National Demonstration set for Feb 21... Are you participating?

ixoy

thomasj wrote: »

My point is, that sqeezing every possible cent out of the public sector is not going to be nearly enough.

Oh they could squeeze more I imagine. They could increase remove some excesses in the workforce in some departments and increase the load on people. They could dock higher pay a lot more. There are more cuts.

Everyone public and private must be prepared to bite the bullet.

Yep, we'll need to do a bit too. Increase the taxes a bit (that'd hurt me but them's the breaks) for example. The PS/CS need to see though that their paymasters are struggling to pay them and put the levy in that context, unfortunate as it is and as annoying as it is.

BTW, we still don't know this 7bn is vanishing - it is a loan. It is meant to be paid back. Admittedly, we can't guarantee that but we shouldn't act like it's never going to be seen again. I do think though the government should have got far more provisions and restrictions in before lending it, and people are right to be angry about that.

gandalf

dresden8 wrote: »

Yes, that was what the whole country was waiting for. For example, if the country can't afford the pay deal, cancel it for all employees, not just public servants.

But for the majority of us poor smucks in the private sector there is no pay deal. I've been on a pay freeze since last year. We have been told that jobs may and will go here in the next few months so for some of us here that pay freeze will turn into a pay cut of 100%.

I know that we here are not in a minority with this situation either. Companies will control their expenditure by shedding numbers, they don't have that flexibility in general in the Public Service to my knowledge (with the exception of Temporary workers) so this levy is how they are addressing it.

I realise they may very well carry out these things in the future, but why wait, the situation is dire.

P1ss or get off the pot.

Oh, and it's still not a levy, it's a pay cut.

Well if you have less take home pay then it is but from all sides its far better that a 100% pay cut now isn't it.

P. Breathnach

dresden8 wrote: »

YFor example, if the country can't afford the pay deal, cancel it for all employees, not just public servants.

I think you should focus more carefully. It's not "the country" that pays public servants, it's the exchequer (no, I'm not going down the road of saying "the taxpayer", as that is a device often used unfairly in argument). It is the exchequer that can't afford to pay. If some employers outside the public sector can and do pay increases, that's not relevant. Just as it was not relevant to public sector workers when, in the past, some private sector employers did not deliver on pay deals because of inability to pay.

Oh, and it's still not a levy, it's a pay cut.

It's a levy. As a public service pensioner, I can see the difference.

I am not surprised that public service workers are taking this hard. To lose €200-300 per month hurts. The hurt is compounded by some of the ugly anti-public sector sentiments being so widely expressed. But you cannot ignore realities, realities like the serious exchequer problem, and like the fact that the public service pension scheme is exceptionally good (and relatively better than it ever was). There is also the political reality that the government has no room left for manoeuvre.

MG

Lplated wrote: »

When ICTU proposes some sensible way of marrying the difference between our 57billion expenditure and 39 billion income, i might listen to them or join their 'day of action'.

Maybe they'll pass a collection bucket around.

ixoy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you should focus more carefully. It's not "the country" that pays public servants, it's the exchequer (no, I'm not going down the road of saying "the taxpayer", as that is a device often used unfairly in argument). It is the exchequer that can't afford to pay. If some employers outside the public sector can and do pay increases, that's not relevant. Just as it was not relevant to public sector workers when, in the past, some private sector employers did not deliver on pay deals because of inability to pay.

Thank you. Please can you post this on every PS/CS levy thread until it rams home to those who throw up the "we didn't cause this" and "why are we being picked upon" responses?

That is of course different to those who are arguing over the implementation of the levy rather than the concept of the levy. For those have some point and that could be something worth asking about.

NewDubliner

gandalf wrote: »

I know that we here are not in a minority with this situation either. Companies will control their expenditure by shedding numbers, they don't have that flexibility in general in the Public Service to my knowledge (with the exception of Temporary workers) so this levy is how they are addressing it..

Dramatic lay-offs would be politically sensitive, especially if they affected the recently (over)staffed decentralisation locations.

The levy is partly 'optics', yielding to pressure from IN&M and IBEC. There is also an ongoing process of reduction of numbers by natural wastage. Non-replacement of retirees and resignees. Non-re-engagement of people on career breaks. Part-timers are not being allowed return to full-time. Additionally, the levy, lack of career prospects (no promotions, not even on merit) and uncertainty about the future of the pension entitlement is making it difficult to hire essential high-calibre staff, especially in the IT area. Additionally, major projects are being deferred, with consequent impact on demand for external contractors.

