FF TDs face down Cowen over bonus

Hillel

FF TDs face down Cowen over bonus http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ff-tds-face-down-cowen-over-bonus-1712725.html
So now we know, the first to turn down the call to patriotic duty are our "Public Servants" in the Dail. What possible hope of public service reform, if our elected representatives don't show leadership on this one.
Name and shame every single one of them, I say. Personally, I want to know who in my constituency has put their country first. I will take it entirely personal against those who have not.

The Raven.

Here is a breakdown of the situation so far. It is quite an eye-opener !!

Willing to give it up voluntarily

Eamon Gilmore….....Labour Leader
Joan Burton………....Labour Deputy Leader
Joe Costello………....Labour
Jan O'Sullivan……....Labour
Simon Coveney…....Fine Gael
Michael Moynihan...Fianna Fail

Declined to say

Enda Kenny………....Fine Gael Leader
Pat Rabbitte………...Labour
Liz McManus…….....Labour


Considering it

Mary O'Rourke……..Fianna Fail


Waiting for Government legislation

Ruairi Quinn……......Labour
Seamus Kirk……......Fianna Fail
Brian Hayes……......Fine Gael


Full-out Refusal to Voluntarily give it up voluntarily

Emmett Stagg……...Labour
John Cregan……......Fianna Fail
Bernard Allen…….....Fine Gael
Jackie Healy-Rae…..Independent
Bertie Ahern………....Fianna Fail


It doesn't surprise me in the case of Jackie Healy-Rae or Bertie Ahern, but I must say I'm shocked at Emmett Stagg :eek:!!

Feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes.

nesf

The Raven. wrote: »

It doesn't surprise me in the case of Jackie Healy-Rae or Bertie Ahern, but I must say I'm shocked at Emmett Stagg :eek:!!

People's party allegiances does not dictate their views on what they're entitled to. People often overstate the uniformity of political views within a Party.

Bertie hasn't stated that he'll refuse to give it up voluntarily, it's more nuanced than that, unsurprisingly.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Bertie hasn't stated that he'll refuse to give it up voluntarily, it's more nuanced than that, unsurprisingly.

Nuanced: what a nice way to describe Bertie's brand of verbal obfustication.

galwayrush

Apparently they don't have to give up the money because of some constitutional issue, nothing that couldn't be sorted by a properly worded referendum:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

galwayrush wrote: »

Apparently they don't have to give up the money because of some constitutional issue, nothing that couldn't be sorted by a properly worded referendum:rolleyes:

The cost of the referendum would exceed the potential savings by a considerable margin.

There is another method for withdrawing the long-service increment: at the next election, replace those who draw it with people who do not qualify for it.

dave-higgz

The Raven. wrote: »

Here is a breakdown of the situation so far. It is quite an eye-opener !!

Willing to give it up voluntarily

Eamon Gilmore….....Labour Leader
Joan Burton………....Labour Deputy Leader
Joe Costello………....Labour
Jan O'Sullivan……....Labour
Simon Coveney…....Fine Gael
Michael Moynihan...Fianna Fail

Fair Play

The Raven. wrote: »

Considering it

Mary O'Rourke……..Fianna Fail



Full-out Refusal to Voluntarily give it up voluntarily


Jackie Healy-Rae…..Independent
Bertie Ahern………....Fianna Fail

No Surprises there

Mr.Micro

nesf wrote: »

People's party allegiances does not dictate their views on what they're entitled to. People often overstate the uniformity of political views within a Party.

Bertie hasn't stated that he'll refuse to give it up voluntarily, it's more nuanced than that, unsurprisingly.

Bertie is still a TD? He has no shame and it speaks volumes that and the current refusal of indvidual TD's to give up the bonuses of the calibre of individuals that make up our Dail. Low and lower. Obey the party until it comes to personal greed.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Nuanced: what a nice way to describe Bertie's brand of verbal obfustication.

I was going for ironic...

gollem_1975

the article says that Enda Kenny is refusing to say whether he would hand back his bonus.. the article doesn't mention Bertie Ahern having said anything at all about the 6,400€ bonus. qualitatively whats the difference between the 2 positions.

though come to think of it Enda could have bought a decent website for that €6,400 ;-)

The article does mention that bertie "voluntarily gave up his ministerial pension while he is a sitting TD".. that counts for nothing I suppose.

Killaqueen!!!

The Independent had a full (enough) list of which TDS were prepared to give it up and who wasn't. It's quite shocking.

