Public sector workers willing to take pay cuts?

amacca

MrMicra wrote: »

Do you accept that my wages are my net pay but a public servants is his gross pay.

Say what? What you talkin bout willis?


I assume you are in the private sector?

Are your wages not your gross pay until tax (deductions) are made and then they become your net pay.

Is a public servants wages not his/her gross wages until tax (deductions) is/are taken out of them and then they become net pay too.

Is this an accounting thread?

Do you in fact mean that the public sector don't pay any tax at all when you think about it and really they are just a bunch of parasites sucking our country dry and they should in fact be taken out and shot so that everyone in the private sector doesn't have to pay their wages?

I'm expecting big thanks for the above paragraph from certain posters.

di2772

kippy wrote: »

Because, we wouldn't really save anything close to 20 billion if we did that.
I reckon, even if we cut the Dail in Half, Disbanded the Seanad and cut the salaries of all these ceo's by 75 percent, wed still only save a couple of hundred million per annum.
To shave 20 Billion of the wage bill demands cuts all over the shot, not JUST at the top.
I aint standing up for anyone, just making the point.

You are so right.
So instead of trying to make it all off the public sector, the fairest way is a blanket tax of 5 - 10% or whatever is necessary across all income for everyone in the country. No getting out of it for anyone. Everyone whether they earn a million to those on the dole or collecting childrens allowance.

The more you earn the more you pay, but everybody pays.
If we all stood together and took our medicine together instead of trying to get others to take, then we would be out of the woods in no time.

The problem is that everyone wants others to take it and not themselves.

Drumpot

di2772 wrote: »

If you read my post you'll see that i was talking about gambling when you are approaching retirement - when you should be consolidating.

Same challenge to you by the way.

Prove me wrong. Ive provided a site where anyone can get the figures. Run whatever figures you want in it. Show us all if a 40 year defined contribution pension doesnt beat a 40 year civil servant on the same salary.

Hint - I posted sample figures earlier in the thread, but they were just ignored.

Ah, one of the "sure its very straight forward isnt it" brigade.

If Im 54 years of age and been saving in a pension for 25 years or so and I see my policy drop 40%, come and tell me how confident you are that "it will make a comeback". Ridiculous assumption based on a non personal way of looking at your contract.

An investment is an investment and people SHOULD go on financial advice , but I know just as many people who remained in Equities (when I advised them to) as people who switched to Cash and Gilts out of fear.

All your figures assume a nice steady growth thats based on assumptions I have already mentioned. One of the assumptions not really discussed is the personal factor whereby people get scared and lock in their losses. That happens to people in their 30's aswell who will possibly never "gamble" (as you so irresponsibly phrase it) their pension and accept simply a pension that returns only marginally more then what was put in . .

I dont believe you work in the industry (of Pensions) as you keep referring to a website that has assumptions you dont seem to be able to elaborate on. . And your constant use of a quote system (as being your main arguement) shows you know little of what its like trying to get people to remain in these funds that collapsed (with your as a matter of fact comment that the funds made a 30% recovery!).

Heres an example thats factual and based on an Actuary Quote:

Person Age 25:

Saving €250 per month into their pension.
Lets assume its indexed (premium goes up 3% per year).
Lets assume a steady growth of 6% per year.
A Standard PRSA Contact:

Values:
Age 40: €75,980
Age 50: €187,961
Age 60: €381710
Age 65: €564748

Total Contributions: €231097
Overall Gross Growth: 144%

Disclosure: Above figures were done using a quote system from an Insurance company. They are factually accurate as of today.

Now Up to age 55 -65 its not unusual to have people slowly drip feeding their pensions into cash and gilts. Generally everybody else who is younger then this age is heavily "gambling" in equities, as its also a risk leaving your money in Cash and Gilts in that it doesnt even match inflation.

If I am 50 years of age and my pension was €187961 last year and it lost 50%, my value is straight away €93980. Even with a 30% recover, my value will be €122174 (that assumes I havent panicked and moved to cash).

You see what you dont seem to understand is that a fund that posts a 30 or 40 year average fund performance of 6% doesnt necessarily mean you will see a gross 6% growth that you see on the likes of websites that show in simply terms what a pension getting a 5% compounded return will have at retirement.

Put simply if I invest €100 into a fund and it makes 50% in year one. Its value is €150. If in the next two years it loses 15% in both years, your value of your fund will be €108, yet the Gross annualised performance of that fund over those three years will be 6.66% per year.

