Civil/Public Servants Pension Contributions Reduced?!

Welease

stevoman wrote: »

i agree we are all on the same vote, but the minsiter said he is going to revaluate the pension levy for lower paid public servants like myself so as to make it fairer whcih i agree with.

the pension levy is heavily flwaed. for instance my boss make 10k more than me , but pays less of a "pension levy". It is for ereasons like this that lower paid public servants have hit the picket lines.

I'll ask the same question again.. as I continue to hear public sector workers talking about fairness..

Would you support the scrapping of the Levy AND your guaranteed 50% pension to bring it into line with most of the private sector and bring parity and fairness to the whole country? Or does your idea of fairness mean private sector employee should pick up the bill for your rediculous bloated pensions while you contribute less?

stevoman

Welease wrote: »

I'll ask the same question again.. as I continue to hear public sector workers talking about fairness..

Would you support the scrapping of the Levy AND your guaranteed 50% pension to bring it into line with most of the private sector and bring parity and fairness to the whole country? Or does your idea of fairness mean private sector employee should pick up the bill for your rediculous bloated pensions while you contribute less?

No i wouldnt Matt. Why? Because this is the career i have chosen and i chose it for these exact benefits.

And to ne honest i beleive i have every right to hit the picket lines to get a better deal for lower paid public servants. i work hard, pay union dues and i am a person with a life, and kids and a house and i pay my union dues.

Welease

stevoman wrote: »

No i wouldnt Matt. Why? Because this is the career i have chosen and i chose it for these exact benefits.

And to ne honest i beleive i have every right to hit the picket lines to get a better deal for lower paid public servants. i work hard, pay union dues and i am a person with a life, and kids and a house and i pay my union dues.

And thats an honest response.. thanks

But it exactly illustrates why a wedge is being driven in.. If people have a problem with bankers/developers/government milking the system, then why shouldn't revenue generating private enterprise have a problem with being asked to fund your bloated pension etc? I myself have kids, house etc. all the things you have, yet I don't get anyone funding my pension, early retirement, bloated headcount..

So it's not fairness you want.. it's a "better deal" for yourself you want.. it's funny, the bankers/developers/government all want the same thing.. and guess who pays for it?

If the public service was run as a private enterprise you would all be on the dole years ago.. Your idea of fairness is that profiltable private sector business's should contine to fund your extravagances and if you don't get it you will strike.. and people wonder why the country is a mess....

Helix

Welease wrote: »

Would you support the scrapping of the Levy AND your guaranteed 50% pension to bring it into line with most of the private sector and bring parity and fairness to the whole country?

it should be an opt in scheme, and you should pay the same amount for it as private sector workers

as it is, im forced to pay for all sorts of ridiculous stuff i neither want nor need in my public sector job because the government says i have to pay it

spouse and child tax... im a 25 year old single bloke ffs

i dont want a pension scheme either

stevoman

Welease wrote: »

And thats an honest response.. thanks

But it exactly illustrates why a wedge is being driven in.. If people have a problem with bankers/developers/government milking the system, then why shouldn't revenue generating private enterprise have a problem with being asked to fund your bloated pension etc? I myself have kids, house etc. all the things you have, yet I don't get anyone funding my pension, early retirement, bloated headcount..

So it's not fairness you want.. it's a "better deal" for yourself you want.. it's funny, the bankers/developers/government all want the same thing.. and guess who pays for it?

If the public service was run as a private enterprise you would all be on the dole years ago.. Your idea of fairness is that profiltable private sector business's should contine to fund your extravagances and if you don't get it you will strike.. and people wonder why the country is a mess....

well on 30k a year with a house, a partner who cannot get work and a child aswell id hardly say that extravagances are the top of my list, but as long as my supervisors on 10k a year more than me are paying less of a paycut than i and my colleagues are i will continue to oppose the pension levy.

Helix

Welease wrote: »

Your idea of fairness is that profiltable private sector business's should contine to fund your extravagances and if you don't get it you will strike.. and people wonder why the country is a mess....

theres bugger all extravagant about taking home €400 a week

Welease

Helix wrote: »

theres bugger all extravagant about taking home €400 a week

The extravagance comes from the rediculous pensions, far too many staff, early retirement plans, waste etc etc etc... all of the things that if done in a private enterprise would have forced the business to closedown years ago..
Having a complete unsustainable business model supported by the rest of the country is an extravagance, and an extravagance we can do without if we are going to sort out this country.

That is why there is close to 0 compassion amongst private sector workers with imploding pensions, forced redundancies, longer working hours, pay cuts etc. for public sector workings demanding their vision of "fairness" and going on strike because everyone else doesn't want to pay for it.

Helix

Welease wrote: »

The extravagance comes from the rediculous pensions, far too many staff, early retirement plans, waste etc etc etc... all of the things that if done in a private enterprise would have forced the business to closedown years ago..
Having a complete unsustainable business model supported by the rest of the country is an extravagance, and an extravagance we can do without if we are going to sort out this country.

