Public Sector Unions to Take Action

joolsveer

Pre 1995 civil servants do not qualify for the standard old age pension.

monkeytronics

joolsveer wrote: »

Pre 1995 civil servants do not qualify for the standard old age pension.

not they don't but instead get a top up equivalent(?) to the OAP. I am not really sure about the exact figures on this one 'cos I don't know anyone pre 1995 who would qualify for full service

DenMan

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.

What makes you 100% sure that you will be let go in a few months time? If you are good at your job (and managing others jobs who have left) since the positions have not been replaced then you are doing fine and hopefully won't be let go.

P. Breathnach

monkeytronics wrote: »

First of all, the civil or public service pension for anyone post 1995 is not 50% of their final salary. :rolleyes:

Secondly, everyone already pays 6.5% of their salary towards their pension.

A retiring public servant with 40 years service on a final salary of 50,000euro will have a pension equivalent of €12,983.

They may (like everyone else) also qualify for the standard OAP pension

That is a distortion.

Post 1995 people pay less than 6.5%, because there is an adjustment to allow for their payment for a SW contributory OAP. They pay 6.5% of (current pay less twice the current level of Contributory OAP).

As the scheme is constituted at present, when they retire after 40 years they will get a lump sum equal to 150% of final salary and two pensions (Public Service and Contributory OAP) which, combined, amount to 50% of final salary. There is no "may qualify for standard OAP"; they will qualify for Contributory OAP.

Arrangements are different for those appointed before 1995, but the cost and benefit effect is pretty well identical.

nesf

monkeytronics wrote: »

A retiring public servant with 40 years service on a final salary of 50,000euro will have a pension equivalent of €12,983.

They may (like everyone else) also qualify for the standard OAP pension

You neglected to mention that they'll get a lump sum of €75,000 to start with. They'll also receive a supplementary bonus to their pension if they cannot qualify for the standard OAP pension.

Edit: Also, for people reading this the combination of the Contributory State Pension (which a person with 40 years of service in the Civil service will get) and the Pension quoted above total to just under 25,000 a year which, is 50% of the final salary of this hypothetical civil servant. So even with the changes, they're still getting 50% of their pension, it's just a combination of two pensions now rather than a straightforward single pension for pre-1995 employees.

monkeytronics

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is a distortion.

Post 1995 people pay less than 6.5%, because there is an adjustment to allow for their payment for a SW contributory OAP. They pay 6.5% of (current pay less twice the current level of Contributory OAP).

As the scheme is constituted at present, when they retire after 40 years they will get a lump sum equal to 150% of final salary and two pensions (Public Service and Contributory OAP) which, combined amount to 50% of final salary. There is no "may qualify for standard OAP"; they will qualify for Contributory OAP.

Arrangements are different for those appointed before 1995, but the cost and benefit effect is pretty well identical.

There is a disclaimer on the civil service pension modeller that says if you do not qualify for a SW pension through no fault of your own then you may get a supplementary pension. Not sure what cases this would apply to but there must be some if it is there.

But to be fair public sector workers, because of their jobs do not get 50% of their final salary. Through their job they get 25% - the other 25% comes from the OAP. Everyone (or most) in the country qualify for this. so you can't call the second 25% a benefit to public sector workers.

nesf

monkeytronics wrote: »

But to be fair public sector workers, because of their jobs do not get 50% of their final salary. Through their job they get 25% - the other 25% comes from the OAP. Everyone (or most) in the country qualify for this. so you can't call the second 25% a benefit to public sector workers.

Except for the private sector everyone gets €230 a week from the contributory State pension. Civil servants then get a pension which brings this up to 50% of their salary in total. It's only 25% coming from each for incomes of 50K a year. If you retire on 75K a year you'll get approx 12.5% from the OAP pension and 37.5% from your public sector pension. The benefit is that you always end up with a pension of 50% of your final salary.

Also private sector workers don't get a large lump sum on retirement by default.

Kimbot

To be honest with this one folks:

BOI went cap in hand to the Gov and got €7 Billion of them and then announced payrises of 3.5%.
ESB, instead of lowering prices so people aren't in trouble they awarded themselves a payrise.

The only way out of this "recession" is to spend our way out of it. If the public service get fleeced with the pension levy then there is less cash to be spent therfore you cannot spend your way out of the recession as their is less money there to spend.

