Will the government ever grasp the nettle of public sector pay ?

leitrim lad

yes but my point is public sector workers, dont contribute in any way to the public finances, they do the opposite

REDZ

leitrim lad wrote: »

what ever redundancy is felt appropriate ,let it be €10 or a €100 its something isnt it, they milked the system for long enough,

if my companies went into liquidation in the morning (which they wont)what redundancy would i get

sweet fcuk all

I don't think you are interested in making any valid or reasonable points apart from letting us all know that you hate public servants, so this is waste of all our time isn't it.
The only saving grace here is that as a FFer you are very unlikely to ever hold political power, once more as Nelson says "ha ha"!!!!

leitrim lad

who knows i might set up my own party,

the progressive non unioners

ha ha

Alfasud

leitrim lad wrote: »

yes but my point is public sector workers, dont contribute in any way to the public finances, they do the opposite

I think we havent seen anything yet, the worst is yet to come.:mad: Shortly the government will be unable to pay pensions, dole,any social welfare, public service pay, etc. Probably the Arabs will take us over.

Grudaire

Alfasud wrote: »

I think we havent seen anything yet, the worst is yet to come.:mad: Shortly the government will be unable to pay pensions, dole,any social welfare, public service pay, etc. Probably the Arabs will take us over.

Allah ooooh Ackbar - wait we're not allowed drink anymore??????????

leitrim lad

well they made a good job of the beef industry (sarcasm)

and a few months sober would make the unions see sence wouldnt it

Alfasud

Cliste wrote: »

Allah ooooh Ackbar - wait we're not allowed drink anymore??????????

They also chop off your head or whatever limb is appropriate for the crime. :eek:

Grudaire

Alfasud wrote: »

They also chop off your head or whatever limb is appropriate for the crime. :eek:

But - on the plus side - drink'd be cheap again, we'd return to having poteen very much illegally!

leitrim lad

well thats the majority of the country going around leg less then,

it will hardly come to that, they might just sell a few counties or something to break even , worked before

TomRooney

jimmmy wrote: »

On the national radio today it said that government spending has increased from 36 billion in 2003 to 63 billion today, and its still increasing at an alarming rate.
80% of spending is on pay and social welfare. When will these be cut ? The government missed an opportunity in the budget when inflation is at minus 4% ( ie deflation ) - this means that the public sector gross pay and social welfare got another 4% increase in real terms, does it not.
Will things be brought back in to line when the government cannot borrow more ( why should lenders continue to lend when they are paying themselves / their own govt employees less ) , when the IMF moves in or when ? Why does the opposition not join forces with the govt like in the Tallaght strategy ( of '87 as far as I remember ), for the good of the country ?

the government should think about taking at least a 50 percent pay cut themselves before they touch any other payment in this state.

the problem is not social welfare, the problem is no jobs and no prospect of jobs, this is the issue that needs to be addresed.

NewDubliner

leitrim lad wrote: »

yes but my point is public sector workers, dont contribute in any way to the public finances, they do the opposite

And my point is that you don't have any workable ideas that would contribute to solving our problems.

Your idea of making the public service tax exempt is nonsense.

Your idea of privitising public services leading to lower costs, is more of the same nonsense. That's not how it works. The workers get paid less, there may also be less workers, but the cost to the public is the same, except that some foreign company takes a big profit out of the country.

ParkRunner

How odd to see a public sector v private sector thread :rolleyes:

While you have a point leitrim lad it is clear that your ideas are not going to happen in real life. A well thought out plan for reducing expenditure and creating jobs might get a bit more support.

To say that civil servants haven't got a clue what is really happening is absurd. We all have friends and family members who have lost jobs and are suffering and there are many also who are still having it pretty good both in the public and private sector.

I agree that waste needs to be tackled in the public sector, numbers need to be reduced and pay at the top end needs to be reduced. From my own experience the amount of people retiring lately has shot up and the recruitment/promotion ban has been in effect a lot longer than since it was officially announced. The benchmarking payrise, which some private sector workers will be getting don't forget, is not going to happen and we all know about the pension levy, income levy, healthy levy..etc

Numbers are slowly being cut and it will be interesting to see how many people take up the career break on offer since the recent mini-budget. A 2/3 cull of numbers is unrealistic, as the related redundancy payments and social welfare payments will wipe out any savings in the short term at least, when we need it most.

Measures like combating social welfare fraud, which a recent analysis found that 10% of claims are fraudulent, should at least allow the State to cover the cost of the recently made unemployed.

On the revenue side the biggest obstacle to generating revenue is the banks! We have thousands of talented people out there willing to work and to work for less than what they were getting before, but businesses still can't get credit. It is astonishing to hear the amount of money being pumped into the banks and yet the banks are still very reluctant to lend.

