Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Job losses - public sector

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    molloyjh wrote: »
    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.

    Of course. I was talking to a French electricity worker recently and he was amazed at how the country ( which has the second highest electricity cost in Europe ) pays the average ESB worker over 70,000 euro per annum. No wonder we have the second highest electricity cost in Europe. I suppose the French prime minister is amazed at how our Taoiseach can pay himself so much more too ....


  • Options
    #153
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    molloyjh wrote: »
    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.

    It will take a whole range of cuts and tax increases. Public Sector pay will obviously have to be part of that.

    The tax take was expected to be €48.9 Billion for 2008 a year ago.
    https://www.icai.ie/en/general/News-and-Events/News1/2008/53472/53596/

    They turned out to be less than €41 Billion:
    http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5614

    Based on January/February receipts we could be lucky to get €34 Billion this year:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0304/1224242233281.html

    That's is a €15 Billion drop in one year alone, about a 30% drop in our income.

    Now, let's look at the expenditure side:
    http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5614



    Total net voted spending     was €49,313 million in 2008 compared to €44,609 million in 2007, an increase of 10.5 per cent. Net voted expenditure in 2008 is 0.7 per cent or €351 million above the Revised Estimates Volume (REV) figures.

    So bases on just maintaining current expenditure and forgetting about the massive increases in SW, we will be €16 Billion short.

    Public Sector Pay alone makes up 40% of expenditure.

    The levy saves about a Billion Net.

    That gives a little perspective on the situation.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #154
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    K-9 wrote: »
    It will take a whole range of cuts and tax increases. Public Sector pay will obviously have to be part of that.

    I don't, and never have, disagreed with that. Quite the opposite in fact.
    K-9 wrote: »
    Public Sector Pay alone makes up 40% of expenditure.

    The levy saves about a Billion Net.

    That gives a little perspective on the situation.

    I don't have time to look into the figures etc now so will have to leave that until the weekend, but as I said before just because the figures work out doesn't mean the right steps were taken. All I'm talking about is getting the same results with a different means, that's all. If you have a problem with my logic than can you please explain what that is, because I don't get it. Savings can be made in numerous areas, and done correctly can help the country in the long run. Rushed and ill-conceived ideas can have the same impact in the short-term but a much less positive one in the long-term. Certain measures can tide us over for a couple of months while we make larger and more worthwhile changes through-out the course of the rest of the year.


  • Options
    #155
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    molloyjh wrote: »
    ... 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.

    You have my post-hoc authorisation to speak for me. You have got my position pretty well spot-on.


  • Options
    #156
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Certain measures can tide us over for a couple of months while we make larger and more worthwhile changes through-out the course of the rest of the year.

    With respect I do not quite think you understand the scale, seriousness or urgency of the situation. Given the pension levy is only producing 1 billion over the course of a year, we are borrowing that amount every 2 weeks to balance the shortfall in current spending, just to keep things going as they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    jimmmy wrote: »
    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. "

    So now your cited authority is yourself! Where did the CSO say that? Can you supply a link?

    I showed, in a different thread, that your figure for the average industrial wage was wrong, and I gave a link to back up what I said:
    The average industrial wage is not €31k; it's a good deal higher than that -- over €39k in 2007. See http://www.cso.ie/releasespublicatio...rnlabcosts.pdf (particularly Table 9).

    I conclude that you are not interested in the facts.


  • Options
    #158
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    molloyjh wrote: »
    I don't, and never have, disagreed with that. Quite the opposite in fact.



    I don't have time to look into the figures etc now so will have to leave that until the weekend, but as I said before just because the figures work out doesn't mean the right steps were taken. All I'm talking about is getting the same results with a different means, that's all. If you have a problem with my logic than can you please explain what that is, because I don't get it. Savings can be made in numerous areas, and done correctly can help the country in the long run. Rushed and ill-conceived ideas can have the same impact in the short-term but a much less positive one in the long-term. Certain measures can tide us over for a couple of months while we make larger and more worthwhile changes through-out the course of the rest of the year.

    I think you seem to think I have a problem with your stance from your last few posts. Not at all.

    The levy was badly explained. It could have been handled far better, but the Unions were against it from day one.

