Job losses - public sector

nurse23

thanks for the reply . no i'm just a general nurse. to be dual qualified i'd have to complete at least another year and a half training to 2 years to become a midwife/psych nurse or other areas. i'm happy enough to be at the stage i am for the mo!! after 4 years study i really want to be out on the field really learning the ropes!!! its also quite expensive to do post grads and some areas of nursing courses availability are quite few here in ireland and hard to get into so a lot of people have to go abroad to do particular things. i'm just 22 so have no idea what area i particularly want to get into. workin with kids with intellectual disabilities at the mo and lovin it so maybe explore that avenue!!! my aunt has just become a public health nurse but she first had to do 2 years midifery and then another year or two to become a public health nurse not including her initial nurse training. so to progress through all the hierarhies of nursing to reach that level of money takes a lot of time, training, money and years!! i'm happy out just being a little staff nurse!! love my job and my heart is in it. i dont care about making millions if i did i'd have chosen a different career!!! but i'd just like to say i'm not permanent and ive already got let go from one job this year!! also a lot of nurses working for the hse are not permanent either!!

Godge

nurse23 wrote: »

thanks for the reply . no i'm just a general nurse. to be dual qualified i'd have to complete at least another year and a half training to 2 years to become a midwife/psych nurse or other areas. i'm happy enough to be at the stage i am for the mo!! after 4 years study i really want to be out on the field really learning the ropes!!! its also quite expensive to do post grads and some areas of nursing courses availability are quite few here in ireland and hard to get into so a lot of people have to go abroad to do particular things. i'm just 22 so have no idea what area i particularly want to get into. workin with kids with intellectual disabilities at the mo and lovin it so maybe explore that avenue!!! my aunt has just become a public health nurse but she first had to do 2 years midifery and then another year or two to become a public health nurse not including her initial nurse training. so to progress through all the hierarhies of nursing to reach that level of money takes a lot of time, training, money and years!! i'm happy out just being a little staff nurse!! love my job and my heart is in it. i dont care about making millions if i did i'd have chosen a different career!!! but i'd just like to say i'm not permanent and ive already got let go from one job this year!! also a lot of nurses working for the hse are not permanent either!!

I guess you are replying to me. Good luck with your career. I hope things work out for you - keep an eye on your rights under the fixed term work act - hospitals are not very good at obeying it.

I was not trying to get at you. even in a system that has long incremental scales that lead to a high salary, there are always some at the bottom starting out who cannot see the top. Good luck again.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

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.

I've argued for the abolition of the PRSI Threshold since before the last election. If you do that, it would be tough to introduce a higher, higher, tax rate of say 48%, along with a 2% rise in BOTH Standard and Higher rates.

The significance of the abolition would need to be explained properly, i.e. it's a 4% tax rise above €53/54k.

I heard that about tax credit reductions and I can see why. If the higher PRSI is explained properly, I think people will see why that is being done.

Standard rating was on the way. Be prepared for big drops in pension contributions.

On SW, if you tax minimum wage, unless you cut SW, Welfare becomes more attractive.

jimmmy

nhughes100 wrote: »

Now how about answering some of my previous posts Jimmmy?

I have done so. What have I not answered? I have shown you the CSO statistics.....not that there is any need to - everyone knows the public sector pay is more than the average industrial wage ....this is without even factoring in the huge huge perk of public sector pension and job security etc.

How about you answering some of the questions put to you eg from another poster : " 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? "

jimmmy

Godge wrote: »

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.

If thats the case , public servants are as good at analysing that problem as working out percentages lol

People in the private sector run the risk of losing their job or livlihood or income etc ....as many have found out to their cost in the past. How many public servants ever lost their job / income ? Perish the thought that those in secure , ultra well pensioned employment, with plenty of other perks, should be paid less than those who are not.

BostonB

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

It wasn't done properly the last time. They might just repeat the same errors.

The PS needs a 10% or more, with staggered increases as the pay scales rise. With the option to give it back in 5 yrs if the economy recovers. A lot of PS fear that once paycuts come in they'll never get them back.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... everyone knows the public sector pay is more than the average industrial wage ...

That's a meaningless comparison. Most jobs pay more than that the subset of industrial employment that you select as your yardstick.

Justify your choice of comparator.

P. Breathnach

BostonB wrote: »

It wasn't done properly the last time. They might just repeat the same errors.