This clearly highlights the inadequacy of these kind of quotes. Another simple example to hammer my point home:

Year 1: Growth 10% = €10 gains - Value = €110
Year 2: Loss 10% = €11 loss - Value =€99
Annualised performance over two years 0% but you have lost €1!

Now multiply that by thousands over 40 years or so .

Hopefully you will stop quoting a website that isnt as clear cut as you like to believe . .

kippy

Riskymove wrote: »

no



you said "To shave 20 Billion of the wage bill demands cuts all over the shot, not JUST at the top"....

if you knew the figures were wrong, why say that?
why add to the ignorance?




fair enough, I think that's clear but not a reason not to cut pay at the top. If for no other reason than leadership for those at the bottom who will be also asked to take a cut

I wasnt saying not to cut pay at the top. Quiet the opposite in fact, just highlighting that that alone wont even start to solve our problems.
The figure is correct. We need to save 20 billion. The scary thing is what we need to save per annum is the entire PS wage bill so we need to make up that deficit somewhere.

steve_oh

more paycuts?? Hell no! We've already been skinned in 2009. We're not all on big bucks in the public sector. Some of them are but most of us are only barely scraping by as is. Thank gos I dont have a mortage. I'm better off on the dole if they bring in any morepaycuts. Leave the public sector alone:eek:

irish_bob

Trishis wrote: »

The role and duties of a clerical officer and that of a receptionist/secretary are totally different....some clerical officers work very hard and have a lot of pressure and dealines....

yeah , you lot are great with deadlines alright

check this out from another thread , not my story by the way , from after hours

I've had more than one bad experience at this stage - and I feel the need to rant about them if you dont mind

I remember I needed to get P21 forms before (few years back) and I went into the office in town to apply for them - the girl in there sent me to the ashtown gate office - which is not a public office to get them, and of course I had to go back and they ordered them for me in the town public office - like they should have in the first place!

I went online to bin tax and although you're supposed to do it online it wasnt working so went into the public office and ordered them - no sign of the cheque 3 months later

Needed my dad's P21 forms recently so logged onto revenue online to order them to find that I cant - because he is registered for income tax - and the company number is the same as his PPS number - he's never owned any business

So he went into the public office, the girl there said oh thats a tough one they'll need to do all sorts of checks now because he's been registered for income tax on their system for a good while
So he also asked about the bin tag cheque and the P21 forms and she said ye sure i'll send them out together - him stressing that they are needed urgently.

So today two weeks later rang up revenue to ask on the progress of the P21 forms - turns out they were never ordered!! And we've only 2 days until the deadline to have them in.

What a load of incompetent wasters (not all staff obviously but a small minority that I seem to come across all the time. I would expect everyone in revenue to take the job seriously)

irish_bob

heres another example of clerical officers reverence towards deadlines , again , not my story

If you think Revenue is bad, try county councils. I've been approved for a post grad grant (covers fees etc...) sent the paper work to them early last August, still haven't received a confirmation letter and I'm supposed to register this week and have the college putting the frighteners on me with having to pay half fees (3k) if I don't come up with the letter this week (it's registration week and you can't register if you're on a grant without the letter of approval). It's honest to God like something out of Angela's Ashes when the mother goes to St. Vincent de Paul looking for food, you're almost begging for money you're legally entitled to, and in this case it's not even the fecking money it's the letter to say you're poor enough that you'll be getting money. It's one bureacrary within another in this ****ing country.
I don't want to sound ungrateful, I am extemely grateful for the money (unlike some of the wasters who spend theirs on drink and drugs etc...) without the money I'd be ****ed, it would literally mean no education. It's just the way the money is given out, ****ing knob-heads in these state jobs, with no qualifications, can barely type and their in charge of distributing exchequer funds (albeit a small amount of funds in the greater scheme of things) in the most inefficient, slow manner, unaware of the hardship that they cause people.

di2772

Drumpot wrote: »

Ah, one of the "sure its very straight forward isnt it" brigade.

If Im 54 years of age and been saving in a pension for 25 years or so and I see my policy drop 40%, come and tell me how confident you are that "it will make a comeback". Ridiculous assumption based on a non personal way of looking at your contract.

An investment is an investment and people SHOULD go on financial advice , but I know just as many people who remained in Equities (when I advised them to) as people who switched to Cash and Gilts out of fear.

