Job losses - public sector

P. Breathnach

Money Shot wrote: »

I only threw up those links to show that there is plenty of info out there on the subject, and all the ones I've read suggests an inequity...

There is plenty said on the subject. Not all of it is information. Some of what is said is wrong, and some of it involves making irrelevant comparisons.

I am not trying to justify pay levels in the public service. My objective is to tackle misinformation. Discussion is best when it deals with facts rather than distortions.

Johnboy Mac

Shut down the Dept. of Health and take 25% of aministration staff out of the HSE. There, half our problems solved!

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is plenty said on the subject. Not all of it is information. Some of what is said is wrong, and some of it involves making irrelevant comparisons.

I am not trying to justify pay levels in the public service. My objective is to tackle misinformation. Discussion is best when it deals with facts rather than distortions.

I would also point out that there seems to be a lot of misinformation about the levy, eg. low paid civil servants saying they'd lose €40-60 per week.

molloyjh

jimmmy wrote: »

Not just me, I think everyone in the country, as well as outside the country. We are the laughing stock of the world. I know someone who had to move out of the public service, as they got married to someone from a different part of the country and they had to live there for family reasons. The pay in the private sector was much much worse than the cosy public sector job, there was much more pressure in the private sector, no long tea breaks, sickies etc, and no pension. As I wrote, a few foreigners pointed out to me recently they thought that the people in the wealth creating sector, who collect and pay the taxes and who take the risks, should actually be paid more than the public sector, perish the thought ! Oh, by the way, the person lost their job in the private sector, as the business closed down....how many people have lost their jobs in the public sector ?

Selective quotations, you've gotta love them eh! I think this entire post can be discounted for that very reason. By excluding the remainder of the sentence you are in essence mis-quoting what I said. I've never argued against wage cuts, and I explicitly stated this at least once today.

By the way the public sector pay taxes as well and I don't take any tea breaks and don't pull sickies. I've worked most of my working life in the private sector and always had a pension and at the very least subsidised health insurance plus bonuses etc. while there. There's little merit in comparing the extreme cases with one another and ignoring the middle ground.

hobochris wrote: »

The risk is in being employed by a company; who by nature take risks to make money as all companies do. It doesn't always work out and when it doesn't the employee suffers weather it be pay cuts or job loss. sure it looks great when a company does well and rewards its employee's accordingly, but guess what the public sector benefits from that risk without having taken the risk, as more money collected in gains taxes means more money for the public sector. I seem to remember a Health service IT project a few years back worth millions, That in the end didn't work, Those people on this project still kept there jobs, In the private sector they would have been looking for jobs elsewhere.

public sector seem to miss the point that the money that's normally generated in the private sector to pay you all IS NOT THERE.
Hence the tax hikes, With the way some are bitching I wish the government had more balls and cut the public sector wage bill.

I accept that, but jimmy was alluding to (at least from what I could tell) the idea of entrepenuerialship (sp?) which is only actively present in a minority of private sector "workers".

Naz_st wrote: »

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find reasonable people (public or private sector) who don't think that what you suggest makes sense. The problem is that the public sector unions want everyone treated on a blanket basis. They don't want individual performance based promotions or bonuses. They don't want managers to have the ability to selectively remove under-achievers. They don't want workers to be incentivised to work harder or more efficiently as it forces everyone to pick up their game.
This approach inevitably leads to divisiveness as inefficiency is seen as ultimately being rewarded with pay increments. And it ensures that there is constant unfairness when it comes to cuts.

You are absolutely right - how can it be fair that someone who works hard and gets paid a smaller salary takes a bigger relative hit due to the pension levy than some overpaid middle-manager with a manufactured role pushing papers around all day and scratching his a*se?
But given the flawed "one for all" system protected by the unions and the constant capitulation to them by the government, there simply isn't a "fair" way of administering cuts as you suggest.

Agreed. I think it's about time that there was internal reform in the unions as I stated recently (possibly in another thread) to ensure they are representing the employees as a whole, be that against the employer or other employees. The problem is that unions do not have the membership levels they once had and the majority of union members are the work dodgers who give everyone else a bad name!

ixoy wrote: »

Not that I don't agree public servants are well paid, but is it really fair to be comparing their wages against the average industrial? I believe the average industrial is made up of a select group of workers and wouldn't take in the broader disciplines of some public sector workers.

What we'd need is a tighter comparison really - for example comparing the wages of a bank teller against that of a clerical officer (doing a quick google, the civil servant got paid more).

Agreed.

Money Shot wrote: »

Anyway, I think the most saliant point is that we, as a country, can no longer afford a public sector wage bill so large. It simply has to come down, and if they can't get rid of people, they must reduce wages.

