Is "Rip Off Ireland" really "Rip Off by the Public Sector"

Cuchulain

Seanies32 wrote:

Indeed, yet these highly qualified professionals prefer the Public Service proportionately more than the Private Sector. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Really you should be wondering why if, as many say, the Public Sector has problems in recruiting, why do 68% have these qualifications? Why also has there been such an increase in numbers in the last 10 years if it is so poorly paid and isn't as attractive as the Private Sector?

Proportionately, there hasnt been a huge increase of public servants in the last 10 years. You should get your facts at least believable before I can rip them to shreads. Public sector as share of all those in employment was 24.7% in 1988. Over the first three months of 2008, it was 17.2%.

Ive never said the public sector is poorly paid nor unattractive. It is generally on par with the private sector. Yes there are perks associated with public service but there are also perks in industry e.g. christmas bonuses, company cars etc etc.

Seanies32 wrote:

Why concentrate on my beliefs and ignore the FACT that Public Sector Workers are on average paid 15% more. You seem to be saying it isn't viable to pay qualified professionals less than unqualified people. I don't know why you are making a point of this.

The reality is they are paid higher!

Again I never rejected the fact that civil servants are paid more. But the reason we/they are is because of the FACT is that public servants are better qualified. Simple as that.

Seanies32 wrote:

Yep, exacberated by Benchmarking and pay deals.

Oh no. One track records come to mind. Even without the huge benchmarking and phenomonal pay deals, these they still would be the highest. So Sean, have you not got pay increases in the past 10 years?

Got a company car or a least a few bob at Christmas?
Company party with a few bevies and a nice 3 course?

markpb

Cuchulain wrote: »

So Sean, have you not got pay increases in the past 10 years? Got a company car or a least a few bob at Christmas? Company party with a few bevies and a nice 3 course?

Good, now you've got to the point. He probably did but because he works in a private company, if it's no longer viable to pay him those rises, he'll either get a wage reduction or be fired.

Tell me why the same shouldn't apply to the civil and public service now that it's no longer viable to pay the rises awarded in benchmarking?

thebman

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, yet these highly qualified professionals prefer the Public Service proportionately more than the Private Sector. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Really you should be wondering why if, as many say, the Public Sector has problems in recruiting, why do 68% have these qualifications? Why also has there been such an increase in numbers in the last 10 years if it is so poorly paid and isn't as attractive as the Private Sector?



Why concentrate on my beliefs and ignore the FACT that Public Sector Workers are on average paid 15% more. You seem to be saying it isn't viable to pay qualified professionals less than unqualified people. I don't know why you are making a point of this.

The reality is they are paid higher!

Yep, exacberated by Benchmarking and pay deals.

I think we need to ask ourselves do we need qualified professionals to do these jobs. I'm sure you could get someone without a third level qualification to do the job and let the qualified person go into one of the high end "knowledge" jobs that we are supposedly attracting.

Cuchulain

markpb wrote: »

Good, now you've got to the point. He probably did but because he works in a private company, if it's no longer viable to pay him those rises, he'll either get a wage reduction or be fired.

Tell me why the same shouldn't apply to the civil and public service now that it's no longer viable to pay the rises awarded in benchmarking?

You have one glaringly obvious problem with your hypothetical argument. And thats the word "viable". Its too broad and unsubstantiated. Under what circumstance is it no longer "viable" to honour the rises awarded in benchmarking.

Oh wait maybe I have an answer as to why these pay deals and benchmarking agreements wont be reversed. Because retirees, maternity leave and absentee's arent getting replaced and their work is being absorbed onto other civil servants work duties.

So there you go guys, we are overworked and overpaid. Thats a fair deal isnt it. :rolleyes:

K-9

Cuchulain wrote: »

Proportionately, there hasnt been a huge increase of public servants in the last 10 years. You should get your facts at least believable before I can rip them to shreads.

Yes there has. Get your facts straight.
http://www.finfacts.ie/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006397.shtml

Cuchulainn wrote:

Public sector as share of all those in employment was 24.7% in 1988. Over the first three months of 2008, it was 17.2%.