Why on earth should the average joe working hard in the private/public sector have to bring us out of this mess? Simple: because the gov don't want their buddies held accountable.

Public sector workers have no problem taking a hit but a "levy" that applies to only the public sector is cruel. Why not lump up PAYE across the board? Why not take away some of the stupid idiotic "Tax breaks" that are making people Millions in this country.
Why on earth do the Ministers and TD's take a hit out of their own wages? Enda Kenny told them he didn't want his payrise and not one of the other fools in power follwed suit to show they really wanted to help this country out. The TD's and Ministers are still flying all over the world using taxpayers money and spending outragous amounts of money when there is no needs for it. Do I see anyone calling for them to stop this? No I don't!!

I don't see why on earth people can't just see the bigger picture with all this, the private and public sector workers should unite together to get out of this mess not fight with each other.



The main problem in this country has always been the same, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

monkeytronics

nesf wrote: »

Except for the private sector everyone gets €230 a week from the contributory State pension. Civil servants then get a pension which brings this up to 50% of their salary in total. It's only 25% coming from each for incomes of 50K a year. If you retire on 75K a year you'll get approx 12.5% from the OAP pension and 37.5% from your public sector pension. The benefit is that you always end up with a pension of 50% of your final salary.

Also private sector workers don't get a large lump sum on retirement by default.

And a clerical officer at the highest point of the scale gets a pension of 7,992euro per annum, + the state pension so you'll find that its a lot less than 25% for those. And so far the CPSU are the only ones to formally propose industrial action.

ixoy

nesf wrote: »

Except for the private sector everyone gets €230 a week from the contributory State pension. Civil servants then get a pension which brings this up to 50% of their salary in total. It's only 25% coming from each for incomes of 50K a year. If you retire on 75K a year you'll get approx 12.5% from the OAP pension and 37.5% from your public sector pension. The benefit is that you always end up with a pension of 50% of your final salary.

Also private sector workers don't get a large lump sum on retirement by default.

And is it not also true that their pension is tied to the current wage of their position? So it could increase well above inflation, if another round of bench marking kicks in?

nesf

monkeytronics wrote: »

And a clerical officer at the highest point of the scale gets a pension of 7,992euro per annum, + the state pension so you'll find that its a lot less than 25% for those. And so far the CPSU are the only ones to formally propose industrial action.

Indeed. I've never argued that COs got luxurious pensions. However it is not like someone is stuck as a CO forever and you do stand a decent chance of getting to a higher scale if you want it. Also, it's a guaranteed pension with a guaranteed generous lump sum at the end of it. That in itself is worth a lot. Your pension also will (most likely) increase as it's tied to the present pay in your old job which is very nice and again worth a lot.

monkeytronics

monkeytronics wrote: »

And a clerical officer at the highest point of the scale gets a pension of 7,992euro per annum, + the state pension so you'll find that its a lot less than 25% for those. And so far the CPSU are the only ones to formally propose industrial action.

And also, the following grades (all part of the CPSU) all earn less than 50,000 at their maximum (some a lot less):

Staff Officers
An Post:

Senior Secretary
Business Support Officer
Staff Officer

Eircom workers
Aviation Execs
Aviation Officer.

I think the max scale for Garda and nurses would be fairly similar?

So to be fair these people are not getting the huge pension benefit that everyone seems to think they get.

nesf

ixoy wrote: »

And is it not also true that their pension is tied to the current wage of their position? So it could increase well above inflation, if another round of bench marking kicks in?

To some extent, I think it's the call of the present Minister of Finance how much the pensions go up by, generally it's been parity.

BroomBurner

Lplated wrote: »

Maybe you could explain why it is inequitable?

Is requiring people to pay into a fund for a pension inequitable?

From my perspective, public sector workers are guaranteed 50% of final salary as a pension - i can't conceive any reason why they should not pay into that fund, much the same as every one else has to.

I would like your take on it though.

I agree with what Monkeytronics said in that there should have been a raft of measures that would affect everyone, not just picking on the public sector becasue they are easy. Also, I believe that the pension levy should be smaller for those on less money than what it is currently. People losing ~100 - 140 a month off their take home pay, when their take-home pay is small enough already, could be the cost of paying a bill. If anyone don't think losing €140 a month is a lot, then they are clearly earning a lot of money.

