17,000 job cuts proposed... Does this sound like insanity to anyone else?

How Strange

blade912 wrote: »

They should cap the top rate of pay including perks and expenses to 140,000 for the public sector and reduce the pay by 30% for the top earners to 5% for the lower end of pay. Then you can keep them all at work.

+1

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

wont comment on most of the nonesense in your post but speaking of french , did you know that irish teachers wages are 55% higher than in la france

Not so. The highest point on the scale for teachers in Ireland is €55132; in France it is €49155 (2006 rates, the most recent published comparisons -- See www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008 ). That looks to me like a difference of just over 12%.

[I see in a later post you widened the claimed gap to 75%, making the inaccuracy even greater.]

partyatmygaff

Cut the defence forces, don't touch the gardaí because its bad enough, cut all that gaeltacht bullsh1t out and wouldn't it be great if they stopped printing all government documents in Irish and English when nobody uses the Irish version.

irish_bob

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Wrong.
You may want to check out the EU Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices. It's a Cost of Living Index for all EU member states. I think you'll find that the cost of living is higher in France.
Cost of Living in Ireland in May 2009- 107.6
Cost of Living in France in May 2009- 107.03

Not exactly "much much lower than in Ireland"...infact the opposite

wouldnt pay too much intention to public sector clones parroting the lines they heard at union camp , to the last man and woman they all utter the same slogans messrs begg and o connor briefed them with

WE DIDNT CAUSE THIS MESS
THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE LOWER COST OF LIVING THAN IRELAND
PRIVATE SECTOR CREAMED IT DURING THE BOOM
TAX THE RICH

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

and they have been so far the gift that keeps on giving to you

Yes, and as per the Bord snip report they have given us a 7.5% pay cut as opposed to a 3 to 4% pay cut in the private sector.

The adoption of the pension levy in 2009 has on average reduced public sector wages by 7½% and saved the Exchequer in the order of €1.4bn in a full year.

While information on private sector wage patterns is more difficult to establish, there appear to have been reductions in private sector pay rates in many sectors (although no firm data is as yet available later than Q4 2008). A March 2009 survey carried out on behalf of the Central Bank indicates that
many private-sector employers have reduced wages by 3 to 4% to date,

http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl100vol2.pdf

Page 186.

KingPuck

This recession will do the country good. An overweight economy at a serious risk of a stroke that can save itself but a strict diet. This is an opportunity to cut the fat.

I know that many civil servants are hard working...but the truth is that work was MADE to justify the employment of many of them. Commission for this agency for that. A load of xxxx.

I'll never forget driving through Limerick one time when I saw 5 council workers putting up an 8 ft road sign. One was on a ladder, 2 more holding the ladder and the other 2 were 3 feet away looking at the fella on the ladder. It sounds like a joke but alas it's not.......

gurramok

dresden8 wrote: »

Yes, and as per the Bord snip report they have given us a 7.5% pay cut as opposed to a 3 to 4% pay cut in the private sector.

http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl100vol2.pdf

Page 186.

Thats a 'pension levy', you'll get it back.

How many of the 415,000 unemployed came from the public sector?

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

wouldnt pay too much intention to public sector clones parroting the lines they heard at union camp , to the last man and woman they all utter the same slogans messrs begg and o connor briefed them with

WE DIDNT CAUSE THIS MESS
THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE LOWER COST OF LIVING THAN IRELAND
PRIVATE SECTOR CREAMED IT DURING THE BOOM
TAX THE RICH

That's a measured response.

superhooper

SNIP should have been looking for efficiencies. Head count slashing is lazy and in the long term counter productive. Any fool with a red pen could carry that out.While I did see imagination used in some areas most of it seems to be a scare tactic which was disappointing as I really thought that these guys would be up to the job .:(

dresden8

gurramok wrote: »

Thats a 'pension levy', you'll get it back.

How many of the 415,000 unemployed came from the public sector?

If it's a "pension levy" perhaps you can show me where my pension contributions are invested and what sort of rate of return the government/NTMA will get on my "pension contribution".

What strategy are they pursuing with my future? I'm fascinated to find out.

As regards the unemployed, I don't know but a lot of short-term public servants have been let go. You tell me.

Sparks

gurramok wrote: »

Thats a 'pension levy', you'll get it back.

Actually, I pay that right now and I won't get it back because I don't qualify for the pension it pays for.
And most of the research staff in TCD seem to be in the same boat there.

francish

dresden8 wrote: »

That's a measured response.