I think that, while I don't nessecarily disagree with the point, it would be fairer to say that the country can no longer afford the abyssmal management of public finances and public sector areas. There is wastage in the wage bill, but there is also wastage elsewhere. Wage cuts may well be needed but they should come after most, if not all, other viable avenues have been explored, not before. The idea should not just be about cutting costs, but also ensuring value for money. The HSE for example are dealing with their €1bn shortfall, they are just doing it in the most destructive and negative way possible. The figures might look right at the end of the day, but that doesn't make it the right choice.

K-9 wrote: »

I would also point out that there seems to be a lot of misinformation about the levy, eg. low paid civil servants saying they'd lose €40-60 per week.

I haven't heard anything of the sort. You're talking about €40-60 a month for the lower paid workers alright afaik. If you are on say 20k that means that your net take home would be in and around €1,400 after all deductions. Given the price of property in Ireland over the last number of years, or even looking at the price of rent in Dublin alone for example, most of your money would be gone before you've even fed yourself. An additional €60 is a big deal in that case.

Take my situation for example. I'm on approx €50k, a very decent salary and pretty much what I would expect in the private sector. I'm going to be down an extra €160 a month. That will make things difficult for me, but thankfully I've no dependants so I'll get by. If I did I would be in serious trouble. The loss of that kind of money every month is no laughing matter, and as I said its not like I'm being overpaid by comparison to the private sector. Imagine a married couple, both in the public sector, on the same money with 2 kids. They will be down over €300 a month. If they had bought a house within the last 5 years then this €300 would be crippling to them. And we've more tax hikes on the way. All the while the guys at the top end of the scale will hardly notice the difference and are the ones getting the fabulous pensions at the end of it all. Another example of bad management!

K-9

molloyjh wrote: »

I haven't heard anything of the sort. You're talking about €40-60 a month for the lower paid workers alright afaik. If you are on say 20k that means that your net take home would be in and around €1,400 after all deductions. Given the price of property in Ireland over the last number of years, or even looking at the price of rent in Dublin alone for example, most of your money would be gone before you've even fed yourself. An additional €60 is a big deal in that case.

Take my situation for example. I'm on approx €50k, a very decent salary and pretty much what I would expect in the private sector. I'm going to be down an extra €160 a month. That will make things difficult for me, but thankfully I've no dependants so I'll get by. If I did I would be in serious trouble. The loss of that kind of money every month is no laughing matter, and as I said its not like I'm being overpaid by comparison to the private sector. Imagine a married couple, both in the public sector, on the same money with 2 kids. They will be down over €300 a month. If they had bought a house within the last 5 years then this €300 would be crippling to them. And we've more tax hikes on the way. All the while the guys at the top end of the scale will hardly notice the difference and are the ones getting the fabulous pensions at the end of it all. Another example of bad management!

The CPSU Members protesting outside the Dail were saying it on the RTE News, 2 weeks ago.

I do like the way you think people on 50k will miss the money, but not the guys at the top end, paying more again!

molloyjh

K-9 wrote: »

The CPSU Members protesting outside the Dail were saying it on the RTE News, 2 weeks ago.

Well I reckon I've made my opinions of unions pretty clear so far!

K-9 wrote: »

I do like the way you think people on 50k will miss the money, but not the guys at the top end, paying more again!

I'm not trying to say the higher earners won't miss the money, just that they have more disposable income and therefore it won't affect their quality of life in the same way as it would the lower earners. My point is that relatively speaking it hits the lower earners a lot harder than the higher earners. I used 50k as a reference because it's what I know. The €60 or so less a month for someone on about 20k is also a relatively large amount when you think that their net income is only about €1,500 a month, especially when you consider that there are going to be more tax hikes etc on the way.

Godge

hobochris wrote: »

T I seem to remember a Health service IT project a few years back worth millions, That in the end didn't work, Those people on this project still kept there jobs, In the private sector they would have been looking for jobs elsewhere.

Funnily enough, most largescale public sector IT projects are done by private sector consultants.

Godge

Money Shot wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015576.shtml

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/public-sector-pay-soars-by-44pc-over-average-industrial-income-684106.html

Well, in mid 2007 Official wage figures issued by the Central Statistics Office showed the average public servant earns €46,729 a year. This is 44pc higher than the average industrial wage of €32,431. I reckon with benchmarking this has widened since, so Jimmy probably aint far off on his figures.

Intuitively, it makes sense, there are thousands and thousands of private sector workers on minimum wage or very low pay. In the private sector, clerical officers with leaving certs start on around the same amount as honors graduates that I would employ. This is without taking into account the fact the these graduates work minimum 40 unflexible hours, and anything over that aint paid. They also only get only 20 days holidays and will never get more than 25 no matter how long they work. The pensions they contribute to themselves are now almost worthless, and we've had to let a decent number go before xmas. All in all, I think there is a definite inequity between public and private remuneration packages. This needs to be addressed as the wage bill is crippling us, and is essentially being paid for by the private sector in the most part.