The next move is to try and get lower prices from all suppliers of goods and services.

Staff themselves, shaken by the onslaught from IBEC/IN&M a and to compensate for their impending pay cut are starting to save more for a rainy day, hoardingvmoney to assist laid-off family members, and generally economising by 'brown-bagging' their lunches and cutting back on discretionary expenditures.

It's all part of the deflationary spiral.

johnnyc

no not joining the demonstrations as the public service needs a dose of reality

NewDubliner

johnnyc wrote: »

no not joining the demonstrations as the public service needs a dose of reality

You're being simplistic.

It's not as if public-sector workers live in gated communities, meeting only other PS workers and shopping in special stores.

Every public-sector worker I know has relatives and friends and neighbours in the private sector, directly impacted by the crisis.

BroomBurner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a levy. As a public service pensioner, I can see the difference.

I am not surprised that public service workers are taking this hard. To lose €200-300 per month hurts. The hurt is compounded by some of the ugly anti-public sector sentiments being so widely expressed. But you cannot ignore realities, realities like the serious exchequer problem, and like the fact that the public service pension scheme is exceptionally good (and relatively better than it ever was). There is also the political reality that the government has no room left for manoeuvre.

Yes, you are a public sector pensioner. You're now enjoying all the benefits that everyone here is going mental at, without any of the pain of paying the extra levy. If you don't mind, I can't take anything you say seriously as you're not being personally affected. You can go on about your family members, etc. but you still received 1.5 times your end wage in a lump sum and are still receiving 50% of your wage.

As for your second point, the sentiment in the public sector where I am is that everyone KNOWS we have to lose some money. However, we are not seeing anyone from the top cabal of earners being hit comparatively hard. THAT is the main issue with the workers.

Can I just reiterate that point again, for anyone that is still ignorant enough to think that the public sector want to be left untarnished. We KNOW we have to pay something, but do it properly and make it more fair.

ixoy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Dramatic lay-offs would be politically sensitive, especially if they affected the recently (over)staffed decentralisation locations.

Cowen has said FF aren't here to court public support right now, but to do what is needed for Ireland. In that respect, shouldn't they be ready to more readily wield the axe?

Part-timers are not being allowed return to full-time. Additionally, the levy, lack of career prospects (no promotions, not even on merit) and uncertainty about the future of the pension entitlement is making it difficult to hire essential high-calibre staff, especially in the IT area.

I doubt it's hard to hire people these days judging by the numbers I hear applying for roles. With respect to IT, the difficulty is that the CS, for example, doesn't really acknowledge IT skills and doesn't pay accordingly - someone without IT skills could join in at the same pay grade. I believe this is something the unions introduced themselves - perhaps gazzer or johnny24ie can clarify this? I'm pretty sure they're victims of the lack of IT recognition.

Additionally, major projects are being deferred, with consequent impact on demand for external contractors.

To a degree yes. Not everything can be deferred (some are required by legislation) but it'd certainly make sense to postpone non-essential ones.

Staff themselves, shaken by the onslaught from IBEC/IN&M a and to compensate for their impending pay cut are starting to save more for a rainy day, hoardingvmoney to assist laid-off family members, and generally economising by 'brown-bagging' their lunches and cutting back on discretionary expenditures.

Same across the private as well, and that's the problem. Even those who haven't had a cut in the private sector are now often fearful that they will have a cut shortly and are preparing against that. Nobody knows what to expect next and that's going to cause everyone to be overly cautious.

P. Breathnach

BroomBurner wrote: »

Yes, you are a public sector pensioner. You're now enjoying all the benefits that everyone here is going mental at, without any of the pain of paying the extra levy. If you don't mind, I can't take anything you say seriously as you're not being personally affected. You can go on about your family members, etc. but you still received 1.5 times your end wage in a lump sum and are still receiving 50% of your wage.

The effect of implementing a levy rather than a pay cut is that the pension expectations of everybody in the public service are preserved (for now, anyway), which is my point.

