Tonights Prime Time on Pensions: The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train

ixoy

Some followup questions:

1) Were the pension contributions not reduced in the recent budget? How does that factor in?

2) What about the bonus paid at the end (3/80 of final wage for every year of service)? Why is that ommitted so often in these discussions?

3) Would you concede that the real benefit is that the pension is linked to the current wage of the position retired at? That it becomes more beneficial and signifcant the longer you've retired? So if you retire on 48k a year, and are getting 24k intitially then in 10 years time, when the wage is at 56k, your retirement wage has jumped to 28k? Or are you of the mind the state pension will always increase to match it and remove this benefit?

whiterob81

kceire wrote: »

well i can if i can honestly say nobody in my depatment at the moment earns 966e per week, and what perks are you on about? well maybe the chiefs would be on 50k but not the normal/average workers.

my mate works in the private sector and hasnt taken a pay cut yet, my brother works in the private sector and hasnt taken a pay cut either so its about the average worker, not what RTE claim to be the average worker.

yes, because the 2 people you know working in the private sector are a much better representation of how irish workers are faring than RTE's figures sourced from the CSO :rolleyes:

I'm nowhere near the 50k mark myself. but there are a lot of people in here who would be.

And I think the perks that people refer to are flexi time, job security and a state gauranteed pension. It can be easy to take these things for granted but let's face it, no one outside of the civil service has these luxuries.

bobbbb

gurramok wrote: »

It was about 2900 when i checked a few months ago, its been decimated recently, must of been a 60% fall in the last couple of years.

I took it out in 2001, it ain't guaranteed so please stop whinging about a pension levy.

Jesus. Thats bad. You should go get some financial advice if a pension you've been paying into since 2001 is only worth 2900.

Assuming 100% of that figure is about €4800 and no growth in any year. That means you put only about €11 a week into it over the 8 years since then, even if you got no tax relief. Not much is it. You're lucky you have a state guaranteed pension to fall back on.

There is really no excuse for that. You have only yourself to blame for not keeping an eye on your pension.

Take a leaf out of the public servants book and start putting 6% or so of salary into your pension. Change to a job (when the economy picks up) where your employer matches your contributions. Most decent employers do this. Thats 12% there already and its only costing you 6%. Then you get tax relief on top of that, so it costs you even less.

a) - You're not putting enough into it.
b) - Its not managed very well if its taken a 60% loss since 2001. Move it right now.
c) - Concentrate less on public servants and get some financial advice for yourself.

gurramok

bobbbb wrote: »

Jesus. Thats bad. You should go get some financial advice if a pension you've been paying into since 2001 is only worth 2900.

Assuming 100% of that figure is about €4800 and no growth in any year. That means you put only about €11 a week into it over the 8 years since then, even if you got no tax relief. Not much is it. You're lucky you have a state guaranteed pension to fall back on.

There is really no excuse for that. You have only yourself to blame for not keeping an eye on your pension.

Take a leaf out of the public servants book and start putting 6% or so of salary into your pension. Change to a job (when the economy picks up) where your employer matches your contributions. Most decent employers do this. Thats 12% there already and its only costing you 6%. Then you get tax relief on top of that, so it costs you even less.

a) - You're not putting enough into it.
b) - Its not managed very well if its taken a 60% loss since 2001. Move it right now.
c) - Concentrate less on public servants and get some financial advice for yourself.

Thats a recent figure, it was much higher before the credit crunch. I'd have to find the documentation to find out.

A - We are only allowed 5% contribution and yes the employer contributes too. I work in an American MNC.
B - yes, thats true but feck all private pensions are, most are disasterous now. I know people who have lost 90%. They will recover, but the point being its not guaranteed.
C - Why? They moan that they have it bad yet do not see outside the box that hell of alot do not even have what they have. What is it, half the workforce does not have a pension and you can bet your bottom dollar that most of them are in the private sector, there you go alot more people than me worse off.