All your figures assume a nice steady growth thats based on assumptions I have already mentioned. One of the assumptions not really discussed is the personal factor whereby people get scared and lock in their losses. That happens to people in their 30's aswell who will possibly never "gamble" (as you so irresponsibly phrase it) their pension and accept simply a pension that returns only marginally more then what was put in . .

I dont believe you work in the industry (of Pensions) as you keep referring to a website that has assumptions you dont seem to be able to elaborate on. . And your constant use of a quote system (as being your main arguement) shows you know little of what its like trying to get people to remain in these funds that collapsed (with your as a matter of fact comment that the funds made a 30% recovery!).

Heres an example thats factual and based on an Actuary Quote:

Person Age 25:

Saving €250 per month into their pension.
Lets assume its indexed (premium goes up 3% per year).
Lets assume a steady growth of 6% per year.
A Standard PRSA Contact:

Values:
Age 40: €75,980
Age 50: €187,961
Age 60: €381710
Age 65: €564748

Total Contributions: €231097
Overall Gross Growth: 144%

Disclosure: Above figures were done using a quote system from an Insurance company. They are factually accurate as of today.

Now Up to age 55 -65 its not unusual to have people slowly drip feeding their pensions into cash and gilts. Generally everybody else who is younger then this age is heavily "gambling" in equities, as its also a risk leaving your money in Cash and Gilts in that it doesnt even match inflation.

If I am 50 years of age and my pension was €187961 last year and it lost 50%, my value is straight away €93980. Even with a 30% recover, my value will be €122174 (that assumes I havent panicked and moved to cash).

You see what you dont seem to understand is that a fund that posts a 30 or 40 year average fund performance of 6% doesnt necessarily mean you will see a gross 6% growth that you see on the likes of websites that show in simply terms what a pension getting a 5% compounded return will have at retirement.

Put simply if I invest €100 into a fund and it makes 50% in year one. Its value is €150. If in the next two years it loses 15% in both years, your value of your fund will be €108, yet the Gross annualised performance of that fund over those three years will be 6.66% per year.

This clearly highlights the inadequacy of these kind of quotes. Another simple example to hammer my point home:

Year 1: Growth 10% = €10 gains - Value = €110
Year 2: Loss 10% = €11 loss - Value =€99
Annualised performance over two years 0% but you have lost €1!

Now multiply that by thousands over 40 years or so .

Hopefully you will stop quoting a website that isnt as clear cut as you like to believe . .

Your post actually isnt as clear as you like to believe.
You are being a bit economical with the truth here.
There are a couple of areas you are omitting arent there

The big ones being
1 - Tax relief on your pension contributions. What rate have you included ... if any?

2 - The state pension of €12000 per year to add to your own pension.


Show us the figures again without the important info being left out.
And you are missing one important number too. Why?
How about telling us the TOTAL monthly sum that you will receive after retirement using your (corrected) calculations.


And please dont try to make us feel sorry for those who have gambled their pension (even if they were lead down the path by people like yourself) by not taking an active roll in it and having it protected as they near retirement. They have noone to blame but themselves.

di2772

steve_oh wrote: »

more paycuts?? Hell no! We've already been skinned in 2009. We're not all on big bucks in the public sector. Some of them are but most of us are only barely scraping by as is. Thank gos I dont have a mortage. I'm better off on the dole if they bring in any morepaycuts. Leave the public sector alone:eek:

Imagine a world where the whole of the public sector went on strike for a week and then another week, and then another .....?

I think that day is coming if we all dont step up and take responsibility instead of hammering the public sector. They are not the only ones who have to pay. We all have to pay. This passing the parcel is going to be the ruin of Ireland

Drumpot

di2772 wrote: »

Your post actually isnt as clear as you like to believe.
You are being a bit economical with the truth here.
There are a couple of areas you are omitting arent there

The big ones being
1 - Tax relief on your pension contributions. What rate have you included ... if any?

2 - The state pension of €12000 per year to add to your own pension.


Show us the figures again without the important info being left out.
And you are missing one important number too. Why?
How about telling us the TOTAL monthly sum that you will receive after retirement using your (corrected) calculations.


And please dont try to make us feel sorry for those who have gambled their pension (even if they were lead down the path by people like yourself) by not taking an active roll in it and having it protected as they near retirement. They have noone to blame but themselves.

