Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2007-public-private pay gap was 48%!
Options
Comments
-
If the government and others in receipt of the government cheques eg the central bank and financial regulator had done their job properly, there would be no need for Nama. Besides, as Colm McCarthy said on Frontline the other evening, the p.s. pay debate has nothing to do with Nama ; the deficit exists before a cent is paid to Nama, and would exist even if Nama did not.
I think the lads in the PS just cannot face any issue that is put to them.
Ed Walsh on Q&A -> "the PS are overpaid by 30%"
Dublin Blondie one with the big shoulders from the unions in reply -> "are you telling me that the front line people dont deserve to earn their money dealing with ...blah blah blah"
Economist on Vincent B -> "the PS are overpaid by 30%"
Socialist ex-aer lingus one from north dublin -> "are you telling me that the front line staff etc etc"
Prime time presenter -> "the Private sector have taken the hit what are you going to take"
Public sector grey beardy lad -> "the private sector and the bankers and the developers and the politicians and NAMA etc etc etc
EVERYTIME there is a diversion, and when the barrel cant be scrapped anymore they argument goes along the lines that everyone in the private sector was somehow a banker. Its a joke at this stage. They never have to face the coal face and hide behind the mask of playing politics, and the call for a pay increase yesterday only shows what idiots they are.0 -
Again yes again..I think if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%.
still not addressing the question I actually asked dodgey! sigh, lets try this again.......and this time, can you please actually answer the specific question I'm asking rather than the one you want to answer.
I am not saying that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then they shouldn't be reduced by 25%, what I am saying is that those on higher wages should take proportionally higher cuts, ie: there should be differentiation, 25% should not be taken off every single worker, more can be found from those on higher wages.......ie:not all workers should get 25% reduction in their wages..perhaps some should get more...perhaps some should get less.
do you agree or not? (this by the way was the thrust of my original post about reducing public sector wages based solely on an average if you bothered to read it)And as for They now should take the level of benchmarked decreases they should get.
so you do agree with differentiating the paycuts then? what I was originally stating but you managed to steadfastly ignore in the last two posts.Make up an argument you can win technique :rolleyes: although dont tempt me.!! Its probably the first thing that comes to mind as the PS try to defend their bloated benchmarked increases by " whatever means is necessary"
There is no argument... there is a discussion/debate, although you seem have misunderstood my posts, possibly by not bothering to read them.more waffle.. come on now stick to the point.
ah condescension, now you're the one that's making up an argument. You didn't read my initial post fully, you replied to what you thought I said and now you're trying to extricate yourself from the mess by belittling my replies to your lack of comprehension of plain english or laziness or arrogance or possibly all three.Let me turn that one on its head and ask are you saying it is the function of the union now not to accept benchmarking which they have signed up for. It is supposed to work both ways mate.
Im not saying it shouldnt (in an ideal world), Im not saying its right, In fact I think if benchmarking would end up indicating reductions were necessary then perhaps they could use this as the tool to cut pay....what I am saying is that you are extremely naive to ask if unions should be trying to keep their members pay and conditions in line with private sector when private sector wages seem to be falling (that is essentially what you originally asked)........do turkeys vote for christmas? their mandate is to get as much as possible for their members.
The real problem if you had any ability to analyse the situation even to a small degree (instead of reactionary whinging) is that the government allowed them to become too powerful/ caved in to too many of their demands in order to buy votes..... the unions are not the problem, they are doing what they should........the problem is our elected government who listened to them too much, this "relationship" needs to be modified. the unions do not need to be broken, the kind of power and influence they have should be reduced if they are able to put an entire economy in jeopardyLots of people in this economy have taken massive pay reductions where they are paying agencies and agents to represent them often a large % of their earning. Why should they rest of society suffer for the PS's short term interests??
SIGH.......ONE MORE TIME FOR THE HARD OF HEARING AT THE BACK!
READ MY POST, DID I SAY ANYWHERE THAT THE REST OF SOCIETY SHOULD SUFFER FOR THE PS's SHORT TERM INTERESTS......
The answer is no, I did not, so do not post replies implying I have said something which clearly I did not, that was an issue with your other replies also.no I just live in the real world. Its nothing to do with being selfless and more to do with a bit of cop on. The PS and the unions just wont face the issues!
You should try some of the medicine you are prescribing. Try facing the issue that you have misread my posts and misrepresented what I said on more than one occasion and instead of backpeddling actually read what Ive posted this time.0 -
still not addressing the question I actually asked dodgey! sigh, lets try this again.......and this time, can you please actually answer the specific question I'm asking rather than the one you want to answer.