Or they might not. Give clear terms of reference, and a conduct a fairly open process. As nobody is likely to follow my advice, I'll throw more into the pot: put the whole pension question in, as well. Benchmark the rewards package, not just the pay level. That would re-open the matter of the pensions levy, but I think that would be good. There is a good case for requiring public servants to pay more for their pensions, but the levy is crude and is unfair to some.

The PS needs a 10% or more, with staggered increases as the pay scales rise.

There seems to be a widespread belief that those on higher scales are more overpaid than those on the lower scales. That should not to be taken as a given. There is evidence, some already cited here, that the lower grades actually enjoy a greater premium than those nearer the top.

With the option to give it back in 5 yrs if the economy recovers. A lot of PS fear that once paycuts come in they'll never get them back.

That idea has some merit. Mind you, most people would be sceptical about something as vague as an option to restore pay levels. One way to do it would be to leave nominal rates as they are, but make a deduction of X% before calculating superannuation, PRSI, taxes, etc. This deduction could be made explicitly conditional on economic conditions so that if and when recovery starts, the special deduction might be reduced or eliminated.

ronbyrne2005

Cut their pay to average EU public sector levels(much lower than we currently pay here) as we are no more than an average EU country now. Link future pay rises to productivity and GNP growth per capita.

BostonB

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Or they might not. Give clear terms of reference, and a conduct a fairly open process. ....

They had their chance. I don't see why they should get a second chance.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There seems to be a widespread belief that those on higher scales are more overpaid than those on the lower scales. That should not to be taken as a given. There is evidence, some already cited here, that the lower grades actually enjoy a greater premium than those nearer the top.

Doesn't matter IMO. Someone on 30k is far less able to take a 10% cut than someone on 100k. Tax should be paid by those that can best afford to pay it.

jimmmy

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Cut their pay to average EU public sector levels(much lower than we currently pay here) as we are no more than an average EU country now. .

Yes, that cut as a minimum first step.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Link future pay rises to productivity and GNP growth per capita.

And the countries ability to pay ?

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a meaningless comparison. Most jobs pay more than that the subset of industrial employment that you select as your yardstick.

Justify your choice of comparator.

OK, if you do not believe the CSO statistics, and what they say on their website, below is a link to a union website, which shows Irish private sector wage levels are very low by comparison with the public sector.
http://amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=8289

http://amicustheunion.org/pdf/UNITE%20-%20The%20Truth%20About%20Irish%20Wages%20(April%202008).pdf


Google the net, ask your friends their wages, look at the papers : the results are all the same. Irish public sector wages are way out of line and need to be cut bigtime.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

OK, if you do not believe the CSO statistics, and what they say on their website, below is a link to a union website, which shows Irish private sector wage levels are very low by comparison with the public sector.
http://amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=8289

http://amicustheunion.org/pdf/UNITE%20-%20The%20Truth%20About%20Irish%20Wages%20(April%202008).pdf


Google the net, ask your friends their wages, look at the papers : the results are all the same. Irish public sector wages are way out of line and need to be cut bigtime.

I accept CSO figures. What I do not accept is the way you use them. I asked you to justify your using a subset of industrial pay as a useful comparator for public service pay.

You should not that I have never said that public sector pay in Ireland is pitched at the right level. I am simply challenging the appropriateness of the criteria you use to make a judgement.

You have fundamentally misrepresented what AMICUS has said. They are comparing Irish private sector pay with private sector pay in other countries. There is only a passing (and neutral) mention of public sector pay. But it appears that you don't even read what you link as evidence.

ParkRunner

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Cut their pay to average EU public sector levels(much lower than we currently pay here) as we are no more than an average EU country now. Link future pay rises to productivity and GNP growth per capita.

I wouldn't say we were ever an average country given that the wealth that was created in this country over the past few years was generated on credit and invested in vastly over valued assets generally.

Public sector pay was driven up to cope with the cost of living in this country. Dublin was last year anyway ranked 16th in the WORLD in terms of the cost of living.

The public sector pay bill will have to come down now that the party is over along with cuts to social wefare, a rise in the income levy and a number of other measures.

I think the public sector, of which I am a member, will gladly make a contribution to the regeneration of this economy, as they already have through the pension levy, when the cost of living is, as it ever so slowly is, brought back to sane levels.

