Impact rules out public sector pay cuts

johnnyskeleton

gandalf wrote: »

Nail on head.

BTW I see SIPTU have come out with the same old rubbish again.



Taken from here.

These guys are living in the past and in the present we in the private sector are paying the price with job losses and pay cuts. Time for a reality check.

Every economy in trouble has two options:

1) orderly winding down with transparency, proportionality and ultimately prosecutions for those that have acted outside of the law. with this choice, everyone takes their pain upfront and tries to rebuild based on sustainable economic models.

2) disorderly crashes with lies, uncertainty and ill-gotten fortunes. with this choice it all takes a lot longer for the economy to recover, and when the recovery happens it is not as strong as it would have been under the 1st option.

SIPTU, together with just about everyone else, votes for the second option.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

If the public sector accepts pay cuts, will the private sector reduce its prices for goods and services?

Already happening. Even the Electricians, Plumbers etc. are slashing prices. I know of a couple of lads who just can't compete with some of the quotes on jobs.

EF wrote: »

If this were to happen it would have to happen not only in the public sector but also in the private sector. Everyone would have to take a hit. I know a lot in the private sector are being made redundant but this is because labour costs are too high. It would only add to the problem in the long term if the wages of civil servants were cut only to pay the social wefare bill of the new unemployed private sector workers without reducing labour costs across all sectors to attract new jobs.

Very few in the Private Sector aren't taking a hit. Redundancies, hours cut, wages cut, no increases etc.

eoinbn wrote: »

Here is where people are confused. The banking crisis and our massive budget problems are two different issues, with the first one highlighting the second. We have been borrowing to pay our high public sector wage bill for YEARS now. We were borrowing €25-30B each year to buy houses, the government took it's 30% and gave it to the public sector in wage increases. That's not the public sectors fault, it's the government but both need to pay the cost.
The banking crisis just brought it to a head faster than most expected as we stopped borrowing which has forced to the government to admit that we have effectively been running a budget deficit for years.

Indeed, the Public Service benefitted from the taxes from Construction and Banking. Really if people are so offended by the Govt. handling of the economy, hand back the wage increases you got based on that mishandling!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, the government's recklessness over the last 15 years means that we have nothing in reserve to tide us through a downturn. The government presumed that we would get a massive amount of property related taxes in and spent that money on increasing the public sector. We have one of the largest and best paid public services in the EU, and our public sector has grown disproportionately over the last 5 years or so.

It's not about who takes the hit - public or private sector employees - the issue is that the government is spending too much money and has to cut back. Because public sector workers work for the government, when the government hits hard times it needs to reduce it's costs. This is the exact same as how a private firm, during bad times, will lay off staff or ask for pay cuts.

My view on it is that from a macro-economic point of view it has to be done, we are simply spending way too much on our public sector which is too bloated with quangoes, managers and external consultants. At the same time, private sector employees are getting it in the neck. If benchmarking in the public sector means that public sector employees get rises in line with the private sector, so too must they accept the losses along with the private sector.

Indeed, the economy doesn't care what sector you work in.

eoinbn

Firetrap wrote: »

I wonder how many jobs they'll cut. Despite what the unions are saying, I'm sure there will be pay cuts I just wonder what would be the wider implications of firing loads of public servants?

It's one thing to look at a person's salary, subtract the tax they're paying back into the system and work out that it's cheaper to sack them and pay them dole. What about the mortgages they'll be unable to pay, the shops they won't buy stuff in, the services they won't be using. That sort of thing. And before someone jumps in and makes the point, I'm not saying that this isn't happening already with all the people who are losing their jobs in the private sector.

It depends on the service that they deliver. If it's not needed then get rid, the same as the private sector. The arguement that the unions have been putting out, that firing public sector workers would worsen a recession, is flawed. If that was the case then the solution to our problem is to give everyone a public sector job and all would be good again. Instead of €10k in dole money they would get €40k-50k and a pension- that's the union's solution to our problem- ok i am using a little bit of hyperbole.

miju

murphaph wrote: »

Who generates the tax revenue for the exchequer? Not the public sector. The private sector picks up the tab for ALL government expenditure. That's the way it has to be.

complete tosh are you honestly trying to say that the public sector pays no tax and the private sector shoulders it ALL????????

The key word in all of this is "pay bill". There won't be pay cuts as there will be widespread strikes if they tried among union members. I'm sure everyone here remembers the last time there was a widespread strike it wasn't pretty.