    The other cuts you are talking about will come, they will have to. The levy is only a taste of the cuts in expenditure to come. That is all I'm saying here.

    Even targetted and fair cuts will probably not even do it!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #159
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    So now your cited authority is yourself! Where did the CSO say that? Can you supply a link?.
    certainly. Here it is again for you:

    http://www.cso.ie/statistics/earnings.htm
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I showed, in a different thread, that your figure for the average industrial wage was wrong, and I gave a link to back up what I said:.
    Your cso.ie link does not work !
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I conclude that you are not interested in the facts.

    Your conclusion is incorrect.


  • Options
    #160
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    molloyjh wrote: »
    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.

    Well, we are in heated agreement here. I was just pointing out that it seems somewhat of an obvious statement that some people might be overpaid in the public sector. I imagine such a statement could have been levelled at most sectors public or private (e.g. banking, construction, etc). The issue is more about defining how prevalent it is and to what degree.

    And the reason for defining it more concretely in this manner is so that when you say "Some in the public sector should most definitely have their wages cut, others not so much" we have a basis for targeting those people who need to have their wages cut (Dail Eireann for starters!). Not that the unions would ever accepted a targeted approach anyway though.

    But simply stating the original quote as truth isn't really stating anything that isn't already known, that's all I was getting at.


  • Options
    #161
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    K-9 wrote: »
    Even targetted and fair cuts will probably not even do it!
    True. Some people are actually arrogant enough to suggest though that those in the public service should actually not be paid more than those who do not have such job security, do not have a guaranteed pension worth 25 k per year to fund ( if they were to buy it at commercial market prices ), do not have as long holidays. Perish the thought that risk takers ( who do not get pensions ) should be paid more than non-risk takers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    HashSlinging
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭HashSlinging


    I thought benchmarking would bring the salaries of public sector workers down, is that not normally how it works..


  • Options
    #163
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    K-9 wrote: »
    I think you seem to think I have a problem with your stance from your last few posts. Not at all.

    The levy was badly explained. It could have been handled far better, but the Unions were against it from day one.

    The other cuts you are talking about will come, they will have to. The levy is only a taste of the cuts in expenditure to come. That is all I'm saying here.

    Even targetted and fair cuts will probably not even do it!

    Don't start me on the Unions, never trusted them and never will. They are almost as bad as politicians in my book!

    I'm not convinced the other cuts will come myself though judging by the cuts in the HSE recently. The recession isn't exactly breaking news and there has been no effort what-so-ever to examine waste in the HSE over the last number of months, now they are cutting back on beds etc to try and save a few quid quick!

    Naz_st - sorry I obviously picked your post up wrong!!!


  • Options
    #164
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    jimmmy wrote: »
    certainly. Here it is again for you:

    http://www.cso.ie/statistics/earnings.htm

    So where did you get the figure of €32,431? I don't see it there.

    Your cso.ie link does not work !

    Sorry. It didn't copy over correctly from the other thread. Try this: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

    Table 9 shows average earnings in industry in 2007 to be €39,194. It shows the earnings of Production, transport, craft, and other manual workers in industry to be €32,730.


  • Options
    #165
    nhughes100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 845 ✭✭✭nhughes100


    jimmmy wrote: »
    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. "


    44percent??? 1 percent of 46729 is 467.29, multiply that by 44 give you 20,560.76. Shy on facts and shy on sums.


  • Options
    #166
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    HashSlinging wrote: »
    I thought benchmarking would bring the salaries of public sector workers down, is that not normally how it works..

    It hasn't worked that way yet!

    I think there is a case to be made for benchmarking again, and I think it might result in bringing some rates down.


  • Options
    #167
    stereo_steve
    Registered Users Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭stereo_steve


    nhughes100 wrote: »
    44percent??? 1 percent of 46729 is 467.29, multiply that by 44 give you 20,560.76. Shy on facts and shy on sums.

    I really hate people that try to prove a point by nit picking somebodies spelling / maths. It serves no purpose, this is an online forum for discussion, your not writing a novel.

