Only 19 out of 148 of the country's judges take a pay cut.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Sorry if there's a thread on this, can't find one.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0619/judges.htm

19 judges take voluntary pay cut
Friday, 19 June 2009 22:33
Figures released by the Revenue Commissioners show that 19 of the country's 148 judges have volunteered to take a pay cut.

The payments amount to just over €60,000.

In addition, commitments via standing orders, which amount to €14,500 per month, have been given.

AdvertisementEarlier this year, the judiciary came under criticism when it emerged that it would be excluded on constitutional grounds from the Government's public service pension levy.

However, some experts argued that the judges could have been included in the levy.

In April, Chief Justice John Murray finalised arrangements with the Revenue Commissioners, whereby judges could make a voluntary contribution from their pay back to the state.

The exact details of the individual payments are to be kept confidential.

The Revenue Commissioners said today that as the payments are voluntary and can be made in respect of varying periods of time, there is no specific dates by which they must be made.

Judges earn between €170,000 and €290,000 per year.

l

I think this really is an absolute disgusting scandal. One law for the rich and one for the rest etc. Right, fine there's some sort of legal knot in the constitution or whatever but the bottom line is that people who earn over €100k are exempt from this new tax.

The story might seem a bit tabloid but it kind of writes itself surely. Is there a political will anywhere to take the judges on ? The amount that has been paid , €60000, divided between 19 people on these high salaries just seems like peanuts.

j1smithy

Would you give away part of your salary if you didn't have to? (Be honest!)

Red Sleeping Beauty

You're missing the point. These judges are supposed to be the moral cornerstone of society, or are they? They're supposed to be of great esteemed credibility (which is why it's such a great story if there's a judge's computer with porn found on it!) and out of the 148 of them , only 19 have said "alright, here ye are, I'll take the cut".

nesf

It's voluntary and they're human. They'll be hit with all the extra taxes that have come in so long as they effect everyone equally (i.e. they only escape from public sector specific cuts).

I can see why people would like for them to give up money but a) it's hard to blame someone not volunteering to take a pay cut and b) it's a drop in the fecking ocean in terms of real effects since pay for judges makes up an almost insignificant percentage of total Government spending.

This is the definition of storm in a teacup.

For a start, pretty much all of them took a fairly hefty pay cut when they became judges. Also nobody can reduce the salary of a sitting judge for extremely good legal reasons. This feels like an attempt to shift the story away from all the Ministers who refused to take a pension reduction to be honest.

I didn't realise that when you refused to take a voluntary pay cut that meant that you lost all moral authority. That's a rather interesting concept really.

Fulton Crown

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the definition of storm in a teacup.

For a start, pretty much all of them took a fairly hefty pay cut when they became judges. Also nobody can reduce the salary of a sitting judge for extremely good legal reasons. This feels like an attempt to shift the story away from all the Ministers who refused to take a pension reduction to be honest.

I didn't realise that when you refused to take a voluntary pay cut that meant that you lost all moral authority. That's a rather interesting concept really.

Slightly broader here I think than Judiciary taking a pay cut.

We constantly hear the phrase "We must all pull together" or "Share the burden"

The private sector have taken the hit in terms of job losses an short time working - the public sector in terms of the pension levies for those generous and very expensive pensions.

The Judges as a well paid cohort in secure employment are being asked to do their bit - share the burden as it were.

Essentially reports indicate that most are giving the two fingers to any burden sharing an saying "I'm all right jack"

But why are we surprised given the greed displayed by our "captains of Industry recently ??

All against the background of continued staggering incompetence by our public service bigwigs and failure by media to weed these clowns out and give them the P 45.

No no --- it's huge severance pay and obscene pension deals for a bunch of incompetent tossers.

Would you blame our judges hey ...when they see this.....

Red Sleeping Beauty

Please don't turn this into a public vs private. I had enough of that in 4Th year with Brian Friel's Gone to Philadelphia.