I am not saying that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then they shouldn't be reduced by 25%, what I am saying is that those on higher wages should take proportionally higher cuts, ie: there should be differentiation, 25% should not be taken off every single worker, more can be found from those on higher wages.......ie:not all workers should get 25% reduction in their wages..perhaps some should get more...perhaps some should get less.
do you agree or not? (this by the way was the thrust of my original post about reducing public sector wages based solely on an average if you bothered to read it)
Why are you trying to get me to answer a question that I am not debating with you. Stop asking me if I agree with your rant about proportionality of cuts. The taxpayer just wants to see the figure reduced which you agree with so sin e.so you do agree with differentiating the paycuts then? what I was originally stating but you managed to steadfastly ignore in the last two posts.)
see reply aboveThere is no argument... there is a discussion/debate, although you seem have misunderstood my posts, possibly by not bothering to read them..
see reply aboveah condescension, now you're the one that's making up an argument. You didn't read my initial post fully, you replied to what you thought I said ..
again I never replied to your portionality argument as you pointed out earlier and now your saying I replied to what I thought you'd said. Make up you mind.and now you're trying to extricate yourself from the mess by belittling my replies to your lack of comprehension of plain english or laziness or arrogance or possibly all three.
Stop being childishIm not saying it shouldnt (in an ideal world), Im not saying its right, In fact I think if benchmarking would end up indicating reductions were necessary then perhaps they could use this as the tool to cut pay.
Its called benchmarking - In any land that means up and down. You talk of "ideal world" and "perhaps ..tool to cut pay" and the flowery language of "Im not saying its right" shows a distinct lack of truly facing up to the issue. This is the real world and there should be no perhaps about recognising that the cash put in the PS need to be reduced and wages should be cut. The problems are real! and its only in the public sector that the symantics of language are used to skew the argument and waste time. The union looking for a pay increase is an example of this type of tactic without realising that public are sick of such tactics.....what I am saying is that you are extremely naive to ask if unions should be trying to keep their members pay and conditions in line with private sector when private sector wages seem to be falling (that is essentially what you originally asked)........do turkeys vote for christmas? their mandate is to get as much as possible for their members..
I never said any of those things in the way you are putting it. The unions need to realise they are dealing in a different world to the one they have had for the past 15 year and so far with the submission for increases and general threats from them they have not shown this atall.The real problem if you had any ability to analyse the situation even to a small degree (instead of reactionary whinging) is that the government allowed them to become too powerful/ caved in to too many of their demands in order to buy votes..... the unions are not the problem, ..
So they are too big and powerful yet they are not a problem. Now you accuse me of not having the ability to analyse the problem. You perhaps need to read a few history books and see that when elemental groups become too big and too powerful and hence a threat, usually they are reigned in or wiped out. Occassionally they are victorious but this is the exception and I certainly wouldnt like to see the unions have any victories for along time. Perhaps if you had "any ability to analyse the situation" you'd know all this.the unions do not need to be broken ....should be reduced if they are able to put an entire economy in jeopardy..
Sorry come again?
If they can put the entire economy in jeopardy, your response would be .. ah 'their power should be reduce'.
I disagree. If they can put the entire economy in jeopardy you should be broken.!0 -
Why are you trying to get me to answer a question that I am not debating with you. Stop asking me if I agree with your rant about proportionality of cuts. The taxpayer just wants to see the figure reduced which you agree with so sin e.
eh...because its directly related to the issue of only using the average pay gap between private and public sector as the basis for cutting pay....the part of my post you took issue with and misrepresented me on.....this is exactly what we are debating if you are going to ask why I don't accept using just the average alone as a basis for pay cuts. I thought the direct link between the issues would be crystal clear to anyone.
why wont you answer the question? especially as its related to your dismissive reply to my initial post.again I never replied to your proportionality argument as you pointed out earlier and now your saying I replied to what I thought you'd said. Make up you mind.
You accused me ignoring the average pay differential entirely in your initial post when clearly I had not said that in my post. I said it was a crude way of deciding on the level of pay cuts for individual workers and I said that the average figure you see quoted for the private sector is not calculated the same way (overall) as the average figure for the public sector so its only a crude first approximation to deciding on a fair percentage for said pay cuts. Its in the post, try reading it properly.
That is replying to what you thought I had posted in my book.Stop being childish
eh ok mammy.....
I will if you will.....
oh and, stop being a wind up merchant!Its called benchmarking - In any land that means up and down. You talk of "ideal world" and "perhaps ..tool to cut pay" and the flowery language of "Im not saying its right" shows a distinct lack of truly facing up to the issue. This is the real world and there should be no perhaps about recognising that the cash put in the PS need to be reduced and wages should be cut. The problems are real! and its only in the public sector that the symantics of language are used to skew the argument and waste time. The union looking for a pay increase is an example of this type of tactic without realising that public are sick of such tactics.
Im not using semantics or flowery language to skew anything or waste time. I'm debating a point.