Do you think that the fact that I am upfront about declaring my interest entitles you adopt an unpleasant tone and dismiss what I say? And you also dismiss as immaterial the fact that I have family members currently working in the public service. I am personally affected. If you don't like my views, that's your issue. I hold those views, and I am entitled to express them. It is a copout to suggest that they should be disregarded because of your uninformed view of my personal circumstances.

As for your second point, the sentiment in the public sector where I am is that everyone KNOWS we have to lose some money. However, we are not seeing anyone from the top cabal of earners being hit comparatively hard. THAT is the main issue with the workers.

Can I just reiterate that point again, for anyone that is still ignorant enough to think that the public sector want to be left untarnished. We KNOW we have to pay something, but do it properly and make it more fair.

I would favour some re-balancing of the levy, but not particularly to impose a really heavy burden on the higher-paid. There is a good technical case to lighten the burden somewhat for those on lower rates, and compensate for that by increasing the rate for those on middle or higher rates.

Varkov

I agree with BroomBurner, its about the higher ups scapegoating the lower end public sector. The one who are earning a pittance.

This whole media frenzy is getting out of control. Blame the evil public sector!

My two uncles, my Ma and my sister all worked in the public sector and were layed off. (Airline mechanics, TSB clerk and English language teacher respectavly)

But me, my Da (Volentary retirement from Eircom and now doing his last 5 years in the civil service) and uncles will be out to lend our support and hopefully put some pressure on this disgustingly inept and lecherous government.

Scofflaw

BroomBurner wrote: »

As for your second point, the sentiment in the public sector where I am is that everyone KNOWS we have to lose some money. However, we are not seeing anyone from the top cabal of earners being hit comparatively hard. THAT is the main issue with the workers.

Can I just reiterate that point again, for anyone that is still ignorant enough to think that the public sector want to be left untarnished. We KNOW we have to pay something, but do it properly and make it more fair.

You're not actually calling for fairness, though - you're calling for the "top cabal of earners to be hit comparatively hard".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dark_lord_ire

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fully agree with you. I always was sicked how gov projects ran Millions even hundreds of millions over budget. I'm glad now we are seeing the fall of "the old boys club" at the top just wish it was not at the expense of the rest of us

Dark_lord_ire

also i should say im a civil servent myself and i earn 35K a year but the higher my results the more i earn maybe 40K at a push. Now i'm told 60 euro a week will be taken from me. I bought a house i own a car paying back both hard enough as it is. this will mean i cant travel, cant go out just have to work just to live. I think at times i'd be better off getting the girlfriend pregnant and quit my job i'd get a nicer free house from the welfare. But i was raised to not be a drain on the state

irish_bob

Dark_lord_ire wrote: »

also i should say im a civil servent myself and i earn 35K a year but the higher my results teh more i earn maybe 40K at a push. Now i'm told 60 euro a week will be taken from me. I bought a house i own a car paying back both hard enough as it is. this will mean i cant travel, cant go out just have to work just to live. I think at times i'd be better off getting the girlfriend pregnant and quit my job i'd get a nicer free house from the welfare. But i was raised to not be a drain on the state

your definatley deserve a medal

Varkov

irish_bob wrote: »

your definatley deserve a medal

Ah, cmon now will you. What the hell makes him any different from you? (Presuming you work in the private sector)

40K a year isn't exactly rich.

Simplicius

Dark_lord_ire wrote: »

also I should say im a civil servent myself and I earn 35K a year but the higher my results teh more I earn maybe 40K at a push. Now i'm told 60 euro a week will be taken from me. I bought a house I own a car paying back both hard enough as it is. this will mean I cant travel, cant go out just have to work just to live. I think at times i'd be better off getting the girlfriend pregnant and quit my job i'd get a nicer free house from the welfare. But I was raised to not be a drain on the state

You have security that is more than most. It is time people grew up, we all rode the pigs back and now we all have to fall off into the ****. You should be asking when are the trade union fat cats like Mr. Begg taking a 10% cut.

Aside from this, The Government aren't Governing, the Opposition would be no different, What we need is balls in politics and I have yet to see anything but self interest groups from union to developer. WE IRISH have become self obsessed and greedy. Grow up we cannot blame anyone for this, it happened

Two options take the hit hard now like a man or wallow in strikes and small adjustments for years. Or when the Public Sector workers join the private sector with equal pay cuts and pain, together we should have a chance to demand the following.