But, there is a point in that the pay cut/tax was forced on the public sector workers and when they voice their concerns/say no/have a protest/lose the biscuit (and bottle) then they're blasted "ah feckin **** with their secure jobs , take the bloody pain, I've lost me job I've been doin for years and no one's hiring brickies :mad:"

But when judges (esteemed members of the upper echelon of the system) don't take the cut it's "oh they're human". It'll be interesting to see if they can be forced to take the cut, or just have it taken from them and what legal powers/arguments they'll use

Dr Galen

wasn't there something recently, that it's not within the law to decrease a sitting judges salary? can't remember where I read it, but I definitely did.

edit: found something anyway from The Trib

Judicial salaries in Ireland cannot be adjusted by the government but judges have made arrangements that they can take an anonymous pay cut in response to the deterioration in exchequer figures.

The judiciary have been under severe pressure to take a pay cut after the government was forced to exempt them from the pension levy because of constitutional constraints.

In announcing the voluntary scheme earlier this month, chief justice John Murray said: "Given the economic crisis, which has led to the introduction of the pension levy and its general application to those entitled to pensions from the state, it is considered that members of the judiciary should be facilitated in making such a voluntary payment.

"It must remain constitutionally a matter for each individual judge to decide whether he or she will voluntarily make the contribution in question.

"In order to respect the independence of the judiciary, the individual arrangements between a judge and the Revenue Commissioners for the making of such payments will be confidential."

Alan Rouge

Alan Rouge wrote: »

But when judges (esteemed members of the upper echelon of the system) don't take the cut it's "oh they're human". It'll be interesting to see if they can be forced to take the cut, or just have it taken from them and what legal powers/arguments they'll use

Look, genuinely, NONE of this matters.

There are no legal arguments. I don't know why Chief Justice Murray said what he did but it is a settled legal point that taxes and levies which are not specifically targeted at judges will affect judges equally with all other classes of persons within the State.

In O'Byrne v Minister for Finance Justice Kingsmill Moore stated the following;

"The object [of the constitutional article 35.5] was to secure the independence of the judges and the impartial administration of justice. The legislation was for the protection of the people, not for the interests of the judges. A judge who was subject to removal or to have his salary reduced would be under temptation to be subservient to the wishes of those in whose power it was to ensure his removal or reduce his salary. Any discrimination by tax or otherwise against a judge or judges as a body, having the effect of reducing his or their salary would be equally objectionable. But I fail to see how a tax which is non-discriminatory against judges can assail the judicial independence … It is an unfortunate vicissitude of life from which the judiciary cannot claim to be immune."


David Gwyn Morgan, commenting on the Sunday Times article which raised this issue in February of this year, argues that there is no legal reason for the judges to be exempt from this measure. In fact it is somewhat unusual that, in the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the pensions levy bill, the President and judges were specifically listed as probable exemptions on constitutional grounds as any legal expert would have known O'Byrne applies here.


EDIT: Just to note 2 quick things.

1. They CANNOT be forced to do anything.
2. If this goes to court they will have to adjudicate on this themselves and, just as they did before, they will be forced to rule against their own personal interests in following O'Byrne

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

It's voluntary and they're human. They'll be hit with all the extra taxes that have come in so long as they effect everyone equally (i.e. they only escape from public sector specific cuts).

I can see why people would like for them to give up money but a) it's hard to blame someone not volunteering to take a pay cut and b) it's a drop in the fecking ocean in terms of real effects since pay for judges makes up an almost insignificant percentage of total Government spending.

I f***ing hate excuse that sure "it's only a drop in the ocean", in the grand scheme of things it is insignificant :mad::mad::mad:

All the bloody little drops make up the ocean and all the million here there and everywhere could often be better spent.
How many million does it take to reintroduce the cancer vacinne for girls ?

If you are running your household or small business, do you ignore the 5 euro a week spent on something, because you need 500 euro more to stay afloat.
Do you fe*k, you look at it and you see if it can be cut and used to make up the shortfall elsewhere.

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Slightly broader here I think than Judiciary taking a pay cut.

We constantly hear the phrase "We must all pull together" or "Share the burden"
...
All against the background of continued staggering incompetence by our public service bigwigs and failure by media to weed these clowns out and give them the P 45.

