public/civil servants im going to run you over...

smartypants

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

Hobart

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

Obviously your username is a misnomer.

smartypants

Hobart wrote: »

Obviously your username is a misnomer.

good one... :rolleyes:

4zn76tysfajdxp

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

twinytwo

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

They had it great in the good times but still want it great in the bad ones......

ps Biffo should this opportunity to get rid of bench marking... costs the country millions every year and keeps going up.

RATM

smartypants wrote: »

who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

Correct me if Im wrong but it wasn't the Gardai, nurses or teachers who screwed the country up in the first place but it is them who are now taking a financial hit to subsidise those who did.

If there had of been a tax on people with second homes or a way of bringing tax exiles into the tax net then public servants may not have felt so annoyed about the current situation. But there wasn't, as usual our government went after the little people- cuts on childcare allowance and overseas aid, like ffs.

There's a saying in politics that a measure of government is to look at how they treat the most vulnerable in society and between the childcare cuts, overseas aid and the medical card debacle this government fails in every aspect.

FlutterinBantam

We are where we are.

Promoting industrial action unrest will do absolutely nothing,not one thing, to get the country out of the situation it finds itself in.
In fact it will hasten us towards bankruptcy.

the unions know . The labradors in the street know it.

All we have here is exaggerated sabre rattling and posturing.

I'm well aware the PS didn't cause the problem, the PAYE person didn't either or the pvt sector worker....but, one can't look on as your house burns down and say I didn't start the fire.

First things first,try to put the damn fire out before it destroys the whole gaff.

FlutterinBantam

twinytwo wrote: »

They had it great in the good times but still want it great in the bad ones......

ps Biffo should this opportunity to get rid of bench marking... costs the country millions every year and keeps going up.

bench marking AND index linked pensions.

Naos

Out of curiosity RATM, why should there be the tax on second homes?

Joe Bloggs, works hard and saves his money. He buys a second home somewhere down the country as a retreat for his family and he plans to retire down there when he's finished working.

So instead of p1ssing it up against the wall or going on foreign holidays, he's spending his money domestically. He's paying for the builders, putting men/women in employment and is also going to contribute to the rural area by supporting the local shop.

Why should he have to pay tax on a second home?

easyontheeye

RATM wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but it wasn't the Gardai, nurses or teachers who screwed the country up in the first place but it is them who are now taking a financial hit to subsidise those who did.

If there had of been a tax on people with second homes or a way of bringing tax exiles into the tax net then public servants may not have felt so annoyed about the current situation. But there wasn't, as usual our government went after the little people- cuts on childcare allowance and overseas aid, like ffs.

There's a saying in politics that a measure of government is to look at how they treat the most vulnerable in society and between the childcare cuts, overseas aid and the medical card debacle this government fails in every aspect.

I think the op means screwing up the country by going on strike and making things even worse. i mean in fairnes it wasnt the private sectors fault either but they are reacting by slimming down and laying off staff... the public sector needs to cut its cloth to measure...why are people shocked by this?


im sickof hearing "we didnt cause this" ...neither did the private sector but at least the private sector can react...the PS has its hands tied by threats of industrial action!

peasant

Divide et impera

4zn76tysfajdxp

peasant wrote: »

Divide et impera

Carpe diem

jim o doom

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

That's fine, there are enough people in the public service that we don't need the "support" of uninformed morons.

the country will just grind to a halt because the people getting paid the least in the civil service are getting hit the hardest.

but no, your right - those people SHOULDN'T fight for their rights & allow the government to take the money from those with very little, whilst those on the highest rungs (still within the service) are getting paid INSANE salaries. because that makes LOTS of sense doesn't it? take from the poor give to the rich.

easyontheeye

jim o doom wrote: »

That's fine, there are enough people in the public service that we don't need the "support" of uninformed morons.

the country will just grind to a halt because the people getting paid the least in the civil service are getting hit the hardest.

but no, your right - those people SHOULDN'T fight for their rights & allow the government to take the money from those with very little, whilst those on the highest rungs (still within the service) are getting paid INSANE salaries. because that makes LOTS of sense doesn't it? take from the poor give to the rich.

they still have jobs dont they.... 200 euro a week or a few % pay cut...

and everyone is taking a hit...get real!

jim o doom

easyontheeye wrote: »

they still have jobs dont they.... 200 euro a week or a few % pay cut...

and everyone is taking a hit...get real!

in between 2000 & 2008 the max a sec general in civil service could earn was 130,000 (A LOT in 2000), which went up to a MAX of 230,000 (an absoultely CRAZY amount)..

in 2000 to a max of 36k in 2008. Most of the lower paid are not on the "highest" amount, in fact they are on the average industrial wage & are facing a big cut whilst having mortgages etc to pay for.

