To the public sector bashers, I refuse 2 be made feel guilty for making a good choice

hughs

givyjoe81 wrote: »

If you contintue to keep kicking and screaming about the levy which will see a relatively small loss, yes SMALL (in comparison to the many others losing their jobs), then you WILL suffer further in the long run. We are hurtling towards the situation Iceland finds itself and as i and others have mentioned before, there have been murmorings about IMF intervention.

Agree. The whole country needs to face up to the fact that we are all facing a fall in real incomes.

johnnyskeleton

MG wrote: »

OP is irrelevant. No one is scapegoating. It's a straight financial choice - can we afford to pay the public wage bill, yes or no. The answer is No.

achtungbarry wrote: »

Are you you serious? Please tell me you are not serious ? No one ? No one at all ?

And every word is relevent as I am sick to death of being attacked over this.

MG's point is one which seems to be getting lost in all this (some would argue that the government are encouraging the public/private feud in a divide and conquer strategy). It is unfortunate that the lower paid public servants are being hit, but it's the reality of a recession. And it's not a question of the public sector being scapegoated, the reality is that there is a widening gap between the government's income and expenditure. Pay cuts in the private sector will not close this gap (in fact they make it worse as less pay = less PAYE collected), so they have to make cuts in spending. There is no other way to balance the books, and fundamentally the government do have to balance the books.

mikemac wrote: »

Maybe you do own a share of this bank and I'd agree I'm happy to have a job but it's attacking the wrong people. Those qoutes are mild tbh to what I've seen.
...
People are in a dream all right, blaming every sector but themselves.
So I tend to avoid these posts and realy, every thread is much the same as the next

The angry mob doesn't care if they target the correct people or not, they just want to target someone easy. Sorry to hear that you're getting abuse due to the problems in the banks. I think if there was any reality to the Gardai investigating these matters and the DPP bringing prosecutions I don't think people would be lashing out as they do. But unfortunately, I don't think prosecutions are very likely.

gerry28

It would be easier to accept pay cuts and levies if the price of goods in Ireland came down to a more realistic level.

Why are we paying €2.40 for a loaf of bread when 6 years ago it was less than a euro, the crazy prices we had to pay for very average houses, probably the highest cost of medicine in europe, cars 50% more expensive than in the UK, clothes, electricity, chippies, restaurants..... everything over priced?

Why has the public not started to question this? why are we all arguing about the public service wages instead????

Also, Its management grades in the public service that are grossly over paid not your average worker on €25000, or €35000.

diverdriver

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of people, often government employees complaining about being scapegoated and how unfair it is that that they have to pay a levy even though it wasn't their fault.

Why don't you go and find a recently redundant parent with an ordinary mortgage and explain to them how unfair life has been to you? I'm sure they'll give you a bit hug.

To those who have accepted they must make some form of sacrifice, well done for being realistic and choosing to live in the real world.

No one is asking you to feel guilty, but perhaps we could with less smug comments about how forward thinking you were in choosing a so called low paid job in return for job security. In fact most of these so called low paid governments jobs are right bang in the middle of average wages for most semi or unskilled workers.

There is an incredible ignorance of just how poorly paid many seemingly good jobs, particularly in multinationals, are. For example many operator type jobs, sometimes with a minor supervisory role, only hit €26k with shift allowance.

irish_bob

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

MG's point is one which seems to be getting lost in all this (some would argue that the government are encouraging the public/private feud in a divide and conquer strategy). It is unfortunate that the lower paid public servants are being hit, but it's the reality of a recession. And it's not a question of the public sector being scapegoated, the reality is that there is a widening gap between the government's income and expenditure. Pay cuts in the private sector will not close this gap (in fact they make it worse as less pay = less PAYE collected), so they have to make cuts in spending. There is no other way to balance the books, and fundamentally the government do have to balance the books.



The angry mob doesn't care if they target the correct people or not, they just want to target someone easy. Sorry to hear that you're getting abuse due to the problems in the banks. I think if there was any reality to the Gardai investigating these matters and the DPP bringing prosecutions I don't think people would be lashing out as they do. But unfortunately, I don't think prosecutions are very likely.