No no --- it's huge severance pay and obscene pension deals for a bunch of incompetent tossers.

Would you blame our judges hey ...when they see this.....

Why is it a failure by the media ???
The media highlighted enough wrongdoing in this country, but it is ignored by the voters, firstly because the voters were doing alright jack and didn't give a sh** that money was being wsted and second because some of them love a cute hoor fleecing this mytical system.
Why else would bertie, lowry, bev and "the stroke" Fahy be reelected ?
If we don't punish our leaders for incompetence and wastage it propogates the mentality that lack of responsibility is ok.

The public service "bigwigs" just see the ethos from their political masters.
It is an ethos where you dig your feet in, refuse to admit responsisbility and make sure you get big payout if you are going.
Added to that it is very hard to fire anyone in the public sector, no matter how bad they have or are performing :rolleyes:

Zynks

j1smithy wrote: »

Would you give away part of your salary if you didn't have to? (Be honest!)

I am personally surprised that 19 judges volunteered to take a paycut. Fairplay to them. For the others, I couldn't possibly criticize them since I probably wouldn't volunteer.

jimmmy

Alan Rouge wrote: »

You're missing the point. These judges are supposed to be the moral cornerstone of society, or are they? They're supposed to be of great esteemed credibility (which is why it's such a great story if there's a judge's computer with porn found on it!) and out of the 148 of them , only 19 have said "alright, here ye are, I'll take the cut".

All of them are way overpaid compared to other judges internationally. That is why 19 of them are so embarassed that they have taken a wage cut.

ilkhanid

I may be wrong about this, but I have heard that Irish judges have the second highest salaries in the world.

deadhead13

This and the sitting TDs' ministerial pension fiasco proves that appealing to peoples sense of public duty just doesn't work.

Fulton Crown

jmayo wrote: »

Why is it a failure by the media ???
The media highlighted enough wrongdoing in this country, but it is ignored by the voters, firstly because the voters were doing alright jack and didn't give a sh** that money was being wsted and second because some of them love a cute hoor fleecing this mytical system.
Why else would bertie, lowry, bev and "the stroke" Fahy be reelected ?
If we don't punish our leaders for incompetence and wastage it propogates the mentality that lack of responsibility is ok.

The public service "bigwigs" just see the ethos from their political masters.
It is an ethos where you dig your feet in, refuse to admit responsisbility and make sure you get big payout if you are going.
Added to that it is very hard to fire anyone in the public sector, no matter how bad they have or are performing :rolleyes:

Look horse - most countries have a core of dedicated investigative reporters both in the electronic media who uncover scandals and pursue the miscreants.

Woodward & Bernstein - for Watergate is an example.

The recent reports on MP'S expenses in the UK another - all media led.

Shane Ross would be the nearest thing in Ireland an must take the major credit for "blowing" the banking scandals.

If what you say about the public service bigwigs is true - then we are really fcuked as the barrel of apples is rotten to the core.

When i mentioned incompetence I was referring to things like Paypars / the cancer misdiagnosis / the galway water scandal / the lack of encryption on HSE laptops / the scandelous level of absenteeism is most Government departments / The Toll bridge fiasco etc etc etc.

There is a difference between merely reporting incompetence and really going after it.

The people you mention are all politicians . not public service - but i share with you re my despair as to why these clowns are re-elected and also agree your comments re cute hooorism.

Hard to fire someone in the public service ?? yes !! But why should it be ?? The power is there to change that it aint easy but it just needs the will.

I say again we have been sadly let down by our senior public servants and we are paying very dearly for it.

There is great power in the media..they just need to grow balls and use it...

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

That is why 19 of them are so embarassed that they have taken a wage cut.

Embaressed?

Link?

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

I f***ing hate excuse that sure "it's only a drop in the ocean", in the grand scheme of things it is insignificant :mad::mad::mad:

It's not an excuse it's merely an observation on how the people or at least the media and politicians can spend so much time obsessing over pennies when the problems we have are denominated in 500 euro bills. I accept your point about all the pennies adding up but we've got far bigger fish to fry right now than judges not volunteering to have pay cuts.