There will be more likely a cull of contract , part time employees followed by a VER scheme. That will allow the gubberment to cut the pay bill by 10% or more but keep the numbers in the public sector relatively high.

PeakOutput

the unions initial stance on this is a joke but i do believe that they are simply trying to grab headlines and that they will not put up much of a fight when it comes to the cuts going threw. if the gvernment want to cut 20% of the salaries of everyone in the public sector but only cut 19% then the unions will take this as a win.


if the public sector decide to strike they should be ashamed of themselves and to be honest they should be fired and all the newly unemployed who would be happy to take their jobs at the cut rate should step in. they should in fact be drawing up their own proposition to pre empt the goverments proposals and the should propose say a 10% pay cut across the board or even better 7% for the bottom of the ladder employees rising up to 15% for the high paid employees. this is the smart thing to do but no doubt this is the last thing that will happen


i have seen first hand the effects unions can have in the long term by thinking short term.

union; 'there is no way you are making these 10 people redundant we will bring the company to its knees if you do'

company 'but if we dont there is not going to be a company in 2 years and 100 people will lose their jobs'

union 'you have been warned'

edit;

The key word in all of this is "pay bill". There won't be pay cuts as there will be widespread strikes if they tried among union members. I'm sure everyone here remembers the last time there was a widespread strike it wasn't pretty.

and thats why the unions are a joke

miju

PeakOutput wrote: »

and thats why the unions are a joke

they are a joke for trying to protect they're members and get as good as terms for them as possible? :rolleyes:

anyways theres another point I forgot to make earlier. How can the government lower the wages of public sector workers? Each of those workers signed a legally binding contract adhering their wages to a pay scale. Within that contract there is nothing that stipulates the pay can be lowered etc.

So in attempting to do so the guberment are also landing themselves in a legal quagmire.

NewDubliner

PeakOutput wrote: »

if the public sector decide to strike they should be ashamed of themselves and to be honest they should be fired and all the newly unemployed who would be happy to take their jobs at the cut rate should step in.

You mean to replace them with Polish construction workers?

PeakOutput

NewDubliner wrote: »

You mean to replace them with Polish construction workers?

yes thats exactly what i mean :rolleyes:

they are a joke for trying to protect they're members and get as good as terms for them as possible?

no they are a joke because they love the appearance of protecting their members and getting as good terms for them as possible.

if the unions had a choice tomorrow(and this is just a made up scenario to illustrate my opinon of their thinking) take 20% paycuts and have a job for your employees for the rest of their lives OR take a 20% pay rise but have the distinct possiblity of 20% or more redundancies in the next two or three years i guarantee they will take the pay rise and then act outraged and suprised when the redundancies come rolling around

Firetrap

A lot of what the union says is posturing. They're being paid to protect the terms and conditions of their members. I'm sure if you spoke to any union official off the record, they'd freely admit that the national wage agreement is kaput, that pay cuts are inevitable etc. But in public, they'll keep to the "official" line. I bet too that privately most public servants are resigned to the fact that they'll be having pay cuts

As an aside, there's an article in today's Sindo that makes for interesting reading (link)

Thousands of top bureaucrats face major cuts in pay and conditions in the wake of Brian Lenihan's warning that he needs to secure €2bn of cuts in public expenditure.

The Minister for Finance is likely to be particularly interested in the results of a series of Dail questions by Labour's Joan Burton which reveal that the pay and conditions of 4,000 top civil servants costs the exchequer up to €500m annually.

The survey reveals that:

• 756 civil servants earn more than €100,000.

• 507 civil servants earn more than €90,000 a year.

• 814 earn more than €80,000.

• 819 earn more than €70,000 a year.

• 989 earn more than €60,000 a year.

But they also reveal that large numbers of front-line civil servants are not on the 'gravy train' enjoyed by top bureaucrats -- with the vast majority earning less than €50,000 a year and many much closer to the average industrial wage.

BOHSBOHS

lol you could sack every single civil servant if you wanted you still wouldnt save 2billion.on their wages ............not including the welfare/medical costs....

miju

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

lol you could sack every single civil servant if you wanted you still wouldnt save 2billion.

agreed the costs in doll, rent allowance , mortage relief , medical card payments would negate the actual money "saved" from sacking public servants.

Plus of course on top of that can you imagine the impact of another 30,000 wages packets taken out of the economy will have. Unless of course Fianna Failure are actually aiming to put this country into a depression.