The strike is about them taking money from those with not much & not taking enough off those (all within the service) that have loads. simple as that.

easyontheeye

jim o doom wrote: »

in between 2000 & 2008 the max a sec general in civil service could earn was 130,000 (A LOT in 2000), which went up to a MAX of 230,000 (an absoultely CRAZY amount)..

in 2000 to a max of 36k in 2008. Most of the lower paid are not on the "highest" amount, in fact they are on the average industrial wage & are facing a big cut whilst having mortgages etc to pay for.

The strike is about them taking money from those with not much & not taking enough off those (all within the service) that have loads. simple as that.

but again i come back to my point... they still have jobs!!!! ffs they are lucky its hard to make them redundant!! the reality is the majority are low pay workers and thats where most of that taxes will come from

Noopti

The public sector need to take a hit as well as everyone else. Afterall they haven't got the risk of losing their jobs, so the least they can do is pay something towards having that piece of mind.

They are making out that they are taking a hit for everyone else. WAKE UP!
Thousands of private sector workers have lost their jobs, taken pay cuts and lower working hours.

Yes, the banks screwed us. But the end result is that everyone (private & public) will need to get hit because of it - and there is no way of avoiding that.

twinytwo

jim o doom wrote: »

That's fine, there are enough people in the public service that we don't need the "support" of uninformed morons.

the country will just grind to a halt because the people getting paid the least in the civil service are getting hit the hardest.

but no, your right - those people SHOULDN'T fight for their rights & allow the government to take the money from those with very little, whilst those on the highest rungs (still within the service) are getting paid INSANE salaries. because that makes LOTS of sense doesn't it? take from the poor give to the rich.

Eh.. where to start.... job security, pensions that they dont have to contribute to, index linked pensions, There is no drive in the public service to try and be more efficient etc etc.. Now i know this dosent apply to everyone but take the tradesmen working for the councils takes 3 times longer with 3 times the men to do a job compared to private contractor... talk about taking the piss. When was the last time a teacher was fired??... i mean they could be ****e and might not be able to teach but sure they cant be removed. it goes on and on and on

Noopti

twinytwo wrote: »

Eh.. where to start.... job security, pensions that they dont have to contribute to, index linked pensions, There is no drive in the public service to try and be more efficient etc etc.. Now i know this dosent apply to everyone but take the tradesmen working for the councils takes 3 times longer with 3 times the men to do a job compared to private contractor... talk about taking the piss. When was the last time a teacher was fired??... i mean they could be ****e and might not be able to teach but sure they cant be removed. it goes on and on and on

So true. My g/f works in the public sector and the stories I hear!
In the department where she works some people had upwards of 20 days sick leave for the year, people would routinely arrive 30-45 mins later, people would sit on their arse half the day unless forced to work.

Then at the end of the year they would have their hands out expecting their "increments". I am not saying all public sector workers are like this, far from it, it is the minority for sure. All I am saying is the public sector working environment is conducive to such lazy, money grabbing w@nkers, because if they worked in the private sector they:
A) Would be fired
or
Not get a raise (if they were lucky)

So for people to threaten to go on strike and cripple the country further just so that they don't lose some money like the rest of us (those who are lucky) is annoying in the extreme.

RATM

Naos wrote: »

Out of curiosity RATM, why should there be the tax on second homes?

Joe Bloggs, works hard and saves his money. He buys a second home somewhere down the country as a retreat for his family and he plans to retire down there when he's finished working.

So instead of p1ssing it up against the wall or going on foreign holidays, he's spending his money domestically. He's paying for the builders, putting men/women in employment and is also going to contribute to the rural area by supporting the local shop.

Why should he have to pay tax on a second home?

The logic being that if you have a second home then it is a luxury, not a necessity. I totally take on board your point about keeping money in the economy but it appears to many so far on these cutbacks that the rich and super rich are avoiding having to pay.
I wouldn't agree on a property tax on a first home as it could tend to hit those in need the most. But if you have a second ( or third, fourth, etc ) home and did quite well out of the property boom when Section 23 tax breaks were being thrown about then I think it is time to give back a little.

Such a gesture may not make the exchequer a massive amount of money but it would send the right signal to those public servants who are currently being asked to do their bit.

The biggest problem here is for the government to be seen to be dealing with cutbacks in a fair and equitable manner- if it is seen to be unfair ( which the unions and their members currently think it is ) then the only thing that is going to happen are strikes and stoppages and those are only going to serve to cripple the country.