    BTW €32,431 *1.44 = €46,700.64


  • Options
    #168
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    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. "
    nhughes100 wrote: »
    44percent??? 1 percent of 46729 is 467.29, multiply that by 44 give you 20,560.76. Shy on facts and shy on sums.

    lol. You are wrong. Given that the average industrial wage is 32431 euro, 44pc higher than the average industrial wage of €32,431. is €46,729. Multiply 32431 by 1.44 if you do not believe me.

    edit : I see stereo steve beat me to it


  • Options
    #169
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    nhughes100 wrote: »
    44percent??? 1 percent of 46729 is 467.29, multiply that by 44 give you 20,560.76. Shy on facts and shy on sums.

    Actually, the calculation works the other way around:
    1% of 32,431 is 324.31
    324.41*44 = 14269.64
    32431 + 14269 = 46700

    So given the numbers quoted 44% is accurate.


  • Options
    #170
    hurdehur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭hurdehur


    nhughes100 wrote: »
    44percent??? 1 percent of 46729 is 467.29, multiply that by 44 give you 20,560.76. Shy on facts and shy on sums.


    Erm...that's not how you work out the calculation, nhughes. You didn't fail the aptitude test to get a public sector job, by any chance? :D:P


  • Options
    #171
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    hurdehur wrote: »
    Erm...that's not how you work out the calculation, nhughes. You didn't fail the aptitude test to get a public sector job, by any chance? :D:P

    lol


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Don't start me on the Unions, never trusted them and never will. They are almost as bad as politicians in my book!

    I'm not convinced the other cuts will come myself though judging by the cuts in the HSE recently. The recession isn't exactly breaking news and there has been no effort what-so-ever to examine waste in the HSE over the last number of months, now they are cutting back on beds etc to try and save a few quid quick!

    Naz_st - sorry I obviously picked your post up wrong!!!

    Part of the problem is all the Health Board staff that were subsumed into the HSE have permanent jobs!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #173
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    K-9 wrote: »
    Part of the problem is all the Health Board staff that were subsumed into the HSE have permanent jobs!

    possibly the worst decision made by Mary Harney. She also guaranteed that they would have jobs at their existing level in their existing location until they retired.


  • Options
    #174
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    jimmmy wrote: »
    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.


    ESB workers are not part of the public service pay determination system. They follow the private sector model, they didn't get benchmarking, they got the 3.5% increase which public sector workers will not get in September, they dont pay the public service pension levy.

    Not a good example to use, but if you don't know much about the facts....


  • Options
    #175
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    jimmmy wrote: »
    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. "

    And not long ago in this thread, the simplicity of this comparison was pointed out. It fails to stand up as a general comparison for a number of reasons.


  • Options
    #176
    nhughes100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 845 ✭✭✭nhughes100


    jimmmy wrote: »
    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. "


    lol. You are wrong. Given that the average industrial wage is 32431 euro, 44pc higher than the average industrial wage of €32,431. is €46,729. Multiply 32431 by 1.44 if you do not believe me.

    edit : I see stereo steve beat me to it

    WOW I'm amazed, Jimmmy actually responded to one of my posts. I'll admit I misread his post and cheerfully withdraw it even thought the correct figure as pointed out by P.Breathnach proves his figures are at best selective.

    Now how about answering some of my previous posts Jimmmy?


  • Options
    #177
    nhughes100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 845 ✭✭✭nhughes100


    stereo_steve wrote: »
    I really hate people that try to prove a point by nit picking somebodies spelling / maths. It serves no purpose, this is an online forum for discussion, your not writing a novel.

    BTW €32,431 *1.44 = €46,700.64

    Heaven forbid anyone should seek to clarify facts on a forum.


  • Options
    #178
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    mikemac wrote: »
    It's ok folks, we have the benchmarking process which has served some of us ever so well

    Just as wages went up in good times, they will readjust and go down now.

    Right? What do you mean no chance? You mean the social partners will ditch a process as soon it doesn't suit them? :confused:

    Another levy?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #179
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    jimmmy wrote: »
    True. Some people are actually arrogant enough to suggest though that those in the public service should actually not be paid more than those who do not have such job security, do not have a guaranteed pension worth 25 k per year to fund ( if they were to buy it at commercial market prices ), do not have as long holidays. Perish the thought that risk takers ( who do not get pensions ) should be paid more than non-risk takers.


