Public Sector Unions to Take Action

SkepticOne · 11-02-2009 9:31pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm all for progress and shouldering the wheel, but where there is no progress and only b*ll**** and taking the p*ss out of the taxpayer, well then I'm all for protest and a downing of tools and general strikes and whatever comes with it...

To what end would you protest? What would be your demands?

I could see a situation where the public service, through stoppages and other protests forced a climbdown on the part of the government and the pension levy was reversed. But this still does not solve the problem in the underlying economy which is the cause of the public finance crisis. Without solving this, the day when there are large scale redundancies in the public sector (not just the small scale ones seen to date) is merely brought forward.

Therefore what needs to be done? What are your demands?

Darragh29 · 11-02-2009 9:58pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

To what end would you protest? What would be your demands?

I could see a situation where the public service, through stoppages and other protests forced a climbdown on the part of the government and the pension levy was reversed. But this still does not solve the problem in the underlying economy which is the cause of the public finance crisis. Without solving this, the day when there are large scale redundancies in the public sector (not just the small scale ones seen to date) is merely brought forward.

Therefore what needs to be done? What are your demands?

Well I've made this point before on this forum, that expecting this government to sort out the mess we are in, is like asking Shane Mc Gowan to run a pub. It wouldn't work, so my demands are as follows:

A General election.

We have a confidence crisis in the country right now and this I think is behind every economic problem that we have. If people are not spending, then we are going nowhere. Whatever about gaps in government revenue, if we are haemorraging jobs as a country, then we cannot sort this out, because the amount of the gap between what is coming into the exchequer and what is going out, is windening every single day. As long as we are losing jobs at a rate of 1,500 a day, we will need endless levys to pay for the unemployment benefit bill. As long as people are not spending, businesses are closing, pubs, shops, factories, retailers, etc.

People are not spending because they are terrified that they will be told on Friday that they are off to hatch 25. This is becasue the government is not dealing with the issue of job losses, so we need a new government.

I'm no fan of Enda Kenny or Eamon Gilmore, but say what you want about them, they are not responsible for getting us into this mess. As I said above, you wouldn't ask Shane Mc Gowan to run a pub or put Pete Doherty in charge of a drugs treatment clinic, so I think the same logic must ultimately be applied here, and we are seeing the evidence of what happens when you let apes run the country, unfold every time you turn on the television.

SkepticOne · 11-02-2009 10:13pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well I've made this point before on this forum, that expecting this government to sort out the mess we are in, is like asking Shane Mc Gowan to run a pub. It wouldn't work, so my demands are as follows:

A General election.

In my view, this is the only thing the public and private sector can unite behind. But for this to happen, the union leaders need to be shown the door since they are the biggest barrier to this as a common goal. For them, a victory is more burdens placed on the private sector that is already collapsing, yet nevertheless is the source of money for the public sector. They would be happy to declare victory if there was an extra few percent onto some tax but no pension levy or pay cut for the public sector. But this is not really a victory.

DARKIZE · 11-02-2009 10:18pm

NewDubliner wrote: »

And private sector pensions: where does the amount over and above what is paid in by the employee come from? How is it invested and who funds the interest and capital appreciation?

I don't understand your point NewDub.

In many private companies, there IS no amount over and above what is paid in by the employee. Some larger employers will typically make an additional contribution to the employee's as part of their remuneration......but that's by no means standard. For what it's worth, I pay 6%, my employer puts in an additional 3%. That fund is invested by in a choice of funds by our pensions management company. Whatever benefits I get when I retire will depend on the performance of those funds. And as for capital appreciation........well you may have noticed that there has been some slight concern internationally about the shrinking global economy. In short, my capital has depreciated, not appreciated. And I'd say that's common for most private pensions.

So you can understand that getting a guaranteed, defined benefit pension after service which is probably going to cost only 8-12% of salary overall is a sweet deal.