You replied to a post of mine in a curt dismissive fashion and misrepresented what I had posted. I explained my position clearly. Just to be clear by the way and for the nth time..i am not saying the public sector shouldn't take a pay cut...i am debating the level and proportional distribution of the cut.I never said any of those things in the way you are putting it. The unions need to realise they are dealing in a different world to the one they have had for the past 15 year and so far with the submission for increases and general threats from them they have not shown this atall.
Im afraid you pretty much did say those things not very elegantly but it was implied. I have snipped out the original part of your post below for your convenience.Most of the Public believe that if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%. Again an issue for the PS and their unions. Is That not why you have unions??
see that last underlined section? It is implying that you think the unions function is to reduce public sector pay if it goes over private sector pay........you cant really deny it.........now who is being childish.
As Ive tried to explain to you earlier a union will more or less try and get as much as it can for its members, that's pretty much its raison d'etre. You are effectively asking if they are not there to reduce pay and conditions for their members is a little naive and childish. But anyway I suppose Ill answer the question again even though you wont answer mine.
In an ideal world they probably should...in the real world it is up to those in power to not let them gain too much influence etc The unions are not doing anything too unusual/wrong... it is the government letting the unions cosy up to them to such a degree that is unusual/wrong.So they are too big and powerful yet they are not a problem. Now you accuse me of not having the ability to analyse the problem. You perhaps need to read a few history books and see that when elemental groups become too big and too powerful and hence a threat, usually they are reigned in or wiped out. Occassionally they are victorious but this is the exception and I certainly wouldnt like to see the unions have any victories for along time. Perhaps if you had "any ability to analyse the situation" you'd know all this.
I'm getting a little tired of your inability to interpret the written word. Just re-read my previous post. Its quite clear that I am of the opinion that the unions have too much power and this power needs to be reduced. I am not arguing against this.
Now look at the underlined section of your post, the bit that mentions elemental groups and big and powerful and uses the phrases “reigned in” (another way to say reduce the power of or ameliorate).
I suggested/implied in my previous post that they were too powerful and that this power needed to be reduced. What I was not in favour of was wiping them out (broken is another way to say this)
Clearly I arrived at the very conclusion your history text pointed you to so what in gods name would prompt you to make such a ridiculous statement as the underlined for? Do you think I am some sort of slack jawed yokel who just don't hold with book learnin or are you desperately trying to score some points. You will have to make a better fist of it next time because that one did not work at all.
Furthermore I never stated they would be or should be victorious so I don't know where you're getting this from......misrepresentation again.
And the reason I think you cant analyse the situation is because you appear to think that its the unions fault for doing what they do best rather than the governments for letting them.
Btw, I have actually read quite a number of history books and I suspect I have benefited more from them than you have for the simple reason that I can read and interpret English properly.Sorry come again?
If they can put the entire economy in jeopardy, your response would be .. ah 'their power should be reduce'.
I disagree. If they can put the entire economy in jeopardy you should be broken.!
Dealt with adequately above, we disagree utterly on this. I think their power and influence should be reduced as they perform an important function and I think that whether you realise it or not employers would shaft all round them if some sort of representative body was not in place to keep them in check, eu legislation or not.
You think they should be destroyed utterly and their is no place for them in our society. Fine we will just have to agree to disagree.0 -
eh...because its directly related to the issue of only using the average pay gap between private and public sector as the basis for cutting pay....the part of my post you took issue with and misrepresented me on..
I took issue with the fact the the PS cant deal with the fact that they earn whatever percentage on average more then they should and then start saying that averages are some kind of distortion. That was it, you then went off and expanded/reiterated your point bringing everything and the kitchen sink to expand the argument. As you siad
"That is replying to what you thought I had posted in my book."
good man fine whatever!oh and, stop being a wind up merchant!..
what grade is a wind up merchant paid at?Im afraid you pretty much did say those things not very elegantly but it was implied. ..
I either said something or I didnt.
Also I never repeat never said unions function is to reduce public sector pay if it goes over private sector pay
flowery notions again? - what is your obssession with ideal worlds? - just forget the ideal world and deal with the real world.In an ideal world they probably should...in the real world it is up to those in power to not let them.
just yoursIm getting a little tired of your inability to interpret the written word..unions have too much power and this power needs to be reduced. ..
thanks for thatthe unions fault for doing what they do best rather than the governments for letting them...
fine but 'we are where we are' and the unions now need to be dealt with since they represent alot in the PSBtw, I have actually read quite a number of history books and I suspect I have benefitted more from them than you for the simple reason that I can read and interpret english properly.
well you only suspect then ....so thats okYou think they should be destroyed utterly and their is no place for them in our society. Fine we will just have to agree to disagree.
never said that - it depends on the context.0 -
Advertisement
-
I took issue with the fact the the PS cant deal with the fact that they earn whatever percentage on average more then they should and then start saying that averages are some kind of distortion. That was it, you then went off and proved me right, fluffing around and bringing everything and the kitchen sink to expand the argument. As you siad
"That is replying to what you thought I had posted in my book."
good man fine whatever!