PeakOutput

miju wrote: »

agreed the costs in doll, rent allowance , mortage relief , medical card payments would negate the actual money "saved" from sacking public servants.

which is presumably why they dont want to sack them but cut their wages

Firetrap

Anyone losing their job is bad, regardless of where they're working. I'm sure there are former Dell employees who would have dearly loved to have taken a pay cut rather than lose their jobs altogether.

By all means cut public servants' pay but don't do it as something in isolation. I am convinced that the government is wasting millions of Euros in other places as well and that cuts can be made there. What about state boards that don't appear to serve any purpose other than to keep FF cronies in pocket money? Assets that the state owns but doesn't use? As of budget time last year, there were sites lying idle that they'd spent millions on for decentralisation. Scrap those e-voting machines. Not replace the swanky state Mercs this year. That sort of thing. All of these on their own are relatively small savings but they all add up.

murphaph

miju wrote: »

complete tosh are you honestly trying to say that the public sector pays no tax and the private sector shoulders it ALL????????.

In your rush to be outraged you completely misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say public sector workers don't pay tax. I said the public sector doesn't generate any wealth for the nation. That is largely correct.

miju

murphaph wrote: »

In your rush to be outraged you completely misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say public sector workers don't pay tax. I said the public sector doesn't generate any wealth for the nation. That is largely correct.

Tell me again who runs the IDA again who are responsible for bringing in a massive amount of foreign investment to this country such as Dell ???? How much wealth do you think that created over the years since they've been here?

Thats one company and one government agency I'm using as an example theres many 100s more I could use also. As part of that whole effort of encouraging inward investment there are other parts of the public sector which also have to provide services etc. Though it may not seem like it each Dept actually does work hand in hand to some extent. For example from the IDAs statement about how they attract inward investment:

IDA Ireland wrote:

Focusing on business sectors that are closely matched with the emerging needs of the economy and that can operate competitively in global markets from an Irish base. We compile up to date facts for research into the economy in Ireland. Building links between international businesses and third level education and research centres to ensure the necessary skills and research and capabilities are in place. Building world-leading clusters of knowledge-based activities. Strongly influencing the competitive needs of the economy, and therefore we are very active in the development of infrastructure and business support services, telecoms, education, regulatory issues especially in relation to EU policy.

See how much of that quote wold involve many , many , many different departments and agencies which all helps to bring wealth to this country.

So to say that the public sector doesn't generate wealth is not fact largely correct as you claim it is largely incorrect. You are simply not looking at the bigger picture at all.

murphaph

The IDA don't make anything. They don't export anything.They promote irish private industry and this promotion is paid for by.....the private sector. So I say again, the public sector does not CREATE wealth. It consumes it.

mikemac

murphaph wrote: »

The IDA don't make anything. They don't export anything.They promote irish private industry and this promotion is paid for by.....the private sector. So I say again, the public sector does not CREATE wealth. It consumes it.

That's Enterprise Ireland who promote Irish private industry

The IDA deal with attracting with foreign industry and mostly don't deal with Irish companies but of course there will be some overlap.
In fact type IDA into google and the first result you get is

IDA Ireland is the Agency Responsible for Developing Foreign Direct Investment in Ireland.

So realy, it's Enterprise Ireland that you're posting about
Yeah, you're going to post back, no difference-still no wealth generated but don't confuse the two organizations

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

I said the public sector doesn't generate any wealth for the nation. That is largely correct.

It's largely incorrect.

A health care service (even one with shortcomings) has value; an education service has value; the provision and maintenance of infrastructure has value; a broadcasting service has value; electricity has value; a transport service has value; policing has value; refuse disposal has value; water and sewage services have value; a court service has value; a prison system has value. That's just a quick off-the-top-of-my-head list.

miju

murphaph wrote: »

The IDA don't make anything. They don't export anything.They promote irish private industry and this promotion is paid for by.....the private sector. So I say again, the public sector does not CREATE wealth. It consumes it.

good on ya for showing you haven't a clue what your talking about

apart from anythign else who you are describing is actually Enterprise Ireland who are guess what a Government agency not privately funded

ixoy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A health care service (even one with shortcomings) has value; an education service has value; the provision and maintenance of infrastructure has value; a broadcasting service has value; electricity has value; a transport service has value; policing has value; refuse disposal has value; water and sewage services have value; a court service has value; a prison system has value. That's just a quick off-the-top-of-my-head list.

I don't think he's saying they have no value - clearly, they do. I think he's talking about the technical definition instead - a Garda will police the street and, indirectly, maybe prevent the cost of a crime. However, at the end of the day, he's not going to generate a profit from his day's activities (nor should he have to as it's not his job as he's providing an essential service).