Ok. . Now I know you dont know what you are talking about . . .

theres nothing hidden in these figures. .

I assum most people know that your tax relief on your contributions is based on your tax band . . What that has to do with this quote means that the less you get paid (under higher tax band) the less relief you get (and the more you pay for your pension). Does that happen in the Public service?

The Gross value at retirement includes the tax free lump sum (ie people are entitled to 25% of the value). So simply take 25% off the final retirement amount and you have the figures.

As for your comments on "Gamblers" again, simply highlights your lack of education on pensions themselves . .

Do your P.S marketing work elsewhere. Your out of your depth in this topic . .

Better get back to that website to see what other views you can muster . .

di2772

irish_bob wrote: »

yeah , you lot are great with deadlines alright

check this out from another thread , not my story by the way , from after hours

I've had more than one bad experience at this stage - and I feel the need to rant about them if you dont mind

I remember I needed to get P21 forms before (few years back) and I went into the office in town to apply for them - the girl in there sent me to the ashtown gate office - which is not a public office to get them, and of course I had to go back and they ordered them for me in the town public office - like they should have in the first place!

I went online to bin tax and although you're supposed to do it online it wasnt working so went into the public office and ordered them - no sign of the cheque 3 months later

Needed my dad's P21 forms recently so logged onto revenue online to order them to find that I cant - because he is registered for income tax - and the company number is the same as his PPS number - he's never owned any business

So he went into the public office, the girl there said oh thats a tough one they'll need to do all sorts of checks now because he's been registered for income tax on their system for a good while
So he also asked about the bin tag cheque and the P21 forms and she said ye sure i'll send them out together - him stressing that they are needed urgently.

So today two weeks later rang up revenue to ask on the progress of the P21 forms - turns out they were never ordered!! And we've only 2 days until the deadline to have them in.

What a load of incompetent wasters (not all staff obviously but a small minority that I seem to come across all the time. I would expect everyone in revenue to take the job seriously)

Are you saying that kind of sh1te doesnt happen in the private sector too? You should come to the company i work for and have a look at the cock ups that happen all the time. And have you ever tried dealing with O2, 3, NTL,?

A few weeks ago, I went to a Doctor with a very sore ankle after playing football. i couldnt even walk on it. "Go home, take some paracetamol" she said. The pain was so bad i went to the hospital (swiftcare clinic) when i left the doctor. It was broken. Nice one Doc.

di2772

Drumpot wrote: »

Ok. . Now I know you dont know what you are talking about . . .

theres nothing hidden in these figures. .

I assum most people know that your tax relief on your contributions is based on your tax band . . What that has to do with this quote means that the less you get paid the less relief you get (and the more you pay for your pension). Does that happen in the Public service?

The Gross value at retirement includes the tax free lump sum (ie people are entitled to 25% of the value). So simply take 25% off the final retirement amount and you have the figures.

As for your comments on "Gamblers" again, simply highlights your lack of education on pensions themselves . .

Do your P.S marketing work elsewhere. Your out of your depth in this topic . .

You're right. There is nothing hidden. There is some imprtant info left out though,isnt there?

So any chance of corrected figures then or are you just going to bull**** all night?

What about the expected final monthly pension number? Dont you think thats kind of important here?
Tip : Dont forget to add the €12,000 a year state pension.

im not surprised you take offence to me using the word gamble, since you are a self confessed gambler (with other peoples money).

irish_bob

di2772 wrote: »

Are you saying that kind of sh1te doesnt happen in the private sector too? You should come to the company i work for and have a look at the cock ups that happen all the time. And have you ever tried dealing with O2, 3, NTL,?

A few weeks ago, I went to a Doctor with a very sore ankle after playing football. i couldnt even walk on it. "Go home, take some paracetamol" she said. The pain was so bad i went to the hospital (swiftcare clinic) when i left the doctor. It was broken. Nice one Doc.

in the private sector , you can go to super value if you dont like the service in tesco

p.s
dont get me started on doctors

irish_bob

di2772 wrote: »

Imagine a world where the whole of the public sector went on strike for a week and then another week, and then another .....?

