Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others

irish_bob

Riskymove wrote: »

so no need for evidence then at all, just your opinion and thats what counts...i see where you are coming from now

also joining jimmmy in laughable attempts at cheap comments to those who are debating with you, you make a good team and show your own true colours


so let me get this right, if there are inspectors whose job is to inspect animals, the number of animals to be inspected has no bearing on how many inspectors are needed?

where did you get this idea that dept officials or inspectors as you call them go around inspecting animals , animals on farms are tested for tb and brucelosis once a year and its the local vet ( private sector vet ) who inspects them , if they are free of either disease , nothing happens , if they are not clear and they mostly are , the vet notifys the dept and the dept enforces a no movement ban of animals on the farmer untill the herd is clear , this is all done via computers , thier are no visits of any kind involved from dept officials


you dont know what you are talkng about on this matter

Ms Happy

Riskymove wrote: »

hmm...strange...that post seems very familiar for some reason...could I have seen it before?

oh ....and I'll say it again while I am at it......

public servant overpay supporters ....:rolleyes::pac:

LOL I noticed that too

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

where did you get this idea that dept officials or inspectors as you call them go around inspecting animals , animals on farms are tested for tb and brucelosis once a year and its the local vet ( private sector vet ) who inspects them , if they are free of either disease , nothing happens , if they are not clear and they mostly are , the vet notifys the dept and the dept enforces a no movement ban of animals on the farmer untill the herd is clear , this is all done via computers , thier are no visits of any kind involved from dept officials


you dont know what you are talkng about on this matter

right... so you post some details, i read it and understand it and now know how it works

you should try more of that rather than just the cheap comments

irish_bob

Riskymove wrote: »

right... so you post some details, i read it and understand it and now know how it works

you should try more of that rather than just the cheap comments

and you my friend should get your facts straight before you start atributing credit of service to those who dont provide it

jimmmy

Just because comments may not be to public servants ( or to use a wider descriptive term, the "psos" - the "public servant overpay supporters ") liking does not mean they are cheap. I know several private sector vets who would agree with everything said - and more - about the waste in the dept. of Agriculture ( eg the 6000 staff for 100,000 farmers ), the fact public service vets in the Republic are paid almost double their counterparts public service salary just north of the border etc etc. No wonder the country is borrowing over 30 million euro PER DAY to keep the public service paid.

sceptre

Hey guys

How's about everyone takes a sip of some calm the frick down and stops getting personal?

Not really just a suggestion. Calm down.

Riskymove

( or to use a wider descriptive term, the "psos" - the "public servant overpay supporters ")

only jimmmy could include a cheap comment in a post saying his comments are not cheap

I know several private sector vets who would agree with everything said

another jimmmy standard comment....I did not say i agreed or disagreed about overstaffing in department of agriculture...i asked for some evidence above and beyond a simple number and perhaps what the posters believe would be the appropriate staffing level


Please note that I posted this before seeing sceptre's post above...I did not purposefully ignore his warnings

Idbatterim

in fairness the unions as much of a disgrace as they are, are only looking out for THEIR members interests, it was the government that let them run amock! It is the elected government and not the social partners who are in power!

Gumbo

irish_bob wrote: »

and you my friend should get your facts straight before you start atributing credit of service to those who dont provide it

if everybody stood by that rule then we would have less crap and more facts in these threads instead of made up, heard it from the neighbours cat type comments.

irish_bob wrote: »

utter nonesense , you pay less than a fifth of what you will get back

jimmmy

Idbatterim wrote: »

in fairness the unions as much of a disgrace as they are, are only looking out for THEIR members interests, it was the government that let them run amock!

True enough

Idbatterim wrote: »

It is the elected government and not the social partners who are in power!

Exactly, although sometime you wonder who has been running the country this last while ....the govt or the unions ? Its time the govt stood up to the public sector unions.

jimmmy

kceire, as regards the p.s. pensions, as had been said before it is still heavily subsidised. ( Ask the hundreds of thousands of people receiving public service pensions now , or who will receive them in the next 5 or 10 years , how much they paid in to the pension fund over a lifetime working ? ). As said before, the pension debate is a seperate debate + if you want to revisit it or open a new thread then do so.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Its time the govt stood up to the public sector unions.

I agree...starting with the HSE....there is astonishing things going on there


but I don't hold out too much hope for courage from the Govt

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

kceire, as regards the p.s. pensions, as had been said before it is still heavily subsidised. ( Ask the hundreds of thousands of people receiving public service pensions now , or who will receive them in the next 5 or 10 years , how much they paid in to the pension fund over a lifetime working ? ). As said before, the pension debate is a seperate debate + if you want to revisit it or open a new thread then do so.

you should answer the questions put to you by other posters before attempting to half mod my posts.

i'll leave it there until a proper mod deems it against the forum charter, thank you for your consideration in this matter.

and once again, you brought up the issue of reducing PS pension payments, so you cannot reduce payments without reducing contributions.

jimmmy wrote: »

I have already indicated where savings are to be made eg by cutting public service pay and pensions substantially. P. Breathnach indeed has accused me of " moving the discussion away from pay levels " lol ...I am damned if I do and damned if I do'nt.

jimmmy

kceire wrote: »

you should answer the questions put to you .

I have answered the questions as far as I know, without wanting to move the debate too far off track.

kceire wrote: »

and once again, you brought up the issue of reducing PS pension payments, so you cannot reduce payments without reducing contributions.

Yes I did bring up the "issue of reducing PS pension payments", as this is one of the areas where savings in govt expenditure can be made.
As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc ).

