FF TDs face down Cowen over bonus

hallelujajordan

Although I seem to be the only one who holds this view . . . . .

As mentioned in a separate thread, I don't believe that the long-service bonus should be withdrawn. . . . . In any other position, in any other organisation, ones salary increases proportionately with length of service. This is not a bonus, rather a recognition of that fact.

Is it unreasonable that a TD with more than 10years service gets paid somewhere in the region of 6% more than a newly-elected TD. Would you think it unreasonable if you in your current position were paid 6% more than someone who was doing the same job as you but for 10 years less ? ?

There are far more important areas to focus on . . Ministerial Pensions , teacher payments, unvouched expenses . .

I also believe its important that the remuneration that we pay to politicians is consistent with the job we are asking them to do and the skill set we need to hire. . .

Carlow52

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Although I seem to be the only one who holds this view . . . . .

As mentioned in a separate thread, I don't believe that the long-service bonus should be withdrawn. . . . . In any other position, in any other organisation, ones salary increases proportionately with length of service. This is not a bonus, rather a recognition of that fact.

Is it unreasonable that a TD with more than 10years service gets paid somewhere in the region of 6% more than a newly-elected TD. Would you think it unreasonable if you in your current position were paid 6% more than someone who was doing the same job as you but for 10 years less ? ?

There are far more important areas to focus on . . Ministerial Pensions , teacher payments, unvouched expenses . .

I also believe its important that the remuneration that we pay to politicians is consistent with the job we are asking them to do and the skill set we need to hire. . .

The issue here is not whether they are 'entitled' etc.

The issue is that it was put forward in the budget by the Gov as a way of saving money and now they say they cant do it so another example of bungling.

In addition the costs not saved will either be borrowed or taken from the private sector workers who still have jobs or similar in how they took cash from the OAPs by way of the Xmas bonus.

This mess only brings the days of social unrest nearer

hallelujajordan

Carlow52 wrote: »

The issue here is not whether they are 'entitled' etc.

The issue is that it was put forward in the budget by the Gov as a way of saving money and now they say they cant do it so another example of bungling.

In addition the costs not saved will either be borrowed or taken from the private sector workers who still have jobs or similar in how they took cash from the OAPs by way of the Xmas bonus.

This mess only brings the days of social unrest nearer

I agree . . and I think the mess is very much driven by party politics and the need to make populist rather than sensible decisions . .

Time for a National Government !

nesf

From RTE.ie:

Mr Cowen said the intention was not to give an impression on Budget day that these measures would immediately come into force because legislation would be required for this change, and the Government would now have to consider how to deal with the situation in the future.

Details: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0420/budget.html

Hillel

nesf wrote: »

From RTE.ie:
Details: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0420/budget.html

Yet another example of Brian caving in when the pressure came on. He has no control of the FF party, let alone the government, or the country. Time for the Greens to pull the plug!

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

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

I didn't see Ruari Quinn, et OR al using it as a PR stunt with a big interview in the paper.....

But if I had, then yes.

Of course, Bertie's probably more OK, financially, even in the highly unlikely event that he hasn't discussed this with his former deputy and is certain it won't come to pass....

How so ? Because he's been spending his paid TDs jetting around the world doing SFA for us (mind you, that's better than screwing up)

And he can also bet on a few horses if he needs a dig-out.....

Sir Oxman

And just to add, apparently the 5 junior ministers being dumped are to get a 53k payoff - you could not make this up.

No link as yet - front page of Indo on VB's Nightly News.

Hillel

gambiaman wrote: »

And just to add, apparently the 5 junior ministers being dumped are to get a 53k payoff - you could not make this up.

No link as yet - front page of Indo on VB's Nightly News.

Exactly as I expected. They are taking us to the cleaners.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I didn't see Ruari Quinn, et OR al using it as a PR stunt with a big interview in the paper.....

But if I had, then yes.

Of course, Bertie's probably more OK, financially, even in the highly unlikely event that he hasn't discussed this with his former deputy and is certain it won't come to pass....

How so ? Because he's been spending his paid TDs jetting around the world doing SFA for us (mind you, that's better than screwing up)

And he can also bet on a few horses if he needs a dig-out.....

More that Ruari Quinn et al are playing the same game by deflecting attention back to the Government to pass legislation. No less cynical for them not giving big interviews in the paper.

ednwireland

the imf will cut their wages, cos thats where we are heading with this shower cowen couldnt manage anything, the whole gov have been shown up. cant remeber who said it but they said the gov havent taken a hard decision in 12 years and they dont look like their going to start now.

Alcatel

As I've said elsewhere, the government should dig its heels in - just take the damn money off them all, bonuses and pensions and good-luck-junior-minister golden handshakes.