These comparisons are very difficult to do.

One big problem with the comparisons between the private and public sectors is that the public sector statistics include the solicitors in the DPP, Chief State Solicitor and AG's offices, the architects in the OPW and An Bord Peanala, the accountants in every state organisation, the public health professionals.

However, the private sector employee data does not include business owners, partners in legal firms, accountants and other self-employed professionals. Most private sector psychologists have their own practice and aren't in the statistics while the public sector psychologist salary is in the mix. You are never comparing like with like unless you get down to direct comparison of jobs, pay and benefits. Even then, can you compare a security guard with the gardai or army?

It is not true therefore that all public servants are paid too much - many are - but apart from the very top, it is difficult for anyone to be definitive.

givyjoe81

molloyjh wrote: »

It doesn't makes sense to purely bring public sector pay in line with EU counterparts if the cost of living isn't in line also. It's a nice sound-byte that though.

Let me adjust my statement slightly then, bring it into proportion with Eu counterparts if that makes sense. Im taking a complete stab in the dark but il wager a hefty amount of monopoly money after after takin into account cost of living etc, public servants are still paid better here. Forget about EU counterparts even, in contrast to the private sector, been said to death but it would certainly seem from the figures been thrown about that you are considerably better paid on average than your now out of work private sector peeps. (Wrote counterparts twice already so peeps will have to do)

kippy

molloyjh wrote: »

Selective quotations, you've gotta love them eh! I think this entire post can be discounted for that very reason. By excluding the remainder of the sentence you are in essence mis-quoting what I said. I've never argued against wage cuts, and I explicitly stated this at least once today.

By the way the public sector pay taxes as well and I don't take any tea breaks and don't pull sickies. I've worked most of my working life in the private sector and always had a pension and at the very least subsidised health insurance plus bonuses etc. while there. There's little merit in comparing the extreme cases with one another and ignoring the middle ground.



I accept that, but jimmy was alluding to (at least from what I could tell) the idea of entrepenuerialship (sp?) which is only actively present in a minority of private sector "workers".



Agreed. I think it's about time that there was internal reform in the unions as I stated recently (possibly in another thread) to ensure they are representing the employees as a whole, be that against the employer or other employees. The problem is that unions do not have the membership levels they once had and the majority of union members are the work dodgers who give everyone else a bad name!



Agreed.



I think that, while I don't nessecarily disagree with the point, it would be fairer to say that the country can no longer afford the abyssmal management of public finances and public sector areas. There is wastage in the wage bill, but there is also wastage elsewhere. Wage cuts may well be needed but they should come after most, if not all, other viable avenues have been explored, not before. The idea should not just be about cutting costs, but also ensuring value for money. The HSE for example are dealing with their €1bn shortfall, they are just doing it in the most destructive and negative way possible. The figures might look right at the end of the day, but that doesn't make it the right choice.



I haven't heard anything of the sort. You're talking about €40-60 a month for the lower paid workers alright afaik. If you are on say 20k that means that your net take home would be in and around €1,400 after all deductions. Given the price of property in Ireland over the last number of years, or even looking at the price of rent in Dublin alone for example, most of your money would be gone before you've even fed yourself. An additional €60 is a big deal in that case.

Take my situation for example. I'm on approx €50k, a very decent salary and pretty much what I would expect in the private sector. I'm going to be down an extra €160 a month. That will make things difficult for me, but thankfully I've no dependants so I'll get by. If I did I would be in serious trouble. The loss of that kind of money every month is no laughing matter, and as I said its not like I'm being overpaid by comparison to the private sector. Imagine a married couple, both in the public sector, on the same money with 2 kids. They will be down over €300 a month. If they had bought a house within the last 5 years then this €300 would be crippling to them. And we've more tax hikes on the way. All the while the guys at the top end of the scale will hardly notice the difference and are the ones getting the fabulous pensions at the end of it all. Another example of bad management!

Not exactly sure what you do, your qualifications or your outgoings. However, I do find what you are saying to be slightly annoying.
1.The 50k you are on is a very decent wage to most people, in fact I would think the majority of people reading this thread would be on significantly less than that.
2.You say that its the wage you would expect in the private sector as well. What you dont highlight is that to fund a pension with the benefits you would expect at retirement would cost you an extra 10K approx per annum in the private sector.
Ideally the guys at the top end of the scale will be well qualified, have worked hard and deserved their higher pension. I know this isnt always the case, but if you arent happy with the salary you are on or your benefits aim to improve yourself or get out of that job, no matter whether you are public sector or private sector. Without you moving one more inch you are looking at a tax free (currently) lump sum of 75K at retirement. Not bad in comparison when you consider it is a state sponsored.
3.You have SIGNIFICANTLY better job security than almost ANY area in the private sector.
4.You are pretty much GUARANTEED increments on an annual basis no matter what performance level you achieve.

