Public Sector Unions to Take Action

bill_ashmount

I hope the government stands firm, don't back down to their attempts to cripple the country.

stevoman

Firefox10 wrote: »

I would like someone to tell me exactly what constitutes as "Low Paid" in the public service. I thought the average salary in the public service was around 42k a year. I may be wrong about this but if that's the case i don't see a problem with the levy.

to take an average salary in the public service basically you have to throw in everything from civil servats, judges, tds, guards, nurses, doctors and everything in between and finding the "average"

so basically its like saying that cleaners, street sweepers, barristers, private doctors, check out girl in supermarket, bank manager and mcdonalds employee. mash up every type of job in the private sector and get the "average" of their wage.

in both circumstances its ludacris to take an average in such broad workbases.

i would love to know though whats the "average wage" in the private sector is!!!


personally i would consider myself kind of "low paid". I make €470 a week into my hand after 10 years in the public sector. now i have to take €40 a week off that as my "pay cut". it may astonish some posters but i too am a human, who has a mortgage and child and a partner who cannot find any work anywhere. after 10 years of and watching and listening to friends and people brag about how much money they are been making, and how my job is "too low paid", i find it some what ironic that a job that i have that was jeered and looked down upon by 90% of them is now the job they are complaining they dont have.

Time Magazine

Nightwish wrote: »

I am one of the low paid workers who pays their pension and this levy is a kick in the teeth.

A kick in the teeth surely, but your pension is heavily subsidised by the private sector. You don't pay all of it yourself.

Nightwish

I dont work in Superannuation, so all I know is I pay €1000 per annum in pension costs. My bf works in the private sector and he pays less in pension contributions. How the "private sector" subsidises mine I dont know. I'll have to root out my Superannuation handbook. Anyway its not going to be much use to me as I'm being let go in the next few months.

OhNoYouDidn't

Firefox10 wrote: »

I would like someone to tell me exactly what constitutes as "Low Paid" in the public service. I thought the average salary in the public service was around 42k a year. I may be wrong about this but if that's the case i don't see a problem with the levy.

If you include politicians, judges, surgeons etc, yes. None of whom are impacted by this levy.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Economist wrote: »

A kick in the teeth surely, but your pension is heavily subsidised by the private sector. You don't pay all of it yourself.

.........and the state pension you are entitled to (and they are not) comes from where?

Euro_Kraut

The Economist wrote: »

A kick in the teeth surely, but your pension is heavily subsidised by the private sector. You don't pay all of it yourself.

The big problem for me is not the idea that the public service should take some type of pay cut, it is how the cut is distributed among various workers. (see my post on the previous page)

On account of the way tax is applied, those earning 37,000 will pay more in absolute terms than some one on 42,000. Also they pay the equivalent of someone on 60,000 in relative terms.

I know that if I was on that wage level I would be very upset by this.

Most arguments against the levy are weak, but this is a good one.

OhNoYouDidn't

SkepticOne wrote: »

At some level the public sector unions must know that industrial action at this point in Ireland's history is idiotic and ultimately against the interest of their members.

The govt will back down. They went for what they thought was a soft target and when their drivers, coffees and papers dont arrive and they realise they have lost 300,000 votes they will come to their senses.

The public sector unions have indicated that they will accept paycuts, tax increases and various other arrangements. But attacking their pensions is out.

mikemac

Would you prefer to see the pension levy rolled back get a 5%-6% pay cut instead?
You say the public sector unions will accept pay cuts so is this more acceptable to you?

With a sliding scale to the lower paid of course but what percentage do you want to start at?

OhNoYouDidn't

mikemac wrote: »

Would you prefer to see the pension levy rolled back get a 5%-6% pay cut instead?
You say the public sector unions will accept pay cuts so is this more acceptable to you?

With a sliding scale to the lower paid of course but what percentage do you want to start at?

I'm saying that the public sector took increases during good times from benchmarking and are willing to take a freeze or cut now.

The point is, that if we are 'to share the pain' increase than increase PAYE rather than hammer one sector of the economy.

crafty dodger

Nightwish wrote: »

I dont work in Superannuation, so all I know is I pay €1000 per annum in pension costs. My bf works in the private sector and he pays less in pension contributions. How the "private sector" subsidises mine I dont know. I'll have to root out my Superannuation handbook. Anyway its not going to be much use to me as I'm being let go in the next few months.

