comparators in the private sector - woohoo!



Chris said:


> We've had these discussion many times, but here are some off the top of my head:
> - Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: get rid of it; farmers will still farm, and food producers will still produce food; despite fishing quotas that nobody understands fish stocks are apparently still on the brink making this department either incompetent or incapable (saving €870ml)
> - Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht: get rid of it altogether, people will survive (saving €260ml)
> - Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation: get rid of it altogether, governments cannot create jobs, they can only pose a barrier (saving €805ml)
> ...


Great - so let's get rid of Dept Agriculture, and bring on the horse burgers, in a rat milk sauce, with a fricasee of dog - consumers will just sort it out, right?

Let's get rid of the Dept of Tourism, and along with it the 1million visitors that come to the Cliffs of Moher Visitor Centre every hear.

Let's get rid of Enterprise Ireland, and the supports that it gives to the Foreign Direct Investment companies to match the supports offered in other countries.

Let's get rid of the Dept of Arts Heritage and Gaeltacht, and close down the National Museum, the National Gallery and many other supported arts and cultural venues (all providing employment and bringing in tourists of course).





Chris said:


> CRO: No need for it, companies will exist without a piece of paper that say they are registered. It is red tape, nothing more.
> 
> ODCE: Enforcement of laws should be done through the justice system, we do not need a separate office to complicate matters.
> 
> ...


WOuldn't Ryanair and other large providers just love to see the Competition Authority being taken away? 


WOuld these self-empowered consumers include the many consumers who fell for for the simple Slovenian mobile phone scam over the weekend? Sure they don't need any Govt agency to get refunds for them - right?

And how exactly to you get savings by moving enforcement functions from ODCE and employment rights tribunals back into the general court system, which is already overloaded and does not have the skill, knowledge or capacity to deal with these cases?

Unfortunately, the theory doesn't work too well in the real world.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2013)

Complainer said:


> Great - I look forward to bringing my net salary up to the levels of the gross salary of my comparators in the private sector - woohoo!


 Can you explain how you managed to get to that conclusion from what Chris said above?




Complainer said:


> Great - so let's get rid of Dept Agriculture, and bring on the horse burgers, in a rat milk sauce, with a fricasee of dog - consumers will just sort it out, right?


Why have an entire department to look after enforcement of standards? 



Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of the Dept of Tourism, and along with it the 1million visitors that come to the Cliffs of Moher Visitor Centre every hear.


 I was as the Cliffs of Moher before and it wasn’t because there was a guy from the Dept of Tourism standing behind me with a pointy stick.




Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of Enterprise Ireland, and the supports that it gives to the Foreign Direct Investment companies to match the supports offered in other countries.


 Enterprise Ireland don’t give any support to Foreign Direct Investment companies and never have. They support Irish companies seeking to export, or at least they are meant to. They do great work in some areas but in my experience, working with them for over a decade, about 80% of what they do is a waste of time and money. 
Getting rid of the IDA (which is what I think you meant to talk about) would have a negative impact but reducing red-tape and reducing the top rate of income tax, that your mates are so eager to increase, would go a long way to balancing things out.  



Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of the Dept of Arts Heritage and Gaeltacht, and close down the National Museum, the National Gallery and many other supported arts and cultural venues (all providing employment and bringing in tourists of course).


 Why would museums all close just because a department closed down?

I’m not in favour of what Chris is proposing but I’d like to see the state move much closer to that than where it is now.
We restrict businesses ability to function by  employing people at the expense of the real economy to administer bureaucratic restrictions. Then, when businesses suffer due to the extra cost burden, instead of removing that cost we employ yet more bureaucrats to give the businesses their own money back and call it grant aid!


----------



## Firefly (1 Feb 2013)

@Purple

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIIuR-HjFho


----------



## Chris (7 Feb 2013)

Complainer said:


> Great - I look forward to bringing my net salary up to the levels of the gross salary of my comparators in the private sector - woohoo!


I would imagine that that will not be the case as your total compensation will have to include the true net value of your pension.