Now perspective and reading what you want into something. The quote is
Public sector as share of ALL those in employment was 24.7% in 1988. Over the first three months of 2008, it was 17.2%, (Source: CSO QNHS).


There has been a huge increase in the Private Sector since 1988, hence why the percentage has decreased!

You are comparing a Failed Economy in 1988 that was near Bankruptcy with well, what used to be considered a successful economy. Unless we want to go back to 1988, it really isn't a figure to aspire to! No thanks!

Cuchulain wrote:

Ive never said the public sector is poorly paid nor unattractive. It is generally on par with the private sector. Yes there are perks associated with public service but there are also perks in industry e.g. christmas bonuses, company cars etc etc.


Again I never rejected the fact that civil servants are paid more. But the reason we/they are is because of the FACT is that public servants are better qualified. Simple as that.

Good, we can put that one to bed then!

Cuchulain wrote:

Oh no. One track records come to mind. Even without the huge benchmarking and phenomonal pay deals, these they still would be the highest. So Sean, have you not got pay increases in the past 10 years?

Got a company car or a least a few bob at Christmas?
Company party with a few bevies and a nice 3 course?

Wage Increases? I should hope so. Started on £68 a week in 1998.

No Company Car, no bonus this year. Got a nice one 2 years ago.

No Xmas Dinner this year.

Also on a 4 day week and a wage cut too!

K-9

Cuchulain wrote: »

So there you go guys, we are overworked and overpaid. Thats a fair deal isnt it. :rolleyes:

So what the feck are these thousands and thousands of new employees doing?

markpb

Cuchulain wrote: »

You have one glaringly obvious problem with your hypothetical argument. And thats the word "viable". Its too broad and unsubstantiated. Under what circumstance is it no longer "viable" to honour the rises awarded in benchmarking.

Have you seen the economy lately? Civil and public servants are paid mostly through taxation and the tax intake has tanked in the last six months. How can it be viable to continue paying the same or higher wages when there's less money coming in to fund it? Yes, other government expenditure should be cut to save money but wages are part and parcel of that.

Cuchulain

Seanies32 wrote:

Now perspective and reading what you want into something. The quote is
Public sector as share of all those in employment was 24.7% in 1988. Over the first three months of 2008, it was 17.2%, (Source: CSO QNHS).

The key is of ALL THOSE IN EMPLOYMENT

There has been a huge increase in the Private Sector since 1988, hence why the percentage has decreased!

You are somewhat digging yourself a deeper hole here Sean. Ok you say that there has been a huge increase in Private Sector since 1988. To serve this extra workforce so the civil servant ratio remain proportionate throughout this private sector increase?

Seanies32 wrote:

Wage Increases? I should hope so. Started on £68 a week in 1998.

No Company Car, no bonus this year. Got a nice one 2 years ago.

No Xmas Dinner this year.

Ok lets compare then
Other than scaled increments I havent had a increase in 3 years. I think that was 1.5%.
No company car, never got a bonus in all my time as a civil servant.
No Xmas dinner this year? Sounds like you had a few perks in the past. Our xmas party is always paid by ourselves. The best freebie we get is maybe a free dinner in the canteen once/twice a year.

Seanies32 wrote:

Also on a 4 day week and a wage cut too!

Im sure all the money you saved up in the good old times will see you through.

Cuchulain

markpb wrote: »

Have you seen the economy lately? Civil and public servants are paid mostly through taxation and the tax intake has tanked in the last six months. How can it be viable to continue paying the same or higher wages when there's less money coming in to fund it? Yes, other government expenditure should be cut to save money but wages are part and parcel of that.

So why should we feel the brunt of it? Increase taxes or whatever. The vast majority of civil servants are normal middle class people. Why should we be persecuted for a problem created by other people.