Cut costs all you want but you will be chasing a decreasing revenue until the banks decide it is safe to lend again. Cut top end public sector pay I agree but those at the lower end, earning the equivalent average industrial wage and expected to cover the workload of all those leaving are making more than their fair share of a contribution.

leitrim lad

its not urealistic atall, and itwill be done , we have no other choice ,

do you not know how to read or something, tender the whole process ,it could cost as little as 1/2 what it does at present, with no trouble, from self obsessed wafflers who think they are required, well let me tell you there are millions of people out there who would be willing and able to do the work of the public service wafflers, alot beter in halfthe time and at half cost to the state, unlike the waste of money that is already in place.

get over it privatise is the way forward, and yourdossen days are over p45s all round and no redundancy we cant afford it right now , complain to your unions about it see if we are bothered ifyou strike or not as long as your off our pay roll

why would a country of 4 million people need to pay 1 in 10 to waste money in the public service, your contradicting your selves, cop on your jobs are going and its about time ,

the sooner the better if you ask me

leitrim lad

ef i agree with you very strongly about the banks, i run a few sme companies and i cannot get our own money out of the bank let alone borrow.

and atleast you can see the points im trying to make, but yes until the banks are forced open again and the scum cleaned out of them we simply dont have an economy

ParkRunner

leitrim lad wrote: »

ef i agree with you very strongly about the banks, i run a few sme companies and i cannot get our own money out of the bank let alone borrow.

and atleast you can see the points im trying to make, but yes until the banks are forced open again and the scum cleaned out of them we simply dont have an economy

The banks need to nationalised really and get a few hard working civil servants in there to sort out the mess The bankers aren't willing to work for under €360k

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0324/1224243317698.html

leitrim lad

ef the bankers are the scum on the bottom of your shoe

25k per year is too much for them, they dont actually contribute any form of labor to earn the money, so i dont know where they are going with €360k per year

if i heard of a banker getting that amount of money again per year i would be bringing them for a long drive to the top of a mountain with my gun intact.

i saw some other waffler posting about working for a bank earlier in the thread, he forgot to mention how many times me and you bailed him out for his reckless behavior, if we recklessly worked like that every day we would be at home full time,

i just cant stand them pack of wasters created this whole mess in the first place and they expect everyone to bow before them now

Soldie

leitrim lad wrote: »

ef the bankers are the scum on the bottom of your shoe

25k per year is too much for them, they dont actually contribute any form of labor to earn the money, so i dont know where they are going with €360k per year

if i heard of a banker getting that amount of money again per year i would be bringing them for a long drive to the top of a mountain with my gun intact.

i saw some other waffler posting about working for a bank earlier in the thread, he forgot to mention how many times me and you bailed him out for his reckless behavior, if we recklessly worked like that every day we would be at home full time,

i just cant stand them pack of wasters created this whole mess in the first place and they expect everyone to bow before them now

Under normal circumstances, it's not really anyone's business what wages people in the private sector earn. I accept that now, regretably, it becomes a concern of ours in light of the bail-out, but I contend that the banks should never have been bailed out in the first place. The bail-out simply seems to serve as semi-nationalisation - if the government wishes to control the banks then they should nationalise them and get it over with, instead of giving them money and telling them what to do with it. I see there's no shortage of people to buy into the 'reckless and greedy bankers' image that they government has cleverly put forward as a scapegoat, though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SC024

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'll predict here that revenue into the state coffers will come in under 30 Billion Euro on 31st december 2009. We are absolutely and utterly in a hopeless situation. By the end just this year, we'll have had to borrow in the order of 30 Billion Euro just to run the country for 2009.

Would you ever cop on, It's that kind of negativity that is a fairly significant problem... :mad:

Firetrap

leitrim lad wrote: »

yes but my point is public sector workers, dont contribute in any way to the public finances, they do the opposite

OK, so they're overpaid. However look at the costs of firing them all en-masse (which is something that some people on here would love to see happening). They immediately go onto the dole since it's unlikely they'll find other jobs any time soon. They stop paying income tax and PRSI (anyone taken on since 1995 pays full PRSI). You have to give them state benefits like medical cards, rent relief. They can't pay their mortgages which will pile on the headaches for the bank and the state. They won't be spending money in shops which will further deflate the economy. It's estimated that every person going on the dole costs the exchequer 20k. I've no idea where that figure comes from.

ParkRunner

Soldie wrote: »

Under normal circumstances, it's not really anyone's business what wages people in the private sector earn. I accept that now, regretably, it becomes a concern of ours in light of the bail-out, but I contend that the banks should never have been bailed out in the first place.

