Trade Unions shut the hell up!!!!

ixoy

bobmeaney wrote: »

I see nobody mentioned the PS pensions are index linked. How does make the final pension in any way equal to a private sector pension?

Well isn't it linked to the wage at the level and grade they retired at? That wage in itself may be index linked or it may not.

Also little mention of the lump sum received on retirment which is up to a year and a half's salary for 40 years of service.

15-30 Minutes is acceptable for a break in the morning, remember you are entitled(by law) to 5 minutes break for each hour you work that day. If you are taking 30 minutes then you get no break in the afternoon at all

Isn't that break covered by lunch? That's how I recall the law. There's no entitlement for an additional break(s). Not saying it's not good practice but I didn't think you needed to get one. I also didn't think it needed to be paid and that this was at the employer's discretion (I know lunch isn't paid).

Degsy

ixoy wrote: »

Well isn't it linked to the wage at the level and grade they retired at? That wage in itself may be index linked or it may not.

As far as i know its 2/3rds of your final salary at retirement.That's rthe theory of it,the government has aleady plundered the pensions fund a few years back so people retiring at the moment probably wont get it.
A lifetime of contributions to face poverty in old age.

beth-lou

Degsy wrote: »

Oh yeah?
Most or some?
Have you taken an actual paycut or have you just not recieved bonuses?
Has mangement taken a paycut too?
If you're not "bleating about it" you're just willing to except that you're paying for government incompetence?

Yes most.
I'm willing to accept anything. I understand that there is a global recession taking place, there is not enough money coming in to keep this company afloat as there was and accordingly we have to take the paycut and the 3 day week to try to keep this company going through this and hopefully emerge on the other side.

That's pretty much what is happening in the government too. Tax revenues are down, because the economy has slowed due in part to bad management by the government, greedy bankers and a global recession and a general lack of funds adn disposable cash. As a result there is less money in the kitty to pay public sector workers, for services, for health, for education. And that is why the public sector worker is being hit with cutbacks just like the rest of us.

The government can't just magic revenue from thin air. The bail out of the banks while sickening, was neccessary unless of course you would like the whole country to go bankrupt just like poor old Ice Land and then the public sector workers can work for nothing or be unemployed.

It's a crappy situation that we're in, but all the pointing of fingers and blame apportion won't change the fact that Ireland is in a dire financial situation adn we are going to have get more creative in how we generate revenue to keep afloat until it is over. In the meantime there should be prosecuetions and certain ministers hould lose their positions and a complete overhaul of the government is neccessary as well as the banking sector.

But as you said yourself, we are all in this together. I have no problem taking the cut if it helps this company out and me keeps my job in the long term. When it improves, so will my hours and wage. Are you willing to make a sacrifice or do you want your salary and benefits to remain the same.
It's a sting, but I understand why it's happening.

As for management taking a cut, they are on 25% of their salary at the moment.

Kimbot

ixoy wrote: »

Isn't that break covered by lunch? That's how I recall the law. There's no entitlement for an additional break(s). Not saying it's not good practice but I didn't think you needed to get one. I also didn't think it needed to be paid and that this was at the employer's discretion (I know lunch isn't paid).

No, break times are not covered by lunch at all. For each 3 1/2 hours worked per day your are entitled to a paid 15 minute break. Your lunch is unpaid.

Kimbot

Degsy wrote: »

As far as i know its 2/3rds of your final salary at retirement.That's rthe theory of it,the government has aleady plundered the pensions fund a few years back so people retiring at the moment probably wont get it.
A lifetime of contributions to face poverty in old age.

From what I believe its actually 1/2 your final salary. That may change if you have an AVC plan in place but I'm not sure if an AVC can lump up your retirement fund.

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

the government has aleady plundered the pensions fund a few years back so people retiring at the moment probably wont get it.

Where did you hear that?

anonymous_joe

Lu Tze wrote: »

Erm, not quite, i grew up about from far from Dublin as you can get and still be in the country, remote West Kerry!

Ah it's just that I had an identical teacher with a near identical class.

The big problem with the unions is if they stop wages going down they'll be artifically high and lead to unemployment.

Degsy

K-9 wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

I thought it was pretty well-known.
In my job the pension fund is at 40% of what it should be.

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

I thought it was pretty well-known.
In my job the pension fund is at 40% of what it should be.

No, You posted they plundered the pension a few years back. I'm aware they set up the Pensions Fund a few years back, not that they plundered it until this year anyway.

Degsy wrote:

In my job the pension fund is at 40% of what it should be.

Hence the pension levy!

andrew

The govt. have no money. Cutback everywhere and on everything I say. It's ****, so suck it up. Thats my 2c anyway.

Degsy

andrew wrote: »

The govt. have no money. Cutback everywhere and on everything I say. It's ****, so suck it up. Thats my 2c anyway.

The govt have plenty of money to bail out the construction industry,the banks,pay for asylum seekers,the long-term unemployed,bizzarre "transport plans" involving bicycles and junkets for themselves.
They're not taxing the wealthy and the high-earners,they're implementing stop-gap measures against the ordianry workers.