1000 euro per year would go nowhere to providing you with an index linked pension tied to the salary level of the position you retire at (presumably after 40 years). If you had to pay the full cost of this you would be paying a helluva lot more per year. If your boyfirend is not paying into a pension fund well he will have no pension (except the 200 a week he will get from the state
I have worked for may years in the private sector and because the company I worked for during most of those years has gone bust my pension has gone pffff like a puff of wind. No safety net there so stop moaning about having to pay a bit more for your guaranteed pension

OhNoYouDidn't

crafty dodger wrote: »

1000 euro per year would go nowhere to providing you with an index linked pension tied to the salary level of the position you retire at (presumably after 40 years). If you had to pay the full cost of this you would be paying a helluva lot more per year. If your boyfirend is not paying into a pension fund well he will have no pension (except the 200 a week he will get from the state
I have worked for may years in the private sector and because the company I worked for during most of those years has gone bust my pension has gone pffff like a puff of wind. No safety net there so stop moaning about having to pay a bit more for your guaranteed pension

I don't understand this begrudgery. I don't want people who earn more than me to be earning less. I work harder and try and catch up. People have a better pension than me, I don't want them them stripped of their pension, I want to have one as good as them.

murphaph

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

.........and the state pension you are entitled to (and they are not) comes from where?

The private sector too. Don't you get it yet? ALL state income used for ALL state expenditure originates in the private sector in any capitalist country. That's just the way it is. Taxes 'paid' by public servants are just an excercise in accounting because the taxes go back to the same pot from whence the pay came. Only the private sector actually puts money into the pot in reality. This is not a dig at public servants-we need public services and so we need public servants.

nightwish wrote:

€26k per year before tax

For a 39 hour week? Is there an equivalent job in the private sector to reckon yours against to see if you are paid less than the 'going rate'?

crafty dodger

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I don't understand this begrudgery. I don't want people who earn more than me to be earning less. I work harder and try and catch up. People have a better pension than me, I don't want them them stripped of their pension, I want to have one as good as them.

It's not begrudgery
Pensions like everything else have to be paid for and I was pointing out that the payment level is nowhere near the true cost.... so if you want the end result of a good pension you gotta pay for it even in the public sector.

OhNoYouDidn't

crafty dodger wrote: »

It's not begrudgery
Pensions like everything else have to be paid for and I was pointing out that the payment level is nowhere near the true cost.... so if you want the end result of a good pension you gotta pay for it even in the public sector.

The public sector earn less but have more security and better conditions.

Whats difficult to understand here?

And if this is such a good levy, why aren't the policticians taking it on?

This is a 15% paycut in real terms. Thats unfair.

nesf

yellowpakchopra wrote: »

Your all idiots...Falling for the governments smokescreen
While you lot argue over who is right or wrong
They have the general public at each others throats
Cowen and Co are getting off the hook.
Bankers (Not the bank staff they are like you and me just trying to make a living) Investors who bit off more than they could chew.
Where suddenly has all the billions made over the Celtic Tiger years.

They have no idea how to solve this problem and are deflecting the whole debate. As if 1.4 billion from public servants will solve the issue.
We are in deeper $h!7 than that...lets get back to putting the blame where it belongs.

We are all to blame we voted them in a little wink and a smile got Bertie through the tough times but Cowen is too ugly to pull that one off.

Don't insult people please if you want to continue posting here.

pete

The Economist wrote: »

A kick in the teeth surely, but your pension is heavily subsidised by the private sector. You don't pay all of it yourself.

I don't work in pensions, but I've been told that...

Post-1995 CS recruits pay a 6.5% pension contribution and 6% PRSI.

On retirement, the amount of the state pension is deducted from the CS pension payable.

The last round of benchmarking suppressed salaries by up to 12% to allow for the value of the public service pension.

So it could be argued that the effective pension contribution before the new ~7% levy is around 20-25% of salary.

Time Magazine

Nightwish wrote: »

I dont work in Superannuation, so all I know is I pay €1000 per annum in pension costs. My bf works in the private sector and he pays less in pension contributions. How the "private sector" subsidises mine I dont know. I'll have to root out my Superannuation handbook.

The public sector pension fund isn't paid for entirely by pension contributions or superannuation, there's a bit of a subsidy from other sources.

Anyway its not going to be much use to me as I'm being let go in the next few months.

Sorry to hear that

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

.........and the state pension you are entitled to (and they are not) comes from where?

The Exchequer, i.e. private sector taxation.

