It should be pointed out that Public Sector workers do not receive the old age pension in addition to the public services pension unlike those getting Bank pensions.Yeah, it's quite inaccurate to say that a 2/3rds pension linked to CPI is by far better than a 50% pension linked to salary inflation
Bank pensions are the gold standard !
It has also been pointed out that others such as the insurance sector , semi-state bodies and large multi-nationals have similar schemes.Why are people comparing bank pensions with public sector. It has already been established that the banks are not representative of the private sector, have closed down the scheme to new members and also have big pension holes (which is beginning to come back into investor minds recently as a big issue in every company that offeres defined benefit pensions). By the way do you have a link showing that the pensions are linked to national wage agreements. First I heard of it. Also banks pensions are based on 45 years service not 40 as in public sector. They also don't get the lump sum.
Didn't the ERSI survey today ignore pensions and still they found a premium in the public sector.
I also note that the unions question the validity of the ERSI report
Because there is no link.I didn't expect that!
Why should I contact a head office to confirm your statements?
I also note that the unions question the validity of the ERSI report
It has also been pointed out that others such as the insurance sector , semi-state bodies and large multi-nationals have similar schemes.
+ 1In summary, you could say that the private sector pensions in large administrative organisations of similar size to public sector organisations have similar or better pension arrangements that most public sector organisations.
Shouldnt the real discussion be about the gap between the employees of large organisations and employees of small/medium sized organisations rather than public v private?
YOU could say that. You could say anything you want but it wouldn’t make it correct. I don’t accept that benefits offered to employees of large administrative organizations were ever better than the public sector pension but you’ll find that the better large company schemes have closed to new entrants and there’s a very good chance that future accrual for existing employees will switch to defined contribution also. How difficult is it to understand the concept – “the schemes used to be provided – they became too expensive to provide so they are no longer provided”.In summary, you could say that the private sector pensions in large administrative organisations of similar size to public sector organisations have similar or better pension arrangements that most public sector organisations.
The poor provision for the majority of the private sector is certainly a discussion worth having. But the gap is already being closed – private sector DB schemes are being closed and benefits are becoming less attractive. However, in the context of that minor irritation of our state hemorrhaging €20B per annum, the far more important discussion is how to save money. The pension offered to public sector with benefits far in excess of the average private sector worker is a target for a cost saving. It is a benefit that I believe a majority of taxpayers are coming to resent paying taxes for.Shouldnt the real discussion be about the gap between the employees of large organisations and employees of small/medium sized organisations rather than public v private?
Shouldnt the real discussion be about the gap between the employees of large organisations and employees of small/medium sized organisations rather than public v private?
Why? We're talking about the state spending money it doesn't have.
What large organisations spend on remuneration is nothing to do with that.
I agree but the public sector unions have stopped reasonable reform for years so now we have no choice.Yes we are. But the solution is not to impose a blanket cut on all public sector workers. The reality is that programmes in the public service will be shut down. If a programme is shut down, the people working in it should be made redundant. You don’t want a situation where you have people in productive funded programmes taking a pay or pensions cut to keep surplus staff in non-funded programmes twiddling their thumbs. This would never happen in the private sector.
There is not, and for decades there has not been, a case to be made for pay increases in the broader public sector due to market conditions. The public sector were better paid than their private sector counterparts 15 years ago and the gap has widened massively over those years.There is also the overall argument about employees renumeration and benefits. In any job, whether in recession or not, if you pay people below the odds, then the best people will drift away to other organisations. Yes, there is a delicate balance here between affordability and pay rates, but you cannot totally disregard the market rate for a job (which is lower in a recession).
No, pensions should be seen as part of an overall remuneration package that is just attractive enough to get and keep the right people for the job. What has happened is the government gave pay and pension awards during a short-term capital tax income boom that have to be funded out of current tax income for the next 40 years. It was never sustainable. It was based on political horse-trading, not any economic or social need.Finally, the main argument put forward on this thread for cutting public service pensions is that we cannot afford it. By implication, does this mean that in good times when their is an exchequer surplus, the government should make public service pensions more generous? Do people want public service pay to be linked to exchequer performance? How best could this be introduced? Should there be a profit sharing scheme for public servants (bearing in mind that most of the staff of the Dept of Finance would probably be millionaires now if their was a profit sharing scheme in operation for the past decade). Would this be acceptable?
There is also the overall argument about employees renumeration and benefits. In any job, whether in recession or not, if you pay people below the odds, then the best people will drift away to other organisations. Yes, there is a delicate balance here between affordability and pay rates, but you cannot totally disregard the market rate for a job (which is lower in a recession).
Finally, the main argument put forward on this thread for cutting public service pensions is that we cannot afford it. By implication, does this mean that in good times when their is an exchequer surplus, the government should make public service pensions more generous? Do people want public service pay to be linked to exchequer performance? How best could this be introduced? Should there be a profit sharing scheme for public servants (bearing in mind that most of the staff of the Dept of Finance would probably be millionaires now if their was a profit sharing scheme in operation for the past decade). Would this be acceptable?
Beanpole
You keep banging on about a 20% pay cut across the board but, when asked, refuse to explain how you came up with this figure. For instance why the same percentage across the board? Why 20%? Is this in addition to the cuts we have already taken? (and yes, the pension levy is a 'cut'!).
Its just really hard to take your posts seriously when you just bang out statements with no analysis or explanation.
If you really are struggling to find evidence that the public sector are massively overpaid compared to the private sector, have a look at the latest ESRI report:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1009/economy.html
I think a more accurate benchmark would be to compare public sector pay and conditions with those of our European neighbours. As one German diplomat pointed out recently, there is no reason why a civil servant in Ireland should be paid three times the level of his German counterpart. I also have a number of friends, who were hospital consultants in the UK, who came back to a more than doubling of their pay in Irish hospitals.
Did this same diplomat say anything about the cost of houses, fuel, cars, insurance, food or clothes in Ireland as compared to Germany.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?