Vinne Browne on Gilmore & Rabbitt


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.
 
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.
 
Firefly,

existing PS pensioners = 1 cut

exisiting PS staff = 2 cuts

new PS staff = 3 cuts, as new pay scales are 10% less
 
Protocol said:
Firefly,

existing PS pensioners = 1 cut

exisiting PS staff = 2 cuts

new PS staff = 3 cuts, as new pay scales are 10% less
Click to expand...

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.
 

It really isn't your day Firefly !

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

How much does this "lump sum" payout cost the taxpayer annually?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you say you would be better off on the dole rather than saying you would be better off in the private sector?
 
Bill Struth said:
More money than you could possibly ever imagine. That the answer you want???
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
celebtastic said:
So again, how much could we save if the "lump sum" payment was elimintated?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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'?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register