"Public servants to receive pay hikes worth €250m"

Lu Tze

stevoman wrote:

i have tonnes of job satisfaction, in fact i love my job. its the career i knew i wanted to do from when i was in school.

challenges? lots of them everyday.

responsibilty? loads, and that also gives me great job satisfaction.

Riskymove wrote: »

sigh!

just because someone is in the Public Sector does not mean they have unstatisfying, unchallenging jobs with no responsibility:rolleyes:

Apologies, i didn't mean to imply that Riskymove!

Stevoman, fairplay to you for finding what you wanted to at 18 odd years old. Most people i know haven't decided on a set career by thirty.

grahamo

Sleepy wrote: »

grahamo - if an employer can't afford their employees services you have to accept that either or both of the following must take place until the services can be afforded (or revenues improve to the point where the difference between income and expenditure is met - and this isn't an option open to your employer at the moment)
some of the workforce are going to be made redundant
all of the workforce is going to be taking a pay-cut

I can accept it. What I can't accept is people waiting around like vultures for it to happen and then gloating once it has. Then there's the people pointing the finger and blaming everyone else for their troubles:rolleyes:

jmayo

grahamo wrote: »

You are being far too harsh on yourself. Its all the fault of those gits in the public sector. They all have yachts and holiday homes and their pensions are like Manchester City.....MASSIVE! ....and its just not fair! :D

Perhaps I can trade one of my M5's for one of their yatchs, although I don't like sailing I'd be willing to suffer a yatch in Dun Laoghaire harbour :mad:

Riskymove

Lu Tze wrote: »

Apologies, i didn't mean to imply that Riskymove!

fair enough

astrofool

Fergus08 wrote: »

Well the 10-20% pay-cuts are a bit of an urban myth, at this stage. Sure, in the construction sector huge pay cuts are the order of the day and job losses as well. But in other parts of the private sector it's not as bad as is being made out.

From a quick perusal of the Industrial Relations News site we see pay cuts of 7% in Aer Arann http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14593&issueType=1 and cuts of 2.5% in Bulmers http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14587&issueType=1

The independent Labour Court is rejecting spurious attempts to get out of paying social partnership in the private sector, as in Hoyer http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14205&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

And some sectors of the private sector are paying partnership increases http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14197&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14383&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

Contrast this with ALL public sector workers having to take a pay cut, without exception.

As you are finding out, working for the public sector where you have collective agreements, and are relying on income from the private sector, means that when, say, the construction sector has huge job losses, the public sector's pay will get negatively effected, as your income is down significantly. This is even if every other sector is fine and dandy (which it is not).

Of course, if the PS was willing to follow the private sector in this regards, then you could get rid of the equivelant percentage of PS workers (didn't construction represent 15% or so?), and then you don't have to worry about your collective salary decreasing.

Fergus08

astrofool wrote: »

As you are finding out, working for the public sector where you have collective agreements, and are relying on income from the private sector, means that when, say, the construction sector has huge job losses, the public sector's pay will get negatively effected, as your income is down significantly. This is even if every other sector is fine and dandy (which it is not).

Of course, if the PS was willing to follow the private sector in this regards, then you could get rid of the equivelant percentage of PS workers (didn't construction represent 15% or so?), and then you don't have to worry about your collective salary decreasing.

Sorry, but I don't follow your point is here? I'm not trying to be smart, either!

However, you do raise an interesting point about the public sector being dependent on the private sector. Well from my vantage point it looks like the other way round as almost our entire non-salary budget goes to the private sector. It's a rather more, indeed much more, complicated relationship than simply the public sector relies on the private sector. The private sector could not function without the public sector. And, I think we'll see, the cuts being made to public expenditure will have a significant on the private sector and will cost more in the long term than maintaining reasonably high levels of public expenditure in the current climate.

drunkdaz

kippy wrote: »

FOR THE LAST TIME.
You'd think that only Private sector employees paid PAYE or Taxes.
We're all PAYE workers my friend, private and public. I dont like seeing my taxes go to waste either, but they have been for so many years. Whether it be to prop up a property markey or to provide tax shelters for the rich or pay for a top heavy HSE or pay for the wastage of millions on Evoting, (Insert generic wast of money here)

You don't seem to realise the inherent difference between a public sector worker paying tax and a private sector worker paying tax. When someone in the private sector pays tax the amount in the "tax pot" actually increases, whereas when a public sector worker pays tax they are just taking less from the pot, as their initial gross wage is all paid for by those in the private sector. That leaves us with more to spend and hence less to borrow. And hence maybe a little bit less tax for your kids to pay in the future as they try to pay off the mountains of debt being produced daily to cover the increasing public sector wage bill.