A little weak....can do better. You took issue with it by replying to my post which raised legitimate concerns over cutting every single worker in the public sector by 25% in an unwarranted dismissive superior way. You think Im ps and I cant deal with an average, you are wrong on both counts...I have demonstrated more ability to deal with things on this thread than you have.
If there is fluff anywhere its present in your posts...i have proved it repeatedly and Im about to do it again below.what grade is a wind up merchant paid at?
You tell me, in any event Im sure you will tell me that all public sector wind up merchants are paid 25% more than the private sector ones.I either said something or I didnt.
Also I never repeat never said unions function is to reduce public sector pay if it goes over private sector pay
Ok fine then, you did say it. its very clear from your post. I called you on it and now you are trying to wriggle.flowery notions again? - what is your obssession with ideal worlds? - just forget the ideal world and deal with the real world.
you are the one with the flowery notions, you seem to think the function of a union is to reduce the pay and conditions of their members...well you are the history buff around here, how many times have unions done this in the past? How many times have they done the opposite? You are the one living in a fantasy world. How naive can you get?
ha ha, good one, that put me in my place. ouch!just yoursthanks for that
You are quite welcome, I said as much in previous posts if you had bothered to read them so the gratitude could have come sooner.fine but 'we are where we are' and the unions now need to be dealt with since they represent alot in the PS
Read the post, I did not say they shouldn't be dealt with. Unfortunately you are getting the order of the solution to the problems wrong. Those in power need to be replaced by people who wont listen/pander to the unions (to the same degree). You wont get to deal with any unions if you don't sort out a government that is willing to pander to them and you'll find them easier to deal with if they are not embedded in the running of the country to the degree they are.well you only suspect then ....so thats ok
Now I know, you have confirmed it for me.never said that - it depends on the context.
I'm afraid you did. I'm surprised you cant interpret youre own posts at this stage. You have wriggled so much you seem to have tied yourself up in knots.
I was of the opinion we were talking about the situation in this country, you know Ireland....therefore we are both presumably commenting on the same context...the present irish context or are you having a historical debate that nobody is aware of?
In any event you clearly stated that the unions should be broken in Ireland if they are capable of having a detrimental effect on the economy. You clearly believe they can have a detrimental effect on the irish economy or else there would be no reason to complain about them so therefore you do in fact think they should be broken in the context we were talking about.
Please see quote from one of your posts below proving thisIf they can put the entire economy in jeopardy, your response would be .. ah 'their power should be reduce'.
I disagree. If they can put the entire economy in jeopardy you should be broken.!
Now believe it or not honeybunch Ive got a headache and Im tired of this bickering, if you want to keep lying and misrepresenting what I said then go ahead, ive had enough of it for one night and Im off to bed. Ill get back to you tomorrow for more fun n'games.0 -
I was of the opinion we were talking about the situation in this country, you know Ireland....therefore we are both presumably commenting on the same context...the present irish context or are you having a historical debate that nobody is aware of?
In any event you clearly stated that the unions should be broken in Ireland if they are capable of having a detrimental effect on the economy..
The context was in the sentence
"If they put the entire economy in jeopardy you should be broken"
the word "if" is the key
e.g. If you understand what I am saying I dont need to repeat it like I have just done.You clearly believe they can have a detrimental effect on the irish economy or else there would be no reason to complain about them so therefore you do in fact think they should be broken in the context we were talking about
What the unions do is up to them, but they clearly need a step change to deal with the new reality of representing people who are as a sector overpaid.you seem to think the function of a union is to reduce the pay and conditions of their members...well you are the history buff around here, how many times have unions done this in the past?
two words "reality" and "new"Ok fine then, you did say it. its very clear from your post. I called you on it and now you are trying to wriggle.
glad you have decided that then. So my post are very clear now. Your crystal ball was clouded earlier though?You tell me, in any event Im sure you will tell me that all public sector wind up merchants are paid 25% more than the private sector ones.
The private sector ones were made redundant whilst the public sector ones just keep winding people up. Mind you they are not allowed do anything else but wind people up, something to do with unions and job description
unless your an average PS?You think Im ps and I cant deal with an averageI have demonstrated more ability to deal with things on this thread than you have.
yes as you demonstrate hereNow believe it or not honeybunch Ive got a headache and Im tired of this bickering0 -
Interesting letter in the indo today on alot of current topics.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/its-time-for-return-to-decent-human-values-1902375.html0 -
still not addressing the question I actually asked dodgey! sigh, lets try this again.......and this time, can you please actually answer the specific question I'm asking rather than the one you want to answer.
I am not saying that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then they shouldn't be reduced by 25%, what I am saying is that those on higher wages should take proportionally higher cuts, ie: there should be differentiation, 25% should not be taken off every single worker, more can be found from those on higher wages.......ie:not all workers should get 25% reduction in their wages..perhaps some should get more...perhaps some should get less.
for a man so interested in having a discussion on porportionality you may find this interesting.