Fulton Crown

nesf wrote: »

It's not an excuse it's merely an observation on how the people or at least the media and politicians can spend so much time obsessing over pennies when the problems we have are denominated in 500 euro bills. I accept your point about all the pennies adding up but we've got far bigger fish to fry right now than judges not volunteering to have pay cuts.

Sure pal - let's fry them AND make sure that all population cohorts make a contribution.

Multi taskin....not mutually exclusive.....yada...yada.....yada....

is_that_so

Seeing as judges have until the end of the year to sort out their finances, this is a storm in a teacup. It's summer time and there's little else to rant about. As the Chief Justice, who arranged the deal with Revenue, pointed out, Article 35.5 prevents any reduction of a judge's salary. He also expects many judges to comply in due course. A member of the Law Reform Commission on radio also described judges as disorganised.

Riskymove

is_that_so wrote: »

Seeing as judges have until the end of the year to sort out their finances, this is a storm in a teacup. It's summer time and there's little else to rant about. As the Chief Justice, who arranged the deal with Revenue, pointed out, Article 35.5 prevents any reduction of a judge's salary. He also expects many judges to comply in due course. A member of the Law Reform Commission on radio also described judges as disorganised.

and of course its only a coincidence that this is a story that allows politicians to jump up and down and give out about others, deflecting from last weeks "disgraceful" TDs who would not give up or reduce the ministerial pension

funny how there is not much on that "big" story over last day or two

deadhead13

is_that_so wrote: »

Seeing as judges have until the end of the year to sort out their finances, this is a storm in a teacup. It's summer time and there's little else to rant about. As the Chief Justice, who arranged the deal with Revenue, pointed out, Article 35.5 prevents any reduction of a judge's salary. He also expects many judges to comply in due course. A member of the Law Reform Commission on radio also described judges as disorganised.

Article 35.5 is a means of preventing governments pressurising the judiciary and undermining their independence. To put a universal levy into this category is really stretching it.

A Charile Bird piece on Morning Ireland reported that Irish judges earn at least $130,000 more than their US equivalent. Irish judges salaries were supposed to be under review as part of remit of the Board of Higher Remuneration. We now know that cannot happen. Once again, we appear to be grossly overpaying our senior civil servants.

solice

deadhead13 wrote: »

Article 35.5 is a means of preventing governments pressurising the judiciary and undermining their independence. To put a universal levy into this category is really stretching it.

Isnt Article 35.5 designed so that one judge wont be paid more than the other which helps maintain their independence? If the levy is put in place for all judges then how is the judiciary being undermined?

ilkhanid

is_that_so wrote: »

As the Chief Justice, who arranged the deal with Revenue, pointed out, Article 35.5 prevents any reduction of a judge's salary.

I'd be surprised if the Chief justice said anything else They guard their privileges zealously. A case taken decades ago found that they had to pay income tax, although it was argued that this fell under "reduction of a judge's salary." So as long as the reduction apples to other people as well and isn't just applicable to the judiciary,a case taken to prevent the levy might fail.

jmayo

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look horse - most countries have a core of dedicated investigative reporters both in the electronic media who uncover scandals and pursue the miscreants.

No horse, it is the people who ultimately decide the fate of miscreants, corrupt polciticans, inept leaders and by correlation inept public servants.
It doesn't matter how much sh**e (based on facts) you fire at some people in this country as can be seen from bertie's re-election to taoiseach.
There was more than enough questions hanging over his behaviour that would in any other country (well maybe apart form italy) have meant resignation and very poor showing in elections.
What happens in Ireland, he gains f**king sympathy :rolleyes:

Another case in point is Stroke Fahy.
He was actaully found guilty of fraud or theift in a court of law, yet he was voted back in at the top of the poll FFS :mad::mad:

So no matter how much you bleat that our journalists and media commentators aren't doing their jobs, it matters didly squat when the people (more correctly the gombeens that vote) ignore the information in the public domain. :rolleyes:

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Woodward & Bernstein - for Watergate is an example.