Conor OH! wrote: »

it all comes down to jealousy that people have in the private sector, now that THEY have f**ed everything up for everyone and need someone to blame. as they say, it's always easier to blame someone else.

Sigh. When you hear trash like this you realise how deep in trouble we really are...
Question, if it was the private sector who got us into this mess (:rolleyes:), is the public sector going to get us out of it????

Gumbo

drunkdaz wrote: »

You don't seem to realise the inherent difference between a public sector worker paying tax and a private sector worker paying tax. When someone in the private sector pays tax the amount in the "tax pot" actually increases, whereas when a public sector worker pays tax they are just taking less from the pot, as their initial gross wage is all paid for by those in the private sector. That leaves us with more to spend and hence less to borrow. And hence maybe a little bit less tax for your kids to pay in the future as they try to pay off the mountains of debt being produced daily to cover the increasing public sector wage bill.



Sigh. When you hear trash like this you realise how deep in trouble we really are...
Question, if it was the private sector who got us into this mess (:rolleyes:), is the public sector going to get us out of it????

you dont seem to understand that the public sector is a service too, lets say we get a private company in to design all the public exhibitions in dublin city council for example, they the government pot will be paying these people to do the job.

but if a Public servant that works in the drawing office, which i do does the work, do i not deserve to be paid for it?

techdiver

stevoman wrote: »

well if thats the case in hindsight its very foolish for anyone to bother getting a third level qualification in IT if the starting slary is only 20-25k when you can do better in the civil service. im glad i dropped out now!

It's more a sign that some positions in the PS are over paid for their skill level. A non-killed PS worker should not earn the same, never mind more than a qualified skilled worker, this is partly the reason why we got into this mess because of this socialist ideal peddled by Bertie over the last decade.

Lu Tze

Fergus08 wrote: »

Well from my vantage point it looks like the other way round as almost our entire non-salary budget goes to the private sector

This is true. However pretty much the entire capital spend budget has been axed by the governemnt at this stage, which is why most of the big consulting engineering firms have dropped 40-50% of their staff. I don't think there is much more that can be cut.

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

There are going to be lots of people leaving under the early retirement scheme

lots of contract staff will not be renewed

others will be taking sabbaticals or the new reduced working year initiative

no new guards, teachers etc

everyone else will be paying the levy

The point I was making was that even after these measures have been taken (and lets face it, early retirement schemes, sabbaticals and reduced working years which are all to be carried out on a voluntary basis are pretty rosy scenarios from the vantage point of those made redundant receiving statutory minimums), the government still cannot afford it's wage bill. I take no pleasure from watching someone lose their job but facts are facts - we cannot afford such a large public sector.

Fergus08 wrote: »

Well the 10-20% pay-cuts are a bit of an urban myth, at this stage. Sure, in the construction sector huge pay cuts are the order of the day and job losses as well. But in other parts of the private sector it's not as bad as is being made out.

Really? I've personally taken a 20% pay cut and know plenty of people who've been hit with pay cuts of 10% or higher. You don't hear so much about most of them in the papers though because most of us receiving these pay cuts are living in the real world where unions aren't allowed to bully companies into receivership. Factor in the large numbers of people receiving an 100% pay cut (see the live register for exact figures) and I can assure you the average private sector worker is suffering far more than the public sector workers who are so vocal about the burden of the pension levy.

From a quick perusal of the Industrial Relations News site we see pay cuts of 7% in Aer Arann http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14593&issueType=1 and cuts of 2.5% in Bulmers http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14587&issueType=1

The independent Labour Court is rejecting spurious attempts to get out of paying social partnership in the private sector, as in Hoyer http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14205&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

And some sectors of the private sector are paying partnership increases http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14197&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016
Those l

http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14383&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

Contrast this with ALL public sector workers having to take a pay cut, without exception.