This would broadly apply to the public/civil service as a whole but, to be fair, that's in their name - they're there to provide essential services to the public and not to draw and create profit margins.

The more important question now is how can this service be delivered most efficiently for the right cost and that's what we're wondering.

K-9

miju wrote: »

complete tosh are you honestly trying to say that the public sector pays no tax and the private sector shoulders it ALL????????

The key word in all of this is "pay bill". There won't be pay cuts as there will be widespread strikes if they tried among union members. I'm sure everyone here remembers the last time there was a widespread strike it wasn't pretty.

There will be more likely a cull of contract , part time employees followed by a VER scheme. That will allow the gubberment to cut the pay bill by 10% or more but keep the numbers in the public sector relatively high.

Exactly, front line suffers not real reform in the HSE! Why, because if the Govt. touches the 1,000's of workers transferred from the Health Boards for no reason, Unions strike! Biting the hand that feeds you!

miju wrote: »

they are a joke for trying to protect they're members and get as good as terms for them as possible? :rolleyes:

Yep, Health board workers being a prime example. They are still working so less money in the pot for you!

miju wrote:

anyways theres another point I forgot to make earlier. How can the government lower the wages of public sector workers? Each of those workers signed a legally binding contract adhering their wages to a pay scale. Within that contract there is nothing that stipulates the pay can be lowered etc.

So in attempting to do so the guberment are also landing themselves in a legal quagmire.

Ah, Mac the Knife found a solution.

Firetrap wrote: »

Anyone losing their job is bad, regardless of where they're working. I'm sure there are former Dell employees who would have dearly loved to have taken a pay cut rather than lose their jobs altogether.

By all means cut public servants' pay but don't do it as something in isolation. I am convinced that the government is wasting millions of Euros in other places as well and that cuts can be made there. What about state boards that don't appear to serve any purpose other than to keep FF cronies in pocket money? Assets that the state owns but doesn't use? As of budget time last year, there were sites lying idle that they'd spent millions on for decentralisation. Scrap those e-voting machines. Not replace the swanky state Mercs this year. That sort of thing. All of these on their own are relatively small savings but they all add up.

YEP, cut the HSE Waste to pay for frontline services. I look forward to Union support on cutting Govt. waste.

miju wrote: »

Tell me again who runs the IDA again who are responsible for bringing in a massive amount of foreign investment to this country such as Dell ???? How much wealth do you think that created over the years since they've been here?

Thats one company and one government agency I'm using as an example theres many 100s more I could use also. As part of that whole effort of encouraging inward investment there are other parts of the public sector which also have to provide services etc. Though it may not seem like it each Dept actually does work hand in hand to some extent. For example from the IDAs statement about how they attract inward investment:



See how much of that quote wold involve many , many , many different departments and agencies which all helps to bring wealth to this country.

So to say that the public sector doesn't generate wealth is not fact largely correct as you claim it is largely incorrect. You are simply not looking at the bigger picture at all.

Dell is gone. The Public Service will always be here.

Time for the Public v. Private debate to stop. Get rid of Public Sector waste like the HSE and use it for all our benefit.

murphaph wrote: »

The IDA don't make anything. They don't export anything.They promote irish private industry and this promotion is paid for by.....the private sector. So I say again, the public sector does not CREATE wealth. It consumes it.

mikemac wrote: »

That's Enterprise Ireland who promote Irish private industry

The IDA deal with attracting with foreign industry and mostly don't deal with Irish companies but of course there will be some overlap.
In fact type IDA into google and the first result you get is


So realy, it's Enterprise Ireland that you're posting about
Yeah, you're going to post back, no difference-still no wealth generated but don't confuse the two organizations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's largely incorrect.

A health care service (even one with shortcomings) has value; an education service has value; the provision and maintenance of infrastructure has value; a broadcasting service has value; electricity has value; a transport service has value; policing has value; refuse disposal has value; water and sewage services have value; a court service has value; a prison system has value. That's just a quick off-the-top-of-my-head list.

They all have huge value, but a lot of waste!

P. Breathnach

ixoy wrote: »

I don't think he's saying they have no value - clearly, they do. I think he's talking about the technical definition instead - a Garda will police the street and, indirectly, maybe prevent the cost of a crime. However, at the end of the day, he's not going to generate a profit from his day's activities (nor should he have to as it's not his job as he's providing an essential service).