The recent reports on MP'S expenses in the UK another - all media led.

Different countries, different voters :rolleyes:

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Shane Ross would be the nearest thing in Ireland an must take the major credit for "blowing" the banking scandals.

Shane Ross is one of the most excellent public voices we have in this country, exposing shady little deals and corporate culture in the likes of Goodbodies, AIB, Anglo, Smurfits, etc etc.
He is the only reaosn Seanad should exist.
Check out his Dáil committee questioning of AIB executives concerning whistlblower auditor and Nevis/Goodbodies affair. He tore them a new asshol*.

Fulton Crown wrote: »

If what you say about the public service bigwigs is true - then we are really fcuked as the barrel of apples is rotten to the core.

Roddy Molloy anyone ...
Patrick Neary ?
Those epsidoes should have meant that the Dáil enacted legislation, in response to public pressure, to allow for no golden handshakes for public servants that were affectively being fired for gross negligence or wastage of publi funds.
Instead did anything happen, bar clowen and others stating that it was their entitlement ?

Fulton Crown wrote: »

When i mentioned incompetence I was referring to things like Paypars / the cancer misdiagnosis / the galway water scandal / the lack of encryption on HSE laptops / the scandelous level of absenteeism is most Government departments / The Toll bridge fiasco etc etc etc.

There is a difference between merely reporting incompetence and really going after it.

The people you mention are all politicians . not public service - but i share with you re my despair as to why these clowns are re-elected and also agree your comments re cute hooorism.

Hard to fire someone in the public service ?? yes !! But why should it be ?? The power is there to change that it aint easy but it just needs the will.

I say again we have been sadly let down by our senior public servants and we are paying very dearly for it.

There is great power in the media..they just need to grow balls and use it...

We have had enough revelations about individuals in this country, yet they remain in office be it elected office or a public servants of the state.
Until enough Irish people (voters) grow a backbone and stop pretending that we are getting one over some mytical system and that it is us ourselves that auffer the consequnces then we will forever be paying for gombeenism.

nesf wrote: »

It's not an excuse it's merely an observation on how the people or at least the media and politicians can spend so much time obsessing over pennies when the problems we have are denominated in 500 euro bills. I accept your point about all the pennies adding up but we've got far bigger fish to fry right now than judges not volunteering to have pay cuts.

We need to look at every single cent/penny at this stage and the sooner little pockets of wastage and over spending be it on bogroll, expenses or salaries the sooner we start getting our public spending in line with our exchequer returns.

deadhead13 wrote: »

...

A Charile Bird piece on Morning Ireland reported that Irish judges earn at least $130,000 more than their US equivalent. Irish judges salaries were supposed to be under review as part of remit of the Board of Higher Remuneration. We now know that cannot happen. Once again, we appear to be grossly overpaying our senior civil servants.

FFS every public servant in this country probably earns more than their equivalent elsewhere.
Dermot Early earns more than the head of the British Army and last time I checked the Irish Army/IDF are not at war anywhere.
And Chad does not effing count.

legal eagle 1

One observation I have to make on this is having sat in a courtroom in the last few weeks, I was shocked to see the judge turn up at half ten every day and be gone by four......even school hours are longer than this My view is that they as a profession should not be consider to be superior to all others!

anonymous_joe

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

One observation I have to make on this is having sat in a courtroom in the last few weeks, I was shocked to see the judge turn up at half ten every day and be gone by four......even school hours are longer than this My view is that they as a profession should not be consider to be superior to all others!

Erm, judges go into work at nine and leave at half five, like most people, then they spend their evenings writing judgements. So in fact, they work more than most.

I'm amazed that so many people have fallen for this trick, the simple truth is, the voluntary contribution doesn't need to be made until the end of the year.

Your average person hates lawyers with a passion and so the story's being spun to distract people away from the TD's expenses, pensions, etc, which they've all refused to hand back.

legal eagle 1

I didn't mean to imply that they didnt do any more work beyond the actual courtroom, I have great respect for Judges and the work they do, I just was suprised at how little courtroom time was put in by them.