A house with two Public sector workers in it no matter what the circumstances of them is a pretty lucky household, surely you can see this.

Now, when you talk about the government cutting costs and a lot of people here are talking about it, each and every one of us should be doing the same thing (no matter if they are telling us to spend spend spend) if you are 160 extra down this month your annual increment should cover it (which unions seem to be happy enough to avoid talking about)
If you still feel out of pocket, do what you are telling others to do, cut your costs.


Kippy

K-9

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm not trying to say the higher earners won't miss the money, just that they have more disposable income and therefore it won't affect their quality of life in the same way as it would the lower earners.

Yep, but it's all their extra income over yours is taxed at 41%. I do take your point, but if people on 50k have a right to moan about 2k a month being deducted, people on 75k can moan about 4k or whatever it is. The line has to be drawn somewhere. You obviously think some people on 50k are getting it tough enough, so will some on 60/70/80k etc.

molloyjh wrote:

My point is that relatively speaking it hits the lower earners a lot harder than the higher earners. I used 50k as a reference because it's what I know. The €60 or so less a month for someone on about 20k is also a relatively large amount when you think that their net income is only about €1,500 a month, especially when you consider that there are going to be more tax hikes etc on the way.

Think very few would argue with that. Where do you make it up. Add 1% to 50k earners?

Godge wrote: »

These comparisons are very difficult to do.

One big problem with the comparisons between the private and public sectors is that the public sector statistics include the solicitors in the DPP, Chief State Solicitor and AG's offices, the architects in the OPW and An Bord Peanala, the accountants in every state organisation, the public health professionals.

Accepted.

Godge wrote:

However, the private sector employee data does not include business owners, partners in legal firms, accountants and other self-employed professionals. Most private sector psychologists have their own practice and aren't in the statistics while the public sector psychologist salary is in the mix.

It does include directors though as they are treated as employees. So one kind of cancels the public sector other one out.

grudge wrote:

You are never comparing like with like unless you get down to direct comparison of jobs, pay and benefits. Even then, can you compare a security guard with the gardai or army?

It is not true therefore that all public servants are paid too much - many are - but apart from the very top, it is difficult for anyone to be definitive.

It is extremely subjective but it is an indicator. Guards on over 1k a week, Teachers €900 odd a week, Nurses €6/700 a week etc.

kippy wrote: »

2.You say that its the wage you would expect in the private sector as well. What you dont highlight is that to fund a pension with the benefits you would expect at retirement would cost you an extra 10K approx per annum in the private sector.

Fair point, when you'd need to be paying 20/30% of your salary to get it. In fairness the levy will bring them to 17/18%.

molloyjh

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Let me adjust my statement slightly then, bring it into proportion with Eu counterparts if that makes sense. Im taking a complete stab in the dark but il wager a hefty amount of monopoly money after after takin into account cost of living etc, public servants are still paid better here. Forget about EU counterparts even, in contrast to the private sector, been said to death but it would certainly seem from the figures been thrown about that you are considerably better paid on average than your now out of work private sector peeps. (Wrote counterparts twice already so peeps will have to do)

I can't speak for the public sector as a whole, to be honest I don't know enough about what they are or are not paid. I can only speak for myself, and I'm not paid any more than I would be in the private sector. In fact I'm getting job specs at the moment for private sector roles with significantly better salaries again so you could say I'm earning less than I would be in the private sector. For me it would be a tough move back to the private sector due purely to the job security element and I fully acknowledge that.

I do get very frustrated though with lines like "your now out of work private sector peeps". I feel for those who have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts, I really do. But most people I know working in the private sector haven't suffered either of those. They are just getting a pay freeze and no bonus or whatever. The problem being that this type of pain is not felt by workers across the private sector as a whole, but within parts of it. And yet all the talk seems to try and lump everyone in the private sector together against everyone in the public. It's just not that simple.

kippy wrote: »

Not exactly sure what you do, your qualifications or your outgoings. However, I do find what you are saying to be slightly annoying.
1.The 50k you are on is a very decent wage to most people, in fact I would think the majority of people reading this thread would be on significantly less than that.

Completely agree, and I did state that it was a good wage in the post to be fair.

kippy wrote: »

2.You say that its the wage you would expect in the private sector as well. What you dont highlight is that to fund a pension with the benefits you would expect at retirement would cost you an extra 10K approx per annum in the private sector.
Ideally the guys at the top end of the scale will be well qualified, have worked hard and deserved their higher pension. I know this isnt always the case, but if you arent happy with the salary you are on or your benefits aim to improve yourself or get out of that job, no matter whether you are public sector or private sector. Without you moving one more inch you are looking at a tax free (currently) lump sum of 75K at retirement. Not bad in comparison when you consider it is a state sponsored.