I'm not registered so can't read the articles you've linked to, I would be curious to know what percentage of the private sector would even factor in such articles though. Union membership in Ireland has been declining steadily and was reported at just 31.5% of the workforce in 1997 (http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/qnhsunionmembership.pdf). How much of this 31.5% comprised of public sector or former public sector companies isn't detailed in the report but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the majority of that percentage.

I honestly don't have an axe to grind here. I know lots of good people who work for the state in various diferrent guises and have professional experience of quite a few government departments, authorities and many of the quangos. Both the people and the organisations vary enormously in terms of value for money to the tax-payer. It'd be great if we could afford such a large public service. It'd be even better if we could afford a large public sector with a culture of promotion based on performance rather than politics and collective bargaining was thrown out with the unions - the cream rises to the top and the clock-punchers go out the door.

The fact is, we can't afford a large public sector that are paid more than their private sector counterparts and that some sections of the public sector we have are so heavily unionised that the tail is being allowed to wag the dog while whinging at the weight of it.

drunkdaz

kceire wrote: »

you dont seem to understand that the public sector is a service too, lets say we get a private company in to design all the public exhibitions in dublin city council for example, they the government pot will be paying these people to do the job.

but if a Public servant that works in the drawing office, which i do does the work, do i not deserve to be paid for it?

I didn't claim that the public service doesn't carry out many valuable functions, I'm pointing out where the cash for these comes. Those supporting the PS resistance to cuts need to realise what side their bread is buttered on.

astrofool

Fergus08 wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't follow your point is here? I'm not trying to be smart, either!

However, you do raise an interesting point about the public sector being dependent on the private sector. Well from my vantage point it looks like the other way round as almost our entire non-salary budget goes to the private sector. It's a rather more, indeed much more, complicated relationship than simply the public sector relies on the private sector. The private sector could not function without the public sector. And, I think we'll see, the cuts being made to public expenditure will have a significant on the private sector and will cost more in the long term than maintaining reasonably high levels of public expenditure in the current climate.

I think the point is that the country could function perfectly well with a much reduced public sector, but the public sector cannot function with a much reduced private sector. (In theory, if the public sector wasn't there, the private sector would move to fill the gap anyway, but you'll always need someone to "socialise" the country )

kippy

drunkdaz wrote: »

You don't seem to realise the inherent difference between a public sector worker paying tax and a private sector worker paying tax. When someone in the private sector pays tax the amount in the "tax pot" actually increases, whereas when a public sector worker pays tax they are just taking less from the pot, as their initial gross wage is all paid for by those in the private sector. That leaves us with more to spend and hence less to borrow. And hence maybe a little bit less tax for your kids to pay in the future as they try to pay off the mountains of debt being produced daily to cover the increasing public sector wage bill.



Sigh. When you hear trash like this you realise how deep in trouble we really are...
Question, if it was the private sector who got us into this mess (:rolleyes:), is the public sector going to get us out of it????

No offence drunkdaz, but I understand the workings of the tax system.
However, the way in which public servants have been portrayed in this and other posts, you could be led to believe that they do not pay tax or other income related payments that those in the private sector pay. It has to be highlighted that they do pay tax the same as all other workers at that level.
The "increasing" public sector wage bill has been decreasing for the past few months now, or hadnt you noticed? Both through a pension levy, and also through the shared pain of taxation/PRSI increases. (obviously the private sector gets hit with this as well but the NET worth to the exchequer is that public wage bill is lowered and tax take is increased. Its not nearly enough to be fair and I realise that.

In the last budget there was NOWHERE near enough, if ANY, measures to stimulate private industry and cut the costs of RUNNING the public sector. (AS an aside does anyone have the figures for the actual RUNNING costs of the Public sector OUTSIDE of wages and also the amount of Money paid by Public sector bodies to Private sector suppliers of services)
One thing which has happened recently which I had been advocating in other threads is the possible investment of Public and Private pensions funds into major infrastructure projects. This should have been done years ago and instead of the NTRA we could have a pensions funded infrastructure.