As we heard last weekend there are 30,000 millionaires in this country and around half a dozen billionaires- so far not one single measure the government has made has targeted these people. There's no point throwing around the 'private sector is taking the hit with job losses' argument because these people have made so much money off the boom they no longer need a job.

Until the government targets some sort of a tax on these people then regular hard working people will not feel the treatment they are receiving is anywhere near equitable, especially when it is those same moneyed classes who are primarily responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.

jim o doom

twinytwo wrote: »

Eh.. where to start.... job security, pensions that they dont have to contribute to, index linked pensions, There is no drive in the public service to try and be more efficient etc etc.. Now i know this dosent apply to everyone but take the tradesmen working for the councils takes 3 times longer with 3 times the men to do a job compared to private contractor... talk about taking the piss. When was the last time a teacher was fired??... i mean they could be ****e and might not be able to teach but sure they cant be removed. it goes on and on and on

Are you REALLY actually missing my point THAT much? ALL of us will be HAPPY to pay a levy. The problem is WITHIN the service. There are people in the service getting paid 260,000 at the high end of the scale, RIGHT? and they ALSO have JOB SECURITY, like those getting paid VERY LITTLE, RIGHT?

The point is that those with not much pay are having too much taken off them, when those getting paid LOADS are NOT getting enough taken off them.

Both those with HIGH & LOW pay BOTH have job security, but there is a MASSIVE discrepancy on how much both sections of the public sector are being levied. Now do you understand???????

The point is not job security, even remotely because after the levy which RAPES the lowest paid & doesn't bother the highest paid that much, they will both STILL HAVE job security.

easyontheeye

jim o doom wrote: »

The point is not job security, even remotely because after the levy which RAPES the lowest paid

abit dramatic... i think its fair. sure wont they get it all back when they retire through their pension which is outside the forces of economics.

jim o doom

twinytwo wrote: »

Eh.. where to start.... pensions that they dont have to contribute to

OMG I am so sick of hearing this! ALL CIVIL SERVANTS ALREADY PAY 6% of our wages to our pension, this levy will increase it to about 14%! jesus do some research before you post utterly uninformed rubbish.

easyontheeye

jim o doom wrote: »

OMG I am so sick of hearing this! ALL CIVIL SERVANTS ALREADY PAY 6% of our wages to our pension, this levy will increase it to about 14%! jesus do some research before you post utterly uninformed rubbish.

your missing the point, 6% is not the true value of the average pension, private sector workers would have to pay about 20% to get that kind of pension AND it would be at the mercy of the market and crashes.

jim o doom

easyontheeye wrote: »

abit dramatic... i think its fair. sure wont they get it all back when they retire through their pension which is outside the forces of economics.

So you think it's ok for VERY HIGHLY paid civil servants NOT to suffer, but OK for very lowly paid civil servants to suffer? grand, no point talking to you because that is patently wrong. It's like firing a bunch of staff from a bank & then giving a raise to the CEO for saving money. but no that's the "private" sector, its totally different.

jim o doom

easyontheeye wrote: »

your missing the point, 6% is not the true value of the average pension, private sector workers would have to pay about 20% to get that kind of pension AND it would be at the mercy of the market and crashes.

I'm missing the point when I respond to a poster who thinks we contribute nothing informing that we do contribute. yeah. & like I said, we all will contribute, this is not about us not wanting to take a levy, it's about the levy being unfairly biased against the lowest paid.

easyontheeye

jim o doom wrote: »

So you think it's ok for VERY HIGHLY paid civil servants NOT to suffer, but OK for very lowly paid civil servants to suffer? grand, no point talking to you because that is patently wrong. It's like firing a bunch of staff from a bank & then giving a raise to the CEO for saving money. but no that's the "private" sector, its totally different.

no it isnt. i mean they highest earner is being hit by 10%...so you tell me what is enough? what do you want? raise the levy on the higher earner? would this keep you happy? bet it wouldnt....you want the levy on the lower/middle earner dropped

jim o doom

easyontheeye wrote: »

no it isnt. i mean they highest earner is being hit by 10%...so you tell me what is enough? what do you want? raise the levy on the higher earner? would this keep you happy? bet it wouldnt....you want the levy on the lower/middle earner dropped

actually, it would be to raise it on the highest, so it COULD be dropped on the lowest - therefore the same amount is coming out of the wage bill, the lowest aren't getting hit so (unfairly) hard & the highest would have to pay more.