It's the truth.

DTrotter

irish_bob wrote: »

as ed walsh said on matt cooper earlier , thier will be no need for school children to be effected if teachers choose to take a pay cut , like i said earlier , they are paid 75% more than in france and 55% more than in finland , the teachers have moaned and moaned about class sizes but when it came to negoitations , they have always opted for pay rises instead of chalk and blackboards

I'd love to see back up for this, is it comparing same levels? And you actually said 55% higher than France earlier.

francish

superhooper wrote: »

SNIP should have been looking for efficiencies. Head count slashing is lazy and in the long term counter productive. Any fool with a red pen could carry that out.While I did see imagination used in some areas most of it seems to be a scare tactic which was disappointing as I really thought that these guys would be up to the job .:(

"Head count slashing is lazy" - there are too many headcounts, so some should be sacked. This is a fact. Explain how it's being lazy?

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

... How many of the 415,000 unemployed came from the public sector?

I know a few. People on temporary contracts who might otherwise have had reasonable hopes of continuing employment have been laid off. I don't have numbers, but I am sure that they add up to a goodly number.

dresden8

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, I pay that right now and I won't get it back because I don't qualify for the pension it pays for.
And most of the research staff in TCD seem to be in the same boat there.

How dare you!!!!!

Letting the truth get in the way of a public sector bash.

Burn them as witches I say!

gurramok

dresden8 wrote: »

If it's a "pension levy" perhaps you can show me where my pension contributions are invested and what sort of rate of return the government/NTMA will get on my "pension contribution".

What strategy are they pursuing with my future? I'm fascinated to find out.

As regards the unemployed, I don't know but a lot of short-term public servants have been let go. You tell me.

You have a chance every 5 years to vote on how your pension is invested

Its explained here http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/02/08/story39365.asp

Dunno where you got 7.5%, did you leave out the tax relief on pensions part?

So, as with all employees, public servants are entitled to tax relief on their pension contributions, including those paid under the new levy rules.

The tax relief on the levy will mean that in net terms it will actually account for about 4 per cent of the average public sector employee’s wages. ‘‘Taxable income is net of the pension contribution.

So 4% the pay cut really is.

"I don't know but a lot of short-term public servants have been let go" = temporary positions, they were going to be let go anyway, called contracts.

Very few permo public sector employees have been let go. This Snip report is the start of identifying where those permo cuts can be made and we know the unions would rather put the country on IMF radar through sheer greed than grasp reality.

DTrotter

francish wrote: »

"Head count slashing is lazy" - there are too many headcounts, so some should be sacked. This is a fact. Explain how it's being lazy?

I'd say some should never be there in the first place.

dresden8

WE DIDNT CAUSE THIS MESS
THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE LOWER COST OF LIVING THAN IRELAND
PRIVATE SECTOR CREAMED IT DURING THE BOOM
TAX THE RICH

francish wrote: »

It's the truth.

Damned right it's the truth.

Shaughraun

This to me is the most important question, and one that needs to be asked by everyone involved in this bloodbath- are the majority of these "snips" a direct result of bailing out the banks?

mrgaa1

Its time for a dictatorship - a tyrant if you like. Then they can remove all the unions, implement all necessary changes and lets get it done. We all know there are too many people out there getting far too well paid for the little they do. For unions to publicly state that well the country can go to hell we won't take a pay cut is outrageous.
Too many managers in far too many places, teachers etc... over-paid, too many TD's, what does the senate do?, too many agencies doing the same sort of work, too many town councils - why do we need them, why do we need county councils.
FFS we are a country of no more than 5million people. We are over administered and we need to slimline the system.
Cut the dole money by 10% not 5%.
Borrow more money and invest in jobs - create work. Our schools are a mess, roads not finished, where the f*ck is broadband, more technology jobs, more R&D into greener jobs and become a leader.
It makes sense to remove dead wood where not needed. It makes sense to make severe cuts. Severe financial issues require severe actions. And any unit that refuses ignore them and get it done. The longer term consequence of doing nothing is not worth experiencing.

gurramok

Shaughraun wrote: »

This to me is the most important question, and one that needs to be asked by everyone involved in this bloodbath- are the majority of these "snips" a direct result of bailing out the banks?

No. Bailing out the banks is an extra cost of bad govt policy conducted over the last several years.