>
LOW-paid public servants earn almost 26pc more than their private sector counterparts.
A new study by the Central Statistics Office finds that the gap between public and private sector pay is 19pc across the board -- but is widest at 25.6pc for those earning the least.
As public sector unions gear up for a winter of strikes -- claiming that lower paid workers are most threatened by likely pay cuts -- the report reveals that they enjoy more favourable pay than private workers.
The National Employment Survey 2007 Supplementary Analysis comes just weeks after a report from the Economic and Social Research Institute revealed a 25pc pay differential for 2006.
Publication of the study came as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions urged 650,000 public and private workers to attend a National Day of Action march, in Dublin, on November 6.
The study looks at the pay of more than 60,000 workers in the public and private sector, stripping differences down to education, experience, and the size of the organisation, to allow a more accurate comparison.
The original report published in July had found a staggering 48pc gap in the hourly pay of public and private workers, with a 33pc difference in weekly rates.
0 -
I am not saying that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then they shouldn't be reduced by 25%, what I am saying is that those on higher wages should take proportionally higher cuts, ie: there should be differentiation, 25% should not be taken off every single worker, more can be found from those on higher wages.......ie:not all workers should get 25% reduction in their wages..perhaps some should get more...perhaps some should get less.
.
I disagree here. The unions constantly come out with it. Why should say, a simgle person earning 30,000 a year take less of a pay cut than a married person supporting wife and kids and earning 40,000? Actual wage is not a good indicator of ability to pay.0 -
Advertisement
-
I disagree here. The unions constantly come out with it. Why should say, a simgle person earning 30,000 a year take less of a pay cut than a married person supporting wife and kids and earning 40,000? Actual wage is not a good indicator of ability to pay.
That's a social justice view, and has some merit.
But if we take a hard-nosed "what the job is worth" view, such as prevails in the private sector, then we should disregard the individual's personal circumstances and concentrate on striking the appropriate rate for the work, taking account of such factors as the skills, effort, and responsibility involved. One should also take account of the market, and how much you need to pay in order to attract suitably good candidates.
There are people working in the public sector earning -- and deserving -- over €100,000 pa; there are others who are paid €25,000 pa, and who are bad value for money.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »That's a social justice view, and has some merit.
But if we take a hard-nosed "what the job is worth" view, such as prevails in the private sector, then we should disregard the individual's personal circumstances and concentrate on striking the appropriate rate for the work, taking account of such factors as the skills, effort, and responsibility involved. One should also take account of the market, and how much you need to pay in order to attract suitably good candidates.
There are people working in the public sector earning -- and deserving -- over €100,000 pa; there are others who are paid €25,000 pa, and who are bad value for money.
I agree with you on that. To be honest in an ideal world the best way to cut the pay bill would be to get rid of those who are not performing.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »then we should disregard the individual's personal circumstances and concentrate on striking the appropriate rate for the work,
absolutely, it has merit when trying to identify poverty rates etc and when you are trying to compare household expenditures (e.g. the idea of a standardised average household income)
but if people's personal circumstances were taken into account for their wage (as oppossed to a colleague with differing ones) I think there would be uproar (both public and private)
the same has to be the case when looking at cuts, to examine down to such an individual detail would be next to impossible anyway0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »That's a social justice view, and has some merit.
But if we take a hard-nosed "what the job is worth" view, such as prevails in the private sector, then we should disregard the individual's personal circumstances and concentrate on striking the appropriate rate for the work, taking account of such factors as the skills, effort, and responsibility involved. One should also take account of the market, and how much you need to pay in order to attract suitably good candidates.
There are people working in the public sector earning -- and deserving -- over €100,000 pa; there are others who are paid €25,000 pa, and who are bad value for money.
Excellent post - the government, like any other employer, has a set level of pay for every particular job, peoples personal circumstances should not come into it, whether a fella is single or married with 10 kids, it should make no difference to the level of pay or the cuts to be made.
I also completly agree with you second paragraph - an excellent point that is quite often overlooked by public servants themselves0 -
, peoples personal circumstances should not come into it, whether a fella is single or married with 10 kids, it should make no difference to the level of pay or the cuts to be made.
I was not suggesting they should. I was simply commenting that it is ridiculous to say that the more you earn the more your pay should be cut. Unions are making this argument. I was saying that the amount you earn does not equate to how much you can afford to cut.0 -
I was not suggesting they should. I was simply commenting that it is ridiculous to say that the more you earn the more your pay should be cut. Unions are making this argument. I was saying that the amount you earn does not equate to how much you can afford to cut.