Just for the record lads, I'm not arguing on a public=bad/private=good note. I'm just saying that the public sector pensions are subsidised.

ixoy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The public sector earn less but have more security and better conditions.

Whats difficult to understand here?

In principle, you're right that's the theory of it but now there's more than a fair few people who aren't convinced they earn less. It seems bench-marking was designed at times to give some in the CS/PS equal pays whilst maintaining all the previous goodies they enjoyed.
There's also anger at the indignation of some PS/CS who are playing the victim card too much in all of this.

And if this is such a good levy, why aren't the policticians taking it on?

Are politicians exempt from the levy? I didn't think they were.

This is a 15% paycut in real terms. Thats unfair.

Where is 15% coming? The top rate is 9% (should be higher).

pete

crafty dodger wrote: »

It's not begrudgery
Pensions like everything else have to be paid for and I was pointing out that the payment level is nowhere near the true cost.... so if you want the end result of a good pension you gotta pay for it even in the public sector.

Why isn't the 'pensions levy' going into the pensions reserve fund then?

gurramok

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The public sector earn less but have more security and better conditions.

Hold on, earn less?

That's simply not true, the ESRI report(see Economics forum) showed they earned 10%-30% more than their equivalent private sector halves.

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is a 15% paycut in real terms. Thats unfair.

How is it a 15% pay cut? The only people getting hit with 10% before tax relief kicks in are the people on multiple hundreds of thousands.

ixoy wrote: »

Where is 15% coming? The top rate is 9% (should be higher).

It works out at closer to 10% as you get higher up the incomes. It never reaches it but it gets pretty close.

crafty dodger

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The public sector earn less but have more security and better conditions.

Whats difficult to understand here?

And if this is such a good levy, why aren't the policticians taking it on?

This is a 15% paycut in real terms. Thats unfair.

What makes you think the public sector earns less?
Recent reports suggest that there is now a 20% differential between private sector and public sector pay levels with the public sector racing ahead(dont confuse this by referring to a few fat cats at the top in the private sector , they are not representative!) and MANY private sector employees have either lost their jobs (i.e. 100% pay cut) or if they are still in jobs they have taken cuts of between 5% and 25%

Politicians are a special breed (and they would have you believe public servants) who look after themselves. Personally I would cut their pay to the average industrial wage and scrap all of their allowances, pensions from other ministerial jobs while still a TD etc ... the list is endless. In my opinion they dont deserve my respect. Maybe when I see Brian Cowan getting the bus or train from Clara to Dublin I might think they are capable of change. As usual their mantra is do as I say and not as I do... for the good of the country of course

OhNoYouDidn't

gurramok wrote: »

Hold on, earn less?

That's simply not true, the ESRI report(see Economics forum) showed they earned 10%-30% more than their equivalent private sector halves.

That has been thoroughly debunked though. You cant compare the entire public sector with the industrial average. You miss all the self employed and contractors

I left the public sector to do the same job for 35% more.

OhNoYouDidn't

pete wrote: »

Why isn't the 'pensions levy' going into the pensions reserve fund then?

Nail on head. Nurses pensions being creamed to bail out Anglo!?! And people are wondering why there is industrial unrest planned? :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

How is it a 15% pay cut? The only people getting hit with 10% before tax relief kicks in are the people on multiple hundreds of thousands.



It works out at closer to 10% as you get higher up the incomes. It never reaches it but it gets pretty close.

plus the 6% in pre agreed pay increases being cancelled.

Fishtits

I can understand your grievance, however...

If you're going to protest, do it by staying at home.

If you take to the streets you're likely to get Lynched...

You've got a job + pension regardless. ie your mortgage gets paid, you're recession proof, your future is somewhat secure.

Be Careful how you protest would be my advice

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

plus the 6% in pre agreed pay increases being cancelled.

Most people aren't getting a 9% levy applied to them though. Just to be picky but you're talking closer to 10% after tax and honestly I wouldn't consider not getting an agreed pay increase as a pay cut.

ixoy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That has been thoroughly debunked though. You cant compare the entire public sector with the industrial average. You miss all the self employed and contractors

How has it been debunked?

Also we can't compare the average of one sector to the average of another? There's contractors and "top dogs" in both areas that can distort facts. What we need is the mean wage in professions both public and private and then factor in the various benefits offered to both parties

nesf

ixoy wrote: »

What we need is the mean wage in professions both public and private and then factor in the various benefits offered to both parties

I think you mean median.