Hillel · 11-02-2009 10:29pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

In my view, this is the only thing the public and private sector can unite behind. But for this to happen, the union leaders need to be shown the door since they are the biggest barrier to this as a common goal. For them, a victory is more burdens placed on the private sector that is already collapsing, yet nevertheless is the source of money for the public sector. They would be happy to declare victory if there was an extra few percent onto some tax but no pension levy or pay cut for the public sector. But this is not really a victory.

+1

DARKIZE wrote: »

So you can understand that getting a guaranteed, defined benefit pension after service which is probably going to cost only 8-12% of salary overall is a sweet deal.

I think the issue is between can't understand and won't understand.
The "sweet deal" has been well proven, on Boards and elsewhere, over the past few weeks.
However, admitting to this would entirely undermine the case against the levy.
Hence the subterfuge continues.....
Come on you guys in the public sector, why not put your hands up and acknowledge that you're doing all right.

NewDubliner · 11-02-2009 10:37pm

DARKIZE wrote: »

I don't understand your point NewDub.
....That fund is invested by in a choice of funds by our pensions management company. Whatever benefits I get when I retire will depend on the performance of those funds. And as for capital appreciation........

My point is whether it is a public-sector pension paid for out of current revenue or a private sector plan enhanced by the proceeds of investment, this money comes from the pockets of others. A mark-up on goods or services, is just another form of taxation.

As regards the future of public-sector pensions...who knows what a future government might decide to do?

Darragh29 · 12-02-2009 2:13am

There's a very simple solution to all this pension crap. Whether you are a public or a private sector worker, relative to your pay, you have to make pension payments. Also, relative to your pay, your employer, whether that be the state or a private company, is legally obliged to make a contribution to your pension, but that mandatory employer contribution is the same for private sector workers as it is for public sector workers, as a function of your earings, on a sliding scale, relative to what you earn.

You are entitled to make AVC's (Additional Voluntary Contributions), to your pension if you wish, which will be matched with a government contribution (again whether you are a private or public sector worker), simple solution to a simple problem, with no disparity between private sector and public sector workers, which will eliminate the wedge that gets driven between each type of worker.

The same process needs to happen for employment rights, no more jobs for life in the public sector or operating protected work environments. You have a job for as long as you are needed and as long as you can do the job you are being paid for, it's that simple.

NewDubliner · 12-02-2009 9:33am

Darragh29 wrote: »

There's a very simple solution ....... simple solution to a simple problem, ....it's that simple.

There's nothing simple about making long-term investments that will yield enough money to finance peoples retirement.

As for your 'job-for-life' remark, there is no such rule or law.

future_plans · 12-02-2009 9:43am

Darragh29 wrote: »

There's a very simple solution to all this pension crap. Whether you are a public or a private sector worker, relative to your pay, you have to make pension payments. Also, relative to your pay, your employer, whether that be the state or a private company, is legally obliged to make a contribution to your pension, but that mandatory employer contribution is the same for private sector workers as it is for public sector workers, as a function of your earings, on a sliding scale, relative to what you earn.

You are entitled to make AVC's (Additional Voluntary Contributions), to your pension if you wish, which will be matched with a government contribution (again whether you are a private or public sector worker), simple solution to a simple problem, with no disparity between private sector and public sector workers, which will eliminate the wedge that gets driven between each type of worker.

The same process needs to happen for employment rights, no more jobs for life in the public sector or operating protected work environments. You have a job for as long as you are needed and as long as you can do the job you are being paid for, it's that simple.

Ideally, maybe an ideal solution. But the cost burden that would place on the private sector would mean whatever FDI companies we have left would leave sooner rather than later. At the end of the day, it's these guys fuel the economy. We are all only further cogs in the wheels.

K-9 · 12-02-2009 9:51am

Darragh29 wrote: »

There's a very simple solution to all this pension crap. Whether you are a public or a private sector worker, relative to your pay, you have to make pension payments. Also, relative to your pay, your employer, whether that be the state or a private company, is legally obliged to make a contribution to your pension, but that mandatory employer contribution is the same for private sector workers as it is for public sector workers, as a function of your earings, on a sliding scale, relative to what you earn.