    Risk-takers who succeed should be paid a lot more than non risk-takers. That is the reward they get for picking the right risk to take. Such are the Richard Bransons, Michael O'Learys and Warren Buffetts of this world.

    The risk-takers who fail are exactly that, failures, why should they be rewarded more than non-risk-takers?

    To use a gambling analogy, the non-risk takers in the public service are gambling at short odds, maybe 1/10. The risk-takers are gambling at 10/1. Why should the non-risk-takers pay for the risk-takers who fail? That is the problem as public servants perceive it.

    In Ireland we have seen a lot of people take risks, buying property in countries I had never heard of and they hadn't visited, buying multiple rental properties in places like Clonsilla and Sandyford which aren't exactly the centre of the city and ideal rental material. Then there were the businesses who expanded too fast. The garden centres that spent a million on refurbishing themselves on the back of one years sales that will never be repeated. Some got it right and made a lot of money, fair play to them! Some got it wrong and lost a lot of money. They picked the wrong horse. If they get paid less than the non-risk-takers, that is the consequence of risk and why should anyone feel sorry for them (except in a personal sense). They bought the idea of capitalism.

    I have spent a lot of time in the last twenty years moving between the public and private sectors, working in different areas, living abroad and living here.

    Ireland became a very greedy place. Those on these boards screaming for public sector pay cuts appear to be those in the private sector desperately trying to hold on to what they have and fearing the alternative of high taxes. We have a small inefficient public sector with overpaid frontline staff. The answer is more taxes combined with genuine public sector reform.


  • Options
    #180
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Godge wrote: »
    Ireland became a very greedy place. Those on these boards screaming for public sector pay cuts appear to be those in the private sector desperately trying to hold on to what they have and fearing the alternative of high taxes. We have a small inefficient public sector with overpaid frontline staff. The answer is more taxes combined with genuine public sector reform.

    There would be a lot like that, there would also be an element that can see Income tax and PRSI Receipts dropping, mainly because the private sector is suffering. Even with the levy income tax receipts was still down on last year.

    I've seen rumours of 2% increases on all rates and an adjustment to credits so the lower paid will pay more too and a new higher rate so the rich pay more. So I think most private sector workers know tax rises are coming on often lower wages anyway, so they see the levy in a similar way. We know other cuts are needed to, but obviously the States biggest expense, pay, is going to take a hit.

    I see the levy as a safe economic option for the Govt. They are paying these wages anyway, so they are taking a chunk of a fixed cost back.

    It's akin to, in times of rents lowering, you look for a cut in your Rent.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    K-9 wrote: »
    There would be a lot like that, there would also be an element that can see Income tax and PRSI Receipts dropping, mainly because the private sector is suffering. Even with the levy income tax receipts was still down on last year.

    I've seen rumours of 2% increases on all rates and an adjustment to credits so the lower paid will pay more too and a new higher rate so the rich pay more. So I think most private sector workers know tax rises are coming on often lower wages anyway, so they see the levy in a similar way. We know other cuts are needed to, but obviously the States biggest expense, pay, is going to take a hit.

    I see the levy as a safe economic option for the Govt. They are paying these wages anyway, so they are taking a chunk of a fixed cost back.

    It's akin to, in times of rents lowering, you look for a cut in your Rent.

    I have not argued against the levy.

    In terms of what is to happen on April 7 (maybe we should have another thread), I expect the abolition of the PRSI ceiling, 2% increase in the income levies, plus an increase in the top rate of 2-3%.

    I am hearing that it is too difficult to do anything about tax credits in the middle of the year but some adjustment will be signalled. We will also be told that tax reliefs will be standard-rated from 2010 and will be comprehensively reviewed.

    On social welfare, there will be no Christmas bonus and there is also a danger that the 3.5% increase will be reversed. some technical changes to reduce eleigibility as well.

    Capital budget for this year to be hit with some items cancelled, others long-fingered. You may even see Lenihan claim savings because RPA and Irish Rail have been too slow even though they are awaiting go-aheads from the Department of transport.


Advertisement