Lu Tze

kippy wrote: »

In the last budget there was NOWHERE near enough, if ANY, measures to stimulate private industry and cut the costs of RUNNING the public sector. (AS an aside does anyone have the figures for the actual RUNNING costs of the Public sector OUTSIDE of wages and also the amount of Money paid by Public sector bodies to Private sector suppliers of services)

I don't have the figures for this, however the government has said that all existing consultant services have to drop their fee by 8%. Which is probably higher than their profit on turnover, and correct me if am wrong, but i presume this is illegal as well!

There is quite a lot of consultant work provided, and in some cases the PS has more than enough experience to do it in house.

ixoy

Lu Tze wrote: »

I don't have the figures for this, however the government has said that all existing consultant services have to drop their fee by 8%. Which is probably higher than their profit on turnover, and correct me if am wrong, but i presume this is illegal as well!

I think all contractors are being squeezed on their bottom line - in both the private and public sector. It's definitely the case with private sector firms working with the public sector and yes, those private sector firms are forced to work out how they can deal with these cuts so public sector budget cuts do affect private sector people directly (such as, for example - me).

There is quite a lot of consultant work provided, and in some cases the PS has more than enough experience to do it in house.

Correct. I also believe in many cases they could have got in the expertise as part of an overhaul of the system but they were happy to pay consultant fees. In other cases though an outside firm is still the best approach to take as it allows you to reduce numbers once projects are implemented, which is far more difficult if they're direct government employees.

I'm still of the opinion the pay increments should be re-frozen or indeed benchmarking introduced against the new private sector lower wages (which is still primarily anecdotal evidence).

I'd love to see major PS/CS reform - something many here would agree with - but I'm afraid we're in for the sledgehammer approach now of slashing wages and numbers and the end result will be that nobody wins. Any schadenfreude some private sector workers might feel may come back to haunt them because, let's face it, can we trust this shower of morons in power to make the right decisions for 340k people and the 4 million they, in principle, serve?

kippy

Lu Tze wrote: »

I don't have the figures for this, however the government has said that all existing consultant services have to drop their fee by 8%. Which is probably higher than their profit on turnover, and correct me if am wrong, but i presume this is illegal as well!

There is quite a lot of consultant work provided, and in some cases the PS has more than enough experience to do it in house.

Its the government trying to get a better deal for the taxpayer on the costs of running the public service.

I totally agree with your last statement. There's GENERALLY enough experience and skills to do a lot of this work in house but like as in the top echelons of public life the "no one wants to take the blame if it goes t1ts up" culture is evident at all levels. Also, I spoke before about the poor system increments are, it is increments that put people off taking on this type of work (why do something over and above your job spec when you get no recognition for doing it?
Also, one must remember the willy nilly approach by those that made the decisions on the implmentation of certain private sector consultants reports (PPARS, evoting and many more were unjust wastes of tax payers money for example)

Also, a lot of the misconceptions that Public sector workers have about wages in the private sector comes from their dealings with Private sector Consultants. (ie the private sector consultants get massive day rates-which is not representative of that worker in general in the sector)
Kippy

Lu Tze

kippy wrote: »

ie the private sector consultants get massive day rates-which is not representative of that worker in general in the sector

Well i'm not sure what consultants you are refereing to, but mostly the rate you see could well be 4 times the salary of the person, as the overheads from office, admin staff etc have to be factored in to the rates.

I can see how the assumption might go though!

kippy

Lu Tze wrote: »

Well i'm not sure what consultants you are refereing to, but mostly the rate you see could well be 4 times the salary of the person, as the overheads from office, admin staff etc have to be factored in to the rates.

I can see how the assumption might go though!

Ah yeah I realise that..........I was one myself in the private sector for a while.
The general area I am talking about is I.T, and there is a notion within IT in the PS that all IT workers in the private sector get paid close to consultants wages. Too long in the Public sector with little exposure to private sector work is the main reason for this I reckon.

ednwireland

ixoy wrote: »

ctor lower wages (which is still primarily anecdotal evidence).

I'd love to see major PS/CS reform - something many here would agree with - but I'm afraid we're in for the sledgehammer approach now of slashing wages and numbers and the end result will be that nobody wins. Any schadenfreude some private sector workers might feel may come back to haunt them because, let's face it, can we trust this shower of morons in power to make the right decisions for 340k people and the 4 million they, in principle, serve?