You are entitled to make AVC's (Additional Voluntary Contributions), to your pension if you wish, which will be matched with a government contribution (again whether you are a private or public sector worker), simple solution to a simple problem, with no disparity between private sector and public sector workers, which will eliminate the wedge that gets driven between each type of worker.

The same process needs to happen for employment rights, no more jobs for life in the public sector or operating protected work environments. You have a job for as long as you are needed and as long as you can do the job you are being paid for, it's that simple.

I think something like this was recommended a couple of years ago as a solution to the pensions timebomb. Another thing ignored by in the boom times.

BroomBurner · 12-02-2009 10:06am

SkepticOne wrote: »

In my view, this is the only thing the public and private sector can unite behind. But for this to happen, the union leaders need to be shown the door since they are the biggest barrier to this as a common goal. For them, a victory is more burdens placed on the private sector that is already collapsing, yet nevertheless is the source of money for the public sector. They would be happy to declare victory if there was an extra few percent onto some tax but no pension levy or pay cut for the public sector. But this is not really a victory.

I see the discussion is going full circle back to the usual thought from some private sector workers that the public sector don't want to have to pay anything.

The general mood where I am, and with any friends in different departments, is that we are all ready to shoulder our share of the financial burden. This message is echoed by all the unions, if you bothered to read any of their comments in newspapers, etc.

The reason for the action against the pension levy is the unfair weighting towards low and middle-income workers. While those on more money are paynig a higher percentage (though not that much higher), they are also on 41% tax, which means they are not hit as hard as you would think.

For example, someone a grade higher than me, with more years on the clock, will pay about €20 more than me extra each fortnight, even though they are on about twice what I earn. Please explain how that is fair?

Also, PS workers do indeed pay in to their pensions, but I'm not getting in to that discussion again, the point has been made here tenfold.

12-02-2009 10:18am

NewDubliner wrote: »

My point is whether it is a public-sector pension paid for out of current revenue or a private sector plan enhanced by the proceeds of investment, this money comes from the pockets of others. A mark-up on goods or services, is just another form of taxation.

It is in it's nelly.
Ever heard of competition and peoples freedom to purchase goods where they like ?
Honestly I might have heard it all now in terms of defending secure government guaranteed jobs and perks but I'm sure theres more to be made up.

eoinbn · 12-02-2009 12:20pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

I don't see why someone on the same wage as myself should be specifically targetted for a pay cut. Anyone on 40K or less is right now struggling to stay on top of their bills and this isn't the case now, it's been the case for the last 10 years. These are the same people who have been raped by developers and banks just because they had the audacity to want a roof over their head for their family???

This is why I can't see any way out of this problem for Ireland. The penny just hasn't dropped.
We are overpaid, public and private, that's not an opinion thats a fact. Now just because you are overpaid doesn't mean you have a comfortable lifestyle, as you spending your inflated wages on irish goods and services that are equally inflated.
That's fine if we had a self-reliant economy, but we are anything but. Some of the highest wage and electricity costs in the world with below average infrastructure gives us little to no chance of replacing the jobs we hemmoraging currently(another 1100+ gone in SR technics today).

K-9 · 12-02-2009 12:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It is in it's nelly.
Ever heard of competition and peoples freedom to purchase goods where they like ?
Honestly I might have heard it all now in terms of defending secure government guaranteed jobs and perks but I'm sure theres more to be made up.

I can see why he would think that, it pays his wages!

molloyjh · 12-02-2009 12:35pm

eoinbn wrote: »

This is why I can't see any way out of this problem for Ireland. The penny just hasn't dropped.
We are overpaid, public and private, that's not an opinion thats a fact. Now just because you are overpaid doesn't mean you have a comfortable lifestyle, as you spending your inflated wages on irish goods and services that are equally inflated.
That's fine if we had a self-reliant economy, but we are anything but. Some of the highest wage and electricity costs in the world with below average infrastructure gives us little to no chance of replacing the jobs we hemmoraging currently(another 1100+ gone in SR technics today).