Apologies i must have misunderstood your orignal post
Yep i agree with you, the unions (and it must be said a lot public servants as well) have this mentality of take from the "RICH" and give to the "POOR" with little regard for hard the person on higher wages has worked to get to their position
Now in no way am i condoning how much some well paid public servants get, or how many well paid managers there are in the HSE, I'm simply saying that the unions take take take mentality really sickens me0 -
The context was in the sentence
"If they put the entire economy in jeopardy you should be broken"
the word "if" is the key
e.g. If you understand what I am saying I dont need to repeat it like I have just done.
I'm afraid you are the one with the comprehension problems. Clearly I had dealt with that context also in my reply. Unfortunately I will have to repeat my post on it (you seem to be fond of repition) Never fear I will space out the sentences this time and highlight the word if for your comfort.
In any event you clearly stated that the unions should be broken in Ireland if they are capable of having a detrimental effect on the economy.
You clearly believe they can have a detrimental effect on the irish economy or else there would be no reason to complain about them ......so therefore you do in fact think they should be broken in the context we were talking about.
Previous to my posting the above you claimed you had not stated the unions needed to be broken.
You then claimed that wheteher or not they needed to be broken depended on their ability to have a detrimental effect on the economy.
If you don't believe they can have a detrimental effect on the economy, why complain about them. You have set the context you believe the unions to be operating in yourself, made a statement and then denied you made that statement....................???????????What the unions do is up to them, but they clearly need a step change to deal with the new reality of representing people who are as a sector overpaid.
two words "reality" and "new"
And I have too words for you...”reality” and “check”
Ill try break it down for you without too many large words
The unions represent their members, their main reason for existing is to improve the pay and conditions of members. They will always fight to improve their members pay and conditions (unless the top level members are bribed to do otherwise ) You asked is it not their function to reduce wages in line with private sector equivalent if their wages are above the private sector. This is very naive.
On the otherhand, the govt is supposed to represent the electorate. It is supposed to stand strong against unions if they are demanding wage levels that are too high as it will affect the countries finances (budget deficit).
The unions have not failed to represent most of their members interests (at least short term interests) however the government seems to be failing to represent the electorates interests by cosying up to the unions.
The unions are representing their members (the people who elected them) The government does not seem to be representing the best interests of the majority of the electorate (the people who elected them). Therefore youre ire is misdirected, you should aim it at the government who allowed the unions to gain too much influence so they could buy votes.glad you have decided that then. So my post are very clear now. Your crystal ball was clouded earlier though?
Yes it was very clear that you thought unions should be reducing public sector pay in line with private sector pay in fact you asked if thats not why the PS have unions. I will repost the two conflicting statements you made on the matter one after the other so you can see what I mean about wriggling.
Below is the bit where you suggest that ps unions should be involved in reducing ps pay if it is 25% above private sector wages. Its the underlined section at the end btw. If you are not trying to suggest that then you seem to have trouble formulating a sentence properly or stating your position clearly.Most of the Public believe that if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%. Again an issue for the PS and their unions. Is That not why you have unions??
Below is section of your post where you flat out deny you said the above.Also I never repeat never said unions function is to reduce public sector pay if it goes over private sector payThe private sector ones were made redundant whilst the public sector ones just keep winding people up. Mind you they are not allowed do anything else but wind people up, something to do with unions and job description
Really? All of them? Not just 25% on average then?unless your an average PS?
I'm not PS anymore (or average whether that's by chance or work) but Ill have to give you that one, that was quite good, I have no comeback or inclination to start thinking of one, well done! you have won that one....... Now perhaps you could explain the misrepresentation and lying you engaged in?yes as you demonstrate here
Considering the quality of your previous witty comeback I think the above a bit beneath you to be honest. You are better than that.
Aaaah dodgy you complete me!0 -
for a man so interested in having a discussion on porportionality you may find this interesting.
>
LOW-paid public servants earn almost 26pc more than their private sector counterparts.
Tks, I was aware of this. It does not affect my argument. If the research is sound and the pay differential is more at the lower end of the pay scale (adjusting for academic qualifications etc) then perhaps the LOW-paid public servants should take a larger percentage hit than the middle. After all they may not take on as much responsibility as someone higher up the scale and they may not have had to deal with the same opportunity cost (degrees, post grad qualifications) to get their job as the worker in the middle.
However I still think that some of the top level wages cant be justified and these wages should take a proportionally larger hit than some of the workers below them. Anyone earning around 100 -150k should expect to shoulder a larger percentage burden than someone on 40 to 50k. I stand by my opinion on this.
I dont think that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then all public sector workers should take a 25% hit. The research should be done and the cuts should not be distributed evenly across all pay grades imo.0 -
Tks, I was aware of this. It does not affect my argument. If the research is sound and the pay differential is more at the lower end of the pay scale (adjusting for academic qualifications etc) then perhaps the LOW-paid public servants should take a larger percentage hit than the middle. After all they may not take on as much responsibility as someone higher up the scale and they may not have had to deal with the same opportunity cost (degrees, post grad qualifications) to get their job as the worker in the middle.
