300 civil servants are paid more than €165,000 per year

K-9

Fergus08 wrote: »

The union leadership, to their eternal detriment, have been a beacon of rational thinking in the current crisis and have a real sense of responsibility. If we'd have four or five years of general strikes and industrial disruption then the union bashing might have some slight justification. But the union leadership will do anything to avoid strikes - at local, firm level and the national level. So, all the union bashing on this and other threads in the Politics forum is based on anti-union prejudice, not on an accurate assessment of the role the unions have played in bringing about the current crisis.

That's a bit OT, but the Unions have not been a beacon or anything like it.

Darragh29

Fergus08 wrote: »

P. Breathnach. Your posts have been a tonic. Calm, rational, facts based, nuanced, fairminded, respectful etc, etc, etc,. The contrast with the, frankly unhinged, public sector bashers here is enormous. Nobody who works in the PS will ever claim that it is perfect. But its imperfections pale into insignificance when compared with where the private sector of this country has dragged us. The related union bashing sentiment is just pure silly (I won't use stronger, but more accurate terms) lazy thinking. Somewhere the unions bashers have picked up the Thatcherite cliché that the unions ruined Britain in the 70s; ergo, they're doing the same here. The union leadership, to their eternal detriment, have been a beacon of rational thinking in the current crisis and have a real sense of responsibility. If we'd have four or five years of general strikes and industrial disruption then the union bashing might have some slight justification. But the union leadership will do anything to avoid strikes - at local, firm level and the national level. So, all the union bashing on this and other threads in the Politics forum is based on anti-union prejudice, not on an accurate assessment of the role the unions have played in bringing about the current crisis.

And, one more thing, anyone who is concerned about 300 public servants being paid 165K but is not more concerned and agitated that the IMF reckon that it will cost us 24 billion (possibly more) to bail out the banks, is not someone who has a serious grasp of currents. Moreover, the taxpayer (disproportionately consisting of public sector workers) has been lumped with a mess created entirely by private businesses in the form of NAMA. That is infinitely more important than public sector pay - which at least will keep spending going for a few years.

Finally, for all those 'entrepreneurs' who 'risk' everything to set up businesses: well it's a reasonably free country, they're not forced to. They do so on the implicit understanding that they could possibly, though statistically unlikely, strike it very rich with their business. More likely, they'll have to work hard for a reasonable-to-good lifestyle. If their businesses fail or are under pressure it's pathetic that some of them starting attacking the public sector. No-one is forced to become an entrepreneur; it's a choice; if someone who makes that choice fails, that's THEIR problem, not the public sector's - take some personal responsibility. Self-pity and whinging are extremely unattractive features - yet they seem to me to typify the so-called 'entrepreneurs' who post here.

I'm all for an affordable and efficient public sector. I'm not for a public sector that REFUSES to come into the 21st century, I'm not for a public sector that starts at 9:30AM or 10:00AM in the morning and finishes at 4:00PM or 4:30PM. I'm not for a public sector that is controlled by unions who have been putting their members interests over the national interest for as long as I've been listening to them. I'm not for a public sector where people cannot be dismissed or made redundant because dismissals and redundacnies are part of life, just like they are in the private sector. I'm not for a public sector where unions have a veto on change and reform. Change happens everywhere and it cannot be obstructed.

Fully consistent with what you have started above, nobody forced me to be an entrepreneur. But if I want to pay myself 150K a year (which I don't by the way or anywhere even remotely close to it!), I don't want to have to listen to public sector employees screaming and roaring about wanting to be "benchmarked" against my income! Your job is nothing similar to mine, I had to risk my house and a whole lot more to start up a business, you didn't, so you have no right to look at what I might pay myself and demand the same when you are in a job that you cannot be dismissed from, when you do not have to worry about paying those that report to you, when you don't have to worry about a pension, when you basically don't have to worry about anything outside of your working day, which is set out in stone and you don't have to even entertain a request for overtime if you don't want to.