Exactly. Yet so many people here are so busy squabbling over the private sector vs the public sector they fail utterly to see this. There are problems across the board and focusing in on any one group will never solve it. I think most peoples problems with the pension levy is more to do with implementation that anything else, yet its being made into "public service don't want to pay their way" tosh.

We're so busy squabbling with each other we're letting the Government totally off the hook. They managed us into this and are doing a piss poor job of managing us out. If people reckon the heads of the banking institutions should go and the regulator etc then surely they should all be calling for the heads of the current Government aswell?

SkepticOne · 12-02-2009 12:56pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly. Yet so many people here are so busy squabbling over the private sector vs the public sector they fail utterly to see this. There are problems across the board and focusing in on any one group will never solve it. I think most peoples problems with the pension levy is more to do with implementation that anything else, yet its being made into "public service don't want to pay their way" tosh.

Well said, although you managed to get a little dig in there. We also need to stop listening to union leaders who who are stoking up this rivalry with their "why should it only be the public sector taking the pain?" rhetoric.

Darragh29 · 12-02-2009 1:02pm

eoinbn wrote: »

This is why I can't see any way out of this problem for Ireland. The penny just hasn't dropped.
We are overpaid, public and private, that's not an opinion thats a fact. Now just because you are overpaid doesn't mean you have a comfortable lifestyle, as you spending your inflated wages on irish goods and services that are equally inflated.
That's fine if we had a self-reliant economy, but we are anything but. Some of the highest wage and electricity costs in the world with below average infrastructure gives us little to no chance of replacing the jobs we hemmoraging currently(another 1100+ gone in SR technics today).

I totally agree with you. When an ESB bill comes in my door, it's usually around 400 Euro at the moment. No surprise when they award themselves another 3.5% pay increase when the dole queue at Tallaght is now nearly long enough to encircle The Square building itself, based on the queue that I saw yesterday morning.

You are right, the penny hasn't dropped, it has dropped with me, but it doesn't seem to have dropped with the ESB workers and management in that company, the same can be said for public sector workers who are being paid 200K plus a year, the same can be said for TD's claiming unvouched expenses...

SkepticOne · 12-02-2009 1:05pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

I see the discussion is going full circle back to the usual thought from some private sector workers that the public sector don't want to have to pay anything.

The general mood where I am, and with any friends in different departments, is that we are all ready to shoulder our share of the financial burden. This message is echoed by all the unions, if you bothered to read any of their comments in newspapers, etc.

The reason for the action against the pension levy is the unfair weighting towards low and middle-income workers. While those on more money are paynig a higher percentage (though not that much higher), they are also on 41% tax, which means they are not hit as hard as you would think.

For example, someone a grade higher than me, with more years on the clock, will pay about €20 more than me extra each fortnight, even though they are on about twice what I earn. Please explain how that is fair?

Also, PS workers do indeed pay in to their pensions, but I'm not getting in to that discussion again, the point has been made here tenfold.

I agree with this, but your union leaders let you down here. They should have accepted that sacrifices had to be made and that most of these sacrifices would have to be in the form of cuts in spending and then argued for a more equitable distribution. Now we are discussing fairness but it is too late.

Darragh29 · 12-02-2009 1:11pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

I agree with this, but your union leaders let you down here. They should have accepted that sacrifices had to be made and that most of these sacrifices would have to be in the form of cuts in spending and then argued for a more equitable distribution. Now we are discussing fairness but it is too late.