The inequality stems from the lack of "togetherness" that Cowen wants. What he REALLY wants, is "togetherness" from the PS to take a financial cut, while those in other sectors that aren't affected (there are plenty), to keep on making whatever they want. How do you find that equal?

On your pension question, if I retire after 40 years of service, and the current pension system is still in place (no guarantees), than this is how my pension will brake down:

50% will be 50% of my wage when I retire
50% will be standard Social Welfare pension that everyone else gets

Everyone here that works in the private sector have plenty of opportunity to raise an even higher pension for themselves, so long as they manage their money properly and trust those that are investing for them. Or even SAVE!!! Wow, that must be a new concept for anyone whinging about public sector pensions and their lack of one. Why is it OUR fault you can't be bothered to manage your own finances?

Had to get that off my chest.

monkeytronics

nesf wrote: »

Indeed. I've never argued that COs got luxurious pensions. However it is not like someone is stuck as a CO forever and you do stand a decent chance of getting to a higher scale if you want it. Also, it's a guaranteed pension with a guaranteed generous lump sum at the end of it. That in itself is worth a lot. Your pension also will (most likely) increase as it's tied to the present pay in your old job which is very nice and again worth a lot.

As far as I know, and to be honest its not something I have definitives on but the three people I know have retired in recent years have told me that the tie into the current salary does not apply after a certain time period (3 years ? i think was mentioned) - I can't verify that for definite - maybe someone else with the info can help on that one.

To be fair, the majority of people are stuck at CO level forever. I would say some (a good proportion) of that is down to inability to perform higher responsibities and/or fear of the additional responsibility. Thats not to say they are not good performers at CO level though.

And for others its just extremely difficult to get promoted. In a Dept of circa 900 - 1000 staff there has only been 3 promotions in almost 3 years from CO to EO and none and 1 from CO to SO. For other Depts this could be slightly more but for a lot it would be less.

It is not easy to get promoted.

P. Breathnach

monkeytronics wrote: »

And a clerical officer at the highest point of the scale gets a pension of 7,992euro per annum, + the state pension so you'll find that its a lot less than 25% for those. And so far the CPSU are the only ones to formally propose industrial action.

The CO also gets the lump sum, and at present pays well below 6.5% because of the deduction of 2*COAP before reckoning pensionable pay.

I said earlier

There are some anomalies in the levy, particularly for people recruited post 1995 to the lower-paid grades and who have no expectation of promotion before retirement age (such people do exist, typically people of middle or mature years who returned to the workforce). The Taoiseach signalled on the day the levy was announced that some re-balancing was possible, but nothing seems to have been done about it.

The CPSU would serve its members' interests better if it argued the case for rectification of the anomaly rather than pressing ahead with a strike motion and alienating the public.

nesf

monkeytronics wrote: »

As far as I know, and to be honest its not something I have definitives on but the three people I know have retired in recent years have told me that the tie into the current salary does not apply after a certain time period (3 years ? i think was mentioned) - I can't verify that for definite - maybe someone else with the info can help on that one.

It's at the discretion of the Minister of Finance I believe (though P. Breathnach should know more being only of those lazy public sector pensioner types...)

monkeytronics wrote: »

To be fair, the majority of people are stuck at CO level forever. I would say some (a good proportion) of that is down to inability to perform higher responsibities and/or fear of the additional responsibility. Thats not to say they are not good performers at CO level though.

And for others its just extremely difficult to get promoted. In a Dept of circa 900 - 1000 staff there has only been 3 promotions in almost 3 years from CO to EO and none and 1 from CO to SO. For other Depts this could be slightly more but for a lot it would be less.

It is not easy to get promoted.

I don't know, from talking to friends of mine in the service they are confident of getting promoted in the medium term. It probably varies hugely from department to department though.

stevoman

jonny24ie wrote: »

To be honest with this one folks:

BOI went cap in hand to the Gov and got €7 Billion of them and then announced payrises of 3.5%.
ESB, instead of lowering prices so people aren't in trouble they awarded themselves a payrise.

The only way out of this "recession" is to spend our way out of it. If the public service get fleeced with the pension levy then there is less cash to be spent therfore you cannot spend your way out of the recession as their is less money there to spend.

Why on earth should the average joe working hard in the private/public sector have to bring us out of this mess? Simple: because the gov don't want their buddies held accountable.