Your average person hates lawyers with a passion and so the story's being spun to distract people away from the TD's expenses, pensions, etc, which they've all refused to hand back

This is very true and as a person wanting to become a lawyer I can safely say that I hate them with a passion too and most of the hatred towards them in my personal view is warranted. Yes, what the government is doing is trying to distract us with the Judges's greediness in a sense but, fact is unlike the majority of our TD'S, junior ministers etc. at least our judges do a bit of work and have an impact with the work they do.

bigstar

FFS this should not be news, the judges have until the end of the fiscal year to make their contributions. this 'deal' done by the chief justice is barely a month old give them a chance ffs.

this only came out to deflect attention from former ministers not offering back there own pensions. btw the constitution does not prevent judges from paying levies, they can pay taxes they can pay levies. the attorney general needs to re read his law reports. but sure we'll lap up a bit of judge baiting, and biffo knows it.

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

We need to look at every single cent/penny at this stage and the sooner little pockets of wastage and over spending be it on bogroll, expenses or salaries the sooner we start getting our public spending in line with our exchequer returns.

Equally when your roof is leaking you try to fix the biggest leaks first not the smallest ones because it is the former that will flood your home fastest. You know that I'm in favour of cutting spending and believe that we have to live by our means which entails serious cuts in public expenditure. I just think we need to fix the big problems first, the options that can soonest close the gap and leave the smaller stuff for later when we've the majority of spending under control again.

Dannyboy83

I don't agree with the drop in the ocean argument.

If you can't get the most obscenely paid people to take wage cuts, how are you going to justify it to the people below them?
170k represents over 5 years income for the vast majority of people in this country I'd guess and it must represent 4 to 5 years for most public servants too.
Reform has to start somewhere and it should be at the top and ripple down.

Based on the judges alone, yes - its just a drop.
But across the public service, it has bigger consequences and could have gotten the reform ball rolling a little. perhaps.

Fulton Crown

[

jmayo wrote: »

No horse, it is the people who ultimately decide the fate of miscreants, corrupt polciticans, inept leaders and by correlation inept public servants.
It doesn't matter how much sh**e (based on facts) you fire at some people in this country as can be seen from bertie's re-election to taoiseach.
There was more than enough questions hanging over his behaviour that would in any other country (well maybe apart form italy) have meant resignation and very poor showing in elections.
What happens in Ireland, he gains f**king sympathy :rolleyes:

Another case in point is Stroke Fahy.
He was actaully found guilty of fraud or theift in a court of law, yet he was voted back in at the top of the poll FFS :mad::mad:

So no matter how much you bleat that our journalists and media commentators aren't doing their jobs, it matters didly squat when the people (more correctly the gombeens that vote) ignore the information in the public domain. :rolleyes:

Who's bleating pal ?

In the case of The Stroke his misdemeanours were merely reported - as opposed to being shown up for what they were - and of course the voters of South galway took the opportunity to give the authorities one in the eye.
Different countries, different voters :rolleyes:

Shane Ross is one of the most excellent public voices we have in this country, exposing shady little deals and corporate culture in the likes of Goodbodies, AIB, Anglo, Smurfits, etc etc.
He is the only reaosn Seanad should exist.
Check out his Dáil committee questioning of AIB executives concerning whistlblower auditor and Nevis/Goodbodies affair. He tore them a new asshol*.

Agreed

Roddy Molloy anyone ...
Patrick Neary ?
Those epsidoes should have meant that the Dáil enacted legislation, in response to public pressure, to allow for no golden handshakes for public servants that were affectively being fired for gross negligence or wastage of publi funds.
Instead did anything happen, bar clowen and others stating that it was their entitlement ?

Agreed

FFS every public servant in this country probably earns more than their equivalent elsewhere.
Dermot Early earns more than the head of the British Army and last time I checked the Irish Army/IDF are not at war anywhere.
And Chad does not effing count.

This is the scandal pal..so do consultants,judges,Taoishig,Ministers et all...not to mention our RTE media stars.

Realism is what we need ...an quickly.