As above it would appear I am being underpaid where I am compared to the private sector!

However the problem with the public sector pension argument is that it is all dependant on finishing salary. The public service pension is better the higher your finishing salary, but if you finish on a lower salary it's not that great. My understanding of it (and I'm not in the public sector long and haven't spent enough time sussing this out) is in summary that you are entitled to half your finishing salary and that the state tops up the regular state pension (€12k that we all get I believe) to whatever that amount is. If you finish on €40k, and I know a few who will be shortly, the public service pension provides for 8k a year. That's not that glorious really. Compare that to someone who finishes on €200k and they get €88k from the pension fund.

The details regarding the lump sum payment I'm not overly clear on either so I'll have to look that up before commenting and I don't have time to do that now I'm afraid.

kippy wrote: »

3.You have SIGNIFICANTLY better job security than almost ANY area in the private sector.

I completely understand that, as above.

kippy wrote: »

4.You are pretty much GUARANTEED increments on an annual basis no matter what performance level you achieve.

That's yet to be confirmed this year, but I do agree that not having these things performance related doesn't make sense.

kippy wrote: »

A house with two Public sector workers in it no matter what the circumstances of them is a pretty lucky household, surely you can see this.

I don't disagree at all. I've never said the public sector is a bad sector to be in or that we/they have it tough generally, I'm just making the point that this particular piece of legislation is a lazy stop-gap to a bigger problem which ultimately solves nothing and only causes more problems. More constructive measures could have been taken, but bad management has been a regular feature in the public sector and this is just another case of it.

kippy wrote: »

Now, when you talk about the government cutting costs and a lot of people here are talking about it, each and every one of us should be doing the same thing (no matter if they are telling us to spend spend spend) if you are 160 extra down this month your annual increment should cover it (which unions seem to be happy enough to avoid talking about)
If you still feel out of pocket, do what you are telling others to do, cut your costs.

I have been cutting my costs, but there's only so many cuts you can make. And we may not be getting an increment. No decisions have been reached on that yet (for me at least). The public sector isn't just one big company with the same policies etc, just as the private sector isn't.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, but it's all their extra income over yours is taxed at 41%. I do take your point, but if people on 50k have a right to moan about 2k a month being deducted, people on 75k can moan about 4k or whatever it is. The line has to be drawn somewhere. You obviously think some people on 50k are getting it tough enough, so will some on 60/70/80k etc.

Maybe I should clarify my point a bit better. Personally I'll notice the difference, but I'm not going to be struggling month on month. My personal position is a good one. I'm trying to focus on people other than myself. Young families, people on lower wages etc. My problem with the pension levy is not that I'm going to be down an extra few bob a month, but that it is another example where the Government ignored the possibility of constructive measures, i.e. tackling waste in the public sector to ensure value for money before (not instead of) cutting wages, which is what the pension levy is.

K-9 wrote: »

Think very few would argue with that. Where do you make it up. Add 1% to 50k earners?

I would never have implemented the pension levy in the first place. Increasing tax across the board at the start of the year (like they will be in a couple of weeks anyway) would have provided some short-term relief to allow them to begin tackling the public sectors wastage where they could identify and rectify the quick wins immediately while continuing with the exercise over a period of time. Cross the board early retirement schemes, leave of absence schemes, reduced working week ideas would help trim back the wage bill also. This would also help buy time to make the changes that really matter, that will allow us to focus on getting value for money from the services. All that has happened so far is a serious reduction in public sector employees ability to spend and reduced levels of service in almost every area of the public sector when we should be focusing on at least maintaining the levels of service we currently have, but reduce the cost of those services. We all know we are pumping huge money into, for example, the HSE and not seeing the value of it out the other end. Now is the time to put an end to that.

jimmmy

Money Shot wrote: »

Well, in mid 2007 Official wage figures issued by the Central Statistics Office showed the average public servant earns €46,729 a year. This is 44pc higher than the average industrial wage of €32,431. I reckon with benchmarking this has widened since, so Jimmy probably aint far off on his figures.

Intuitively, it makes sense, there are thousands and thousands of private sector workers on minimum wage or very low pay. In the private sector, clerical officers with leaving certs start on around the same amount as honors graduates that I would employ. This is without taking into account the fact the these graduates work minimum 40 unflexible hours, and anything over that aint paid. They also only get only 20 days holidays and will never get more than 25 no matter how long they work. The pensions they contribute to themselves are now almost worthless.

The government itself, as well as everyone else knows there is a big discrepancy. Ask any salesperson of luxury goods these days who his / her main customers are / what group they belong to ...

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

The government itself, as well as everyone else knows there is a big discrepancy. Ask any salesperson of luxury goods these days who his / her main customers are / what group they belong to ...

Here we go again.