Public sector workers have no problem taking a hit but a "levy" that applies to only the public sector is cruel. Why not lump up PAYE across the board? Why not take away some of the stupid idiotic "Tax breaks" that are making people Millions in this country.
Why on earth do the Ministers and TD's take a hit out of their own wages? Enda Kenny told them he didn't want his payrise and not one of the other fools in power follwed suit to show they really wanted to help this country out. The TD's and Ministers are still flying all over the world using taxpayers money and spending outragous amounts of money when there is no needs for it. Do I see anyone calling for them to stop this? No I don't!!

I don't see why on earth people can't just see the bigger picture with all this, the private and public sector workers should unite together to get out of this mess not fight with each other.



The main problem in this country has always been the same, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

jonnt24ie there is no point saying that around here. simply because what you say makes sense.

any point i have seen by anyone to try and suggest the private sector also maybe take more then a 1% levy has either been ignored or shrugged off.

P. Breathnach

monkeytronics wrote: »

As far as I know, and to be honest its not something I have definitives on but the three people I know have retired in recent years have told me that the tie into the current salary does not apply after a certain time period (3 years ? i think was mentioned) - I can't verify that for definite - maybe someone else with the info can help on that one.

The link to current salaries is not guaranteed within the terms of the scheme, and the "official side" (the Department of Finance) has made some efforts to limit its implementation. But, for the most part, the link has been maintained.

To be fair, the majority of people are stuck at CO level forever. I would say some (a good proportion) of that is down to inability to perform higher responsibities and/or fear of the additional responsibility. Thats not to say they are not doo performers at CO level though.

There seem to be typos in this paragraph that obscure your intended meaning. A failure to get promotion does not, and should not, reduce a person's entitlement to pension.

And for others its just extremely difficult to get promoted. In a Dept of circa 900 - 1000 staff there has only been 3 promotions in almost 3 years from CO to EO and none and 1 from CO to SO. For other Depts this could be slightly more but for a lot it would be less.

It is not easy to get promoted.

That is currently true, has been true for the past couple of years, and will probably remain true into the medium term.

nhughes100

Firstly I think it's a bit unfair to say the whole PS + CS are going to strike over the pensions levy, the union named in the first post of this thread are one of the smallest in the country, at no point has Impact, Siptu or Unite said they are going to ballot on strike action to my knowledge. In fairness I think they are disputing the unfair way in which the levy penalises lower paid workers and they are correct in this assumption.

Secondly I've heard plenty of people on all sorts of salaries now saying they want out of the pension scheme. But they can't get out, you have no choice, you can't even limit your contributions and receive a reduced pension when you retire. I was talking to a colleague this morning whose partner is a teacher and their total pension contribution every month is approx 500euro. That's 6 grand a year. Over 40 years that's nearly a quarter of a million. Now I don't see why they can't take that money, stick it under the mattress or in the credit union or do what they like with it and drop out of the pension scheme.

Seriously you'll still be able to claim the oap state pension since you'll have paid PRSI all your life, what will you need a huge pension for. Your mortgage should be paid off. I think if I was offered I'd drop out myself.

Lastly, there is money, lots of money. 20 billion in social welfare for a start. That could easily be knocked by 20%. They have to start means testing and capping childrens allowance after 3 kids. All these single parent supplements have to be reviewed. We're not here to pay for your mistakes. The huge money that is wasted on subsidised housing by county councils.

SkepticOne

BroomBurner wrote: »

The inequality stems from the lack of "togetherness" that Cowen wants. What he REALLY wants, is "togetherness" from the PS to take a financial cut, while those in other sectors that aren't affected (there are plenty), to keep on making whatever they want. How do you find that equal?

I don't think equal comes into it. The Public Service, by definition, is in a position of subservience to wider society. The public sector exists to serve the State. The State does not exist to pay public sector wages.

Wider society decides what services they need and what they are willing to pay for such services. In the past, there was more money to go around and there was an expansion of the public sector. That kind of money is no longer available and so the public sector needs to take a hit. It is unfortunate but that is the way it is. Fair does not come into it.