I think that day is coming if we all dont step up and take responsibility instead of hammering the public sector. They are not the only ones who have to pay. We all have to pay. This passing the parcel is going to be the ruin of Ireland

what do you mean exactly , the ps have escaped lightly so far , they are still vastly over paid across the board compared to other european countries and dont start with the cost of living , that would come down in a week if wages and wellfare came down but it ( cost of living ) never makes the 1st move

Drumpot

di2772 wrote: »

You're right. There is nothing hidden. There is some imprtant info left out though,isnt there?

So any chance of corrected figures then or are you just going to bull**** all night?

What about the expected final monthly pension number? Dont you think thats kind of important here?
Tip : Dont forget to add the €12,000 a year state pension.

Ah yes . . Thanks for pointing that out (Ive nothing to hide, just wondering how long you are going to drag this out!)

Ok . .

Lets assume that the world is perfect and we can make 6% compound per annum (how we do that by not gambling is anybodys guess, but lets just run with it . .) . The figure is 564748. You would get a pension rate from a company depending on the interest rates and other factors (male/female), spouses pension, Child pension at the time of your retirement . .

I assume Spouses Pension 100%
I assume client takes 25% tax free lump sum which leaves €423561
I Dont assume any childrens pension

Pension - €22182.20 per annum
State Pension - €12000 Per annum

Wow, now doesnt that look like alot of money . . .

BUT . .

Your comments on "Gambling" need to be explored . .

€1 can buy me a can of coke today . .I would bet it wouldnt even get me a mouthful of coke in 40 years . .

Equally €564748 in 40 years time will not be the same value it is today . .

So . .

The actual value of €564748 in 40 years time is €173158. This gives you an equivilant tax free lump sum of €43289 and a pension of €6775 per annum on top of your state pension . .

So the "true" value will be the state pension + €6775. .

Now, if I really do want my steady 5% growth, I couldnt get it putting it on deposit or in a cash fund as you would be lucky to get a 2.5% average. .

So, its actually a "gamble" to not invest your money, that you may end up losing out with inflation devaluing your pension.

My alternative is to "Gamble" to make up the difference.

As far as I am aware, under the Public service Pension scheme, you would be entitled to 2-3rds your final salary after 40 years (less service in many circumstances of "buying back years" or other departments) in service, plus your tax free lump sum. So if your salary is over €28162, you are better off them this D.C. Gambler (who would have to gamble to get the 6% returns)! And you have had none of the stress that goes with having a pension, if of course you are a gambler . . Which they all are whether they invest in something risky or not!


I tell you what, you tell us all how one takes away the whole "gambling" of ones pension and makes a guaranteed 5% to 6% without any downfalls . . ???

Is that enough . Or do you want to refer back to that website to make some more uneducated assumptions . .

boodlesdoodles

Irish Bob did you not get past the entrance exam for the PS or what? You picked a rant from the After Hours board but why didn't you post up the 2 pages of replies giving nothing but praise for people's dealings with the REvenue? Afraid it might be too balanced for you to deal with???

TaxiManMartin

Drumpot wrote: »

Ah yes . . Thanks for pointing that out (Ive nothing to hide, just wondering how long you are going to drag this out!)

Ok . .

Lets assume that the world is perfect and we can make 6% compound per annum (how we do that by not gambling is anybodys guess, but lets just run with it . .) . The figure is 564748. You would get a pension rate from a company depending on the interest rates and other factors (male/female), spouses pension, Child pension at the time of your retirement . .

I assume Spouses Pension 100%
I assume client takes 25% tax free lump sum which leaves €423561
I Dont assume any childrens pension

Pension - €22182.20 per annum
State Pension - €12000 Per annum

Wow, now doesnt that look like alot of money . . .

BUT . .

Your comments on "Gambling" need to be explored . .

€1 can buy me a can of coke today . .I would bet it wouldnt even get me a mouthful of coke in 40 years . .

Equally €564748 in 40 years time will not be the same value it is today . .

So . .

The actual value of €564748 in 40 years time is €173158. This gives you an equivilant tax free lump sum of €43289 and a pension of €6775 per annum on top of your state pension . .

So the "true" value will be the state pension + €6775. .

Now, if I really do want my steady 5% growth, I couldnt get it putting it on deposit or in a cash fund as you would be lucky to get a 2.5% average. .

So, its actually a "gamble" to not invest your money, that you may end up losing out with inflation devaluing your pension.

My alternative is to "Gamble" to make up the difference.