Anyway its a not even gonna get close to discussion. Goverment wont cut salaries as the unions will go loolah. The country couldnt cope with a countrywide service shutdown and the country would grind to a halt.

markpb

Cuchulain wrote: »

So why should we feel the brunt of it? Increase taxes or whatever. The vast majority of civil servants are normal middle class people. Why should we be persecuted for a problem created by other people.

If you read my post, you'll see that I said "other government expenditure should be cut to save money but wages are part and parcel of that.". I didn't say they should feel the brunt of it, just that if government expenditure is being reduced, cps wages should be part of it.

Are you suggesting that cps wages should continue to rise even though the tax intake in the country is falling? What specific services do you advocate cutting to fund that because it can't continue as is.

K-9

Cuchulain wrote: »

You are somewhat digging yourself a deeper hole here Sean. Ok you say that there has been a huge increase in Private Sector since 1988. To serve this extra workforce so the civil servant ratio remain proportionate throughout this private sector increase?

No, you don't get that 24% was too high a figure. That was part of the reason the IMF was about to bankrupt us. Jaysus.

18% Unemployment in 1988. Early last year Employment was 4/5% and we had thousands of immigrants coming here to work.

Can you give me a link that says 24% is an ideal figure for the Public Service?

And the huge increases in numbers that you said didn't happen?

And moaning about Benchmarking despite it being shown that Public Sector workers are higher paid!

Must summarise these points that you are tearing to shreds, seems to be the other way round to me!

Don't know why you said Civil Service there.

What you have quoted is 24% of TOTAL Employment was in the Public Service as if that's a good thing. Why is it? Why is 24% good for an Economy?

Cuchulain wrote:

Ok lets compare then
Other than scaled increments I havent had a increase in 3 years. I think that was 1.5%.
No company car, never got a bonus in all my time as a civil servant.
No Xmas dinner this year? Sounds like you had a few perks in the past. Our xmas party is always paid by ourselves. The best freebie we get is maybe a free dinner in the canteen once/twice a year.

Why are you benchmarking against me?

You'll have your guarenteed pension to keep you happy. Seems to be a touch of the green eyed monster there!

Cuchulain wrote:

Im sure all the money you saved up in the good old times will see you through.

Hard to save on the wages I was on, but yep saved a few pound. Mind you, I'm not a big spender Thank God.

Must be the exception in the Private Sector

Anyway, can we take the personal comparing out of it. It's pointless and irrelevant. I prefer to deal in facts, like your 24% figure that you seem to think is great.

Cuchulain

Seanies32 wrote: »

No, you don't get that 24% was too high a figure. That was part of the reason the IMF was about to bankrupt us. Jaysus.

18% Unemployment in 1988. Early last year Employment was 4/5% and we had thousands of immigrants coming here to work.

Can you give me a link that says 24% is an ideal figure for the Public Service?

What you have quoted is 24% of TOTAL Employment was in the Public Service as if that's a good thing. Why is it? Why is 24% good for an Economy?

Well depends what way you look at it. Obviously you think that this should be in the single figures. Im just comparing the figure against the 1988 stats.

There is no reason why 24% would be an ideal figure, did I mention that? Eitherway its still quite a bit lower than other countries in the EU, which is a good indicator......surely?.

Seanies32 wrote:

..... Seems to be a touch of the green eyed monster there!

Absolutely, plenty of my frivalous friends in the private sector have had it great for so long, now that the going gets tough then they feel targetted.

K-9

Cuchulain wrote: »

Well depends what way you look at it. Obviously you think that this should be in the single figures.

Can you point out where I said that or is it telepathy?

Cuchulain wrote:

Im just comparing the figure against the 1988 stats.

And I'm pointing out you are comparing to an economy that was virtually bankrupt. You do realise why we had a Celtic Tiger? Mac the Knifes Cutbacks!

Cuchulain wrote:

There is no reason why 24% would be an ideal figure, did I mention that?

You sir, are the one quoting the figure 24% and comparing the 17% too it.

Cuchulain wrote:

Eitherway its still quite a bit lower than other countries in the EU, which is a good indicator......surely?.

Ah, let's quote those other countries, shall we?