ENOUGH

stop parroting this line david begg or mr o connor fed you about how the goverment is encouraging division between public and private sector , im not a glove puppett , the goverment or tony o reilly do not have thier hand up my arse , its extremly patronising top suggest that the reason private sector workers have little sympathy for those in the public sector is down to being misled by others , we in the private sector who deal with the public sector and especially the civil service witness the inneficency and basic lack of cutomer service that charechterises the state sector all the time

this divide and conquer blather is just another banner which the unions are spouting along with WE DIDNT CAUSE THIS MESS and PRIVATE SECTOR CREAMED IT DURING THE BOOM

its obvious that in reality its the public sector workers who are the props in a vintriliquist act , not the private sector wokers

johnnyskeleton

gerry28 wrote: »

It would be easier to accept pay cuts and levies if the price of goods in Ireland came down to a more realistic level.

Why are we paying €2.40 for a loaf of bread when 6 years ago it was less than a euro, the crazy prices we had to pay for very average houses, probably the highest cost of medicine in europe, cars 50% more expensive than in the UK, clothes, electricity, chippies, restaurants..... everything over priced?

Why has the public not started to question this? why are we all arguing about the public service wages instead????

Also, Its management grades in the public service that are grossly over paid not your average worker on €25000, or €35000.

Prices will drop after the wage cuts rather than before. The drops we are currently seeing are as a result of the cuts and job losses suffered to date. Bread is an unusual one in that when people get poorer they will often spend more money on basic goods such as bread. But prices will only drop when consumers refuse to pay the high prices. By the way, you can buy a loaf of bread in Aldi/Lidl for about €1, and if more people shopped around there would be drops in the other supermarkets too.

Yenwod

colly10 wrote: »

It doesn't, but it's the private sector workers that pay your wages, now if their all being let go then theres no wages to pay you. The government are your employer and see that they can no longer afford to keep paying, but rather than getting rid of everyone their making cuts like levies.
So whether or not you feel that you don't have to roll over and take it, the money is not there, I can't understand why people don't get this.

Things are going to get much worse, levies is only the start, theres no choice here. People striking etc only makes the current situation worse

Oh absolutely I think everyone has to play a part whether it's levies/cuts etc and personally (I can's speak for the rest of the public sector), I am willing to take the levy but I think it should be done more fairly, ie. raise the cap of 9% so the ministers can lead by example and feel their "part of the pain" thus making more money for the economy.

And I think maybe a slightly fairer way to do the levies for the lower waged portion of the civil service is to take into account that most CO's at this stage already pay into their pension and so include that in the levy instead of putting the levy on top of that.

Dannyboy83

yawn......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer

diverdriver

The divide and conquer thing is a myth, propagated by the unions to deflect from the actual reality that they are as much to blame for this shambles as the government. They walked out of the talks because they knew there had to be tough cuts and hadn't got the guts to tell the truth to their members.

To assume for one minute that this bunch of cowboys in the Dail, have enough deviousness to try and cling to power by coming up with a strategy to split the electorate is farcical. They are clueless and out of their depth in everything. Everybody private or public hates them now. If anything they finally had to summon up the backbone to cut the public service after years of pandering and mollycoddling them. Far too late. But government workers are deluding themselves if they thing this the end of the cuts. The time may yet come when salaries won't be paid at all because there is no money.

Far fetched? We'll see.

*Honey*

diverdriver wrote: »

The divide and conquer thing is a myth, propagated by the unions to deflect from the actual reality that they are as much to blame for this shambles as the government. They walked out of the talks because they knew there had to be tough cuts and hadn't got the guts to tell the truth to their members.

Actually it's untrue that they walked out for this reason. They walked out because it became very obvious that the Government has the pension levy as a plan all along and brought it out at the last second (remember Cowen set the deadline for talks to end) and insisted on it. When the Union said they need to discuss this some more, it was no, deadline is looming etc etc etc. They walked out because it was patently obvious that the Government wasn't really interested in any partnership dicussions, they were just playing that card to placate the public.

I know this from someone who attended the meetings.

diverdriver

Ah c'mon, honey!!??, the pension levy was not introduced at the last minute. It was heavily flagged right from the off. Everyone who walked in there knew it was the central part of the deal. Every news bulletin leading up to it mentioned the levy.

The unions walked, because they knew that whatever deal they managed to obtain their members wouldn't tolerate it and they would be in the firing line alongside the FF. So they used the usual union tactic of walking out threatening strikes so they can go back later and get a deal. That is the gameplan. Whatever deal they get they can now go back, shake their heads sorrrowfully and say it's the best deal in the circumstances. That's why the government is unnaturally calm in the face of big protest marches etc. Everyone knows and everyone is playing the game.