However I still think that some of the top level wages cant be justified and these wages should take a proportionally larger hit than some of the workers below them. Anyone earning around 100 -150k should expect to shoulder a larger percentage burden than someone on 40 to 50k. I stand by my opinion on this.
I dont think that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then all public sector workers should take a 25% hit. The research should be done and the cuts should not be distributed evenly across all pay grades imo.
I fully agree with this. It needs to be fair (to a degree)... but, it now seems you are agreeable to a large cut for the high end.. a large cut for the low end... but a smaller cut for the middle??
I wonder where you sit?..0 -
I disagree here. The unions constantly come out with it. Why should say, a simgle person earning 30,000 a year take less of a pay cut than a married person supporting wife and kids and earning 40,000? Actual wage is not a good indicator of ability to pay.
Agreed actual wage is not a good indicator of ability to pay except perhaps at the very high and very low ends of the scale.
Earlier I was simply expressing my opinion that cutting every single worker by 25% is nuts. Just using this average as a basis to cut all pay is a very poor way of carrying out the cuts. Just because I was making this assertion, I was then accused of ignoring the elephant in the room and stating that the average is a distortion. Only the second part has validity.
I happen to think the average is a distortion because
1) this average does not apply to all workers (clearly some are more overpaid than others and some have unjustifiably high wage levels whereas others not so much) and
2) because the averages that are being compared are not calculated the same way.
To a certain extent I would fall into the hard nosed what is the job worth approach described earlier and leave individual circumstances (such as no of kids, mortgage etc) out of it, this approach and proportional distribution are not mutually exclusive in my view as clearly some jobs will be worth more than others and will receive less of a cut. (not just the 25% across the board)
But that still leaves the higher end of the scale, Anyone on 100k -150k plus should be expecting to receive a higher percentage cut than those on 40k-50k in my view. They will still have more than enough to live on if they haven't been living a ridiculously extravagant lifestyle and they will still be well rewarded for the work they do.0 -
Advertisement
-
Agreed actual wage is not a good indicator of ability to pay except perhaps at the very high and very low ends of the scale.
Earlier I was simply expressing my opinion that cutting every single worker by 25% is nuts. Just using this average as a basis to cut all pay is a very poor way of carrying out the cuts. Just because I was making this assertion, I was then accused of ignoring the elephant in the room and stating that the average is a distortion. Only the second part has validity.
I happen to think the average is a distortion because
1) this average does not apply to all workers (clearly some are more overpaid than others and some have unjustifiably high wage levels whereas others not so much) and
2) because the averages that are being compared are not calculated the same way.
To a certain extent I would fall into the hard nosed what is the job worth approach described earlier and leave individual circumstances (such as no of kids, mortgage etc) out of it, this approach and proportional distribution are not mutually exclusive in my view as clearly some jobs will be worth more than others and will receive less of a cut. (not just the 25% across the board)
But that still leaves the higher end of the scale, Anyone on 100k -150k plus should be expecting to receive a higher percentage cut than those on 40k-50k in my view. They will still have more than enough to live on if they haven't been living a ridiculously extravagant lifestyle and they will still be well rewarded for the work they do.
Well, in that case, what about the cuts taking the amount of (n0n-performance related) annual increments the worker has received..
The more increments.. the higher the cut??0 -
I fully agree with this. It needs to be fair (to a degree)... but, it now seems you are agreeable to a large cut for the high end.. a large cut for the low end... but a smaller cut for the middle??
I wonder where you sit?..
Fair enough, I can see why you think that. I would be suspicious too. TBH, if I was back in the PS I would sit somewhere in the middle but I don't think I'm subconsciously arguing to leave the wages I used to get alone and cut everyone else, anyway to tell you the truth I'm not sure where I'm going to sit this year. I'm doing O.K. so far, I hope it continues. I had a good year last year.
I was accused of not recognising the elephant in the room earlier when clearly I had just stated that the 25% average pay difference was a crude way to go about cutting pay and not all pay should be cut by 25% + Im not sure were comparing like with like when it comes to averages.
In addition, I believe there comes a point when a person has more than they could possibly need to live comfortably on and if a person is over this threshold then they should expect to get a proportionally larger cut or have some exceptionally unique indispensable qualities to justify the premium.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »That's a social justice view, and has some merit.
But if we take a hard-nosed "what the job is worth" view, such as prevails in the private sector, then we should disregard the individual's personal circumstances and concentrate on striking the appropriate rate for the work, taking account of such factors as the skills, effort, and responsibility involved. One should also take account of the market, and how much you need to pay in order to attract suitably good candidates.
There are people working in the public sector earning -- and deserving -- over €100,000 pa; there are others who are paid €25,000 pa, and who are bad value for money.
One of the best posts I've seen in any PS debate thread.