Gumbo

whiterob81 wrote: »

yes, because the 2 people you know working in the private sector are a much better representation of how irish workers are faring than RTE's figures sourced from the CSO :rolleyes:

I'm nowhere near the 50k mark myself. but there are a lot of people in here who would be.

And I think the perks that people refer to are flexi time, job security and a state gauranteed pension. It can be easy to take these things for granted but let's face it, no one outside of the civil service has these luxuries.

i was using them as examples FFS. i learned my trade in the private sector and only jumped ship relatively recently so i understand the best and bad of both sides of the fence.

the company i left have not taken pay cuts as of yet either and i was earning the same there as i was now so it wasnt the money i jumped ship for.

some private companies are doing great, and some are not!
some PS workers earn great and some dont.

NewDubliner

gurramok wrote: »

A - We are only allowed 5% contribution and yes the employer contributes too. I work in an American MNC..

Does this mean that anyone who buys your products or services is paying for your pension?

BroomBurner

Private pensions schemes can be guaranteed if you choose the safe option. It's all about risk. Higher risk, higher possible return. Low risk, low return. There is an option for a low risk investment whereby the money really just accrues interest but better than a savings account as you get tax relief on it.

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

Does this mean that anyone who buys your products or services is paying for your pension?

Its in servicing. Whats that got to do with it?

My employer is not broke yet(fingers crossed) and is looking for pay cuts and we have no choice but tot take them as there are no jobs out there.

Your employer is nearly broke and is asking for paycuts and all we get is moaning yet ye have the superior job security, being well paid and having that guaranteed pension.

What you want is for the whole workforce to be taxed to the hilt to pay for the public sector?

What is your solution to pay for your sector?

NewDubliner

gurramok wrote: »

Its in servicing. Whats that got to do with it?

The point is that private sector pension costs are paid for by all of us. And private sector pension fund losses affect even those who don't benefit from them.

gurramok wrote: »

Your employer is nearly broke and is asking for paycuts and all we get is moaning yet ye have the superior job security, being well paid and having that guaranteed pension.

Nobody ever thought that they would cut public sector pay, so I'd say now that nothing is guaranteed.

gurramok wrote: »

What you want is for the whole workforce to be taxed to the hilt to pay for the public sector?

We're being taxed to the hilt to shore up private-sector banks and the pension money invested in them.

The solution is for everyone to stop being part of the problem.

bobbbb

gurramok wrote: »

Thats a recent figure, it was much higher before the credit crunch. I'd have to find the documentation to find out.

A - We are only allowed 5% contribution and yes the employer contributes too. I work in an American MNC.
B - yes, thats true but feck all private pensions are, most are disasterous now. I know people who have lost 90%. They will recover, but the point being its not guaranteed.
C - Why? They moan that they have it bad yet do not see outside the box that hell of alot do not even have what they have. What is it, half the workforce does not have a pension and you can bet your bottom dollar that most of them are in the private sector, there you go alot more people than me worse off.

If you look after your pension it should not be down since 2001.
You need to take an active part in your pension. Anyone who lost 90% of their pension is in a spectacularly bad pension plan. Must have had 100% invested in BOI :eek:.

Someone is wrecking your pension when there is no need, and you've let them do it for years.

It must be comforting though to know that you get a percentage of your pension from your employer for free and another percentage from the Irish tax payer to make up for your own pensions terrible performance.

Get some financial advice there. Seriously.

bobbbb

kceire wrote: »

For that six grand a year they're paying

Pension Levy 158 by 26 (fortnightly) = 4,108
Superannuation 32 by 26 = 832
PRSI 56 by 26 = 1,456

Total 6,396

For 40 years :eek:

Thanks, but i'll keep my private sector pension + my employers contributions + my state pension

kippy

NewDubliner wrote: »

The point is that private sector pension costs are paid for by all of us. And private sector pension fund losses affect even those who don't benefit from them.

Nobody ever thought that they would cut public sector pay, so I'd say now that nothing is guaranteed.