This is why industrial action is such a mistake. Cutting the public sector workforce significantly (e.g. 10% - 15%) will become a politically popular move. I don't think there's many public servants who would like to take their chances in the private sector at the moment!

rkevin

gurramok wrote: »

The main opposition wants their numbers and pay cut too (bar Labour maybe) so it may look like they have no political voice as FF have turned their backs on them slightly

where have you being for the past weeks???
FG talked about paycut and layoffs and when they had there meeting last month they back off and siad they should be no paycuts

stevoman

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think there's many public servants who would like to take their chances in the private sector at the moment!

like the way there was nobody in the private sector who wanted to take their chances in a low paying menial job during the celtic tiger years, such as taking a job as a clerical officer in the civil service.

rkevin

guys you can see that the goverment is using this pension levy to make big cut back in the private sector wages and a lot bigger that the so cqalled 10% that the private sector have take allready. They are allready talking about cutting the minnium wage, when cowen thinks that the heads of banks should still be paid millions
one think for sure be it private or public sector our standards of living are for the chop to allow more profits for private sector employers

monkeytronics

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think equal comes into it. The Public Pervice, by definition, is in a position of subservience to wider society. The public sector exists to serve the State. The State does not exist to pay public sector wages.

Wider society decides what services they need and what they are willing to pay for such services. In the past, there was more money to go around and there was an expansion of the public sector. That kind of money is no longer available and so the public sector needs to take a hit. It is unfortunate but that is the way it is. Fair does not come into it.

This is why industrial action is such a mistake. Cutting the public sector workforce significantly (e.g. 10% - 15%) will become a politically popular move. I don't think there's many public servants who would like to take their chances in the private sector at the moment!

ITs all swings and roundabouts really in regards to what you state in your last sentence. The majority of people didn't want to take their chances in the public sector over the past number of years. But its irrelevant anyhow.

Your second paragraph is a classic hallmark of someone who is ignorant to the broad range of services that the public sector provides. I don't mean that as a criticism on you just that a lot of people don't really understand the entire public sector.

I am not sure what services are not required by people at the moment - I am sure there will be some (plenty?) but their are plenty of services (most of them essential) where level of demand will either remain constant or increase: For example:

Social Welfare Offices, Crime rates will not go down, the number of people requiring medical attention will not decrease. Thats to name but a few and there are plenty more.

Wider society does not determine all of the services they "need". There are plenty of services provided that the public don't know about nor understand, nor do such services affect the public in their everyday life. But such services are essential to the state.

Whether or not you are for or against Lisbon, whether or not you are for or against Ireland's participation in the EU, we are an EU member state and as a result of that there are a hell of a lot of requirements on us a member state - through various regulations and directives. As a country we must implement those directives - the "wider society" may not WANT people servicing the requirements of such Directives but they exist and must be managed. For example, the area of work I work in has seen Ireland been subject to 3 ECJ rulings in previous years and we continue to fight to reach our deadlines and requirements to implement the various Directives relevant to us. The consequence for failure - €30million lump sum fine and thousands of euros worth of fines on a daily basis until we reach our requirements.

You probably wouldn't have heard of the Directives in question and my area of work is a tiny proportion of the public sector and you can be sure many such sections exist across the public sector.

Don't forget that protection, education, welfare payments and health care are not the only essential services provided by the public sector - they may be the ones you read about most and maybe the most important but they are not on their own in terms of necessity

SkepticOne

stevoman wrote: »

like the way there was nobody in the private sector who wanted to take their chances in a low paying menial job during the celtic tiger years, such as taking a job as a clerical officer in the civil service.

Doesn't matter. This is now. If you want to make it politically acceptable to lay off large segments of the public sector go ahead and strike.

rkevin

SkepticOne wrote: »

Doesn't matter. This is now. If you want to make it politically acceptable to lay off large segments of the public sector go ahead and strike.

there has being lay off
where i work we have lost about 50 public servents that were on contract
we lost 17 who retired and not replace
galway county council are letting 120 go
kildare county council let 70 go
there are teacher being let go all over the country

OhNoYouDidn't

SkepticOne wrote: »

Cutting the public sector workforce significantly (e.g. 10% - 15%) will become a politically popular move.

Do you honestly believe that?

OhNoYouDidn't

SkepticOne wrote: »

Doesn't matter. This is now. If you want to make it politically acceptable to lay off large segments of the public sector go ahead and strike.

Do you live in a cave? Dublin Bus? All contract staff? The countu councils? Sub teachers? Missed all that?