As far as I am aware, under the Public service Pension scheme, you would be entitled to 2-3rds your final salary after 40 years (less service in many circumstances of "buying back years" or other departments) in service, plus your tax free lump sum. So if your salary is over €28162, you are better off them this D.C. Gambler (who would have to gamble to get the 6% returns)! And you have had none of the stress that goes with having a pension, if of course you are a gambler . . Which they all are whether they invest in something risky or not!


I tell you what, you tell us all how one takes away the whole "gambling" of ones pension and makes a guaranteed 5% to 6% without any downfalls . . ???

Is that enough . Or do you want to refer back to that website to make some more uneducated assumptions . .

I think di2772s very clear. You though, are leaving out some very important facts. Why. Are you making this up as you go along?
What percentage are you adding to the pension payments from tax relief. Surely anyone not on the higher rate of tax even 10 years into their career needs to reconsider what they are doing. So you should factor this in.
Anyone not onthe higher rate when they retire will be carried by the rest of because they surely haven't funded heir own state pension.

I also thought his gambling analogy was pretty clear. He was refering to attitude to risk I the latter years of your career. What so hard to understand there.

And since you are comparing to a public sector pension versus a private sector one, why not use the same criteria for both?

And your example about inflation and a can of coke. I can only laugh. Inflation willl also increase the salary, state pension, etc over the 40 year oeriod you are talking about.

Come on admit it. You do t really work with pensions at all do you?

If you do, I pray my pension is not near you. What cmpany do you work for, because if it's where my pension is I'm moving.

Drumpot

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

I think di2772s very clear. You though, are leaving out some very important facts. Why. Are you making this up as you go along?
What percentage are you adding to the pension payments from tax relief. Surely anyone not on the higher rate of tax even 10 years into their career needs to reconsider what they are doing. So you should factor this in.
Anyone not onthe higher rate when they retire will be carried by the rest of because they surely haven't funded heir own state pension.

I also thought his gambling analogy was pretty clear. He was refering to attitude to risk I the latter years of your career. What so hard to understand there.

And since you are comparing to a public sector pension versus a private sector one, why not use the same criteria for both?

And your example about inflation and a can of coke. I can only laugh. Inflation willl also increase the salary, state pension, etc over the 40 year oeriod you are talking about.

Come on admit it. You do t really work with pensions at all do you?

If you do, I pray my pension is not near you. What cmpany do you work for, because if it's where my pension is I'm moving.

Making up stuff ? ? My quotes were done (Pension, todays value, Annuity cost) using today's insurance companies systems. Phone Irish life and New Ireland for similar quotes and see what they give you.

Neither of you appear to understand pensions at all . . I forgot that and assumed you understood the very basic concept of the quote (even though I highlighted the assumptions). Im here to debate, not educate, so find somebody who will help you understand what I am saying before replying.

In the quote the person is contributing €250 per month. They are getting tax relief on this investment at their basic rate. So if they are on the higher bracket they are paying €147.50 Net, if they are on the lower bracket they are paying €200. Do I have to keep repeating this ?

Neither you or the other fella understand my explanation of how Inflation affects the value of any asset you have . .

My coke explanation was very clear and obvious, if you dont understand it (which you dont) try asking somebody that understands how inflation works, what would happen if you sat on €1 for 40 years! How would its purchasing power be affected?

As for my gambling example, once again, its a very basic concept that you have failed to grasp but its very simple. Any money you put into your pension is a gamble. If you dont invest it in a fund that gets you returns greater then inflation then you are losing the value of your investment. Thats the gamble one takes when one decides not to go into high yield equities. Im sorry Im not going over it again, its very simple concept, if you cannot grasp it, you shouldnt be having this debate.

In Public and Private debate - public sector pensions are guaranteed. The value is dependent on your final salary and service. The government guarantees you a salary thats 2-3rds of your salary. With Private pensions the value is dependent on your returns and what you put in.

Its clearly obvious you guys don't know what you are talking about and because of your lack of understanding of how pensions work, you are in cable to discuss this without turning to what I would call "republican" throw-outs (ie throw random pointless arguements out there to take the focus off your lack of understanding of the topic).

I have explained in detail where I got my figures from. They are all available for anybody, just phone up the companies. The "real value" in todays terms was calculated by an actuary in a Life Office. .