Your dead right, all we need is an equitable solution to pensions. The answer is simple, everyone makes a mandatory pension contribution and the employer, whether that be the government or Tesco, makes a pension contribution. AVC's are allowed and everyone lives happiliy ever after. Likewise, the notion of a public sector job is a job for life also needs to be addressed. Benchmarking has been the cause of all this disparity, which is ironic as it was apparently set up to address an anomaly in this area.

There is something wrong in a country where a public sector worker is living in a protected and highly unionised work environment and a private sector worker cannot even have a dismissal issue dealt with in an enforcable manner, which is the case with the LRC...

joolsveer · 12-02-2009 1:22pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

Your dead right, all we need is an equitable solution to pensions. The answer is simple, everyone makes a mandatory pension contribution and the employer, whether that be the government or Tesco, makes a pension contribution.
...........

I agree with contributions being made by everybody. I don't think they should be lodged with the employer though as many employers have embezzled the company pension fund - Robert Maxwell comes to mind. A State bank might be a better idea to hold on to contributions.

molloyjh · 12-02-2009 1:29pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Well said, although you managed to get a little dig in there. We also need to stop listening to union leaders who who are stoking up this rivalry with their "why should it only be the public sector taking the pain?" rhetoric.

Absolutely, although to be fair (and I'm not much of a union fan believe me!) most have said they are happy to take a hit, and accept they need to, but that they just feel the current solution is not the right one. Most people, be they public or private, seem to agree with that from what I've been able to tell.

At the end of the day this is a quick fix solution that the Government are forcing on us out of almost blind panic. Some calm is needed, a bit of time to analyse the options properly and find where the most valuable savings (both financially and from a service point of view) can be found. For example cutting special needs education funding is criminal in my book. It's not like this area is one we've done particularly well on up until now, in fact we've been fairly poor from what I've seen, so reducing the funding and reducing the service on something that is not up to scratch as it is cannot be the right thing to do.

There is huge amounts of wastage in public spending that can be done away with if the Government grew a pair and tackled some of the real issues. A blanket overtime ban for example (I've heard of some civil servants getting overtime without having to work it!). But not all solutions should involve cuts in spending per se. Reforming the health service so that we get good value for the money that goes in should be a priority right now. Use the recession as a big stick to enforce change thats really needed and in the long term benefit of the country. I don't know about the rest of you, but if they were to take that approach I'd gladly pay an extra percent or two in tax over what we're paying now. If we're getting something back for it then why not?

I strongly agree with some form of taxation on additional houses and a review of the stamp duty rates in an attempt to improve the housing market. I know for myself the main reason I can't afford to move is that between the 8% of the value I'll need to get the mortgage and the stamp duty I'll need to have between 40k and 50k to buy elsewhere. The only way this was ever a realistic occurance was when house prices were increasing and you could rely on equity to fund this. With many people in my generation in negative equity now thats no longer a runner. And the market should be in part driven by my generation, i.e. second time buyers trading up after getting married and starting a family etc. Few if any of us can afford to do that. Investors are no longer going to buy (obviously) and so the only group still buying are the first time buyers, who traditionally would be doing well to make up 15-20% of the market. Trade-ups would normally account for a good deal more of the market.

Instead the services that are provided are being or will be scaled back or left in the shambles they currently are and all the Government seem to be able to do is reduce peoples ability to spend without giving them anything back. They are not encouraging growth in any areas. Talk of a knowledge based economy one minute and education cuts the next proved beyond doubt (to me at least) that they should not be at the helm for this crisis.

molloyjh · 12-02-2009 1:49pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

...the same can be said for public sector workers who are being paid 200K plus a year....

I'd be curious to see just how many public sector workers get paid that kind of salary. I work in one of the univiersities - which is only semi-state I know - where out of approx 3,500 staff only 15 get that (and none get more than 300k) which is less that 0.5% of the workforce here. Compare that to, say, AIB. Eugene Sheehy was paid €2.1m last year. That salary alone counts for well over half the salaries of those 15 in my university.