Kimbot

stevoman wrote: »

jonny24ie there is no point saying that around here. simply because what you say makes sense.

any point i have seen by anyone to try and suggest the private sector also maybe take more then a 1% levy has either been ignored or shrugged off.

I know, at the end of the day people in the private sector just want scape goats just like the Government.

Its funny tho how people can all say "You have to pay your way" but when on earth are they going to say "WE have to pay our way"??

SkepticOne

monkeytronics wrote: »

Your second paragraph is a classic hallmark of someone who is ignorant to the broad range of services that the public sector provides. I don't mean that as a criticism on you just that a lot of people don't really understand the entire public sector.

They are all performed at the pleasure of wider society. I personally may not know each and every one of the services but I personally am not wider society, merely a single member. Note that the public sector is also part of wider society but merely a part. I will argue this point further in dealing with your other points.

I am not sure what services are not required by people at the moment - I am sure there will be some (plenty?) but their are plenty of services (most of them essential) where level of demand will either remain constant or increase: For example:

Social Welfare Offices, Crime rates will not go down, the number of people requiring medical attention will not decrease. Thats to name but a few and there are plenty more.

Yes, services will vary in the degree to which they are needed, but that need is still determined by society at large, through elected representatives who derive their power from the people. There are no exceptions to this.

Wider society does not determine all of the services they "need". There are plenty of services provided that the public don't know about nor understand, nor do such services affect the public in their everyday life. But such services are essential to the state.

Whether or not you are for or against Lisbon, whether or not you are for or against Ireland's participation in the EU, we are an EU member state and as a result of that there are a hell of a lot of requirements on us a member state - through various regulations and directives. As a country we must implement those directives - the "wider society" may not WANT people servicing the requirements of such Directives but they exist and must be managed. For example, the area of work I work in has seen Ireland been subject to 3 ECJ rulings in previous years and we continue to fight to reach our deadlines and requirements to implement the various Directives relevant to us. The consequence for failure - €30million lump sum fine and thousands of euros worth of fines on a daily basis until we reach our requirements.

Even if you are processing EU directive, you are still providing a service to society and society decides to what extent that service is needed (not the people providing that service) and whether the cost of providing it is justified. I think you are performing a valuable service, but the point remains that we as a country decide that.

What will happen if industrial action alienates the public sector for the country as a whole is paring back services to their absolute essentials will become a lot more politically acceptable. We might like small class sizes, for example, but can we get by with larger ones and pay less? More money in our pocket might be what we want at the moment rather than a large public sector pay bill. It is up to us as a people to decide and industrial action only tips the public mood against the interests of the public sector.

SkepticOne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that?

Yes.

rkevin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that?

off with his head
to reduce it by up to 15% would cost the state about 1 billion in social welfare another billion in redundancy at least and lead to a longer unemployed time for all the people and we all know that the longer you are out of work the harder it is to get back in the workforce

OhNoYouDidn't

rkevin wrote: »

off with his head
to reduce it by up to 15% would cost the state about 1 billion in social welfare another billion in redundancy at least and lead to a longer unemployed time for all the people and we all know that the longer you are out of work the harder it is to get back in the workforce

Exactly. How many times has it been posted here - please think through the consequences of the proposals you make.

OhNoYouDidn't

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yes.

Then, with respect, you are an idiot.

It would cost the exchequer a fortune and reduce services. At exactly the wrong time for both.

Think it through ffs.

monkeytronics

SkepticOne wrote: »

They are all performed at the pleasure of wider society. I personally may not know each and every one of the services but I personally am not wider society, merely a single member. Note that the public sector is also part of wider society but merely a part. I will argue this point further in dealing with your other points.Yes, services will vary in the degree to which they are needed, but that need is still determined by society at large, through elected representatives who derive their power from the people. There are no exceptions to this. Even if you are processing EU directive, you are still providing a service to society and society decides to what extent that service is needed (not the people providing that service) and whether the cost of providing it is justified. I think you are performing a valuable service, but the point remains that we as a country decide that.

What will happen if industrial action alienates the public sector for the country as a whole is paring back services to their absolute essentials will become a lot more politically acceptable. We might like small class sizes, for example, but can we get by with larger ones and pay less? More money in our pocket might be what we want at the moment rather than a large public sector pay bill. It is up to us as a people to decide and industrial action only tips the public mood against the interests of the public sector.