That is why there is close to 0 compassion amongst private sector workers with imploding pensions, forced redundancies, longer working hours, pay cuts etc. for public sector workings demanding their vision of "fairness" and going on strike because everyone else doesn't want to pay for it.

but the public sector pension is forced on people, it would be a different story if you had the choice of not taking part in it but you dont

the early retirement plan addresses the issue of too many staff somewhat (similarly the 3 year career break plan does too)

what are the options here... let people retire voluntarily, let them take a 3 year break to reduce the number on the wage bill, or chuck them all off onto the dole?

which do you think is the worst option there?

Welease

Helix wrote: »

but the public sector pension is forced on people, it would be a different story if you had the choice of not taking part in it but you dont

I don't see any of the public sector groups requesting it's removal.. Far from it.. them seem intent on protecting it.

Helix wrote: »

the early retirement plan addresses the issue of too many staff somewhat (similarly the 3 year career break plan does too)

what are the options here... let people retire voluntarily, let them take a 3 year break to reduce the number on the wage bill, or chuck them all off onto the dole?

which do you think is the worst option there?

So which option does the vast majority of the private sector have to employ? Correct, it's option 3) redundancy.

Helix

Welease wrote: »

I don't see any of the public sector groups requesting it's removal.. Far from it.. them seem intent on protecting it.

im not asking for its removal, i want it made voluntary. and im far from alone in that. if i wanted a pension id set my own one up

Welease wrote: »

So which option does the vast majority of the private sector have to employ? Correct, it's option 3) redundancy.

[insert private company here] doesnt pay for the dole out of their own pockets, so getting rid of people doesnt end up with them still paying them, does it?

lets say all the bitter private sector workers/former workers got their way in the morning, and 60% of the public sector were let go... do you think we'd get to midday without the country collapsing?

Welease

Helix wrote: »

im not asking for its removal, i want it made voluntary. and im far from alone in that. if i wanted a pension id set my own one up

I don't doubt you on that, and I am not going to insult you by saying otherwise but I have honestly never heard public sector employees or unions officially call for that. I would love to see a link to a proposal that gained widespread support, because it that was really true then I believe the government would have jumped at the chance to remove a ticking financial timebomb for the country.

Helix wrote: »

[insert private company here] doesnt pay for the dole out of their own pockets, so getting rid of people doesnt end up with them still paying them, does it?

lets say all the bitter private sector workers/former workers got their way in the morning, and 60% of the public sector were let go... do you think we'd get to midday without the country collapsing?

Well given that the vast majority of the revenue created (as far as I know) comes from the private sector, it does indirectly pay for the dole. People are not bitter, they are explaining why the public sector is unsustainable in its current form, and why there is no public support (from the private sector) for us to pay more taxes to fund public sector pensions and bloated bureaucracy

I have no idea if 10% or 60% should go.. but I'd imagine we could lose a load of them with zero real impact to the country if the public sector was run like a profitable private sector company. Are you telling me there are not layers upon layers of management and bureaucracy that couldnt be gotten rid of? (and everyone in the country knows there is).

Helix

Welease wrote: »

Are you telling me there are not layers upon layers of management and bureaucracy that couldnt be gotten rid of? (and everyone in the country knows there is).

there are, for sure... and i suspect a lot of them will avail of the early retirement

the fact that nobody can be hired into the public sector until at least 2011 means that numbers will be decrease at a fairly steady rate for at least the next 18 months

Welease

Helix wrote: »

there are, for sure... and i suspect a lot of them will avail of the early retirement

the fact that nobody can be hired into the public sector until at least 2011 means that numbers will be decrease at a fairly steady rate for at least the next 18 months

and there's the big difference, and why people think the public sector is extravagant

Early Retirement = Continue to pay them for doing nothing. Not an option for most companies.

Headcount attrition to 2011 = Most companies don't have the leisure of being able to let attrition run over 1-2 years when they have severe budget issues. They need to make cuts (i.e. redundancies) quickly, as they dont have a whole country to prop up their failing business..

But hey.....

Helix

Welease wrote: »

Early Retirement = Continue to pay them for doing nothing. Not an option for most companies.

sure if you fire them theyll still have their pension and dole payments, coming from the same place

Welease

Helix wrote: »

sure if you fire them theyll still have their pension and dole payments, coming from the same place

In the public sector yes.. but in the "real" world you wouldnt get a pension until you hit the pensionable age.. so there would be no financial burden on the country.

Regarding the dole if you remove the layers and layers of deadwood and management in the public sector you would save a ton of money. The dole is less than they get paid, you dont have to make pension payments, you dont need building, heating, lighting etc for them to work in. It would save the country a fortune. Sorry but that arguements doesn't hold water.

manc

stevoman wrote: »

not it doesnt. im sure any informed person on either side of the arguement will agree with that.

who pays it then? the Public pension comes from exchequer/tax revenue, your levy goes into the exchequer/tax revenue

BroomBurner

Helix wrote: »

it should be an opt in scheme, and you should pay the same amount for it as private sector workers

as it is, im forced to pay for all sorts of ridiculous stuff i neither want nor need in my public sector job because the government says i have to pay it

spouse and child tax... im a 25 year old single bloke ffs

i dont want a pension scheme either

They could never make it optional though in the way it is currently run. At the moment, your pension payments are paying for current pensioners.