BeQuiet

Whats the proportion of public service staff to privately employed staff ? Heard that its around 30%, and would bet that that is way over other similar countries, so issue is not just the vast overpayment levels for work done per person , but also the vast over staffing levels.

2 separate issues.

One of the problems is that virtually eveyone has someone close to them (own family usually) who is in some way on this vast government money gravy train.

Those of us working privately are paying for it, but no one really wants to tackle it - least of all the politicians who are not going to shhot thmslves in the foot.

BeQuiet

jimmmy wrote: »

I did bring up the "issue of reducing PS pension payments", as this is one of the areas where savings in govt expenditure can be made.
As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc ).

Absolutely agree - gov need to think outside the box, and tackle this kind of vast waste of money.

This wont be even on the agenda however - no one has the balls !

jimmmy

BeQuiet wrote: »

Whats the proportion of public service staff to privately employed staff ? Heard that its around 30%, and would bet that that is way over other similar countries, so issue is not just the vast overpayment levels for work done per person , but also the vast over staffing levels.

I agree. Bear in mind many other countries have bigger military departments / commitments / conscription etc in their public service figures.

BeQuiet wrote: »

One of the problems is that virtually eveyone has someone close to them (own family usually) who is in some way on this vast government money gravy train.

Those of us working privately are paying for it, but no one really wants to tackle it - least of all the politicians who are not going to shhot thmslves in the foot.

Chatting to many people I think there is now a realisation in the country how much the public service gravy train is draining the country....30.5 million euro per day in borrowings as in the front page main story in one of the broadsheets recently.

P. Breathnach

BeQuiet wrote: »

Absolutely agree - gov need to think outside the box, and tackle this kind of vast waste of money.

This wont be even on the agenda however - no one has the balls !

It would be cheaper to shoot me than pay my pension.

BeQuiet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It would be cheaper to shoot me than pay my pension.

LOL

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It would be cheaper to shoot me than pay my pension.

When I wrote "As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc )." I was talking in general, for the sake of the country, not about your own particular circumstances, in which I have no particular interest.

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

Yes I did bring up the "issue of reducing PS pension payments", as this is one of the areas where savings in govt expenditure can be made.
As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc ).

can you prove this?
my friends dad worked for Lyons tea all his life and was made redundant a few years ago, and his pension is impressive to say the least. just one example of private pensions being good.

Idbatterim

why are they entitled to pensions at all? why not just contribute to a private one like everyone else does? i dont understand all of these perks, there would be thousands of people willing to take their jobs for less pay and worse conditions. And if anyone uses the arguament, but if you reduce pay, perks etc, the best etc will leave! dont make me laugh, leave and do what? I could accept that arguament if it was a well run efficient service! its anything but that! pity they didnt recruit Michael O'Leary to bord Snip Nua!

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

When I wrote "As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc )." I was talking in general, for the sake of the country, not about your own particular circumstances, in which I have no particular interest.

Yeah, right. So can I take it that everybody else's pension should be slashed, but that mine be left alone?

jimmmy

Most other pensions have been reduced or "slashed" as you put it .... those lucky enough to have them ( something like a million private sector peoople do not ). In contrast to this, public service pensions have not been reduced....not yet anyway;)

Riskymove

kceire wrote: »

can you prove this?
my friends dad worked for Lyons tea all his life and was made redundant a few years ago, and his pension is impressive to say the least. just one example of private pensions being good.

there have been many private companies that ran such pension schemes but they have been becoming rarer...there was a dispute in recent years at Bank of Ireland over changes in its scheme

I have no doubt that the pension scheme will be changed for new entrants to public service at some point

Gurgle

Idbatterim wrote: »

why are they entitled to pensions at all? why not just contribute to a private one like everyone else does?

I believe your sources of information are seriously flawed.

Idbatterim wrote: »

i dont understand all of these perks

Obviously.

BeQuiet

Idbatterim wrote: »

why are they entitled to pensions at all? why not just contribute to a private one like everyone else does? i dont understand all of these perks, there would be thousands of people willing to take their jobs for less pay and worse conditions. And if anyone uses the arguament, but if you reduce pay, perks etc, the best etc will leave! dont make me laugh, leave and do what? I could accept that arguament if it was a well run efficient service! its anything but that! pity they didnt recruit Michael O'Leary to bord Snip Nua!

That is EXACTLY what is needed - Michael O'Leary charing bord Snip Nua ...

It needs someone with his cojones to sort this unbelievable wastage out .

And on that - do you think the same O'Leary would endorse the NAMA bailout of the banks .... somehow i think he would have "issues with it " !

BeQuiet

Gurgle wrote: »

I believe your sources of information are seriously flawed.

Obviously.

No I disagree - he is correct . If you think they are "seriously flawed" , what is your evidence for that?
I think its fair to say that everyone and his dog in Ireland know that the level of public pensions is vastly in excess of that in the private (real) world.
If you think not, I would expect you to show some evidence of that .

If you dont have any such evidence (as i suspect), then dont bother posting meaningless comments. Thanks.

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

there would be thousands of people willing to take their jobs for less pay and worse conditions.

a common refrain these days..up there with "you are lucky to have a job"

.....perhaps we should bring in people from the thirld world who will work 14 hours a day for €1 a day....pay problem solved...:pac:

while we are at it we can do the same for all private jobs too...then we can all be happy as cost of services will drop and we can go back 100 years

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

That is EXACTLY what is needed - Michael O'Leary charing bord Snip Nua ...

It needs someone with his cojones to sort this unbelievable wastage out .

And on that - do you think the same O'Leary would endorse the NAMA bailout of the banks .... somehow i think he would have "issues with it " !

as per his recent Sunday indo piece, all he is interested in is removing the travel tax so Ryanair can make more money