This would broadly apply to the public/civil service as a whole but, to be fair, that's in their name - they're there to provide essential services to the public and not to draw and create profit margins.

The more important question now is how can this service be delivered most efficiently for the right cost and that's what we're wondering.

It's not a "technical definition"; it's simply a matter of ignoring the fact that the state actually provides services that have a calculable value and could be sold to people individually -- tradeable services. In some systems such services are actually traded.

You could withdraw the public provision for healthcare and privatize the lot: then, as people paid, they would perceive that something is being produced. Similarly, one might discontinue all state funding to schools and colleges, and let them sell education at a price that covers the entire cost of providing it (and perhaps add on a bit for profit). All roads can be tolled, and so on.

K-9

YEP, Still ignores the HSE Waste.

zootroid

Money has to be saved somewhere, the government can't continue to keep borrowing just to run the country. I don't think that's even up for discussion, money has to be saved somewhere. Pay cuts and redundancies in the public sector are inevitable. Ideally, the issue of waste would be tackled first, but that seems to be outside the grasp of the government and senior civil servants. Which, incidentally, is where the cuts should happen first.

Also, for the past few years I have been reading how people in the public sector earn more than the private sector. Now that the private sector is going down the drain, I don't see why people in the public sector should be treated any differently. When redundancies are required in the private sector, people aren't given a choice, they are simply let go. Whereas the mere mention of this in the public sector brings about threats of strikes. Fine "public servants" indeed. They look after their own interests, not those of the public.

In my own case, a quarter of the staff were recently let go. Those who were kept on obviously have more work to do as a result. Nobody complained though, we were just glad to still have jobs, and felt sorry for those let go.

Essexboy

What do you expect when the President of IMPACT, Peter McLoone is also chairman of FAS and flew first class to the US as part of that agency's squandering?

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you mean the old chestnut of the international banking crisis? Then why is Anglo Irish in so much more trouble than the others? Most Irish banks lent out money stupidly - recklessly in some cases -

They did..
But hindsight is not foresight.

Most of those loans ticked the right boxes at the time in the Irish banks-correct ltv,correct bottom lines in a/c's etc and in the case of developers houses selling like hot cakes.
The loan accounts weren't all opened up in 2007 you see..

nhughes100

How come we aren't seeing social welfare cuts? With 300,000 on the dole, cutting a tenner a week of that would save 3 million a week. That's 150 million odd in a year, not too shabby. Not to mention council housing schemes, shared ownership etc which costs the country a bomb. In all honesty lets say every public sector worker takes a 10% pay cut, that only gets us halfway out of the defecit. Like if I thought for one minute that it would work and they wouldn't come crying next year for more cuts I wouldn't actually mind but the mess these guys have gotten us in doesn't really give the confidence to give them more of my money.

Couple of posters correctly pointed out the legal side of this, wouldn't it be typical if one quango layed off a load of staff without following due process and they all sued the government for wrongful dismissal? They'd get a lovely lump sum and their jobs back.

Another poster said something of a friend of his working in a county council getting 40K a year for scanning documents. I can well believe it but who is his manager and how much is he earning to oversee this gross waste of taxpayers money? That's the real problem with the public service, solution to everything - hire a manager and or consultant.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

They did..
But hindsight is not foresight.

Most of those loans ticked the right boxes at the time in the Irish banks-correct ltv,correct bottom lines in a/c's etc and in the case of developers houses selling like hot cakes.
The loan accounts weren't all opened up in 2007 you see..

Indeed, it seems people are pointing to badly run banks to justify a badly run Public Service.

It should be remembered that the very taxes generated by these badly run banks and the general economy financed Benchmarking and the pay deals.

murphaph

miju wrote: »

good on ya for showing you haven't a clue what your talking about

apart from anythign else who you are describing is actually Enterprise Ireland who are guess what a Government agency not privately funded

Oh ffs...ALL government agencies in capitalist countries are ultimately privately funded. Private business and individuals pay tax to the state which spends it.

Nermal

ixoy wrote: »

I don't think he's saying they have no value - clearly, they do. I think he's talking about the technical definition instead - a Garda will police the street and, indirectly, maybe prevent the cost of a crime. However, at the end of the day, he's not going to generate a profit from his day's activities

By that rationale if a Garda extracted a fee from those he arrested he'd be wealth-creating, or fee-paying schools are wealth-creating and the rest are not.

Both the public and private sector create wealth. However there's no doubt that our public sector is on average 30-40% overpaid; international comparisons prove it.