I know it's not only the FF TDs who are refusing to give up their bonus but it really shows lack of leadership in the present government. Why should we take income levys, cuts in our public services etc. when they aren't prepared to take the cut? It's ridiculous. These TDs already have a salary over 100,000euro!!

deadhead13

It is one thing for a TD not to voluntarily give up the bonus, it would be another thing entirely to legally challenge legislation put in place to remove it. In the current climate, I just don't think any politician would risk the flak that taking such a stand would cause. So we will just have to wait and see if legistationary changes are made. Or will the whole issue be fudged?

nesf

deadhead13 wrote: »

It is one thing for a TD not to voluntarily give up the bonus, it would be another thing entirely to legally challenge legislation put in place to remove it. In the current climate, I just don't think any politician would risk the flak that taking such a stand would cause. So we will just have to wait and see if legistationary changes are made. Or will the whole issue be fudged?

All it would take is one person to challenge it to put the legislation in trouble. I really wouldn't bet against one out of the many challenging it which is probably what's giving the Government pause.

Jackie Healy Ray could easily challenge it given that he won't be standing for re-election most likely.

deadhead13

Your right, it is not something I would place a bet on. But if this is causing problems now, what will happen when the Board for Higher Renumerations come back with their findings in july?

nesf

deadhead13 wrote: »

But if this is causing problems now, what will happen when the Board for Higher Renumerations come back with their findings in july?

Pay reductions might be easier from a legal standpoint than abolishing certain payments (though I'm only speculating here).

Honestly, politician pay isn't what the focus is with the Higher Renumerations Board. We'll save a lot more by cutting senior civil servant pay than politician pay and that's the crucial bit from a strictly fiscal point of view. Politician pay is more the symbolic icing on the cake rather than the main course so to speak.

deadhead13

As far as politicians are concerned, I think the Board is only reviewing ministerial pay grades. You wouldn't expect rebels in the cabinet, but senior civil servants would be less concerned with curryng favour with the electorate than a politician would. I have no idea about legislation or employment contracts with regards the civil service, but I suspect there will be trouble ahead.

Hillel

galwayrush wrote: »

Apparently they don't have to give up the money because of some constitutional issue, nothing that couldn't be sorted by a properly worded referendum:rolleyes:

It's great to see our elected representatives having such respect for the constitution. In fairness, Bertie led from the the front, in this area. :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is another method for withdrawing the long-service increment: at the next election, replace those who draw it with people who do not qualify for it.

No cost saving there, the current lot would get a pension based on it.

dresden8

deadhead13 wrote: »

As far as politicians are concerned, I think the Board is only reviewing ministerial pay grades. You wouldn't expect rebels in the cabinet, but senior civil servants would be less concerned with curryng favour with the electorate than a politician would. I have no idea about legislation or employment contracts with regards the civil service, but I suspect there will be trouble ahead.

I disagree. Civil Servants are getting a hugely bad time at the moment but they all started out junior and they do, believe it or not, believe in public service and the social contract. They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

(Heads for shower, having defended senior management)

Hillel

nesf wrote: »

Honestly, politician pay isn't what the focus is with the Higher Renumerations Board. We'll save a lot more by cutting senior civil servant pay than politician pay and that's the crucial bit from a strictly fiscal point of view. Politician pay is more the symbolic icing on the cake rather than the main course so to speak.

I agree that much will not be saved in either case - but, nevertheless, it is important.

In the case of politicians there is a widespread perception, that I share, that many are now in it purely for personal gain. This is not surprising, given the gravy train that politics has become. Bringing politicians pay back in line with the general populace makes it more likely that truly interested and committed individuals, many of whom are squeezed out by the party machines, will be elected. It also sends out a strong message to the general populace - i.e. leading from the front.

Cutting senior civil service pay is equally important from a leadership perspective. The less-senior grades will simply not support the level of change required, if there is no movement from the top.

Hillel

dresden8 wrote: »

I disagree. Civil Servants are getting a hugely bad time at the moment but they all started out junior and they do, believe it or not, believe in public service and the social contract. They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

I tend to agree with you that many senior civil servants are commited to to the greater good. Certainly, as a population, they would compare favourably to the majority of politicians.

dresden8 wrote: »

They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

Affordability is relative, peoples lifestyle tends to grow in line with their income.

ixoy

Hillel wrote: »

Cutting senior civil service pay is equally important from a leadership perspective. The less-senior grades will simply not support the level of change required, if there is no movement from the top.