+1 and it will be front line service staff are cut because the efficiencies and reform that is needed was not done in the last few years (despite being promised every 5 mins by the gov. hse for one but there are a lot of other examples )

ceret

TheCityManager wrote: »

Ah yes another PS bashing thread....

PS workers may indeed have job security and a pension when they retire but these two benefits do not pay the bills NOW..reducing pay packets affect all equally....we are all in this together...

Let me give you an example which all shoudl consider before further PS bashing...

Quite a few years ago I was friends with two lads, one a plumber one a carpenter...both working in the private sector for contractors

The plumber (let's call him Tom..) decided to apply for and take a plumbing job with a local authority (for job security etc..) Now the carpenter (let's call him Brian..) laughed and sneered at Tom endlessly as Tom accepted a modest wage (in return for his job security..)
Brian got caught up in the celtic Tiger, earning vast sums, buying jeeps, buying beer for all, going on exotic holidays...no such high living for Tom who got by on his average wage...

Eventually the recession landed, Brian lost his job, along with his high lifestyle, jeeps and houses.. Tom continued on in his public sector job, his salary further reduced by pension levies etc.

Now that Brian can no longer find work his continually points the finger now at Tom, slags him and his colleagues off and calls for Tom to take further pay cuts .......

But......the moral of the story?
We all make choices in life ..Tom chose the secure average paid employment in the PS whilst Brian decided on 'taking a chance' on the lavish lifestyle of the celtic tiger...

Brian could have joined the PS but chose not to and instead earned a vast salary for years....

How unfair is it now for Brian to turn on Tom?
Brian made his choice..he should shut up and put up....:mad:

The problem is that Tom's unions, upon seeing Brian's wages, then started demanding Brian's wages while keeping all of Tom's benefits (pension, unfireability, etc), under the guise of fairness and equality. Now that Brian's conditions have started nosediving, Tom's unions are stubberly claiming that that's the agreement and it would be unfair to change it.

Firetrap

Well, why shouldn't Tom's union fight for better conditions for its members? That is what they're there for. It's the government who's at fault for giving in to the demands. It should be pointed out as well that because wages in the construction industry shot up along with house prices, public sector workers (along with everyone else) needed higher wages in order to buy somewhere to live. If house prices and building levels hadn't gone insane, none of us would be in this stew.

Dob74

Firetrap wrote: »

Well, why shouldn't Tom's union fight for better conditions for its members? That is what they're there for. It's the government who's at fault for giving in to the demands. It should be pointed out as well that because wages in the construction industry shot up along with house prices, public sector workers (along with everyone else) needed higher wages in order to buy somewhere to live. If house prices and building levels hadn't gone insane, none of us would be in this stew.

Wages in construction did not shot up with house prices. They stayed in line with inflation.

techdiver

Firetrap wrote: »

Well, why shouldn't Tom's union fight for better conditions for its members? That is what they're there for. It's the government who's at fault for giving in to the demands. It should be pointed out as well that because wages in the construction industry shot up along with house prices, public sector workers (along with everyone else) needed higher wages in order to buy somewhere to live. If house prices and building levels hadn't gone insane, none of us would be in this stew.

Wrong. it was the other way around. The increase in wages contributed to the increase in demand. House prices can only rise if people are willing to pay for them. Increased wages coupled with reckless lending fed the bubble.

Firetrap

One fed the other. Need to buy houses = need for more wages. Higher wages = costlier houses. Of course the banks didn't help by handing out mortgages to anyone with a pulse.

ceret

Firetrap wrote: »

It's the government who's at fault for giving in to the demands. It should be pointed out as well that because wages in the construction industry shot up along with house prices

Yes Tom's union should try to get the best deal it can. But to say that they are blameless and it's the government's fault for giving into them is childish. The blame should be fairly distributed between the government for agreeing to the deal and the unions who went on strike to get more money.

public sector workers (along with everyone else) needed higher wages in order to buy somewhere to live.

So now that prices are coming down, 'deflation', that means that public sector wages should come down? My salary was cut.