Complainer said:


> Great - so let's get rid of Dept Agriculture, and bring on the horse burgers, in a rat milk sauce, with a fricasee of dog - consumers will just sort it out, right?


We have that department and yet burgers were still produced with horse meat. Hundreds of millions spent every year on a FAILED system. There is no way the use of horse meat is a new phenomenon, it has been going of for years undetected. If there was no department in charge of this, then people would not have the false sense of security over food quality. People do research before they buy computers, or cars or book hotels, but when it comes to government regulated industries there is a blind faith. If there was no designated department then people would do their research and check up on independent expert reviews, just like they do with so many other things they buy.
The very same thing happened, and still happens, with financial services. Banks are regulated, so why bother researching them before making a deposit or taking out a loan? But buy a computer or a car, and people check expert reviews, book test drives, get demonstration and check out customer reviews. Why would people not do that with everything else?



Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of the Dept of Tourism, and along with it the 1million visitors that come to the Cliffs of Moher Visitor Centre every hear.


Do you honestly think that people go to the Cliffs of Moher to look at the visitor center? They go there to look at the cliffs and they will still be there without a department of tourism.



Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of Enterprise Ireland, and the supports that it gives to the Foreign Direct Investment companies to match the supports offered in other countries.


Foreign companies invest here because of the tax rates, not because of Enterprise Ireland. FDI did not increase in the 90s because of Enterprise Ireland, or the IDA or any other government service. It increased because corporate taxes were low and overall red tape was, and to an extent still is, comparatively low.



Complainer said:


> Let's get rid of the Dept of Arts Heritage and Gaeltacht, and close down the National Museum, the National Gallery and many other supported arts and cultural venues (all providing employment and bringing in tourists of course).


They don't need to close down, they can still be operated by a private enterprise. The reason there is no competition or private alternative in these areas is because people that visit those museums do not pay, which gives them an unfair advantage over any potential private enterprise. Just because government doesn't do something doesn't mean that it wouldn't be done. Government does not make shoes or phones or car tires, but yet we have plenty of choices in those areas. Why would it be any different in museums or visitor centers?



Complainer said:


> WOuldn't Ryanair and other large providers just love to see the Competition Authority being taken away?


They probably would, but they would also HATE to see the market opened to competitors of all sizes.



Complainer said:


> WOuld these self-empowered consumers include the many consumers who fell for for the simple Slovenian mobile phone scam over the weekend? Sure they don't need any Govt agency to get refunds for them - right?


No they don't. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, and if they are defrauded then they should take legal action. I should not have to pay for someone else's mistakes.
According to the Times, the connection charge was "in excess of €2", so I will assume it is less than €5. People made a very stupid mistake by simply calling a +386xxxx missed call number and now they paid a couple of euros for a good lesson. That is not a crisis that needs to be looked after by government and paid for by those who were not scammed. 
[broken link removed]



Complainer said:


> And how exactly to you get savings by moving enforcement functions from ODCE and employment rights tribunals back into the general court system, which is already overloaded and does not have the skill, knowledge or capacity to deal with these cases?


I did mention that the entire legal system needs to be overhauled. Courts should be operating longer hours and more days; we need to get rid of the barrister system; it should not be mandatory to have a qualified solicitor/barrister represent you in certain courts; the list goes on. The small claims courts system is a perfect example of how to speed up and reduce the cost of certain cases.



Complainer said:


> Unfortunately, the theory doesn't work too well in the real world.


No, you, and many other people, simply believe that if government doesn't do certain things then they will not be done and everything will disintegrate. There is simply no evidence for such a belief; actually quite the opposite is the case. 
Cuba recently went from 100% state employment to 85%. At the time there was panic and outrage about it in Cuba, because the belief was that (a) those 15% of services would no longer be offered and (b) there would suddenly be 15% unemployed. What happened? No increase in unemployment and small private enterprises started filling the gaps.
The theory has proven time and again to work perfectly well; it is your socialist blinkered world view which ignores all historic facts that is constantly being proven inept.


----------