We're being taxed to the hilt to shore up private-sector banks and the pension money invested in them.

The solution is for everyone to stop being part of the problem.

Very good post.
Simple and to the point and perhaps an indicator of how much we are all interlinked in relation to pensions whether private or public.
Kippy

Rob67

=gurramok;59843792]Same for everyone else. Benchmark backwards would be a fairer solution.

It's a bit hard to benchmark my particular sector due to being the only official one in the country:D. However, I must point out (again) we enacted our own cuts long before anyone else in the entire public sector and we continue to do so, without loss in the services we required to provide.

Alot are. There seems to be a poor definition of what low pay really is from the unions. They have this idea that anyone on 35k give or take is doing bad yet thats a very good wage to live on especially when 40% of the workforce earn minimum wage.

I don't honestly know what is defined as low pay except to say that in the current climate I would estimate anyone below 20k. I happily accept that I may be wrong and offer it as an opinion not a determination of fact.

Again, alot are and some are unsackable on bad performance.

That may be true in the Civil Service (of which I'm NOT a member) but I can't prove/disprove your opinion. I can say, however, that personnel in my job can and have been let go for bad performances.

You're employer fecked up yes, that don't mean the rest us pay for those mistakes. You deserve pay, you don't deserve to be overpaid on which alot of your colleagues are.(colleagues as in whole public sector)

As hard as you may find it believable, I certainly don't feel overpaid, certainly I am overworked (started work normally today at 0745 and finished at 1830 today, 20 minute lunch, moderately exceptional day though)

Maybe you are a good apple who knows whats it like in the real world. I'd wish those who striked at the dole offices recently would just cop on and those teachers as well.

Thanks for the positive thought, I do have an idea what the impact of the recession is having on people due to having gone through the 1980's recession with no regular work until I got what I'm in now. I'm not going to have a go at the teachers because only for the ones who looked after my son, he would have been left behind educationally, lost and having no confidence in himself and withdrawn, instead I now have an outgoing teen who did very well in his junior cert and is looking to the future as a productive member of society.
As in all walks of life there's good and bad in the workplace. Striking is not something I'm familiar with as I not allowed strike (I'd be fired), but I do feel personally that sometimes striking is too easy an answer to try and resolve an issue, however I'm not in their particular position and maybe they felt they had no choice. It doesn't mean I'm vindicating their actions either, I have to fence sit in this regard!

Appreciate your input, at least you know what's it like out there.

you're most welcome!


Edit: Duh! Got the quoting bit wrong!

jimmmy

whiterob81 wrote: »

And I think the perks that people refer to are flexi time, job security and a state gauranteed pension. It can be easy to take these things for granted but let's face it, no one outside of the civil service has these luxuries.

+1

jimmmy

bobbbb wrote: »

Take a leaf out of the public servants book and start putting 6% or so of salary into your pension.

If a public servant was paying the full economic cost of their pension, they would need to invest 25% of their salary in to it. As public sector salaries are higher than private sector one , the average private sector worker would need to put in a lot more than 25% of his / her salary to get the same income on retirement as a public sector person.
Many in the public sector do not realise their pensions are still massively subsidised. As Eddie Hobs said, both public sector pay + pensions need to be cut dramatically.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

whiterob81 wrote:

And I think the perks that people refer to are flexi time, job security and a state gauranteed pension. It can be easy to take these things for granted but let's face it, no one outside of the civil service has these luxuries.

+1

Ah jimmmy, you've got to stop agreeing with stuff without checking the facts.

flexi -time - not a luxury and widely used outside of the civil service.

job security & state guaranteed pension - also available in the private sector, but in both cases, only as good as the next emergency budget.

jimmmy wrote: »

As Eddie Hobs said, both public sector pay + pensions need to be cut dramatically.

To pay for the cost of toxic loans to buy properties that he recommended?