I wonder where we would be now if the banks had not had billions pumped into them and the government had not put in place the bank guarantee? Just out of interest. I imagine we would only have 2 banks left now and these banks would still not be in a position to offer credit, so in the short term you may be right that the bail out was a bad move.

The government must have thought the banks could survive on their own with minimum recapitalisation and maybe retain the FF votes of the shareholders, but even these now will be lost with nationalisation.

SC024

Cliste wrote: »

I'm far from convinced that you can run a bank:rolleyes:


I'm of the opinion that yes social welfare should be cut, especially given what the state gets from giving it.
Public sector salaries however should not. And if anyone wants to discuss this come back with some hard info, not just this ranting 'cac-tarbh'

WTF??

Are you saying that this entirely inept government should saddle every other citizen who is still working in the private sector with extra tax/Income Levies, just to support a Fat, Bloated, Overpaid, Inefficient public sector that has about 60% to many employees - Not workers...

dresden8

leitrim lad wrote: »

i cannot get our own money out of the bank let alone borrow.

So, your bank can't afford to give you your own money. I hope the newspapers don't get a hold of this, there'd be a run!

Firetrap

Are you saying that this entirely inept government should saddle every other citizen who is still working in the private sector with extra tax/Income Levies, just to support a Fat, Bloated, Overpaid, Inefficient public sector that has about 60% to many employees - Not workers...

That's a generalisation, just like people saying that people in the private sector are really well paid and get bonuses.

I used to work in the public sector. The vast majority of people where I worked were hard working and had meaningful jobs, not paper pushers. There was nobody who got to sit around all day doing sudoku puzzles. It's a stereotype that people who want to vent about public servants are more than willing to buy into. I am not denying that there are lazy sods in the public service but believe me, I've met worse in the private sector.

ART6

I am not convinced that public sector pay at the level of individuals is really the problem. I suspect its more that there are simply too many on the public payroll, and there is no quick fix for that since mass redundancies would only worsen the unemployment situation. Reducing the size of the public service can only be a long term strategy and there seems little evidence of that at the moment.

Where the banks are concerned, I read the other day in a newspaper letter column where someone suggested that instead of setting up a "bad bank" and spending more billions buying out bank bad debts, the government should be spending the money setting up a "good bank" that would be able to lend to businesses etc without the drain of bad debt write offs. The smaller commercial banks would then almost certainly go to the wall, and the majors would struggle for a long time and teeter on the edge, but the country would not be dependent on them any longer. The suggestion has a certain attraction to me, but then I am not an economist.

leitrim lad

art6

i think thats what should have been done in 2007 set up a good bank, and let the bankers fry, and its still not too late either

Soldie

EF wrote: »

I wonder where we would be now if the banks had not had billions pumped into them and the government had not put in place the bank guarantee? Just out of interest. I imagine we would only have 2 banks left now and these banks would still not be in a position to offer credit, so in the short term you may be right that the bail out was a bad move.

The government must have thought the banks could survive on their own with minimum recapitalisation and maybe retain the FF votes of the shareholders, but even these now will be lost with nationalisation.

If the banks hadn't been bailed out, I'm sure they would have failed. Would that be the end of the world, though? I don't think so. New banks can form, and foreign banks can move in.

newname

Hi,

Take a look at a thread over on rip of ireland its highlighting the cost difference between goods on this side of the border vs the north. You'll see why this country has lost its competitiveness and consequently why wages here need to be higher than most other EU countries. We have a higher cost of living and a property sector that became ridiculously overpriced.

Private compaines can cut wages without too much guilt because they had little influence on policy over the last 15 yrs. The same can't be said for the government. So the government can't just slash public sector wages plunging people into debt and difficulty because they played such a large part in the high cost of living and the massive mortgages people find themselves lumbered with.

Grudaire

SC024 wrote: »

WTF??

Are you saying that this entirely inept government should saddle every other citizen who is still working in the private sector with extra tax/Income Levies, just to support a Fat, Bloated, Overpaid, Inefficient public sector that has about 60% to many employees - Not workers...

Where has this 60% thing come from?

I would hesitate to cut public servant pay, and you have done little to convince me otherwise. Yes there are lazy bastards there, but there's far more hard workers there as well. Now I would like to see how exactly the nurses, teachers etc etc are overpaid.

ParkRunner

Soldie wrote: »

If the banks hadn't been bailed out, I'm sure they would have failed. Would that be the end of the world, though? I don't think so. New banks can form, and foreign banks can move in.

I agree and we wouldn't be facing half the difficulties we are now if the banks were allowed to fail. So why are we keeping the banks afloat if the shareholdings are all going to be diluted and become worthless anyway?