In all your posts in this thread, you have not adduced one shred of evidence. You have made claims that are disproved by available evidence. So now you resort to something akin to innuendo.

K-9

molloyjh wrote: »

I would never have implemented the pension levy in the first place. Increasing tax across the board at the start of the year (like they will be in a couple of weeks anyway) would have provided some short-term relief to allow them to begin tackling the public sectors wastage where they could identify and rectify the quick wins immediately while continuing with the exercise over a period of time. Cross the board early retirement schemes, leave of absence schemes, reduced working week ideas would help trim back the wage bill also. This would also help buy time to make the changes that really matter, that will allow us to focus on getting value for money from the services. All that has happened so far is a serious reduction in public sector employees ability to spend and reduced levels of service in almost every area of the public sector when we should be focusing on at least maintaining the levels of service we currently have, but reduce the cost of those services. We all know we are pumping huge money into, for example, the HSE and not seeing the value of it out the other end. Now is the time to put an end to that.

Considering the size of the deficit, they need pension levies, drastic cutbacks in expenditure, substantial tax increases. This is only the start of it.

Remember Income Tax receipts were down in February by over €100 million, despite the 1% Levy.

People are under the impression that we need to cut a few billion over several years. We need cuts and tax increases of €10 - 15 Billion every year.

Unemployment could reach 17/18%, that is going to be the figure for the forseeable future. So we have to finance the increased expenditure on that while at the same time increasing taxes on a decreasing workforce and an economy that is detracting.

Really, if we have this uproar over a 3-9% Levy, wait until the real cuts come in!

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Here we go again.
In all your posts in this thread, you have not adduced one shred of evidence. .

I think the CSO statistics are enough....why do you not accept them ? Do you honestly think the public service is not overpaid ?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You have made claims that are disproved by available evidence..

Rubbish.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

I think the CSO statistics are enough....why do you not accept them ? ...

What CSO statistics? Do they publish data on who is buying luxury goods?

Naz_st

molloyjh wrote: »

However the problem with the public sector pension argument is that it is all dependant on finishing salary.

Yes, but not for the reasons you espouse. Since it is based on finishing salary, it is highly likely that the amount of money a public service employee pays towards their pension will only represent a fraction of the actual cost of the pension to the state (since for most of their employment they will not have been paying in x% of their final salary). So whatever way you look at it, in general, the pension is a great deal for public sector employees of all levels (including those retiring on 40k).

We all know we are pumping huge money into, for example, the HSE and not seeing the value of it out the other end. Now is the time to put an end to that.

The HSE is an adminstrative and economic disaster, which has been a shambles from it's inception. It has never represented value for money and seems to me to be one of the biggest areas of perpetual waste of taxpayers money. A complete overhaul is long overdue to deal with this fundamentally flawed system.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What CSO statistics?

The ones quoted which show earnings.


Again I ask you ( seeing as you did not answer ) : "Do you honestly think the public service is not overpaid ? "

nurse23

i'm a newly qualified nurse and 80% i'd say of my old class mates are working abroad in england, oz and america and their money is in and around the same if not more.its also cheaper in most other countries. also there are better oppurtunities for promotion and better benefits than here if i can believe what i'm told!!! i cant talk for gaurds etc. also my salary is 31875 a year before tax. true i get extra for nights/sundays but sometimes its not worth my while cos its all gone on tax, levy, and my pension contribution. i come out most weeks with in and aroud 500euros sometimes bit more (this includes nights and weekends) and when the pension levy comes in thats goin to be well down. i know im lucky to have a job and so many are out of work but it just annoys me when people are so down on public servants, we are not all big earners or permanent. me and a group of girls were let go from galway hospital after 3 months due to cutbacks and replaced with students. luckily i got another job but some of my fellow nurses are unemployed and considering turning their back on nursing. that said there are dozens of managers in the same hospital on large amounts of money and ive yet to hear of any of them being let go. its true the public sector needs major reformation. but reading some of the posts i feel that the likes of nurses, teachers gaurds have absolutely no respect and that people think we are on huge salaries. once i get my net pay and ive paid my bills and try to save a bit im nearly broke.

kippy

nurse23 wrote: »

i'm a newly qualified nurse and 80% i'd say of my old class mates are working abroad in england, oz and america and their money is in and around the same if not more.its also cheaper in most other countries. also there are better oppurtunities for promotion and better benefits than here if i can believe what i'm told!!! i cant talk for gaurds etc. also my salary is 31875 a year before tax. true i get extra for nights/sundays but sometimes its not worth my while cos its all gone on tax, levy, and my pension contribution. i come out most weeks with in and aroud 500euros sometimes bit more (this includes nights and weekends) and when the pension levy comes in thats goin to be well down. i know im lucky to have a job and so many are out of work but it just annoys me when people are so down on public servants, we are not all big earners or permanent. me and a group of girls were let go from galway hospital after 3 months due to cutbacks and replaced with students. luckily i got another job but some of my fellow nurses are unemployed and considering turning their back on nursing. that said there are dozens of managers in the same hospital on large amounts of money and ive yet to hear of any of them being let go. its true the public sector needs major reformation. but reading some of the posts i feel that the likes of nurses, teachers gaurds have absolutely no respect and that people think we are on huge salaries. once i get my net pay and ive paid my bills and try to save a bit im nearly broke.