The problem is that almost every sector has people who are overpaid, not just the banks and not just the public service. Having done the same job in both sectors I can guarantee you I am not getting paid any more in public than I was or would be in private.

Darragh29 wrote: »

...the same can be said for TD's claiming unvouched expenses...

Now there we both agree!

thomasj · 12-02-2009 3:36pm

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2009/01/15/story81968.asp

TDs paid far more than MPs for less work

THE new year is just a fortnight old and many more Irish workers find themselves out of a job.

But there are 166 lucky Irish workers who haven’t returned from the holidays yet, haven’t lost their jobs and have not been docked pay... they are TDs.

In the lead-up to Christmas there was much discussion over the difference in euro and sterling prices for the same goods in the same shops.

So considering that the Irish parliamentary system is a copy of the British one, how do our TDs compare with MPs, and are we being ripped off in politics as much as we are in the shops?

In 2008, the Dáil sat for 97 days compared with 155 days for the House of Commons. The Commons sat for 19 four-day and 12 five-day weeks.

In contrast the Dáil only managed one lousy four-day week during 2008.

It must to nice for the increasing numbers of Irish workers on a three-day week to know their TDs have being doing just that on full pay for years.

Naturally, TDs will excuse their behaviour by saying they have to attend to constituency business and that rural TDs have long distances to travel.

But MPs have to attend to constituency business, too, and look at the distances that Scottish and Welsh MPs have to travel.

Also each TD has only an average of 25,500 constituents to attend to, but an MP has more than 94,000.

So if MPs sit 50% more days, have longer working weeks and shorter holidays, have nearly four times more constituents to look after and have to travel vastly longer distances, they must be on fantastic pay.

Well, an MP gets the sterling equivalent of around €70,000 compared to €105,000 for a TD; a British minister gets roughly €160,000 compared to €240,000 for an Irish minister and the Prime Minister earns €220,000 compared with €310,000 for the Taoiseach. We have a deepening financial crisis and there is much debate of late on radical cuts in public sector pay and numbers, more taxes on Irish workers and calls for patriotism as a solution.

But while TDs do less work for 50% more pay than MPs, they are just not entitled to participate in such debates and make demands on others.

So for the rest of January, I request all TDs to take a hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask if there shouldn’t be radical cuts in both the numbers and pay of Irish politicians.

As an example of how radical, perhaps politicians should be paid according to the number of days their parliament sits.

If an MP is paid €450 for each day the House of Commons sits, then a TD would have his salary cut by nearly 60% to €43,650.

monkeytronics · 12-02-2009 6:39pm

PSEU (EOs & HEOs & equivalents) are to ballot members on strike action as well.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0212/breaking79.htm

The Public Service Executive Union (PSEU) is to ballot its members on proposals to take industrial action following the announcement of the pension levy by the Government last week.

The union is seeking its members' vote on up to two days’ strike action and is to seek authority for up to two further days of selective strikes by members in particular areas.

The action is intended to entail all PSEU members who will be hit by the levy, but the union said local social welfare offices and other emergency services would be exempt from the action as it did not want to affect the vulnerable in Irish society.

The executive committee of the PSEU said the union would use any mandate from its members with other public service unions.

General secretary designate of the union Tom Geraghty said the PSEU was committed to resolving the issue "in the context of the overall Ictu response to our current economic crisis" and was seeking a return to talks with the social partners "if there is a genuine commitment by all parties to the achievement of a fair outcome".

"However, the level of anger and frustration among members at the fact that the Government imposed unilaterally a penal tax on low and middle income earners, while refusing to broaden the tax base or to tax the wealthy, is such that members will take action in this form if they are forced into this position," the unions said in a statement.

Mr Geraghty said he hoped the Government and employers would "come to their senses" and return to negotiations.

The PSEU union represents about 10,000 mid-ranking staff in executive grades.