I was around unions for years, this is normal behaviour in every industrial relations issue. Only this time the stakes are much higher and there is a risk it could all blow up in everyone's face.

nice_guy80

why are the government afraid to just raise taxes?

cut some of the loopholes for tax avoidance

it'd be the easiest way to generate more money

Yenwod

nice_guy80 wrote: »

cut some of the loopholes for tax avoidance

that should've been done years ago

Scofflaw

diverdriver wrote: »

The divide and conquer thing is a myth, propagated by the unions to deflect from the actual reality that they are as much to blame for this shambles as the government. They walked out of the talks because they knew there had to be tough cuts and hadn't got the guts to tell the truth to their members.

To assume for one minute that this bunch of cowboys in the Dail, have enough deviousness to try and cling to power by coming up with a strategy to split the electorate is farcical. They are clueless and out of their depth in everything. Everybody private or public hates them now. If anything they finally had to summon up the backbone to cut the public service after years of pandering and mollycoddling them. Far too late. But government workers are deluding themselves if they thing this the end of the cuts. The time may yet come when salaries won't be paid at all because there is no money

I have to agree. There was, in any case, insufficient lead time for the government to have created such a division. I'm afraid it's a public sector union media strategy - there's no evidence of the government trying to create such a division apart from the claims of union officials.

Personally, I wasn't irritated until I met up with a couple of friends from the public sector. Dearly though I like them, and although they're smart people, their complaints were totally ignorant of the private sector experience. I could easily have sympathised if they had apparently had any idea how lucky they were - but instead they seemed to feel that their pain over a roughly 5% pay cut was entirely commensurate with that felt by mutual friends at a multinational (where the man, who is losing his job, will probably also have to leave the country to find work, leaving behind his ex-partner and their daughter). My irritation was vastly increased by some fool on the radio saying "there was no Celtic Toiger for the pooblic sector woirkers (sic)" - to which a couple of responses seem in order: (1) benchmarking; (2) no risk, no reward.

We are all in this storm together, sure, but we're not all in the same boat, and there's no point pretending we are. For the people in the more comfortable boat to pretend we are simply grates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nice_guy80

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to agree. There was, in any case, insufficient lead time for the government to have created such a division. I'm afraid it's a public sector union media strategy - there's no evidence of the government trying to create such a division apart from the claims of union officials.

Personally, I wasn't irritated until I met up with a couple of friends from the public sector. Dearly though I like them, and although they're smart people, their complaints were totally ignorant of the private sector experience. I could easily have sympathised if they had apparently had any idea how lucky they were - but instead they seemed to feel that their pain over a roughly 5% pay cut was entirely commensurate with that felt by mutual friends at a multinational (where the man, who is losing his job, will probably also have to leave the country to find work, leaving behind his ex-partner and their daughter). My irritation was vastly increased by some fool on the radio saying "there was no Celtic Toiger for the pooblic sector woirkers (sic)" - to which a couple of responses seem in order: (1) benchmarking; (2) no risk, no reward.

We are all in this storm together, sure, but we're not all in the same boat, and there's no point pretending we are. For the people in the more comfortable boat to pretend we are simply grates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hate to say it but the government have been trying to scapepgoat public sector workers as a burden on the state since they cut the substitute cover for teachers. Last september more or less

Hillel

Scofflaw wrote: »

We are all in this storm together, sure, but we're not all in the same boat, and there's no point pretending we are. For the people in the more comfortable boat to pretend we are simply grates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree with you, 100%.
Having said that, people on the lower payscales, public or private sector, are all having it tough. It was a pity that the pension levy was introduced in such a ham-fisted manner that it targeted those public servants who can least afford it. Most fair-minded people would agree that that area needs addressing.

Scofflaw

nice_guy80 wrote: »

hate to say it but the government have been trying to scapepgoat public sector workers as a burden on the state since they cut the substitute cover for teachers. Last september more or less

Hmm. I hate to break it to you, but while we can argue about the word 'burden', we can't avoid the fact that the public sector pay bill is currently too big for the government's revenues. You also can't avoid the fact that those revenues come from taxes paid mostly by the private sector, and that it is on the cards that our taxes will be increased to meet the costs of the public sector pay bill.