Mollyjh, in relation the the pension scheme, in general a person who qualifies for a pension gets x/80 of their finishing salary (index linked to that finishing salary), where x is the number of pensionable years they have been employed for, up to a maximum of 40. The retiree also gets 1.5 times their finishing salary upon retirement, (the lump sum is tax free). ALL guaranteed, no stock market crashes can hit it.
Now, you "Pay in" approximately 9.5% of your salary pre pension levy, approx 15% post pension levy to get this pension. To fund a similiar pension in the ANY private sector organisation would cost you AT LEAST 30% of your salary for your whole career and there is NO WAY you would get the same guarantees or final percentage sums. Your pension is SIGNIFICANTLY better than that of most in the private sector. As a poster has mentioned already if you work on 50k for 37 years then get into a 80k a year job for the final 3 years, you get the pension based on that 80K despite not paying as much into it as you could imagine. SO you are NOT being UNDERPAID in relation to the private sector.
I have always been the advocate of if you dont like the terms and conditions of you employment do whatever you can to move out of it.
The FACTS of the matter are, and many many posters have said this, these cuts have to raise SIGNIFICANT amounts of money. I made the mistake a few weeks ago of starting a thread in economics in which I had made an incorrect calculation.
If the current deficit for this year were to be wiped out this year JUST by hitting the employed people, private and public, EVERY one of US would have to be "giving" and EXTRA 10K to the government per annum. Thats the amount of money this government have to generate just to BALANCE the books.......obviously they'll be doing other things as well, but hopefully that puts it in perspective.

To the last poster, there are multitudes of issues within the HSE, VERY VERY hard to resolve them with the Unions in volved. That is the reality. I do feel for your situation but keep the head up.
Kippy

Disclaimer- I am a public sector worker.

Godge

nurse23 wrote: »

i'm a newly qualified nurse and 80% i'd say of my old class mates are working abroad in england, oz and america and their money is in and around the same if not more.its also cheaper in most other countries. also there are better oppurtunities for promotion and better benefits than here if i can believe what i'm told!!! i cant talk for gaurds etc. also my salary is 31875 a year before tax. true i get extra for nights/sundays but sometimes its not worth my while cos its all gone on tax, levy, and my pension contribution. i come out most weeks with in and aroud 500euros sometimes bit more (this includes nights and weekends) and when the pension levy comes in thats goin to be well down. i know im lucky to have a job and so many are out of work but it just annoys me when people are so down on public servants, we are not all big earners or permanent. me and a group of girls were let go from galway hospital after 3 months due to cutbacks and replaced with students. luckily i got another job but some of my fellow nurses are unemployed and considering turning their back on nursing. that said there are dozens of managers in the same hospital on large amounts of money and ive yet to hear of any of them being let go. its true the public sector needs major reformation. but reading some of the posts i feel that the likes of nurses, teachers gaurds have absolutely no respect and that people think we are on huge salaries. once i get my net pay and ive paid my bills and try to save a bit im nearly broke.

Yes, but that scale has incremental points that go up to 46,541 before allowances, of which there are quite a few that would push a staff nurse, the lowest nursing position, over 50,000 a year. Promotion posts, according to the nursing union website, can carry salaries of up to 98,000 before allowances - though I would hope at these levels there is no extra money for weekends. Admittedly, there would only be a handful at this level but there would appear to be plenty of posts up to around 60,000 - a public health nurse goes up to 58,000, lots of them around.

Surprised that as a newly qualified nurse, you are not dual qualified which would mean a starting salary of 36,000. I had thought that the four year degree would lead to more dual-qualified nurses.

ronbyrne2005

nurse23 wrote: »

i'm a newly qualified nurse and 80% i'd say of my old class mates are working abroad in england, oz and america and their money is in and around the same if not more.its also cheaper in most other countries. also there are better oppurtunities for promotion and better benefits than here if i can believe what i'm told!!! i cant talk for gaurds etc. also my salary is 31875 a year before tax. true i get extra for nights/sundays but sometimes its not worth my while cos its all gone on tax, levy, and my pension contribution. i come out most weeks with in and aroud 500euros sometimes bit more (this includes nights and weekends) and when the pension levy comes in thats goin to be well down. i know im lucky to have a job and so many are out of work but it just annoys me when people are so down on public servants, we are not all big earners or permanent. me and a group of girls were let go from galway hospital after 3 months due to cutbacks and replaced with students. luckily i got another job but some of my fellow nurses are unemployed and considering turning their back on nursing. that said there are dozens of managers in the same hospital on large amounts of money and ive yet to hear of any of them being let go. its true the public sector needs major reformation. but reading some of the posts i feel that the likes of nurses, teachers gaurds have absolutely no respect and that people think we are on huge salaries. once i get my net pay and ive paid my bills and try to save a bit im nearly broke.