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

heres another example of clerical officers reverence towards deadlines , again , not my story

I see you are posting some selective tales from that thread, why not just link to the thread?

are you worried people may see all the "my experience with revenue has been very good" type posts that are also in it?


i bet if you browse through consumer issues threads you'll find a lot more people giving out about experiences with private sector organisations than public sector

optocynic

di2772 wrote: »

Imagine a world where the whole of the public sector went on strike for a week and then another week, and then another .....?

I think that day is coming if we all dont step up and take responsibility instead of hammering the public sector. They are not the only ones who have to pay. We all have to pay. This passing the parcel is going to be the ruin of Ireland

I would say that we ARE all taking the pain, and us in the Private sector don't have guaranteed jobs and pensions.

But, I ask you this, or rather I ask everyone this... what would happen if the PS did strike?.. Isn't there a chance that we would feel pain, but also see the PS areas that we really don't need?

Riskymove

I would say that we ARE all taking the pain, and us in the Private sector don't have guaranteed jobs and pensions.

very true.....but to varying degrees of "pain"

there are all sorts of reports which people will either champion or reject depending on view... but....for example, everyone I know who works for a bank has been unaffected outside of tax hikes, some got bonuses for last year

a further pay cut for PS is coming but it will be less than 10% imo in general, top level may well be reduced by more as the cumulative increases for some have been incredible over the years.

anyone really believing in 20% or 50% pay cuts is not in the real world

But, I ask you this, or rather I ask everyone this... what would happen if the PS did strike?.. Isn't there a chance that we would feel pain, but also see the PS areas that we really don't need?

its too subjective

some people have limited involvement with public services, some are dependent and most in between

if the "entire PS" was on strike - no schools, no hospitals, no welfare and so on would overshadow any lack of smaller, yet important to someone areas

optocynic

Riskymove wrote: »

very true.....but to varying degrees of "pain"

there are all sorts of reports which people will either champion or reject depending on view... but....for example, everyone I know who works for a bank has been unaffected outside of tax hikes, some got bonuses for last year

a further pay cut for PS is coming but it will be less than 10% imo in general, top level may well be reduced by more as the cumulative increases for some have been incredible over the years.

anyone really believing in 20% or 50% pay cuts is not in the real world




its too subjective

some people have limited involvement with public services, some are dependent and most in between

if the "entire PS" was on strike - no schools, no hospitals, no welfare and so on would overshadow any lack of smaller, yet important to someone areas

I admit, I was being whimsical with the 'would we notice a strike' question. But surely, the large numbers of people and buraucracy in the PS needs to be addressed. Why is it so outlandish to expect the PS to be lean and efficient... like a Private Sector business?

I may not like the dude, but O'Leary would be perfect to tidy up the PS mess...

Drumpot

Riskymove wrote: »

very true.....but to varying degrees of "pain"

there are all sorts of reports which people will either champion or reject depending on view... but....for example, everyone I know who works for a bank has been unaffected outside of tax hikes, some got bonuses for last year

a further pay cut for PS is coming but it will be less than 10% imo in general, top level may well be reduced by more as the cumulative increases for some have been incredible over the years.

anyone really believing in 20% or 50% pay cuts is not in the real world

its too subjective

some people have limited involvement with public services, some are dependent and most in between

if the "entire PS" was on strike - no schools, no hospitals, no welfare and so on would overshadow any lack of smaller, yet important to someone areas

I agree .

A big part of the problem is calculating out whats proportionally fair. The private sector will cut its cloth to suit its costs, the public service equally will have to do so.

Remember when employees in the private sector are getting lower wages, the state is getting less Tax revenue to pay the public service . .

I believe that those on the lower incomes should pay little or no extra taxes. we need to protect the vulnerable where we can. The problem is that those on the higher end of the pay are the ones in power, the decision makers and the ones who will most resist any attempts to reduce their wages (I say this as a generalization, as I am sure theres a few decent moral high earners in the public service ).

Riskymove

But surely, the large numbers of people and buraucracy in the PS needs to be addressed. Why is it so outlandish to expect the PS to be lean and efficient... like a Private Sector business?

an bord snip recommends 17,000 posts phased out and there has been a general ban on recruitment and promotion in place for some time...so numbers are being reduced

a general problem is the common perception opf the PS being a huge number of faceless desk jockies overseeing a few busy nurses and teachers....this is far from reality....the majority of staff are frontline staff - teachers and other education staff, nurses and other health staff, guards, prison officers etc

the entire civil service accounts for only around 10% of the PS

I may not like the dude, but O'Leary would be perfect to tidy up the PS mess...