Fergus08

That's a bit OT, but the Unions have not been a beacon or anything like it.[HTML][/HTML]

That's nonsense. The unions have represented their membership through the partnership process. During the so-called 'boom' the unions could have dumped partnership and engaged in a free-for-all. They didn't. They stayed in the process, kept wage artifically low, traded wages increases for tax cuts (stupidly, in my opinion). All at a time when inflation was running at 5% for YEARS and house prices were increasing by at least 25% every year for 10 years. When corporate profits were growing exponentially, when the country was "awash with money" as Mary Harney said. When the number of millionaires grew to 33,000, once millionaire for every civil servant, you could say.

All the while the union leadership moderated the demands of their members for a bigger slice of the pie. One that they, particularly ultra productive but poorly paid workers in some areas of the private sector like manufacturing, would have been well entitled to.

And, benching marking is small change compared to the bail out for the banks. Public sector pay and public expenditure generally will at least shore up demand and consumption in a recession and will go some small way to preventing the recession becoming a recession. On the other hand, the bail-out, bank guarantee, NAMA etc all products of the private sector, could send us back to the economic stone age. Why that is of less concern to the public-sector bashers than the relatively trivial of public expenditure, is a mystery to me. My conclusion would be that they have a coherent grasp of current events, but have overheated imaginations and visceral unthinking hatred for the public sector.

The fact remains that you can't cut your way out of a recession, you need to spend, spend and spend again.

K-9

Unions under estimated how out of touch they have become.

That's is why we have had no, or very few, strikes in the last few months.

The majority of their membership is in the Public Sector.

P. Breathnach

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm all for an affordable and efficient public sector. I'm not for a public sector that REFUSES to come into the 21st century, I'm not for a public sector that starts at 9:30AM or 10:00AM in the morning and finishes at 4:00PM or 4:30PM. I'm not for a public sector that is controlled by unions who have been putting their members interests over the national interest for as long as I've been listening to them. I'm not for a public sector where people cannot be dismissed or made redundant because dismissals and redundacnies are part of life, just like they are in the private sector. I'm not for a public sector where unions have a veto on change and reform. Change happens everywhere and it cannot be obstructed...

People in the public service are not all like that. Of course, you can find some who are not giving value for their pay, but you can also find people who do more than they are paid for; that is particularly true of those at the higher levels, who have had to prove their worth in order to win promotion.

It is grossly unfair to tar everybody with the same brush.

Have you anything to offer other than intemperate ranting?

jimmmy

K-9 wrote: »

Unions under estimated how out of touch they have become.

That's is why we have had no, or very few, strikes in the last few months.

The majority of their membership is in the Public Sector.

I think the unions and public sector have come to realise public opinion as well, and deep down I think the public sector / unions realise how lucky they are to be the overpaid, generally underworked and over-pensioned people they generally are.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People in the public service are not all like that. Of course, you can find some who are not giving value for their pay, but you can also find people who do more than they are paid for; that is particularly true of those at the higher levels, who have had to prove their worth in order to win promotion.

Like the fella in FAS, who blew was it half a million on expenses ....
Going to Florida ( and flying FAS class ) was giving great value for money.

K-9

jimmmy wrote: »

I think the unions and public sector have come to realise public opinion as well, and deep down I think the public sector / unions realise how lucky they are to be the overpaid, generally underworked and over-pensioned people they generally are.

My God, you ever wonder why you get flack on these threads?

Anyway, I wouldn't go that far, but I think the Unions have got a shock about just how out of touch they are with the average worker, the average private sector worker in particular. They thought there'd be mass protests at this stage.

stevoman

jimmmy wrote: »

I think the unions and public sector have come to realise public opinion as well, and deep down I think the public sector / unions realise how lucky they are to be the overpaid, generally underworked and over-pensioned people they generally are.

IMO i think you should change your name from jimmmy to MR Sweeping Generalisation. Its obvious you are completly bent out of shape over this whole private sector/public sector fiasco, but for gods sake its getting worn out at this stage.

The pay cuts have been given , everyone in the country is feeling the pinch, give it a break. Invest your energy into maybe coming up with some decent ideas of how to get out of this recession instead of playing a bitter blame game on this forum day in and day out.

honestly is getting old at this stage.

Fergus08

Darragh - hold your horses, son. EVERYTHING that you've written about my personal circumstances in the public sector is untrue. I'm not going to go into details, you've really shown yourself to be exceptionally uninformed.