Public sector pay and pensions can come down, once the private sector stops ripping everyone off.

bobbbb

jimmmy wrote: »

If a public servant was paying the full economic cost of their pension, they would need to invest 25% of their salary in to it. As public sector salaries are higher than private sector one , the average private sector worker would need to put in a lot more than 25% of his / her salary to get the same income on retirement as a public sector person.
Many in the public sector do not realise their pensions are still massively subsidised. As Eddie Hobs said, both public sector pay + pensions need to be cut dramatically.

My God man,
Check your facts before making sweeping statements. Do you work for FF or something. You are producing more lies than they before an election. Never thought that was possible. But Jimmmys here.

Eddie Hobbs - The man who had a TV show wher he told people to remortgage and release equity in their homes every week. Good one Eddie. Bet those people love you now.

jimmmy

bobbbb wrote: »

My God man,
Check your facts before making sweeping statements..

What do you think is not true? Do you not realise the facts ?

bobbbb wrote: »

Do you work for FF or something. .

No. I am quite critical in fact of how they have handled the economy over the past 6 or 7 years

bobbbb wrote: »

Eddie Hobbs - The man who had a TV show wher he told people to remortgage and release equity in their homes every week.

I remember him advising someone to pay off their mortgage, quite the opposite in fact.

bobbbb

jimmmy wrote: »

What do you think is not true? Do you not realise the facts ?

........

I remember him advising someone to pay off their mortgage, quite the opposite in fact.

Well there is one very blatant twisting of the truth for a start.

Selective or what.

How many times did he tell people to pay off their mortgage?
How many times did he tell them to remortgage?

Did anyone else watch Eddie Hobbs?
What did you find he did most?

jimmmy

bobbbb wrote: »

Did anyone else watch Eddie Hobbs?

Did you hear him on the radio the other day ( RTE )....he said explained how the public sector pay + pensions was way out of line and would have to come down

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Did you hear him on the radio the other day ( RTE )....he said explained how the public sector pay + pensions was way out of line and would have to come down

Just checked his blog, he's also in favour of the government buying bad loans from the banks. Hopefully, nobody who followed his advice is unfortunate enough to have such a bad loan.

I presume this would be paid for by cutting pay for the public service and taxing everyone and everything?

from Eddies Blog - "The establishment of NAMA (National Asset Management Agency) is the right step, transferring a huge amount of heavily discounted land and development loans out from the banks to reverse the credit crunch."

It's kind of nice the way he says 'transferring', no mention of the fact that we will have to pay billions of euro.

You should be more careful in your choice of champions.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Just checked his blog, he's also in favour of the government buying bad loans from the banks..

Thats what the govt intends to do effectively

NewDubliner wrote: »

Hopefully, nobody who followed his advice is unfortunate enough to have such a bad loan..

Bad loans occur in every economy in every country ....even in countries where their public service is paid less that the Irish public service ( as far as I know, nobody has found a public service as overpaid in the world yet as the Irish one ) ....and as you say hopefully, nobody who followed his advice is unfortunate enough to have such a bad loan

NewDubliner wrote: »

I presume this would be paid for by cutting pay for the public service and taxing everyone and everything?.

Everyone and everything is already paying some sort of taxes ( whither it be vat, income, corporation, excise , inheritance , cat, cgt or whatever )...although some people should be paying more tax of course.

Bringing public sector pay in to line is not directly related to paying off a percentage of bad loans

NewDubliner wrote: »

You should be more careful in your choice of champions.

I never heralded him as a champion...I wrote "Did you hear him on the radio the other day ( RTE )....he said / explained how the public sector pay + pensions was way out of line and would have to come down "

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Thats what the govt intends to do effectively

Effectively? Do you think so?

Hillel

NewDubliner wrote: »

Ah jimmmy, you've got to stop agreeing with stuff without checking the facts.
flexi -time - not a luxury and widely used outside of the civil service.
job security & state guaranteed pension - also available in the private sector,

So, in the spirit of checking out the facts...

Could you give us some references for the following in the private sector:

• widespread flexi -time
• job security
• state guaranteed pension (linked to final salary and salary of current workers of same grade).