I disagree, he may try and get rid of a lot of staff and fight unions (though its a lot easier to refuse unions in your business than get rid of a large number of entrenched unions) but that does not mean services would be run efficiently as in the private sector its about costs and profits, the public sector is entirely different

besides Ryanair may be cost efficient but have you seen the amount of complaints from customers?

Riskymove

Drumpot wrote: »

The problem is that those on the higher end of the pay are the ones in power, the decision makers and the ones who will most resist any attempts to reduce their wages (I say this as a generalization, as I am sure theres a few decent moral high earners in the public service ).

in fairness to them Ministers took a 10% pay cut on top of the levy and were joined by Secretary Generals of Departments and some other top level people, however, many have not joined them and shows the problems with the idea of a "voluntary" cut

most people wont volunteer a cut or appear to be willing to accept a cut but I think, like the levy, a reasonable cut will be grudgingly accepted in the PS, I cannot see a general strike....sure some individual sectors may react but this is not the 1980s as the reaction to current strikes have shown, there is no real working class solidarity as there was back then due to the high wages across most sectors of society.

optocynic

Riskymove wrote: »

an bord snip recommends 17,000 posts phased out and there has been a general ban on recruitment and promotion in place for some time...so numbers are being reduced

That number of jobs will never be phased out because of the obtuse and selfish Unions (O'Connor sepcifically!).. We do need drastic reductions in needless jobs created during the 'boom'... Or, why not move those people to another PS sectors where they could be made WORK! And reduce the HUGE salaries of the top men... they constantly underachieve...

The perception that most PS workers do the square-root of FA is there for a reason!.. We all know PS workers... you can't pull the wool over our eyes... and I wish the PS would stop hiding behind the Nurses.. we all love the nurses.. they work HARD.. help the sick... and wear those uniforms!

Riskymove

That number of jobs will never be phased out because of the obtuse and selfish Unions (O'Connor sepcifically!).. We do need drastic reductions in needless jobs created during the 'boom'...

I disagree, it has already started, natural wastage alone removes around 4,000 posts a year from public sector

combined with non-renewal of contracts, early retirement etc that number increases

Or, why not move those people to another PS sectors where they could be made WORK!

thats being done too.....SW are having people assigned to them from other Departments

its planned to move some managers from HSE to Civil service, local government

And reduce the HUGE salaries of the top men... they constantly underachieve...

definetely required

the report on high level pay in public service is due shortly

Shatner

Riskymove wrote: »

an bord snip recommends 17,000 posts phased out and there has been a general ban on recruitment and promotion in place for some time...so numbers are being reduced

a general problem is the common perception opf the PS being a huge number of faceless desk jockies overseeing a few busy nurses and teachers....this is far from reality....the majority of staff are frontline staff - teachers and other education staff, nurses and other health staff, guards, prison officers etc

the entire civil service accounts for only around 10% of the PS



I disagree, he may try and get rid of a lot of staff and fight unions (though its a lot easier to refuse unions in your business than get rid of a large number of entrenched unions) but that does not mean services would be run efficiently as in the private sector its about costs and profits, the public sector is entirely different

besides Ryanair may be cost efficient but have you seen the amount of complaints from customers?

I would be interested to know how many positions have been lost through the ban on recruitment. There must have been a significant number of people lost through retirement etc. that have not been replaced. And the ban on promotion must mean that those higher grade retirees have not been replaced either.

Has there been much of an uptake on the sabbiticals?

Riskymove

Shatner wrote: »

I would be interested to know how many positions have been lost through the ban on recruitment. There must have been a significant number of people lost through retirement etc. that have not been replaced. And the ban on promotion must mean that those higher grade retirees have not been replaced either.

Has there been much of an uptake on the sabbiticals?

i dont have the figures but there was a recent story which said the take-up was below what was expected and they have now extended the deadline for the early retirement by a month

where I work I'd say around 50 people between the early retirement and career break

most of those taking the early retirement are at higher grades and has resulted in re-organisation of the org to a certain extent

irish_bob

Riskymove wrote: »

I see you are posting some selective tales from that thread, why not just link to the thread?

are you worried people may see all the "my experience with revenue has been very good" type posts that are also in it?


i bet if you browse through consumer issues threads you'll find a lot more people giving out about experiences with private sector organisations than public sector

i really have heard it all now