Much of the private sector quite genuinely feels the public sector is in a much more comfortable position than we are without any government propaganda - you seem better off than us in many ways that all of a sudden count for more than raw pay - defined benefit pensions, job security, conditions - while the difference in pay is not so large that anyone on this thread has been able to definitively demonstrate it. I'm sure the government is happy to capitalise on this, but they would not be able to create the depth of anger in the private sector if the feeling weren't there already that the pain being experienced by the public sector is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from that experienced by the private sector.

Now we are hearing calls for strikes by the public sector on foot of what the private sector regards as a relatively minor pay cut. Public sector strikes work if they make people angry, and if that anger is aimed at the government.

Since most of us in the private sector are in a state of uncertainty over current prospects, and many of our businesses or jobs will become more difficult or impossible if the public sector goes on strike, while our taxes will still increase to try and meet your wage bill (which you will still be paid while on strike), perhaps you can see that the most likely result of strikes will be to increase the anger the private sector feels for the public sector - not the government.

Finally, what drastically aggravates this situation is the complete certainty with which public sector representatives appear to feel that the public sector is being victimised, which serves to dramatise the extent to which your concerns are utterly different from ours - at a time when you need our sympathy in order for the government to be the villains. We already know the government is out of touch - it's being demonstrated that the public sector is too. You're within a whisker of being lumped in with the politicians, and the stirring rhetoric of being hard done by is not helping.

Very simply - our taxes pay your wages, yet not only do you seem better off than us, but you are threatening to withdraw your services from us while we are still forced to pay your wages out of our probably increased taxes - over a cut much smaller than that facing many in the private sector, and which is undoubtedly the smallest cut possible in the current situation. Strikes, therefore, will most likely give the government a mandate to make real cuts in the public sector.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

*Honey*

Scofflaw, two points:

1. Public sector workers also pay taxes, PRSI, VAT etc - we all pay towards taxes not just the private sector

2. If we go on strike we don't get paid (I know my HR Manager would be rubbing his hands in glee whilst working out the deduction for any strike day)

Scofflaw

*Honey* wrote: »

Scofflaw, two points:

1. Public sector workers also pay taxes, PRSI, VAT etc - we all pay towards taxes not just the private sector

That's recycling, though - you're being taxed on our taxes, if you like.

*Honey* wrote: »

2. If we go on strike we don't get paid (I know my HR Manager would be rubbing his hands in glee whilst working out the deduction for any strike day)

Some will receive strike pay, some will not - but you will still have your jobs afterwards, with us footing that bill whether we approve of your strike or not. You won't go out of business as a result.. Not only that, but the effects on the private sector of a public sector strike of, say, one day, can easily be a good deal more than one day's pay per person.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hughs

*Honey* wrote: »

Scofflaw, two points:

1. Public sector workers also pay taxes, PRSI, VAT etc - we all pay towards taxes not just the private sector

2. If we go on strike we don't get paid (I know my HR Manager would be rubbing his hands in glee whilst working out the deduction for any strike day)

You completely miss the point. The money is generated in the private sector.

is_that_so

I was talking to a member of my family who is a long-term public servant and while not in the superpaid league, he is well-paid. It will cost him €250 or so each month from next week. His response is to look at ways of cutting costs which is the most natural reaction.

He also went to point out that those most indignant about the change were the under 35s and some older workers who had been the shortest time in the job. We've spoken on many occasions about how well he gets paid and about the largesse that was benchmarking. He freely acknowledges the absurdity of the free cash of bench marking but who would turn it down.

He also has much to say about the willingness of some to work and how difficult it is to have those people removed, in effect they are in jobs for life. He describes long term employees who have been promoted "sideways" to prevent them causing difficulties and to ensure that the organisation can function properly, yet they will mark their time till they can claim their pension.

Meanwhile another individual I know in a different public service had a number of "sick days" to take. Apparently he was expected to take the dozen or so days agreed. He thought it bizarre but was not inclined to upset things.

The completely dysfunctional HSE has uncontrolled absenteeism rates of over 10%. Even if only a small proportion of that number are front line staff one can immediately see how that would have knock on effects on services.

I have no doubt there are many more examples of this. Not all of this can be attributed to public sector workers but some can unquestionably be linked to public sector unions and how much they have been able to extract from the government over the last few years. No one would begrudge fair pay and proper benchmarking but we are entitled to see some return from it.