The Civil, Public and Services Union is balloting its members, and, if carried, that could result in about 13,000 civil servants taking one-day strike action on February 26th

NewDubliner · 12-02-2009 8:14pm

joolsveer wrote: »

A State bank might be a better idea to hold on to contributions.

We could call it the "National Pension Reserve Fund"

darragh29 wrote:

Likewise, the notion of a public sector job is a job for life also needs to be addressed.

You've mentioned this notion before, but failed to define it.

Hillel · 12-02-2009 10:50pm

NewDubliner wrote: »

There's nothing simple about making long-term investments that will yield enough money to finance peoples retirement.

Exactly, now you're getting the point. It's even harder making long-term investments that would result in retirement pensions that would be equivalent to those in the Public Sector.

NewDubliner wrote: »

As for your 'job-for-life' remark, there is no such rule or law.

I agree. But, what you do have is so-called "custom and practice" in the public service, in this case a practice where no public servant is dismissed for anything other than gross misconduct. De facto, custom and practice, forms part of employees terms and conditions of employment.

Hillel · 12-02-2009 11:04pm

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd be curious to see just how many public sector workers get paid that kind of salary. I work in one of the univiersities - which is only semi-state I know - where out of approx 3,500 staff only 15 get that (and none get more than 300k) which is less that 0.5% of the workforce here. Compare that to, say, AIB. Eugene Sheehy was paid €2.1m last year. That salary alone counts for well over half the salaries of those 15 in my university.

The problem is that almost every sector has people who are overpaid, not just the banks and not just the public service. Having done the same job in both sectors I can guarantee you I am not getting paid any more in public than I was or would be in private.

Now there we both agree!

When you state that you have "done the same job in both sectors", I take it that you have worked in the private sector. By no stretch of the imagination can universities be classified as part of the "private sector". In fairly recent times, some senior academics have tried to perpetuate that myth. The argument was that they "deserved" to be paid salaries comparable to senior management in Industry.

NewDubliner · 13-02-2009 9:10am

Hillel wrote: »

Exactly, now you're getting the point. It's even harder making long-term investments that would result in retirement pensions that would be equivalent to those in the Public Sector.

Especially when the private sector cannot be trusted to manage money responsibly. Darragh29's solution is for us all to invest our pension contributions in the banks and at the same time for the banks to be wound up.

Certainly, it's worth checking out pension entitlements when making a career choice.

Hillel wrote: »

I agree. But, what you do have is so-called "custom and practice" in the public service, in this case a practice where no public servant is dismissed for anything other than gross misconduct.

That's actually not accurate, but it is widely believed to be the case.

molloyjh · 13-02-2009 11:01am

Hillel wrote: »

When you state that you have "done the same job in both sectors", I take it that you have worked in the private sector. By no stretch of the imagination can universities be classified as part of the "private sector". In fairly recent times, some senior academics have tried to perpetuate that myth. The argument was that they "deserved" to be paid salaries comparable to senior management in Industry.

Haha. Yes I meant the private sector (banks and consultancy companies). I've spent a lot longer in the private sector than the public.

Hillel · 14-02-2009 3:32am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillel
I agree. But, what you do have is so-called "custom and practice" in the public service, in this case a practice where no public servant is dismissed for anything other than gross misconduct.

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's actually not accurate, but it is widely believed to be the case.

Custom and practice is where a term of employment is set up by normal behaviour in a workplace rather than by legislation or a written contract. One example is an informal ten-minute coffee break at 11am.
See here: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/checklists/glossary-of-employment-terms

To clarify my second point: You are correct, it is not accurate. I should have said that custom and practice in the public sector is that no established/permanent state employee is dismissed for anything other than gross misconduct.

De facto, because of "custom and practice", established/permanent state employees cannot be made redundant. To the best of my knowledge, I have only seen a small number of civil service contracts, there is no legal clause in contracts for established/permanent state employees stating that the state employee has a job for life. Nevertheless, it is widely excepted by government and employees that this is the case.

Public Sector Unions to Take Action

Comments