Norway (28%), Sweden (27%), France (23%) , Finland (22%) and Belgium (17%).

You'll notice those countries share a high tax and Social Insurance system. Personally, I wouldn't hold France up as an example of Public Service efficiency myself!

Cuchulain wrote:

Absolutely, plenty of my frivalous friends in the private sector have had it great for so long, now that the going gets tough then they feel targetted.

Ignoring the fact that I'm sure some could be either redundant or fearing for their jobs, you do realise that the Public Sector needs your friends in the Private Sector to be doing well? Hence the Benchmarking and pay deals of the past decade!

The Public Sector needs a thriving Private Sector or else everybody pays higher taxes and sees cutbacks?

Now any other points you'd like me to tear to shreds? :cool:

K-9

Really comparing us to Norway, Sweden etc. is grand.

I hope you are prepared to pay 50/60% of your wages in Tax and PRSI to fund these figures?

Though I suppose the Unions will be protesting about the tax increases that go with funding a 27/28% Public Service level! :pac:

spank_inferno

I work In the private sector in a large mobile phone provider.
We provide all the mobile for the civil & public services and the hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of quangos in between.

Its shocking the amount of monies spent by these people on little things like mobile phones.
As I, sure you all know most phones have some sort of network subsidy.
That doesnt matter to the public service.
If someone there fancies a phone, price is no object.
It doesnt matter how many hundreds it costs.
Not compatible with your existing car kit? No problem, send one over (more hundreds) Huge bills for roaming on foreign networks where again cost isnt a factor..

My point is, if public servants feel put upon and feel they shouldnt have their pay cut they may have a point in many cases.
However the waste of money in other areas from our public servants is truely unbelievable.

murphaph

I have just ONE simpe question for the public sector workers reading this...

Do you believe the government should borrow to pay your wages?

(if tax revenues - capital expenditure and cost of servicing national debt results in a defecit)

NewDubliner

The government is borrowing to bail out the banks over bad debts owed by builders and property speculators.

murphaph

Whilst I am not in agreement with the bail out of Anglo Irish Bank, AIB and BOI are of systemic importance to the economy and we cannot afford as a nation for either of these banks to fold. Having said that, the cost of the recapitalisation is of the order of 5 billion for all 3 banks I believe. This (hopefully) one off cost is small in comparison to the 20 odd billion per anum public sector wage bill.

We can't afford to pay this wage bill going forward and we can't afford not to recapitalise the (greedy and wreckless) banks. It's all bitter but we must cut our cloth to suit our measure.

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

We can't afford to pay this wage bill going forward and we can't afford not to recapitalise the (greedy and wreckless) banks. It's all bitter but we must cut our cloth to suit our measure.

I suppose we could start by getting rid of the extra people recruited to make the 'decentralisation' project look like it's working?

After that you'd need to decide what services and projects you want to lose?

Then, what happens to the people affected, do they disappear/emigrate? If they all sell their houses, and if the empty offices are sold, what happens?

jmayo

NewDubliner wrote: »

The government is borrowing to bail out the banks over bad debts owed by builders and property speculators.

And your point is exactly what ????
Are they borrowing to help bail out Dell, Waterford Wedgewood or anybody elses company ?
Sadly the banks/financial institutions need to be saved because they provide the glue/oil (money) that keeps an economy going and indeed keep people's lives going.
Would you rather see the major banks go under, savers queing around the block, absolutely no loans and overdrafts available for business and everybody affectively either storing the few quid they have under the matress or using barter as a means of trade ?

They are, I believe mistakenly, helping all financial institutions instead of letting one or two go and concentrating on the ones with the greatest influence on the economy, normal borrowers and savers i.e. BOI, AIB, PTSB, EBS.
Some are past saving (the Anglo and Irish Nationwide, fiefdoms of some particulalry odious individuals) and only make less funds available for the ones that really need to be saved and have the best chance of survival.

Arguing that growth in public sector numbers was not as great as in private sector is a nonsense.