TD’s: 40% pay cut and Dail closes for 8 weeks a year in total.

Banks:
Directors prosecuted, accounts opened to inspection and regulators etc all told no golden handshakes.
Via new nationalised bank, developers told to hand over stock of houses as part payment. Rest they can negotiate a preferential stay of execution but still have to pay or go bust. Corporate enforcement investigates reckless trading and removes comfort of limited liability Company from developers who blindly and foolishly took money for nothing - Sean Dunne prime example.

Healthcare: HSE given 6 months to live in that time they have to interview every manager and prove beyond reasonable doubt there is no replication and also they have to renege on the consultants deal recently. The Consultant's grip on the health service has to be broken from the point of simple economics, be private or public, no more holding private court in public hospitals unless you pay top rate. Make each hour a consultant works private only pay him an extra 10%.

IDA: Increased incentives for R&D firm’s not token presence but full research labs tied to third level education.

Student Fees: tough we had to pay them, grants to be given based on parental income, sliding scale, offer students an interest free fee loan option via the state this can be managed by the banks for free as part of their wages of sin.

FAS & Retraining: sort it out, it is inefficient and cumbersome, put in private links to third level and techs, allow motivated individuals circumvent fas and get a place in college for their own retraining, where their fees are paid and they do not loose benefit - assessed on results, failure means repayment of last semester and loss of future grant aid. i.e. you fail - you pay from here on in.





Education and special needs children: ensure class sizes get better, improve schools and build new first. Teaching assistants to be maintained and special needs to be addressed and not cut. Sport in schools to be increased to a full afternoon a week. Push sciences, maths.

DRUGS: The kids being used as mules, make their parents responsible hit them where it hurts in the pocket, reduced benefits for parents of latchkey kids, community service for the parents in parallel with kids being in junior borstal. Parents have to demonstrate and prove to peers they have new strategy for ensuring repeat offence does not occur.

Gardai: Increase powers and numbers, create petty crime with fixed sentences with no need for court : example urinating in public, 2 weekends washing building facades in home area wearing pink boiler suit with crime and name on back or if you want to defend your case then risk going to court and getting fine and prison. Misdemeanours are link to social benefits or taxes free allowance if working, one offence you pay more. For a year or get less benefit. Money goes to pay Gardai.


And if the Government fail to show the balls to go down this route, I think it is time to throw them out physically, we so need a revolution in this country.

It isn’t time for interest groups to march, it is time for the people to march and demand a new order.
[/php]

nesf

Varkov wrote: »

40K a year isn't exactly rich.

8K over the average industrial wage which is quite often pointed to as being far higher than what the median wage would look like, by parties such as yours. It's comfortable, I certainly wouldn't be bitching too loud about only earning 40K a year etc.

Firetrap

Well, if you bought a house during the property bubble 40k wouldn't get you too far. We destroyed ourselves during the so-called Celtic Tiger years.

Back on topic, I know some public servants from my old days and the levy came up in conversation. While none of them are jumping for joy at having a pension levy, they're being pragmatic about it.

The general feeling is that the unions have to be seen to do something for their members. I think the levy will go ahead but the unions won't want to be seen to have just rolled over and let the government take the money. The unions are mindful that if their members are looking to save themselves a few bob, they might just cancel their union membership.

I get the impression too that people would swallow the pension levy a bit better if the people who caused the problems in the first place also suffer. There's been an awful lot of roaring and shouting about public servants and their salary/conditions. It's distracting attention away from the people who caused the trouble in the first place - the politicians, the bankers, the property developers.

Scofflaw

Firetrap wrote: »

Well, if you bought a house during the property bubble 40k wouldn't get you too far. We destroyed ourselves during the so-called Celtic Tiger years.

Back on topic, I know some public servants from my old days and the levy came up in conversation. While none of them are jumping for joy at having a pension levy, they're being pragmatic about it.

The general feeling is that the unions have to be seen to do something for their members. I think the levy will go ahead but the unions won't want to be seen to have just rolled over and let the government take the money. The unions are mindful that if their members are looking to save themselves a few bob, they might just cancel their union membership.