Many people currently with jobs in the public sector will be on the dole in a few months time - I could be, fingers crossed I won't be, one of them. Unions or no unions they're going to lose their job. And, it might interest you to know, that the unions in the public sector are more often than not the ally of management than of the people they represent - but that's a different debate altogether.


Now, my point. k-9: unions have a far better understanding of their role than many union-bashers think. They don't strike because they know it would be economic suicide. Contrast that with the accountancy and legal professions who still, even though the state is on its fiscal knees, are assisting the wealthy to avoid tax. Striking and tax avoidance are both legal activities, granted. Both of them in the current circumstances are economically detrimental. The unions are not striking, but the accountants are still working to prevent the state from getting its hands on much needed tax revenue. Explain how out-of-touch the unions supposed are, again???

Darragh, you need to get a couple of things straight. Although I'm sure your belief that you are an entreprenuer is central to your self-esteem you need to realise that your workers NOT you are the wealth creators. Without them you'd have no business, no wealth, nothing.

Secondly, entrepreneurs in this state are too stupid and lazy to do any kind of worthwhile economic activity. We get 'The Apprentice' and the business giant who presents it is a f**king car dealer, FFS!! We have a motivational entrepreneur who can't keep his mouth shut whose claim to fame is selling sandwiches. FFS, again! Another so-call entrepreneur who can't keep his mouth shut is a bookie, jesus wept?? Entrepreneurs won't scratch their arses without tax breaks, state agencies (staffed by public servants, of course) to make sense of their little ideas, export guarantees, state agencies again to help them market their ideas, state agencies to help them break into markets abroad. The list goes on and on. The state and public servants supports entrepreneurs, NOT the other way round.

Meanwhile the research and development that is going to power the so-called economiy is done EXCLUSIVELY by massively (for their qualifications and abilities) public sector workers. Business people in this country would rather invest in property than in the development of science and technology. The state and public sector workers, again have to try and push things forward. Our useless 'entrepreneurs' just couldn't be bothered investing in research and development, leave that to the public sector and whinge about them all.

Darragh, jimmmy, K-9 - you've nothing constructive to contribute to this debate. Spouting simplistic, cliched, easily refutable nonsense about the public sector is a sad way to spend your time. Public sector bashers would be advised to concentrate on positive suggestions.

Fergus08

That should have read:

Meanwhile the research and development that is going to power the so-called economiy is done EXCLUSIVELY by massively (for their qualifications and abilities) UNDERPAID public sector workers. Business people in this country would rather invest in property than in the development of science and technology. The state and public sector workers, again have to try and push things forward. Our useless 'entrepreneurs' just couldn't be bothered investing in research and development, leave that to the public sector and whinge about them all the time while sitting at the bar, at the cumann meeting on the golf course.

jimmmy

stevoman wrote: »

IMO i think you should change your name from jimmmy to MR Sweeping Generalisation.

You think that, and yet you do not pull up the following poster ( Fergus08) who comes up with the following sweeping generalisation for example " entrepreneurs in this state are too stupid and lazy to do any kind of worthwhile economic activity. "

Balance ?

ixoy

The unions aren't striking? Eh the unions were threatening to strike until they got their way and were invited back into social partnership talks where they can go and represent certain interest groups only.
As to being friends of management? That'd depend surely on the union - the likes of the CPSU are anything but.

Fergus08

Jimmmy, sweeping generalisations are answered with sweeping generalisations. I've read most of your contributions about the public sector over the past few weeks and none of them indicate an individual involved in any serious thinking on this issue. Bar stool talk and uninformed bravado, nothing else.


I retract my statement about entrepreneurs. There are a lot of decent business people who create and sustain jobs. Many of them respect their workers, unions and the public sector. It's the losers who can't seem to make the connection between their business success and the state's support for it, through the public sector and public spending, who iritate the bejesus out of me. But if the best examples of our entrepreneurs are a car dealer, a sandwich maker and a bookie then we haven't a hope of getting out of this crisis.