The reasoning behind this is that the highest paid have received in beteween the years 2000 & 2008 a 94% increase in their wages, the lowest paid have received a total increase of 51.7%. Do you honestly think that the meagre10% levy the highest paid are expected to give equeates to the MASSIVE NINETY FOUR PER CENT increase they have received in eight years? NO OF COURSE IT DOESN'T. It's simple mathematics & it's simple in logic.

twinytwo

jim o doom wrote: »

OMG I am so sick of hearing this! ALL CIVIL SERVANTS ALREADY PAY 6% of our wages to our pension, this levy will increase it to about 14%! jesus do some research before you post utterly uninformed rubbish.

PRSI for civil servents employed before april 95 is 0.9%... Your job is secure ,your pension is secure.... you can even avail of a career break of up to 5 years "you know that there is a job there when you come back... " that really is taking the piss.

jim o doom

twinytwo wrote: »

PRSI for civil servents employed before april 95 is 0.9%... Your job is secure ,your pension is secure.... you can even avail of a career break of up to 5 years "you know that there is a job there when you come back... " that really is taking the piss.

yes, and many people employed pre 1995 would be the HIGHER paid servants, not the lowest rung like me and my mates who are only here a few years & pay the SAME damn PRSI as EVERYONE ELSE. Also, anyone who goes on a "career break" now, is being put of returning until AFTER the recession, so no job for them then. and try reading the previous posts in the thread, it's not about "job security", it's about the levy being unfair to the lowest paid.

branners69

jim o doom dont rise to it! You wont convince them they are wrong no matter what you say so I wouldnt be @rsed!

I think you have to be a civil servant to fully understand your point but I agree the lower paid civil servants should not have to take such a huge hit.

I love the way the media has turned everyone on each other, I dont feel sorry for the unemployed private sector employees and those moaning at having shorter weeks as a couple of years ago they were laughing at the poor civil servants! I remember when they held competitions for civil service positions and no one turned up! I have very little sympathy with the taxi drivers as it was their greed which has them in the state they are!

But in the same way I can understand why the civil servants are being targeted now, doesnt bother me in the slightest. I get well paid for what I do, I love having flexi and sleep easy at night knowing my job is pretty safe and I can put food on the table for my family!

easyontheeye

branners69 wrote: »

I think you have to be a civil servant to fully understand your point

:rolleyes: no surprise there...

Professey Chin

Shelby Bumpy Bridle wrote: »

Carpe diem

Roberto Baggio

branners69

easyontheeye wrote: »

:rolleyes: no surprise there...

So what industry do you work in?

twinytwo

jim o doom wrote: »

yes, and many people employed pre 1995 would be the HIGHER paid servants, not the lowest rung like me and my mates who are only here a few years & pay the SAME damn PRSI as EVERYONE ELSE. Also, anyone who goes on a "career break" now, is being put of returning until AFTER the recession, so no job for them then. and try reading the previous posts in the thread, it's not about "job security", it's about the levy being unfair to the lowest paid.

So you would rather not pay the levy than say be out of a job with a mortage to pay and kids to put through school? So what exaclty do you do in the CS?

easyontheeye

branners69 wrote: »

So what industry do you work in?

IT...but what does that matter? ive taken a 15% pay cut, glad i still have a job...alot more grateful than you lot.

damo

Correct me if Im wrong but it wasn't the Gardai, nurses or teachers who screwed the country up in the first place but it is them who are now taking a financial hit to subsidise those who did.

Anyone who uses this argument just does not have a fundemental understanding of economics. However to counter it, neither did 99.9% of workers in the private sector.

A few statistics you will never hear reported by rte (because they are civil servants too) is that in the public sector, the average wage of lower and mid level employees (not managers) make on average 20% more than people of similar education and experience levels in the private sector. Also, even with this pension levy, private sectors workers still have to contribute far more to their pensions.

The entire country knows that the public sector is overstaffed, overpaid and under worked. The wage bill is crippling the country and if you think there arent going to be redundancies and actual pay cuts next year when we have to find four billion in savings, then you are delusional.

The International Monetary Fund, whom the union leaders are terrified of (because they will force reality upon them) could yet be called into ireland to sort out the mess. They would/will fire all the unneccesary public workers that we have, and bring the wages down to a realistic level.

The public sector still have it wayyyy better than the private sector, those of you who believe that this pension levy is real cause for a strike are morons and your strikes will ruin the country.

jim o doom

Right, I NEVER SAID in ANY of my posts, we SHOULDN'T pay the levy. I think all civil servants SHOULD in fact. I however have posted several times, which you are clearly TOO LAZY to read, that the levy should be GREATER for those who get paid more, because they have received MASSIVE increases (much more so than the lowest paid) since 2000, and less for those with less, as they cannot afford it.

Job security is all good and well, but if they government were to make civil servants "redundant" they would still have to pay them money, through the live register. so redundancies don't make sense.