Irish nurses get much more than rest of Eurozone and pay less in taxation, A newly qualified french nurse gets less than 20k while an Irish one gets 32k+. We are a much smaller and poorer and less advanced country than France and we cannot pay so much more than them. This is largely why the economy is screwed. Even if the banking crisis hadnt happened the public expenditure was unsustainable and housing bubble would have crashed anyway. Thank Fianna Fail for all this. We have no choice, public sector pay will have to be cut significantly over coming years but hopefully cost of living will also keep falling. Average private sector wages will also keep falling for years to come and these falls will happen automatically due to market forces.

femur61

I thought Brian Cowen said his pay to over €103,000 was inline with the public sector!

SkepticOne

femur61 wrote: »

I thought Brian Cowen said his pay to over €103,000 was inline with the public sector!

Ministerial salaries are kept in line with senior civil service pay.

Which are set by government.

jimmmy

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Irish nurses get much more than rest of Eurozone and pay less in taxation, A newly qualified french nurse gets less than 20k while an Irish one gets 32k+. We are a much smaller and poorer and less advanced country than France and we cannot pay so much more than them. This is largely why the economy is screwed. Even if the banking crisis hadnt happened the public expenditure was unsustainable and housing bubble would have crashed anyway. Thank Fianna Fail for all this. We have no choice, public sector pay will have to be cut significantly over coming years but hopefully cost of living will also keep falling. Average private sector wages will also keep falling for years to come and these falls will happen automatically due to market forces.

True enough. Reading about the pay in France reminds me of a French electricity supply worker I met recently....he simply could not comprehend how the average ESB salary is over 70 k, which it is. As you say, public sector pay will have to be cut significantly over coming years.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

The ones quoted which show earnings.

You have not supported any of your claims with data. Put up or shut up.

Again I ask you ( seeing as you did not answer ) : "Do you honestly think the public service is not overpaid ? "

My views are already given in this thread. They are a bit more nuanced than that. Some public service jobs might be overpaid, but not necessarily all of them.

Naz_st

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My views are already given in this thread. They are a bit more nuanced than that. Some public service jobs might be overpaid, but not necessarily all of them.

That seems a tautological statement to me - do you have a defined opinion on this? It just seems like a statement from the ladybird book of fence-sitting!

Put up or shut up

Well, quite...

molloyjh

K-9 wrote: »

Really, if we have this uproar over a 3-9% Levy, wait until the real cuts come in!

Have you even been reading my mails at all???? I am not complaining about the fact that public sector workers have to take a cut. If its nessecary then I am happy to take it. My problem is the manner in which it was done and the serious lack of any effort to minimise it when there were options available to the Government to do just that. What is so wrong with that!? It only makes sense to get rid of waste and try and help keep peoples spending power up as much as is possible. If you look at the private sector I'm sure you'll see most companies trying to reduce costs in most, if not all, other areas before implementing wage or job cuts. The Government should be no different.

Naz_st wrote: »

That seems a tautological statement to me - do you have a defined opinion on this? It just seems like a statement from the ladybird book of fence-sitting!

I can't speak for P. Breathnach but my take on it is, and I think his/hers is the same, that while there is wastage and there are overpaid workers in the public service not all workers are overpaid. And this notion of reduce public sector worker wages is a lovely little phrase, but the reality is that its not that simple. You would have to target the ones being overpaid and at least go a little easier on those that are not.

Yes the public finances are a mess, yes the wage bill is too high, but the solution is not a simple and easy reduction of all wages and services but a targetted and fair reduction of all costs. Determining what this is will take time and effort which is probably why its not being looked at!

P. Breathnach is not sitting on the fence from I can see, but rather saying it's just not a simple as many people are making it out to be. It isn't and it never will be. Some in the public sector should most definitely have their wages cut, others not so much. But the only whole-sale action that should be taken is a comprehensive review to see where those cuts can/should be made. Oversimplifcation of issues gets us nowhere.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You have not supported any of your claims with data. Put up or shut up.

There are numerous statistics which show the public service in Ireland is overpaid. Not long ago in this very thread I quoted the following statistic ( which is reckoned to have widened since if anything ) "in mid 2007 Official wage figures issued by the Central Statistics Office showed the average public servant earns €46,729 a year. This is 44pc higher than the average industrial wage of €32,431. "