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. I hate to break it to you, but while we can argue about the word 'burden', we can't avoid the fact that the public sector pay bill is currently too big for the government's revenues. You also can't avoid the fact that those revenues come from taxes paid mostly by the private sector, and that it is on the cards that our taxes will be increased to meet the costs of the public sector pay bill.



cordially,
Scofflaw

That is the net point - the public sector pay bill is currently too big for the government's revenues.

However, the social welfare bill is also too big for the government's revenues. Ditto, grants to agriculture, sports, the youth, etc.

By international standards, taxation is low, as is the public sector pay bill. Transfers (those other things I mentioned) are high - compare unemployment assistance in Ireland to unemployment assistance abroad. You are better off on unemployment assistance in Ireland than on the minimum wage in some of our EU colleagues.

Cutting the public sector pay bill does not solve our problems - the pensions levy only brings in about €1bn. At most another €1bn can be shaved of the bill. Increasing taxes and decreasing transfers are the most productive way forward e.g. reducing and taxing child benefit would be a start.

woodseb

Godge wrote: »

Cutting the public sector pay bill does not solve our problems - the pensions levy only brings in about €1bn. At most another €1bn can be shaved of the bill. Increasing taxes and decreasing transfers are the most productive way forward e.g. reducing and taxing child benefit would be a start.

cutting the public sector pay does not solve problems but it is a necessary start. I disagree that increasing taxes is the most productive way forward when you are trying to stimulate the economy

the govt needs to reduce costs to meet its revenue, increasing revenue to meet its costs would be counter productive

Macha

Godge wrote: »

By international standards, taxation is low, as is the public sector pay bill. Transfers (those other things I mentioned) are high - compare unemployment assistance in Ireland to unemployment assistance abroad. You are better off on unemployment assistance in Ireland than on the minimum wage in some of our EU colleagues.

Transfers are not high in Ireland. Transfers are considerably higher on the continent, in general, as higher taxes allow for increased social welfare spending. Also, you can't compare straight €-€ with a country like France, for example, where the cost of living is much lower.

Godge wrote: »

Cutting the public sector pay bill does not solve our problems - the pensions levy only brings in about €1bn. At most another €1bn can be shaved of the bill. Increasing taxes and decreasing transfers are the most productive way forward e.g. reducing and taxing child benefit would be a start.

"Only" a €1bn??

Why decrease transfer? We already have a miserable Gini co-efficient rating.

mountainyman

hughs wrote: »

You completely miss the point. The money is generated in the private sector.

This is repeated like a mantra on boards. The money is generated in the private sector but mostly by Foreign Multinationals brought to this country by civil servants. The indigineous private sector has vaporised our national wealth.

woodseb

mountainyman wrote: »

The money is generated in the private sector but mostly by Foreign Multinationals brought to this country by civil servants. The indigineous private sector has vaporised our national wealth.

that's like saying the revenue commissioners generates revenue :eek:

Duck Soup

Forgive a dumb question, but why are civil service jobs jobs-for-life? Why can't the numbers on the payroll be cut?

As I understand it, the IMF - if they come in - will be seeking these kinds of measures anyway. Every company has inefficiencies and in recessionary times, every company will pare back staffing levels. If the money isn't there, you cut back on costs. Why is the civil service any different?

woodseb

Duck Soup wrote: »

Forgive a dumb question, but why are civil service jobs jobs-for-life? Why can't the numbers on the payroll be cut?

mainly because the government derives very little benefit from sacking an employee as it only switches the cost from payroll to social welfare

SkepticOne

Duck Soup wrote: »

Forgive a dumb question, but why are civil service jobs jobs-for-life? Why can't the numbers on the payroll be cut?

As I understand it, the IMF - if they come in - will be seeking these kinds of measures anyway. Every company has inefficiencies and in recessionary times, every company will pare back staffing levels. If the money isn't there, you cut back on costs. Why is the civil service any different?

The cuts will be concentrated in the post-95 joining civil service and the public service. Pre-95 civil service staff have contracts which make it very hard to sack them. These contracts carry over even when part of a department is split off into the semi-state or private sector (e.g An Post or Eircom). In An Post there is a section called the "rubber room" where staff that can't be sacked are put when it is felt that the company is better off without their input despite the fact that they are on full salary+bonus. In Eircom they are known as "Biddies".