And if they have a problem with it, they can challenge it in the courts. And I'd say they'll have a good time getting re-elected.

bmaxi

gambiaman wrote: »

And just to add, apparently the 5 junior ministers being dumped are to get a 53k payoff - you could not make this up.

As John Browne, former Minister for f*** all, said on South East radio in October 2008 after it was announced he'd be benefiting from this little handout. "Sure it's no big deal", no doubt his fellow beneficiaries will have the same attitude.
I'd say there might be a few people, e.g. those handing over the keys of their homes to the same bank that screwed them in the first place, who just might take issue with that sentiment.

markpb

latimes.com wrote:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today released a proposed $7.05-billion city budget [...] Villaraigosa also proposed a 10% reduction in personnel costs for all city departments to save about $200 million, cuts that could be achieved through options that include potential layoffs, early retirements, work furloughs or city workers agreeing for forgo cost-of-living raises. The mayor said he would start by cutting his $223,000-a-year salary by 12% and freezing all salaries in the mayor’s office.

A man who runs a city with an urban population four times that of Ireland volunteers to reduce his salary below that of Brian Cowen to that of an Irish junior minister.

Compare and contrast...

deadhead13

Noel O'Flynn on RTE News at One was coming out with lines like - "what price democracy"..... "many TDs have put careers on hold"...."do you want TDs to put a euro coin in a turnstile everytime they enter Leinster House".

Our politicians sense of entitlement and how out of touch they are is unreal.

Sleepy

It might be an easy means of showing just how rarely most of them sit in the Dail...

hallelujajordan

markpb wrote: »

A man who runs a city with an urban population four times that of Ireland volunteers to reduce his salary below that of Brian Cowen to that of an Irish junior minister.

Compare and contrast...

Compare like with like. . running a US city is not the same as running a state, no matter what the population is and in addition you have no idea what additional payments are available to the mayor or what his take home pay is like . . .

Also, Cowen has already taken a 10% pay cut along with the rest of the cabinet. . In addition, his take home pay will have been hit by somewhere close to 20% based on the most recent budget, and public service pension levy. A assume he will be one of those who will voluntarily give up his long service payment . .

I believe there are inequities in the system that need to be corrected but its too easy to take a swipe at our politicians . . . .

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

its too easy to take a swipe at our politicians . . . .

Yes, yes it is. But that's their fault, not ours.

bmaxi

Also, Cowen has already taken a 10% pay cut along with the rest of the cabinet.

Did they not actually say they would "surrender" 10% of their salary? In the world of political speak, I'm not quite sure that's the same thing. It would be interesting to see what figure any percentages are applied to when it comes to benchmarking, for instance.

joseph brand

Its very disheartening to hear that our leaders cannot lead by example, but rather want us to lead by making examples of us. Cart-before-the-horse?

Animal Farm seems all to real when I picture cowens face, and think of the fat pigs on the farm, grunting and laughing with the odd Haruumph for good measure.

As someone wrote, 'All they seem capable of is winning votes'.

And of course we all know, 'ye get who ye vote for'! The Irish loved Berties cheeky childish smile, and his ability to convey himself as someone u might bump into, havin' an ould pint o stout down the local.

Ah sure isn't he great!

Electorate = Idiots.

brianthebard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Although I seem to be the only one who holds this view . . . . .

As mentioned in a separate thread, I don't believe that the long-service bonus should be withdrawn. . . . . In any other position, in any other organisation, ones salary increases proportionately with length of service. This is not a bonus, rather a recognition of that fact.

Is it unreasonable that a TD with more than 10years service gets paid somewhere in the region of 6% more than a newly-elected TD. Would you think it unreasonable if you in your current position were paid 6% more than someone who was doing the same job as you but for 10 years less ? ?

There are far more important areas to focus on . . Ministerial Pensions , teacher payments, unvouched expenses . .

I also believe its important that the remuneration that we pay to politicians is consistent with the job we are asking them to do and the skill set we need to hire. . .

TD's are there to serve the country, and supposedly not in it for the money. Every time they are elected they are signing a new contract, not keeping the old one. Its like teachers nowadays who are signed to one year contracts and must win their old job back to stay in work, they don't get raises. Why should the TD's? If someone becomes promoted to a ministerial position then perhaps its worth talking about whether they should earn more, but why should a TD who keeps getting elected but doesn't do anything exceptional or get promoted keep getting pay increases, just because he's there X number of years?

turgon

To support Brianthebards point, the fact that they are in the Dail after such a long time is enough of a long service reward.

In other words they have already been rewarded for apparently good performance by being reelected.

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

To support Brianthebards point, the fact that they are in the Dail after such a long time is enough of a long service reward.