My whole point in participating on this thread, which is a depressing experience, is to show that there is HUGE degree of interdependence between the public and the private sectors. And to try and refute the idiotic notion that the private sector carries the public sector, which it most certainly does not. The public sector and workers involved in it, facilitate economic growth, activity, wealth creation, and social cohesion. Without them there is no viable economy, period. The most corrupt economies and backward countries in the world are places where public servants are poorly paid and willing to take bribes. That does not happen here, as public servants are paid well enough to ensure that they don't have to undertake corrupt practices to supplement their incomes.

One example of the benefits to business of our public health system, imperfect and flawed as it is, can be see by comparing here with the US. The US car industry is about to go under because of the cost of health insurance for its workers. If the US federal government provided health care, instead of private companies and insurance companies, then that industry might have a better chance. So, you have an example here of where a private business is in danger because of a lack of a comprehensive taxation funded public health system.


And again this debate, such as it is, is taking place at a time when the state has to fork out, according to the IMF, at least 24 billion euro to bail out a part of the private sector - the banks. NAMA has to be created to resolve the mess created by another part of the private sector - the building industry - which could see the state saddled with 90 billion euro in debts. A total of at least 114 billions, several years of the public sector wage bill. Gone, in a puff of smoke because of private sector recklessness.

Slashing public sector pay any further and numbers employed will only drive the country into a deeper spiral. I said in a previous post, you can't slash and cut your way to economy recovery in the current circumstances. And don't come back with the argument about Ray McSharry in the later 1980s; different time, different circumstances entirely.

Fergus08

Ixoxy. Yes, they're threatening to strike - they're not striking yet. My guess is they won't strike unless they really, really, really have to. A very last resort. The strikes are a result of the economic catastrophe brought to us by the private sector - not the cause, as some would like to think. Unions represent ALL workers, union members or not. Unions understand better than most the power the private sector has to wreck this country and that's why they're reluctant to strike. The banks and the property developers have brought us half-way to disaster - the rest of the business 'community' will probably bring us the rest of the way. The unions are the only defence workers have, whether they're members or not, of living and working conditions. Yes, some unions are a f**king disgrace but at a time like this they're all the mass of people have to defend them. Entrepreneurs and politicians will, as they have done so far, dump all the 'pain' onto workers. Never forget that.

Darragh29

Fergus08 wrote: »

Darragh, you need to get a couple of things straight. Although I'm sure your belief that you are an entreprenuer is central to your self-esteem you need to realise that your workers NOT you are the wealth creators. Without them you'd have no business, no wealth, nothing.

Absolute rubbish. I was born as someone who naturally wants to take risks and explore opportunities where other people might not bother. It's nothing to do with my self-esteem or ego as you have implied.

I know well we need a public service, but why are we not striving to have the best public service in the world then? Because we have a mentality in this country in the public services that you have to be paid money to accommodate change. This mentality belongs back in the 1920's. Look what happened yesterday down in Airmotive!

Management: "We need to agree changes in work practices before we invest another 40 million into this facility for engine overhauls"...

Workers: "Go shove it up your arse"...

Management: "There's 400 protective notices for yiz lads, let us know how to want to proceed!"...

What in the name of Jasus are these workers thinking in the middle of a severe recession!?!?!

My point is that we have the same mentality in the public sector.

ixoy

Fergus08 - if we're to avoid sweeping generalisations about the PS/CS, could you do the same for the private sector? It was only a portion of it - namely financial and property development - that really brought us to this mess.

The PS/CS are not blameless in this either - the financial regulator's involvement was a shambles for a start and nevermind the Government and its advisors.

And of course there's degrees of culpability involved with those who purchased property - which includes both private and public sector.

As to unions protecting us all - how do you feel they're helping me for example? A strike, if implemented, would mean I couldn't get into work without having to avail of say a taxi which wouldn't be in my interest financially. What would they do for me now (without reference to anything they may have implemented in the past, that's now enshrined in law). What are they doing for their non-members and the vast majority of the private sector who did not cause any of this?

Fergus08

Darragh - whether you think what I said is rubbish not, withour your workers you, and every other business, have nothing. That's a fact that can't be refuted.