I basically give up, people aren't reading my posts and responding, they are just posting based on what they think & nothing to do with reality.. 2 pages of debate & then the page 3 reponses manage to miss everything that was posted for 2 pages. this is SO depressing

branners69

easyontheeye wrote: »

IT...but what does that matter? ive taken a 15% pay cut, glad i still have a job...alot more grateful than you lot.

branners69 wrote: »

I get well paid for what I do, I love having flexi and sleep easy at night knowing my job is pretty safe and I can put food on the table for my family!

Obviously working in IT like social skills, reading isnt your strong point! Does the above not sound like I am grateful?

And I assume it is only a matter of time that I will have as little sympathy for you as have towards civil servants when your job moves to Hungary or Poland!!

T-K-O

Absolutely no sympathy for public/civil servants. So you guys now have to contribute to your pension. So what, Who pays for my pension ??

I have siblings working as Firemen / Gardai and paying just under 70 euro for the pension is nothing. We let 5 guys go last week. Those guys are now taking home a big fat 0.

The whole public sector is a joke, some of the stories I have heard would make you vomit (first hand stories). The problem is that 20% need to be axed altogether so IMO they are getting on light.

If the unions decide to strike its a complete joke and it will have a devastating effect on the county. Are you guys aware of how much money is wasted by some of these unions llike the INTO

Stand up take the hit and move on.

twinytwo

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/06/10/story24228.asp

"If you are sitting the Leaving Cert this week, then it would make financial sense to consider a career in the public sector before making a final job choice.

That’s because you will earn on average €47,000 a year in the public sector compared with just €32,000 a year in industry.

That works out at €275 more a week on average in the public sector than in industry.

Average weekly earnings for public sector employees came to €899 in 2006, compared with just €624 for industry, according to figures published by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) earlier this year."



"It may seem a long way off now, but the typical public sector pension is worth about €1million more in retirement than a private sector one, according to figures supplied by business lobby group Chambers Ireland. It’s pretty much the difference between winning and losing the Lotto."

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/03/06/story2904.asp

"The public sector employs 20 per cent of Ireland's working population, but has 35 per cent of the country's pension entitlements, according to financial consultants Watson Wyatt."

"The public sector pension bill increased by 8 per cent last year to €1.241 billion, according to the Department of Finance. Overall, the public sector pension bill has increased by 86 per cent over the last five years. "

glaston

RATM wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but it wasn't the Gardai, nurses or teachers who screwed the country up in the first place but it is them who are now taking a financial hit to subsidise those who did.

You are wrong imo (the unions are masters at spreading this nonsensical drivel). The are making them pay for their own pensions, pensions which the rest of the country can only dream about having.
Best job security in the country and a guaranteed pension and we are supposed to have sympathy?
I'd like to start a counter demonstration.

RasTa

jim o doom wrote: »

Right, I NEVER SAID in ANY of my posts, we SHOULDN'T pay the levy. I think all civil servants SHOULD in fact.

Then what are you moaning about, are you going to strike based on the fact that the higher earners in your organisation aren't getting a bigger levy imposed on them? That seems pretty pointless.

jim o doom

RasTa wrote: »

Then what are you moaning about, are you going to strike based on the fact that the higher earners in your organisation aren't getting a bigger levy imposed on them? That seems pretty pointless.

target="_blank">http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055485664&page=2 READ POST 28 YOUR QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.</p>

ParkRunner

I think the focus should be on dragging the standards of the private sector rather up i.e. job security and a half decent pension, rather than say to those at the bottom the ladder of the civil service take an income levy, take a pension levy, take a pay freeze, don't expect any promotion and expect an increase in your income tax soon. And if you even think of making an objection you will be run over

twinytwo

jim o doom wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055485664&page=2READ POST 28 YOUR QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.

Maybe you dont know this but shouting down your computer dosent actually work.... so whats with the caps??

RasTa

jim o doom wrote: »

target="_blank">http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055485664&page=2 READ POST 28 YOUR QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.</p>

No you didn't you went on some rant about you're bosses getting paid more then you.

jim o doom

twinytwo wrote: »

Maybe you dont know this but shouting down your computer dosent actually work.... so whats with the caps??

It's due to frustration.

twinytwo

jim o doom wrote: »

It's due to frustration.

MAy i suggest a punch bag with a cut out of biffo stuck on it?:D

jim o doom

RasTa wrote: »

No you didn't you went on some rant about you're bosses getting paid more then you.

not really; what I said was the levy should be higher for those who get paid a lot more.. and lower for those who get paid less, is that really so hard to understand, that you need to "interpret" it as a rant?

delop

Quit! I know plenty of people who would do your job and be very happy with it!