Good job.0 -
You clearly believe they can have a detrimental effect on the irish economy
They can also have a good effect. Ever hear of the word pendulum? Ofcourse you did with your vast experience of history.Ill try break it down for you without too many large words
that would assume you know some.The unions represent their members, their main reason for existing is to improve the pay and conditions of members.
Really :eek: But what happens when you reach the top of the hill and have to fall downwards again?Therefore youre ire is misdirected, you should aim it at the government who allowed the unions to gain too much influence
deflection argument? again, also look to the banker the builder the candle stick maker.Below is the bit where you suggest
I didnt suggest anything of the sort.Now perhaps you could explain the misrepresentation and lying you engaged in?
Jsut dealing withthe facts as I see them. A PS unwilling to see the road to damacus.0 -
Well, in that case, what about the cuts taking the amount of (n0n-performance related) annual increments the worker has received..
The more increments.. the higher the cut??
I take your point that they are non-performance related and therefore not justified in some cases etc
but would have to say this wouldn't be a runner in my book for the following reasons
Some pay scales are as long as 25 years. If you were to take back all the increments you gave out to someone who has worked for twenty five years you could end up reducing somebody on 60k back down to 25k at 50 years of age after crawling slowly up to this level for the best part of their working life.
A government couldn't implement something like this quickly. The increments may not be performance related but this means that the public sector worker has not had a chance to demonstrate his/her value, it would hardly be fair to turn around and say that the payments we gave you were not performance related, we are now taking them back from you. Aside from outrage/demonstration etc this would cause the logical response to such a move is "O.K. then implement a performance monitoring system and backdate it to when you should have been monitoring my performance" etc
Total nightmare.
On a related note, implementing a performance monitoring system for many jobs (public and private) is a tricky business. Often it is either a farce, does not increase productivity, has unintended negative consequences, increases administrative burden or leads to management navel gazing.
eg: If I decide to monitor the performance of a hospital on how many patients it treats the incentive for them to score well is to f#ck patients out of the beds as quickly as possible to show a high patient turnover.
Performance monitoring needs to be carefully thought out to actually improve the service to the public in the public service. Not something you can do overnight and not a suitable way to go about reducing wages with any degree of haste.0 -
People seem to be obsessed with Public v's Private - Where does Social Welfare come into all this. Do people really believe that persons on Social Welfare are 'the most vulnerable in our community' I don't think so. Just think - Married couple 3 kids()4, 7, & 11) living in Dublin and renting or paying a mortgage receive €803.09 Benefits NET PER WEEK. That is €41,960.68 NET Per Year. This does not include the benefit of a medical card for the family. Folks the average industrial wage is supposed to be over €38,000. Where is the logic to all this?all to do with contracts,now the gov cant afford to pay the public wages,the family man that depends on welfare will have his welfare cut to make up for the wages,taken from the sunday independent today0 -
Thats equivalent to a gross of what? 60K? 70K?
Of course if they have paid in then fine? If not, reduce it by half.0 -
There are no decentralisation grants. Your knowledge is sadly lacking and full of untrue generalities.
But carry on, you're playing a blinder.
that's because they refuse to move in the first place. If anyone tries to get someone to do anything different or go anywhere different, either they jump up and down in protest or their union rep is all over it. The idiocy is that if they were more flexible, they would cost less as they'd be more productive. Then there would be less pressure on wages. But the unions have built their reputation on 'protecting terms and conditions and wage rates' and God help anyone who tries something different without 'their approval'. And the irony again is these union leaders are part of the so called 'fat cat' brigade. They're so principalled, they refuse to travel on ryanair and happily travel on business class with aer lingus. Not a problem when you're usually on the board of several state/semi-state bodies and you can spend other peoples' money to your hearts content.0 -
Why move Fas to Birr? Or, the parole board to Navan?that's because they refuse to move in the first place.
Give some examples?The idiocy is that if they were more flexible, they would cost less as they'd be more productive.
Now you're confusing politicians with public servants.They're so principalled, they refuse to travel on ryanair and happily travel on business class with aer lingus. Not a problem when you're usually on the board of several state/semi-state bodies and you can spend other peoples' money to your hearts content.0 -
Advertisement
-
People seem to be obsessed with Public v's Private - Where does Social Welfare come into all this. Do people really believe that persons on Social Welfare are 'the most vulnerable in our community' I don't think so. Just think - Married couple 3 kids()4, 7, & 11) living in Dublin and renting or paying a mortgage receive €803.09 Benefits NET PER WEEK. That is €41,960.68 NET Per Year. This does not include the benefit of a medical card for the family. Folks the average industrial wage is supposed to be over €38,000. Where is the logic to all this?
because the person on the dole isnt by choice,he doesnt get a lovely payoff,a nice pension,a chance to sue or power of union of he got his wages cut,people in the private sector are getting cut and doing every hour that they are giving but they cant grumble,they are told to get screwed and take a cut,why should there be one law for public and one law for private....0
Advertisement