These cuts are based on 2009 tax revenues which are about the same level as 2001 tax revenues with 2006 expenditure. http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pzcsCLFvURLWO5dSWjO2kbg&gid=0

What happened between 2001 and 2009 was a construction fuelled credit bubble where public sector pay was based on at the peak of that bubble in 2006. In other words, it will be many years before 2006 tax revenues will appear again hence the needed cuts now.

francish

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Seriously... I accept we need to save public money, but more unemployment? Nice way to prolong the vicious cycle of falling profits for companies = more redundancies to break even... Those 17,000 people will take more money out of circulation and add a further strain to the social welfare bill. Whatever we do to fix our economy, this cannot possibly be the right way forward...

Opinions?

It is insane to suggest that we should continue to pay/employ people who are adding no value. It is insane not to cut all the waste that has been built up during the Ahern decade. It is insane that we can’t simply sack 1/4 of public sector in the morning and not have to but up with Jack O'Connor, David Begg and co., listening to their nonsense. It's is insane that the Irish Government are so slow to react, how long to we want to stay in this recession.
The logic of your post suggests that we could solve unemployment crises by increasing the public sector, absolute nonsense.

P. Breathnach

superhooper wrote: »

SNIP should have been looking for efficiencies...

Of course they should, but the time-frame for their work would not have enabled a thorough exercise of that sort. Of course there are some inefficiencies in the organisation and delivery of services, and I don't think many people would dispute that. But the elimination of inefficiencies or, to be more realistic about what can be achieved, the reduction of inefficiencies to a tolerable minimum, would probably not yield savings on anything like the scale required.

superhooper

francish wrote: »

"Head count slashing is lazy" - there are too many headcounts, so some should be sacked. This is a fact. Explain how it's being lazy?

Cutting jobs for the sake of a head count will invariably lead to cutting of jobs that are productive and contribute to the economy. E.g cutting the number of teachers by say 50% will give you a great head count on paper but lead to a decrease in the standard of education particularly in the long term. This type of one sided recommendation is lazy.

P. Breathnach

Shaughraun wrote: »

This to me is the most important question, and one that needs to be asked by everyone involved in this bloodbath- are the majority of these "snips" a direct result of bailing out the banks?

No. There is no direct connection. But all of our economic problems touch on one another.

dresden8

gurramok wrote: »

You have a chance every 5 years to vote on how your pension is invested

Its explained here http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/02/08/story39365.asp

Dunno where you got 7.5%, did you leave out the tax relief on pensions part? .

If you follow the quote I got if from the report. Please pay attention. And where did the benchmarking figure come from, did you leave out the taxation of that amount? And reading your own link the 7.5% is in there as well. No wonder you never passed the public service reading comprehension test.

Oh, and multiple smileys don't actually make a point. If you have a point to make, please make it.

gurramok wrote: »

So 4% the pay cut really is.

"I don't know but a lot of short-term public servants have been let go" = temporary positions, they were going to be let go anyway, called contracts.

Very few permo public sector employees have been let go.

And, shock horror, not all the private sector has been let go, no matter how much the public sector bashers love to carry the unemployed as a banner before them.

Since you raised the point of how many public servants have been let go I think I'm within my rights on this board to ask for a reference/quotation as proof.

dresden8

gurramok wrote: »

Thats a 'pension levy', you'll get it back.

And as another point, many people who have joined the public service later in life will never qualify for anything more than the state contributory pension, which they qualify for through their PRSI contributions.

Their "pension levy" qualifies them for not 1 cent extra.

francish

superhooper wrote: »

Cutting jobs for the sake of a head count will invariably lead to cutting of jobs that are productive and contribute to the economy. E.g cutting the number of teachers by say 50% will give you a great head count on paper but lead to a decrease in the standard of education particularly in the long term. This type of one sided recommendation is lazy.

Who has proposed cutting teachers by 50%?

There are other way to improve productivity in education sytem than merely increaing numbers. At present, there is no real evaluation of teachers to ensure they are performing. You could cut teacher numbers by 20% and bring in productivity by bringing in proper evaluation system, sacking underperformers and rewarding achievers.

TheSpecialOne

whats with all the abuse towards teachers?!....im fairly new to this stuff so if someone could explain id be grateful...and if its about pay thats pretty ridiculous in my opinion as they are setting kids up for life....as for the holidays and stuff if its all so good why doesnt everyone do it especially with the big salary...maybe you werent good enough?!dont take it out on those who were good enough!by the way if this is the main issue sorry for the first part of this comment!