By the time you retire, if you're still a public servant, everything could have changed and you will not get the benefits that current retired servants get, or what is befitting of the payments that you are currently making. 40 years is a long time.

Lets not get in to a "you're lucky you have a job with a defined pension scheme and I want you to suffer for it/you work in the private sector and can invest in an optional pension scheme at optional risk levels and receive more return" debate. It's sounding like a broken record.

SkepticOne

BroomBurner wrote: »

By the time you retire, if you're still a public servant, everything could have changed and you will not get the benefits that current retired servants get, or what is befitting of the payments that you are currently making. 40 years is a long time.

That's a very good argument for allowing public servants to opt out of the existing scheme. They should have the choice contributing to a standard defined contribution scheme thereby opting out of the state system or take their chances with whatever the state has to offer come retirement time (lets face it not looking bright at the moment).

The unions should be doing a better job representing their members interests here.

ixoy

BroomBurner wrote: »

Lets not get in to a "you're lucky you have a job with a defined pension scheme and I want you to suffer for it/you work in the private sector and can invest in an optional pension scheme at optional risk levels and receive more return" debate. It's sounding like a broken record.

Indeed. I started this thread more to point out that this 150m euro a year should not have happened - the levy should have been re-jigged to still come out with the same savings but maybe reduce the imbalance between the pay grades. An obvious one would be to change tax laws to put relief at the lower rate for example - something that should be done for the next tax year. It would have achied a few aims:

1) Those at the higher tax rate would not be paying less any more. I think even the CPSU's anger would be quelled by this.

2) It would actually increase the savings on governments (although naturally TDs would have to pay more... no wonder it's not introduced)

3) It would show the general public (who are primarily private) that the government isn't interesting in just cossetting the public sector but is keen to tackle spending there in a relatively equitable way.

Their current approach seems to do little of this - quelle surprise from Fianna Fail.

BroomBurner

SkepticOne wrote: »

That's a very good argument for allowing public servants to opt out of the existing scheme. They should have the choice contributing to a standard defined contribution scheme thereby opting out of the state system or take their chances with whatever the state has to offer come retirement time (lets face it not looking bright at the moment).

The unions should be doing a better job representing their members interests here.

Unfortunately, they'll never allow PS' to opt out because of how it's run. I think they may have been intending to change that with the start of the National Pension Reserve Fund. Or maybe that was just wishful thinking on my part.

Indeed. I started this thread more to point out that this 150m euro a year should not have happened - the levy should have been re-jigged to still come out with the same savings but maybe reduce the imbalance between the pay grades. An obvious one would be to change tax laws to put relief at the lower rate for example - something that should be done for the next tax year. It would have achied a few aims:

1) Those at the higher tax rate would not be paying less any more. I think even the CPSU's anger would be quelled by this.

2) It would actually increase the savings on governments (although naturally TDs would have to pay more... no wonder it's not introduced)

3) It would show the general public (who are primarily private) that the government isn't interesting in just cossetting the public sector but is keen to tackle spending there in a relatively equitable way.

Their current approach seems to do little of this - quelle surprise from Fianna Fail.

Ioxy, I would agree with the pension tax relief being set at the lower band, out of fairness. It would save the exchequer millions. It would hit both private and public sector alike, so it would be conceived as fair. As you said though, they're not going to do anything to shoot themselves in the foot.

Though I guess, from the point of view of regular joe soaps, there does need to be some sweetener to having to pay more in tax, so I can understand where the pull against it would come from. Perhaps they could suspend the tax relief of 41% until things pick up again. If they set a time limit on it, it will give them actual budget figures to plan for and to plan for without.

Alcatel

lets say all the bitter private sector workers/former workers got their way in the morning, and 60% of the public sector were let go... do you think we'd get to midday without the country collapsing?

What's with all the extreme examples? Seriously. Let's say we cut 25% of the PS, and even that's a big number. Would we miss having a Food Safety Authority and a Food Safety Information Board, or could we get by with just the one? (Hiring just one CEO, deputy CEO, director of this, that and the other.... Etc)

Would we miss it if there were simply some efficiencies in the damn system? Like a centralised procurement and management agency to rule them all? One body purchasing for all the rest (making savings on bulk purchases, which the public service currently does not do well) and cutting down on the need to double up on functions.

Why is it that when we merge some of the public sector bodies, we don't cut staff numbers? A company of 200 employees does not need two CEO's, two directors for everything, a double-sized finance department, a double-sized reception... yet, because nobody will be let go, that's precisely what we'll get.

There's huge waste to be cut. So stop using these doomsday examples.

As for the levy, as I've already said, it should have been debt neutral!