Actually thats not the case. The state manages the services required by

1. All of the People
2. Some of the People
3. The state as an entity.

Most services of the state are not supplied on the basis of what the people think they need or want.

As regards what I have bolded. Erroneous. The public do not get to decide all of the services that provided. Nor does it get to decide all of the services that are needed.

... Well actually in terms of EU Directive, I suppose the public does have a choice implement the Directive or remove itself from the EU. Is that really a choice???

ixoy

jonny24ie wrote: »

Its funny tho how people can all say "You have to pay your way" but when on earth are they going to say "WE have to pay our way"??

Next round of measures - I'm prepared for them to up the higher rate of income tax.

I see SIPTU now are warning of extreme industrial action, and trying to prevent an attack on all wages. Wow, I wasn't aware that are wages were suddenly really competitive and that we all of a sudden had cash to keep them at their current level....

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I start by declaring interests: I am a public sector pensioner, and some of my nearest and dearest are employed in the public service. So I escape the pension levy, but people who matter to me will have to bear it.

And I say that I am very disappointed by the failure of many public sector workers to recognise how good their pension package is, even counting in the cost of the levy. And while they bemoan the attacks on the public service (some of which are very unfair) they do not seem to recognise the corrolary: how little sympathy there would be if they took industrial action. The public outrage that would be expressed would stiffen the resolve of the politicians: there are more voters outside the public service than in it.

There are some anomalies in the levy, particularly for people recruited post 1995 to the lower-paid grades and who have no expectation of promotion before retirement age (such people do exist, typically people of middle or mature years who returned to the workforce). The Taoiseach signalled on the day the levy was announced that some re-balancing was possible, but nothing seems to have been done about it.

.....which is precisely why this levy fudge ia a mistake. It should have been a flat 10% cut in gross pay across all grades, which would (more fairly) have affected pensioners as well as those still working in the public service.However the unions are not going to call for this instead of the levy, they would rather fudge the fudge and claim a victory. Instead of the public sector unions looking to roll back this levy they should be highlighting the real unfairness heaped upon the public service AND ordinary private sector employees, namely the bankers inflated salaries and indeed, politicians in particular ministers.

stevoman

SkepticOne wrote: »

Doesn't matter. This is now. If you want to make it politically acceptable to lay off large segments of the public sector go ahead and strike.

i'l be going ahead and striking either way TBH.

SkepticOne

monkeytronics wrote: »

As regards what I have bolded. Erroneous. The public do not get to decide all of the services that provided. Nor does it get to decide all of the services that are needed.

... Well actually in terms of EU Directive, I suppose the public does have a choice implement the Directive or remove itself from the EU. Is that really a choice???

Yes it is a choice. All you are saying is that some services are more essential than others. If you remove a service there are consequences. No one would argue with that. But the fact remains that we as a people get to decide.

murphaph

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you live in a cave? Dublin Bus? All contract staff? The countu councils? Sub teachers? Missed all that?

Total number ca. less than 1,000~2,000?

Total number of jobs lost in the private sector in January alone: 37,000.

If the public sector strikes (even parts of it) then the government will have political carte blanche to wield the axe without mercy. The public sector unions need to realise that many more cuts an increases in taxation are on the way and pretty much everyone is going to see a dramatic reduction in their standard of living. This is just a (logical enough) first step-tackling our current expenditure first. It's exactly what you as an individual would do if your income fell off a cliff. You wouldn't keep spending and seek new sources of income later, you'd rein in your spending immediately and then seek new sources of income.

murphaph

stevoman wrote: »

i'l be going ahead and striking either way TBH.

Don't come back here moaning if you are one who is made redundant by the government (or the IMF).

SkepticOne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It would cost the exchequer a fortune and reduce services. At exactly the wrong time for both.

Reduce services? Won't the proposed industrial action that I believe you are in favour of achieve this?

monkeytronics

SkepticOne wrote: »

Reduce services? Won't the proposed industrial action that I believe you are in favour of achieve this?

Temporarily, not long term I would say.