Very true. I'd hope civil servants would be more willing to take cuts if they saw it trickle downwards. However, when the levy came in the Principal Officers (to whom TDs pay is linked I believe) got a pay increase and that really annoyed them.
In fact given TDs are also civil servants, the whole thing is now not just public vs private but, to some degree, also public vs public. If the TDs all gave up their bonus it would ease at least one of the divisions.

deadhead13

dresden8 wrote: »

I disagree. Civil Servants are getting a hugely bad time at the moment but they all started out junior and they do, believe it or not, believe in public service and the social contract. They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

(Heads for shower, having defended senior management)

If Brian lenihan is true to this budget promise of reducing senior civil servants pay to those of similar size european countries, this could result in a large drop in salaries. I have no axe to grind with civil servants but human nature would suggest there are few people would accept this with good grace. I have no knowledge of the inner workings or culture of the civil service, so I may be wrong.

Hillel

ixoy wrote: »

Very true. I'd hope civil servants would be more willing to take cuts if they saw it trickle downwards. However, when the levy came in the Principal Officers (to whom TDs pay is linked I believe) got a pay increase and that really annoyed them.

Linking TD's pay in this manner means that they have a vested interest in benchmarking increases for the public sector, regardless of whether they are warranted or not. There must be a better mechanism.

I wonder where the relativity between PO pay and TD's pay came from?
(I would have thougt that the average PO would be vastly more experienced, and have a far more demanding job, than the average backbench or opposition TD.)

Hillel

deadhead13 wrote: »

If Brian lenihan is true to this budget promise of reducing senior civil servants pay to those of similar size european countries, this could result in a large drop in salaries. I have no axe to grind with civil servants but human nature would suggest there are few people would accept this with good grace. I have no knowledge of the inner workings or culture of the civil service, so I may be wrong.

I suspect shades of "Yes Minister" here, commisioning a study or report is always a useful way of pretending to do something.

dresden8

Hillel wrote: »

Linking TD's pay in this manner means that they have a vested interest in benchmarking increases for the public sector, regardless of whether they are warranted or not. There must be a better mechanism.

I wonder where the relativity between PO pay and TD's pay came from?
(I would have thougt that the average PO would be vastly more experienced, and have a far more demanding job, than the average backbench or opposition TD.)

As I recall, I could be hugely mistake here, TD got an increase which linked them to PO's (Buckley) and then PO's got benchmarking, which meant the TDs got benchmarking twice.

All part of Bertie's frontloading the goodies.

deadhead13

Hillel wrote: »

I suspect shades of "Yes Minister" here, commisioning a study or report is always a useful way of pretending to do something.

Yes...... July does seem a long time to wait for what is essentially a bit of number-crunching. I wonder will it involve any "fact-finding" missions.

ixoy

dresden8 wrote: »

As I recall, I could be hugely mistake here, TD got an increase which linked them to PO's (Buckley) and then PO's got benchmarking, which meant the TDs got benchmarking twice.

That's what I recall as well. Am I also right in thinking the higher grades, like principal officers and asst. sec, did particularly well in bench marking?

I'd like to think that the people of this country would take a long hard look at those TDs refusing to hand back bonuses and remember it when the elections come around again. Somehow I don't think that will happen and I've a depressing feeling FF will still get back in, despite crushing this country with mismanagement.

Hillel

ixoy wrote: »

That's what I recall as well. Am I also right in thinking the higher grades, like principal officers and asst. sec, did particularly well in bench marking?

I'd like to think that the people of this country would take a long hard look at those TDs refusing to hand back bonuses and remember it when the elections come around again. Somehow I don't think that will happen and I've a depressing feeling FF will still get back in, despite crushing this country with mismanagement.

I don't know, I smell change in the air. My family background is FF for three generations. FAmily members who would never have considered breaking ranks are now riled up and ready to jump ship. (I'm considering going out canvasing. The problem is for which candidate? Party? Decisions, decisions.)

dresden8

Hillel wrote: »

I don't know, I smell change in the air. My family background is FF for three generations. FAmily members who would never have considered breaking ranks are now riled up and ready to jump ship. (I'm considering going out canvasing. The problem is for which candidate? Party? Decisions, decisions.)

Fnckin hell. Only maybe now?

Fnckn hell!

Liam Byrne

Today's Tribune had a big and noble article about how Bertie wouldn't oppose losing his pension IF the government decided to pull the plug on it.

Why did that make me think it's a foregone conclusion that they won't, but a transparent PR stunt so that Teflon comes up smelling of roses again when he's "offered" but the government don't do it, so he's the good guy ?

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why did that make me think it's a foregone conclusion that they won't, but a transparent PR stunt so that Teflon comes up smelling of roses again when he's "offered" but the government don't do it, so he's the good guy ?

And you'd extend this to Ruari Quinn et al?