The workers have good reason to reject the proposals. What, you just do what you're told by the management. Do you think, maybe just maybe, Lufthansa are using the recession as an excuse to undermine terms and conditions?? It does happen. What's Airmotive's profitability, now? How do we know that the really need to implement this restructuring?? Have you checked, have the papers checked. No, probably not, too business dreaming up crap stories about high paid public servants while absolutely refusing to put the private sector under any scrutiny. From what I can the unions are trying to get the workers to re-consider their decision? How does a union-bashed square that?

Ixoxy - you are where you are now because of what unions have fought for in the past. Business didn't just dream up the eight hour day, the trade union movement fought for it and trade unionists died for it. Business didn't dream up paid holidays, trade unions and the labour fought for them. Business didn't dream up sick pay, redundancy payment or health and safety regulations, again the unions did and they're the ONLY institution who'll ensure that they things stay in place.

Unions are far from perfect, but the alternative is a business dominated society.... where business dictates what you do and dominates every aspect of your life, sort of like communism without the job security. We're going in that direction....

If unions disappeared overnight you'd have a lot more to worry about than taking a taxi once in a while because of a strike. No unions= 5.5 day or 6 day week; no unions=no paid holidays or no holidays at all (why should business pay for your leisure??); no unions=no sick pay; no unions=hire and fire at will. The possibilities are endless.

Not all are workers are members of unsions, but unions represent all workers. Or, maybe IBEC, ISME or the SFA represent the hundreds of thousands of lower paid private sector works. Eh, no, I don't think so. Where would these workers be now if the unions did not negotiate for them to be outside the tax net during partnership?? They might not be members of unions but they benefit from unions influence.

Regarding the financial regulator. Yes, a shambles. But what do we expect when someone from the private sector is appointed to regulate the private sector?? The regulator should be a career civil servant who has the state's interests foremost in his mind, not his golf chums from banks. That's why regulation failed.

jimmmy

Fergus08 wrote: »

Entrepreneurs and politicians will, as they have done so far, dump all the 'pain' onto workers. Never forget that.

Another sweeping generalisation, but not in the same league as your claim " entrepreneurs in this state are too stupid and lazy to do any kind of worthwhile economic activity. "

Its hard to take you seriously Fergus08 ; if that is your mentality then I feel sorry for you. For the record, not all " Entrepreneurs will, as they have done so far, dump all the 'pain' onto workers." I know quite a few entrepreneurs who are not earning any money at all : I know some who have lost their SSIA money and savings and I know some who are bankrupt. Most - even in the good times - simply do and did not have the same standard of living / earn the same hourly rate as the average public service worker, on their average of 966 p.w. + holidays paid, plus sickies paid for plus subsidised pension , short working week, flexitime, etc. Sure they deserve no better, as you say " entrepreneurs in this state are too stupid and lazy to do any kind of worthwhile economic activity. "

K-9

Fergus08 wrote: »

K-9 - you've nothing constructive to contribute to this debate. Spouting simplistic, cliched, easily refutable nonsense about the public sector is a sad way to spend your time.

Huh, Go check your facts and stand over that.

As for your points on accountants, you do realise our Govt. facilitates tax avoidance and actively encourages it?

K-9

Fergus08 wrote: »

Where would these workers be now if the unions did not negotiate for them to be outside the tax net during partnership??

Exactly, populist nonsense that should never have happened. People on minimum wage moaning about Health Services, that don't pay PRSI. Madness. In NI, you'd pay €25 NIC alone on that wage, never mind tax.

mathie

djpbarry wrote: »

I see you’re new to the public servant-bashing game.

Ah yes what are the rules again.
Public sector bad private sector good?

This game sucks. Lets play Hungry, Hungry Hippos.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Its hard to take you seriously

Quote of the Week:pac:

ixoy

Hold on: The public sector isn't responsible for any of this? Even the financial regulator doesn't represent bad public service because of its head's previous career?

As to what unions got us - sure, there's some merit in what they got in the past. I don't believe these things would vanish overnight though as they're now enacted in law (holiday leave for example). And they brought uneveness into jobs - so the CS has a working day of 6hr57mins whereas many would have more. Thus they looked after some workers but not all. So if, for example, the union forced a u-turn on the pension levy that would, in turn, mean a cut elsewhere or increased taxes for all.
Also given the low uptake in union membership in the private sector (28% I seem to recall) versus public sector (80% or thereabouts), do you honestly believe that they would not have a more vested interested in the public than the private sector as that's where the majority of their members reside?