I am not particularly in favour of strike action on any occasion but I am equally not in favour of the private sector thinking its ok to tell the public sector what to do in such circumstances especially when the public sector don't do this

SkepticOne

monkeytronics wrote: »

I am not particularly in favour of strike action on any occasion but I am equally not in favour of the private sector thinking its ok to tell the public sector what to do in such circumstances especially when the public sector don't do this

Note that I did not say the private sector has the right to tell the public sector what to do. It is the people as a whole (which includes the public sector), through the State, that have that right. Note also this does not mean any individual. Quite rightly I can't go up to you and tell you what to do. But we as a people, collectively, can and do, and rightly so.

ixoy

monkeytronics wrote: »

I am equally not in favour of the private sector thinking its ok to tell the public sector what to do in such circumstances especially when the public sector don't do this

What's galling the private sector is that, when their employer runs into financial difficulty, they - the employees - take the hit in cuts/job losses. Their employer (generally!) won't make everyone else pay by increasing its prices.

When the PS/CS employer (i.e. the government) runs into difficulties, the CS/PS employees want instead everyone to take the hit, not just themselves.

jmayo

Godge wrote: »

however, the January figures indicate a tax take in the region of the mid-20s as a percentage of GNP, unheard of in the OECD. Cutting public expenditure will not solve the problem.

That is the word.
I heard at the weekend from source working in revenue the January figures are horendous. He actually thinks the levy is the first of many cuts.

jonny24ie wrote: »

To be honest with this one folks:

BOI went cap in hand to the Gov and got €7 Billion of them and then announced payrises of 3.5%.
ESB, instead of lowering prices so people aren't in trouble they awarded themselves a payrise.
....
The only way out of this "recession" is to spend our way out of it. If the public service get fleeced with the pension levy then there is less cash to be spent therfore you cannot spend your way out of the recession as their is less money there to spend.
....

BOI is not the only one in receipt of this 7 billion. BTW it will be a lot more as most analysts expect.
Also ESB is still a state owned company, although some around here sell the myth that it is a private sector company.

This motto of spending ourselves out of this mess is nonsense.
The days of cheap credit are over and nobody wants to touch Ireland Inc.
Thus neither the banks can get loans to then forward onto to individuals nor the state can continue to amass huge debt to fund an overbudget public sector.

Remember spending other people's money on overpriced property and consumer goods is what has us in this mess in the first place.
Somebody asked "where has all the money from the celtic tiger gone ?"
Over the last 7/8 years since 2001 most of the money floating around the Irish economy was as the result of cheap credit and not becuase we actually produced anything concrete (pardon the pun) that other people outside of Ireland wanted.

We need to drastically cut costs so that real jobs can be created in manufacturing, in services etc.
Cut power costs, cut service costs form local authorities, cut minimum wage.
These are real jobs since they can add to exports, cut imports and thus affect our GNP and our tax revenue stream.
They are not reliant on us borrowing from someone else.

The motto has to be JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
Firstly they must be preserved and secondly they must be created.

By cutting PS wage bill and making PS workers pay towards the collosal cost of public sector pension bill, the state is preserving public sector jobs.
If PS workers can't see that then they are in for one hell of a schock.

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Then, with respect, you are an idiot.

You've been around long enough to know not to insult people. Banned for a week.

These thread have been getting more heated and I remind people that civility is not an option, if you cannot be civil take your contributions somewhere else.

Carlow52

monkeytronics wrote: »

Temporarily, not long term I would say.

I am not particularly in favour of strike action on any occasion but I am equally not in favour of the private sector thinking its ok to tell the public sector what to do in such circumstances especially when the public sector don't do this

Did not do what exactly?

The Public sector DID do this: Government Polices coupled with a failure of regulation, let the banks lend, nothing more nothing less.

The cost of the public service is funded by the sweat of the private sector.

Public sector job numbers, salaries and benefits all increased in // with the increases in private sector and now that the country is bankrupt [ Tax receipts in free fall: 29 bill bad debts in Anglo 17 in AIB 23 18 in INW 19 in IP] the public service expects to keep all it got and expect a much reduced private sector to keep it in the style to which it has become accustomed and to which it obviously feels entitled.

Hence if the Public sector persists with its strike action it is time to for the unemployed and the private sector to ostracise the public sector at the individual level. Deal with them only as required, but having them in our homes and places of business as friends who can be relied upon in such difficult times: NO THANKS.

mike65

Just watching the RTE news, its clear that Jack O'Conner sees this as his moment when he cements his place in trade union folklore. He's spoiling for a fight and if they 'go down blazing' Davy Crocket style so much the better it appears