I get the impression too that people would swallow the pension levy a bit better if the people who caused the problems in the first place also suffer. There's been an awful lot of roaring and shouting about public servants and their salary/conditions. It's distracting attention away from the people who caused the trouble in the first place - the politicians, the bankers, the property developers.

Fair point. However, some of the noise generated by the levy is generated by the resistance to it. People aren't "picking on" or "singling out" public servants - it's just not possible to pay the public service wage bill.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Firetrap wrote: »

Well, if you bought a house during the property bubble 40k wouldn't get you too far. We destroyed ourselves during the so-called Celtic Tiger years.

Depends on what part of the property bubble you were buying in and where you were buying but I accept your point.

Firetrap wrote: »

The general feeling is that the unions have to be seen to do something for their members. I think the levy will go ahead but the unions won't want to be seen to have just rolled over and let the government take the money. The unions are mindful that if their members are looking to save themselves a few bob, they might just cancel their union membership.

Indeed, David Begg et al have to justify their salaries.

Dark_lord_ire

yes did buy a house during the bubble had to. Ive not bothered to check how much i've lost in that no point in being depressed lol by the way the more you earn the more you pay in tax so im not doing much better than anyone in the private sector and yes i have secure job and pension (I pay for it same as anyone else would)

and to that guy who say i deserve a medal thank you after my repayments and taxes i'm left with 150 a week to spend and thats before the levy. Still have to pay and bills run car. Its not my fault the government and banks mismanaged the economy.How much over buget did the port tunnel run? How much over buget has the NRA been ? What about the e voting sham? If the banks did not lend as much the porperty market would not have bubbled, the market would have been slow yes but at a fair price. I do feel bad for everyone losing there jobs and will accept a pay cut but its not fair its the foot soldiers thats are paying the most.

P. Breathnach

Firetrap wrote: »

The general feeling is that the unions have to be seen to do something for their members. I think the levy will go ahead but the unions won't want to be seen to have just rolled over and let the government take the money.

Agreed. The problem is that some of the more vocal members, and one or two union leaders, are overdoing things. If you examine what most union leaders are saying, the response is very measured. They are not hotheads, and they are not fools.

I suspect that they prefer the levy to a straight pay cut; if things improve sufficiently in the future, it would be easier to argue for the abolition of the levy than for an increase in pay.

I get the impression too that people would swallow the pension levy a bit better if the people who caused the problems in the first place also suffer. There's been an awful lot of roaring and shouting about public servants and their salary/conditions. It's distracting attention away from the people who caused the trouble in the first place - the politicians, the bankers, the property developers.

That may be true, but it's not so easy to deliver the heads on a plate. There was a coalescence of interests between the politicians, bankers, and property developers you mention (and we can add some more groups, like property investors and auctioneers); it was similar in effect to a conspiracy, but I think there was little or no express conspiracy: a pattern emerged. I suspect that not many people actually broke any law.

And let us remember that many of the rest of us, the ordinary men and women in the street, participated in the madness: for every ill-judged lending decision, there was an ill-judged borrowing decision.

Who do we punish, and for what wrongdoing?

But it would be nice if the people in the top positions were paid considerably less than they now are. I could live very well on €200,000 per annum, and would not need a bonus to make it worth my while.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I could live very well on €200,000 per annum, and would not need a bonus to make it worth my while.

Pfft, I'll do twice the job you'd two for half that money...

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Pfft, I'll do twice the job you'd two for half that money...

But you wouldn't live as well as I would.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But you wouldn't live as well as I would.

I live very comfortably on a small fraction of 100K a year tbh.

NewDubliner

I'm kind of surprised DeValera has not been quoted:

"No man is worth more than 1,000 pounds a year..."

nesf

NewDubliner wrote: »

I'm kind of surprised DeValera has not been quoted:

DeV talked a lot of crap. Though I'm curious what 1,000 pounds a year would look like after 80/90 years of inflation.

cavedave

In 2007, £1000 0s 0d from 1930 is worth
£45,321.59 using the retail price index.
£185,777.94 using average earnings.

In 2007, £1000 0s 0d from 1920 is worth
£28,795.59 using the retail price index.

That's British pound which i think was at parity at the time. When did dev say that?

*"that no man is worth more than the country can afford to pay" from 1933
In 2007, £1000 0s 0d from 1933 is worth
£50,880.52 using the retail price index.
£193,898.29 using average earnings.