On a positive note, I think this is a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to start up new indigenous enterprises so we won't have to rely as heavily on multi-nationals in the future and be so vulnerable to the fact that they will quite happily pack up and go wherever in the pursuit of staying competitive. There are thousands of highly educated, eager people out there now and I'm sure they would be only too happy to get back into the workforce. Especially those who did something as crazy as buying a place to live in this country in the last few years!

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You have fundamentally misrepresented what AMICUS has said. They are comparing Irish private sector pay with private sector pay in other countries.

They are quantifying Irish private sector pay. Given that Irish public sector pay has been quantified elsewhere - including in the c.s.o. link I used - you do not need to be Einstein to see the difference. Even those who cannot work out calculations / fail the aptitude test to get a public sector job, should be able to see the difference

jimmmy

EF wrote: »

On a positive note, I think this is a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to start up new indigenous enterprises so we won't have to rely as heavily on multi-nationals in the future and be so vulnerable to the fact that they will quite happily pack up and go wherever in the pursuit of staying competitive.

There are thousands of highly educated, eager people out there now , on poorly paid jobs of average 49,000 ( according to the CSO ), with a pension which if they were to buy it would cost them 25,000 a year to fund it on the open market, leaving the public sector as we speak. Not for them generous holidays, sick pay, guaranteed incomes etc. No, they are entrepreneurs, inspired by average private industry wages. Perish the thought that risk takers, those in private industry, ( many of who may not have an income in 6 or 12 months ) , who collect vat and pay the taxes to fund the government, should be paid as much as government employees.

Also perish the thought that if an entrepreneurs business fails after 15 or 20 years hard work, and paying taxes, he / she should be entitled to social welfare. Many a person is finding out now the hard way they are not, unless they have no savings and are on the breadline etc.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

They are quantifying Irish private sector pay. Given that Irish public sector pay has been quantified elsewhere - including in the c.s.o. link I used - you do not need to be Einstein to see the difference. Even those who cannot work out calculations / fail the aptitude test to get a public sector job, should be able to see the difference

I have to give it to you for cheek. Not for anything else, but definitely for cheek.

I don't think that you have justified your comparison.

jimmmy

With all due respect, if you want to see the facts read the links and educate yourself. Nobody else can do it for you.

ParkRunner

jimmmy wrote: »

There are thousands of highly educated, eager people out there now , on poorly paid jobs of average 49,000 ( according to the CSO ), with a pension which if they were to buy it would cost them 25,000 a year to fund it on the open market, leaving the public sector as we speak. Not for them generous holidays, sick pay, guaranteed incomes etc. No, they are entrepreneurs, inspired by average private industry wages. Perish the thought that risk takers, those in private industry, ( many of who may not have an income in 6 or 12 months ) , who collect vat and pay the taxes to fund the government, should be paid as much as government employees.

Also perish the thought that if an entrepreneurs business fails after 15 or 20 years hard work, and paying taxes, he / she should be entitled to social welfare. Many a person is finding out now the hard way they are not, unless they have no savings and are on the breadline etc.

I agree with you that the self employed should be entitled to social welfare like everyone else as we all have to survive in this high cost economy of ours somehow.

On another note I was merely suggesting that the reality is that there are thousands of people out there willing to work, which would be an incentive to the wealth generating sector to do what it says on the tin and create jobs, employ these people and generate some wealth. Those who are any good at what they do have the potential to earn a lot more than the average government employee.

nesf

jimmmy wrote: »

I have done so. What have I not answered? I have shown you the CSO statistics.....not that there is any need to - everyone knows the public sector pay is more than the average industrial wage ....this is without even factoring in the huge huge perk of public sector pension and job security etc.

How about you answering some of the questions put to you eg from another poster : " 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? "

jimmmy, please refrain from attacking the poster on this forum.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

With all due respect, if you want to see the facts read the links and educate yourself. Nobody else can do it for you.

You did not provide links to support your claims. And now, when I ask you to back up your position, your response is that I should do it.

K-9

jimmmy wrote: »

OK, if you do not believe the CSO statistics, and what they say on their website, below is a link to a union website, which shows Irish private sector wage levels are very low by comparison with the public sector.
http://amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=8289

That link is interesting, if only to show how nobody should listen to Unions on wages.

It's typical Unions picking and choosing statistics when it suits.

Still it was a year ago, things have slightly changed since then!

Raiser

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

That's you're

/runs and hides nervously.