With respect to Lufthansa, there's an interesting thread over on 'After Hours' with posts from workers who wanted to approve the changes and who are angry over how the union represented them. It's quite an eye opener and doesn't appear to put the union there in a good light.

Fergus08

K-9: I'm well aware that the state allows and facilitates tax avoidance. My point is that in these times to engage in tax avoidance is to undermine the public finances further. We don't have onerous capital taxes here, the wealthy don't have to engage in tax avoidance, they choose to. What that says about them and the professions associated with tax avoidance when then state is under severe fiscal strain should be clear.

Jimmmy - I retracted my statement about entrepreneurs all being lazy and stupid. That was a stupid comment on my part. But you haven't come back, no-one has, with a response to my argument that the public sector, and the public sector, are investing in the research and development that will underpin the smart economy. Nor has anyone acknowledged the role state agencies and public sectors who staff them play in facilitating entrepreneurs. Just more of the same old, same old bitching and whinging about the public sector.

Point out to me one large scale privately funded research and develop project that isn't a multinational in this state??? They don't exist!! Because our 'entrepreneurs' were too buying property and not investing in technologies that will actual sustain economic growth.

K-9 and Jimmmy - if you can provide examples to refute the above I won't contribute again.

K-9

ixoy wrote: »

The unions aren't striking? Eh the unions were threatening to strike until they got their way and were invited back into social partnership talks where they can go and represent certain interest groups only.

I think they (that is the leadership on the big wages) threw a tantrum over the levy. They seriously miscalculated the support they had and came back with the tail between their legs.

K-9

Fergus08 wrote: »

K-9: I'm well aware that the state allows and facilitates tax avoidance. My point is that in these times to engage in tax avoidance is to undermine the public finances further. We don't have onerous capital taxes here, the wealthy don't have to engage in tax avoidance, they choose to. What that says about them and the professions associated with tax avoidance when then state is under severe fiscal strain should be clear.

Totally missed my point. You know we are considered a tax haven by Obama?

P. Breathnach

Darragh29 wrote: »

... Look what happened yesterday down in Airmotive!

Management: "We need to agree changes in work practices before we invest another 40 million into this facility for engine overhauls"...

Workers: "Go shove it up your arse"...

Management: "There's 400 protective notices for yiz lads, let us know how to want to proceed!"...

What in the name of Jasus are these workers thinking in the middle of a severe recession!?!?!

My point is that we have the same mentality in the public sector.

Now you use a problem in the private sector to support your attacks on the public sector. Jeez.

K-9

Fergus08 wrote: »

Point out to me one large scale privately funded research and develop project that isn't a multinational in this state??? They don't exist!! Because our 'entrepreneurs' were too buying property and not investing in technologies that will actual sustain economic growth.

K-9 and Jimmmy - if you can provide examples to refute the above I won't contribute again.

Do Irish Multinationals count?

Fergus08

Irish multinationals do count, yes. But only if you can prove that they have never had any involvement whatsoever with state agencies and the public sector workers who staff them. Or that have never availed of a tax break, a state grant, a state backed export guarantee, a state trade mission, state assistance in an export market. Who don't employ researchers who were educated in state universities at the expense of the state. That is, that have relied purely on private funding from their initial business ideas to bringing their products to the markets. Who have made a point of eschewing all support from the state. If you can demonstrate all of the above, then yes, certainly, Irish multinationals count.

I don't get your point about Obama? Yeah, we're a tax haven and we thought that with an oul nod-and-a-wink and a "how's your father" we'd fool the state authorities of proper economies like the US and Germany. We'll reap a bitter harvest for the IFSC. But you haven't addressed my point. Why if it's economic sabotage, as the Irish Times put it, for unions to strike, is it not also economic sabotage to indulge in tax avoidance at this critical time in the state's history??

As regards union membership density. The unions, to their eternal shame, were totally uninterested in recruiting in large part of the private sector. And, also, a "non-threatening" union environment was a big selling point for the IDA in the past.... As well as they when times are good lots of people think "sure, we don't need old-fashioned unions". But when times get bad, like now.... well ideas on unions change.....