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

So, in the spirit of checking out the facts...

Could you give us some references for the following in the private sector:

• widespread flexi -time
• job security
• state guaranteed pension (linked to final salary and salary of current workers of same grade).

No need, the statement that was made, which I refuted, was that "no one outside of the civil service has these luxuries.". It is not necessary to prove that they are widespread, a word that you have added to the original statement, as this was not what was asserted. It is sufficient to say that such conditions do exist, and are quite commonplace outside of the civil service (e.g. in banks and insurance) to prove that the original statement (with which you rather recklessly agreed) is untrue.

And let's not forget that most of the private sector do benefit from a state-guaranteed pension, a fact that you continuously and deliberately omit.

Hillel

NewDubliner wrote: »

Ah jimmmy, you've got to stop agreeing with stuff without checking the facts.

flexi -time - not a luxury and widely used outside of the civil service.

job security & state guaranteed pension - also available in the private sector, but in both cases, only as good as the next emergency budget.

Hillel wrote: »

So, in the spirit of checking out the facts...

Could you give us some references for the following in the private sector:

• widespread flexi -time
• job security
• state guaranteed pension (linked to final salary and salary of current workers of same grade).

NewDubliner wrote: »

No need, the statement that was made, which I refuted, was that "no one outside of the civil service has these luxuries.". It is not necessary to prove that they are widespread, a word that you have added to the original statement, as this was not what was asserted. It is sufficient to say that such conditions do exist, and are quite commonplace outside of the civil service (e.g. in banks and insurance) to prove that the original statement (with which you rather recklessly agreed) is untrue.

And let's not forget that most of the private sector do benefit from a state-guaranteed pension, a fact that you continuously and deliberately omit.

You threw down the gauntlet to jimmmy, to "check his facts".
You should the be prepared to back up your own position.

You said that "flexi -time - not a luxury and widely used outside of the civil service." What exactly did I add?

Could I ask you again to give us some references for the following in the private sector:

• widespread flexi -time
• job security
• state guaranteed pension (linked to final salary and salary of current workers of same grade)
  (and please, no more nonsense about the contributary old age pension being equivalent).

)

NewDubliner

I was responding to posts by 'jimmmy' and 'whiterob81'. These both asserted that the conditions they described did not exist outside the civil service. That's a very definite statement and easily refuted

Hillel wrote: »

You said that "flexi -time - not a luxury and widely used outside of the civil service." What exactly did I add?

You added the word 'widespread'.

(linked to final salary and salary of current workers of same grade)

This was not in the statement made by 'whiterob81', it was added by you.

Your questions are different and somewhat ambiguous, define 'widespread'? Define 'job security'? As to the state-guaranteed pension that you refer to, that's only as good as the next emergency budget.

jimmmy

Could I ask you again to give us some references for the following in the private sector:

• widespread flexi -time
• job security
• state guaranteed pension (linked to final salary and salary of current workers of same grade)
  (and please, no more nonsense about the contributary old age pension being equivalent).

Come on NewDubliner, answer the questions. Do not forget there are over 1,800,000 people in the private sector.

grahamo

Oh Please!:rolleyes: Are you trying to say flexi-time doesn't exist in the private sector? gimme a break!
Flexi-time exists throughout the workforce although in some jobs it wouldn't be viable and this goes for the whole workforce. Not all public servants can avail of flexi-time in the same way as not all private sector workers can avail of it. It mainly only suits office jobs.
Also, How can it be seen as a 'perk'? People are still working the same hours. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with people working flexi-time, if it suits them and their family life, it seems to me workers will be happier, therefore more productive. Everyone's a winner!

P. Breathnach

grahamo wrote: »

... Flexi-time exists throughout the workforce although in some jobs it wouldn't be viable and this goes for the whole workforce. Not all public servants can avail of flexi-time in the same way as not all private sector workers can avail of it...

Don't you think teachers should have flexi-time?