I find some of the posts here by public sector people to be beyond believe.
The sense of entitlement is mimicking the worse we have seen from one of our politicans in the last week.
Are they seriously syaing there shoudl be not job cuts in public sector, that there should be no pay cuts, even pay rises and that we should go into deeper hock to pay for this ?

If anyone thinks that people in the private sector are going to stomach paying higher taxes, whilst we are loosing jobs, taking no pay rises or even deductions whilst people in public sector are given pay rise then the people in public sector needs their heads examined.

NewDubliner

jmayo wrote: »

And your point is exactly what ????

That the government is borrowing for various reasons and not just to to fund public services.

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

I suppose we could start by getting rid of the extra people recruited to make the 'decentralisation' project look like it's working?

After that you'd need to decide what services and projects you want to lose?

Then, what happens to the people affected, do they disappear/emigrate? If they all sell their houses, and if the empty offices are sold, what happens?

I'm not really suggesting redundancies i the public sector as a first step. Offer significant pay cuts to the sector and if that isn't taken by individuals, give them statutory redundancy.

This is a better offer than many in the private sector who will just be sacked with no option of a pay cut.

Sound fair?

K4t

partyguinness wrote: »

If you take teachers and the medical profession out the equation...how many public sector employees have third level qualifications?

are not the be all and end all of how you perform in a job and contribute to an organisation. Some of the most intelligent people I know don't have a university degree.

In answer to your question, everybody entering the Public Secto these days I can guarantee you has a University degree. You in fact need a Masters to get in on the lowest rung such is the competition for public sector jobs.

murphaph

K4t wrote: »

You in fact need a Masters to get in on the lowest rung such is the competition for public sector jobs.

Why do people want to work so desperately for the public sector?

K4t

murphaph wrote: »

Why do people want to work so desperately for the public sector?

Security.

ardmacha

Why do people want to work so desperately for the public sector?

There is no evidence that people want, or have wanted desperately to work for the public sector. At careers fairs the students are not piling into the civil service stand, they'd look down on you if you suggested an interest in the public service. There is a lot of evidence of the likes of nurses and teachers leaving their jobs, which suggests that they can't be all that cushy.

murphaph

K4t wrote: »

Security.

....exactly. A secure job should have a lower rate of pay as the security in itself is a benefit.

When dealing with private sector we have the following examples of this:

1) The RAS scheme whereby landlords contract to the local authority to provide their property for a set time at LESS than the going rent due to the SECURITY of the long contract.

2) When a landlord makes a commercial property available for a long lease (over 10 years) the revenue believe that there is an intangible benefit received by the tenant due to the SECURITY of the long lease to the tenants' business. So revenue impose VAT on leases over 10 years.

Public sector workers have fantasticaly secure jobs and so should also pay a premium for them.

K4t

murphaph wrote: »

....exactly. A secure job should have a lower rate of pay as the security in itself is a benefit.

Public sector workers have fantasticaly secure jobs and so should also pay a premium for them.

As already stated in this thread by another poster, public sector workers on average are more highly qualified than private sector workers.

Also private sector workers get bonuses. A small minority of Public sector workers get bonuses (doctors the most obvious) and I completely disagree with this. You are in the Public Service to do a job, provide a service for the country. There should be no bonuses.

In fairness, Public Sector workers 'pay' all their taxes and cannot evade them or declare only some of their earnings like so many do in the private sector. I think the security evens itself out.

ardmacha

Why do people want to work so desperately for the public sector?

There is no evidence that people want, or have wanted desperately to work for the public sector. At careers fairs the students are not piling into the civil service stand, they'd look down on you if you suggested an interest in the public service. There is a lot of evidence of the likes of nurses leaving their jobs, which suggests that the can't be all that cushy.

K4t

ardmacha wrote: »

There is no evidence that people want, or have wanted desperately to work for the public sector. At careers fairs the students are not piling into the civil service stand, they'd look down on you if you suggested an interest in the public service. There is a lot of evidence of the likes of nurses leaving their jobs, which suggests that the can't be all that cushy.

Have you heard of a profession called 'Teaching'??????!!!!!!