+1

turgon wrote: »

In other words they have already been rewarded for apparently good performance by being reelected.

Since when did "apparently good" come to mean "sh1te" ?

hallelujajordan

joseph brand wrote: »

And of course we all know, 'ye get who ye vote for'! The Irish loved Berties cheeky childish smile, and his ability to convey himself as someone u might bump into, havin' an ould pint o stout down the local.

Ah sure isn't he great!

Electorate = Idiots.

Wrong . . the Irish Electorate loved the Celtic Tiger . . we loved the fact that our salaries were going up while Bertie and the gang were lowering taxes and still posting a record surplus . . We loved the free 25% cash the SSIA gave us. . . Don't kid yourself that we are not all resposible here !

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

TD's are there to serve the country, and supposedly not in it for the money. Every time they are elected they are signing a new contract, not keeping the old one. Its like teachers nowadays who are signed to one year contracts and must win their old job back to stay in work, they don't get raises. Why should the TD's? If someone becomes promoted to a ministerial position then perhaps its worth talking about whether they should earn more, but why should a TD who keeps getting elected but doesn't do anything exceptional or get promoted keep getting pay increases, just because he's there X number of years?

I respectfully disagree . . If we are to attract the best people to politics we need to make the position attractive as a career choice. . Why should they give up their time to serve the country altruistically while the rest of us grow our wealth and careers in the private sector ? ?

brianthebard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I respectfully disagree . . If we are to attract the best people to politics we need to make the position attractive as a career choice. . Why should they give up their time to serve the country altruistically while the rest of us grow our wealth and careers in the private sector ? ?

Because not everyone is motivated by cash? Because they want to give up their time to serve the country? This post smacks of the FF nonsense that they had to increase TD wages to make people less likely to get into politics for the money.

deadhead13

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I respectfully disagree . . If we are to attract the best people to politics we need to make the position attractive as a career choice. . Why should they give up their time to serve the country altruistically while the rest of us grow our wealth and careers in the private sector ? ?

What exactly is unattractive about the current pay and conditions of our politicians? Pay and conditions I might add that few of the present lot of tds could have secured in the private sector. Where are these brilliant politicians? Surely, since Ireland pays its politicians more than most other OECD countries, and has done so far a long time, we would have them already.

hallelujajordan

deadhead13 wrote: »

What exactly is unattractive about the current pay and conditions of our politicians? Pay and conditions I might add that few of the present lot of tds could have secured in the private sector. Where are these brilliant politicians? Surely, since Ireland pays its politicians more than most other OECD countries, and has done so far a long time, we would have them already.

I never said there was anything unattractive about the pay and conditions of our politicians . . . I think their salaries are about right to attract the appropriate skill set. . I just disagree with those who argue on these boards that politicians are vastly overpaid, and should be doing the job for the love of their country . . .

Now it is up to us, the electorate to abandon the family dynasty politics that plague us and move forward to select the right people for the job . .

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

Because not everyone is motivated by cash? Because they want to give up their time to serve the country? This post smacks of the FF nonsense that they had to increase TD wages to make people less likely to get into politics for the money.

I presume you are a politician who has abandoned your career and given up your time and potential private sector salary for the love of your country ? If you are not and you work in the private sector like I do I am not sure why you believe its OK to take such a high moral ground on behalf of others . . .

The reality is that the government is the most important business in the country, and it needs well trained, well skilled businesspeople to run it. Most people who fall into this category are motivated by money . .

deadhead13

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I never said there was anything unattractive about the pay and conditions of our politicians . . . I think their salaries are about right to attract the appropriate skill set. .

That was my point, given the excellent pay and conditions, where are all these politicans with the appropriate skill sets. One hasn't led to the other.

maninasia

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I presume you are a politician who has abandoned your career and given up your time and potential private sector salary for the love of your country ? If you are not and you work in the private sector like I do I am not sure why you believe its OK to take such a high moral ground on behalf of others . . .

The reality is that the government is the most important business in the country, and it needs well trained, well skilled businesspeople to run it. Most people who fall into this category are motivated by money . .

I think your logic is way off. I don't think the salary would come into it for many businesspeople who want to get into politics. They already have a pile of money. Berlusconi PM of Italy, Bloomberg Mayor of NY. Usually it's the urge to change things, get their hands on power, try something different.

The way things are now, the government is run by people with no business experience, but they are paying themselves huge salaries. The government has worse than no performance, yet they still keep 95% of their perks. It's time they got fired by their broken shareholders i.e. people of Ireland. Remember, responsibility lies ultimately with elected officials to do what they were entrusted to do well, don't believe the spin 'sure we were all in it together'.