On a seperate note.
The Govt wants to get people spending agin as an aid to the economy.
How do they do that?
Cut the amount of money in peoples' pockets,decreasing thier spending and borrowing power.Perfect!

andrew

Degsy wrote: »

The govt have plenty of money to bail out the construction industry,the banks,pay for asylum seekers,the long-term unemployed,bizzarre "transport plans" involving bicycles and junkets for themselves.
They're not taxing the wealthy and the high-earners,they're implementing stop-gap measures against the ordianry workers.

On a seperate note.
The Govt wants to get people spending agin as an aid to the economy.
How do they do that?
Cut the amount of money in peoples' pockets,decreasing thier spending and borrowing power.Perfect!

They had money to bail out the banks because without the banks there wouldn't be an economy. They pay some money to asylum seekers because imo not giving money for such a cause would be an unfair and injust thing to do. It's not like it's a huge spend, and it's money which is well spent on people in a more desperate situation than we could even imagine.

They're cutting back where the biggest savings can be made. Since most people are ordinary workers, and since they employ a lot of ordinary workers, a lot of money can be saved through measures which affect them. Deal with it. Why do you hate rich people so much anyway?

Degsy

andrew wrote: »

It's not like it's a huge spend, and it's money which is well spent on people in a more desperate situation than we could even imagine.

So you actually believe that do you?
In spite of the statistics on how much bogus asylum seekers (98%)cost this country?

Cloud cuckoo land.

Lu Tze

Degsy wrote: »

In spite of the statistics on how much bogus asylum seekers (98%)cost this country?

Cloud cuckoo land.

Where will i get the statistics you mention on how much asylum seekers cost Cloud Cuckoo Land?

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

So you actually believe that do you?
In spite of the statistics on how much bogus asylum seekers (98%)cost this country?

Cloud cuckoo land.

98% of Public Servants are a waste of money.

Degsy

K-9 wrote: »

98% of Public Servants are a waste of money.

We still have jobs though!:D

Clink

K-9 wrote: »

98% of Public Servants are a waste of money.

So the country could operate on 2% of the current level of guards, nurses, teachers, firemen etc :rolleyes:

Degsy

Lu Tze wrote: »

Where will i get the statistics you mention on how much asylum seekers cost Cloud Cuckoo Land?

Ah,its the mathematical genius and you dont know how to access stas via the internet!
Maybe that teacher was a waste of space after all.

Degsy

Clink wrote: »

So the country could operate on 2% of the current level of guards, nurses, teachers, firemen etc :rolleyes:

Dont forget the labour exchanges.

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

Dont forget the labour exchanges.

With 98% spongers and that's just the staff.

Lu Tze

Degsy wrote: »

Ah,its the mathematical genius and you dont know how to access stas via the internet!
Maybe that teacher was a waste of space after all.

Yep, can't find stas any where :rolleyes:

Degsy

K-9 wrote: »

With 98% spongers and that's just the staff.

You're reduced to outright trolling now.

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

You're reduced to outright trolling now.

Nah, I'm using the same statistics you do.

Degsy

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, I'm using the same statistics you do.

I couldnt care less.
Donegal is a horrible place btw,if it wasnt for civil servants the only people up there with jobs would be publicans and priests.

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

I couldnt care less.
Donegal is a horrible place btw,if it wasnt for civil servants the only people up there with jobs would be publicans and priests.

I find it strange you can say 98% of Asylum seekers are false based on Newspaper articles and anecdotal evidence, yet not accept anecdotal evidence plus reports from the OECD etc., that the Public Service is full of waste, which has been shown to be protected by Unions.

It's typical FF I'm alrightism. Cuts in Govt. spending are grand as long as it doesn't touch your wage.

andrew

Degsy wrote: »

So you actually believe that do you?
In spite of the statistics on how much bogus asylum seekers (98%)cost this country?

Cloud cuckoo land.

Any chance you could link to, or even explain the source of, that stat?Anyway, I'd rather we spent the money on making sure we kept the right ones than spending money on letting none of them in at all.

Anyways cutbacks ftw, stop moaning about the 'ordinary workers' as though somehow the individually wealthy etc. are coming through this without having lost fortunes on bad investments, falling stock prices etc. The entire economy is being affected.

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

You do realise the vast majority of public servants are not on big money, and that the Old Age Contributory Pension will make up the largest part of their pension. Like all employees, they pay PRSI at the same rate (except for older civil servants who don't pay it and don't qualify for same benefits) to qualify for the State pension. The PS pension on top of that just tops up that pension to half their salary (if they have 40 years service), and for most on modest salaries, that is not a large amount.

Yes, but a tax free lump sum of 1.5x salary is a nice amount. On retirement if you earned 30k, you're walking off with 45k in hand plus your pension of 15k a year.
In addition, your pension will be escalating in line with standard pay level increases.


I have a wonderful compromise: campaign for the option to opt out of the DB scheme. Join a DC scheme instead. The govt will save a ton instead of having to pay out the benefits, you don't get a salary cut, everyone is happy.
:rolleyes: