Public sector workers willing to take pay cuts?

mox54

the one certainty here and also the one certain thing to down too is.......Ireland down the plug hole...and we're going down fast:eek:

erictheviking

The Muppet wrote: »

Here's a radical idea, How about dropping the actual cost of living first and then lowering wages in line with that.

Saying the cost of living will definitely drop is a red herring IMO. Petrol, energy prices, existing mortgage's etc are only going one way over the next few years and it's not down.

great idea! Why should the PAYE worker always take the hit first?

ixoy

erictheviking wrote: »

great idea! Why should the PAYE worker always take the hit first?

How precisely would you lower the cost-of-living first? Do you force shops to lower their prices? They'd then need to cut wages to meet these new targets or else face even more trouble. You can't cut mortgage interest rates as that's not in our control.

Public sector workers need to take a pay cut because their unions never did anything to try and tackle the bloat and are unwilling to do so now. I believe that major reform would be possible to create a slimmer refined and more effecient service but there's too much in the way and it would take too long so now the axe will probably fall.

dearg lady

who's going to drop the cost of living?? It generally responds to supply and demand principles, ie, people have less money, therefore cost of living drops.

Do you want the government to get involved and start setting prices? :eek:

Idbatterim

i constantly hear how 1.7 million workers are private sector and the power we should wield! is the only way to stop the gravy train and overpaid public sector by completely freezing our spending to as large a degree as possible, ofcourse i realise that this will first of all hit the private sector, but instead of it being a situation where the government are adopting a wait and see will we get away with it scenario, that option would be ruled out?

irish_bob

murf313 wrote: »

its amazing reading through this thread how spiteful people are (irish_bob, tippman)
you really seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the public service. its actually quite sad.

sure, the public sector needs to be shaken up and alot of the waste done away with.

but i can tell you right now there WONT be cuts to wages like your suggesting. if you think for one minute that our useless government have the balls to cut pay you are sadly mistaken.

maybe you should cop onto yourselves and release public servants are people like you with mortgages etc.
if you implement a 25% cut, they will be unable to pay their bill etc.
maybe you would rather see them on the street........

i dont believe if a guard took a 25% pay cut that he would be on the street and i dont believe he wouldnt be able to pay his mortgage , perhaps the one on his second home but he can sell that if hes that stuck

irish_bob

The Muppet wrote: »

Here's a radical idea, How about dropping the actual cost of living first and then lowering wages in line with that.

Saying the cost of living will definitely drop is a red herring IMO. Petrol, energy prices, existing mortgage's etc are only going one way over the next few years and it's not down.

that would mean the state going around the country and forcing every retail outlet to drop their prices , completley unrealistic , when wages and wellfare drop , the market will see to it that cost of living drops as the peoples purchasing power will be reduced , thats the reason a cup of coffe in down town lagos doesnt cost 10 euro , the vast majority of people there cant afford it , the reason coffee shops in monte carlo charge this and more is the people there can

Dozen Wicked Words

irish_bob wrote: »

i dont believe if a guard took a 25% pay cut that he would be on the street and i dont believe he wouldnt be able to pay his mortgage , perhaps the one on his second home but he can sell that if hes that stuck

There we go, points scoring at its very best.

erictheviking

irish_bob wrote: »

that would mean the state going around the country and forcing every retail outlet to drop their prices , completley unrealistic , when wages and wellfare drop , the market will see to it that cost of living drops as the peoples purchasing power will be reduced , thats the reason a cup of coffe in down town lagos doesnt cost 10 euro , the vast majority of people there cant afford it , the reason coffee shops in monte carlo charge this and more is the people there can

OK, lets just kick the PAYE worker when he's down by forcing him and his family to take the hit......yet again!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jamie-b

Taxing your way out of a recession does not work. If you cut public sector wages those people will stop spending money and the businesses that rely on them will go bust.
The goverment needs to encourage the growth of small businesses and that cannot be achieved unless employees of public and and private sector have the money to spend.

di2772

dearg lady wrote: »

who's going to drop the cost of living?? It generally responds to supply and demand principles, ie, people have less money, therefore cost of living drops.

Do you want the government to get involved and start setting prices? :eek:

Yes. Tax everybody equally. And tax us with a nice big lump - about 5 - 10% across all income.

Then watch the cost of living fall.

No point taxing just certain sectors of society. The other sectors will still be holding up the prices. And at the same time we can boost the govt coffers.

Nonsense about people not spending when they are taxed more. When prices fall they will spend.

Hootanany

Tax them Tax them all the long & the short & the tall

murf313

irish_bob wrote: »

i dont believe if a guard took a 25% pay cut that he would be on the street and i dont believe he wouldnt be able to pay his mortgage , perhaps the one on his second home but he can sell that if hes that stuck

which garda would this be?? any guards i know dont have second homes...
maybe you shouldnt be spouting crap?
if you took a 25% pay cut how would you fare?
and there are more in the public sector than the gardai, what about those of us that make less than a garda?
i really dont know where your gettin some of your good ideas.....

synd

To clear up a few myths espoused by the propagadistic lapdogs of IBEC.

According to the OCED benefits and wages database Irish private sector wages are around 11% below the EU15 average. Employers benefit from the lowest social security contributions in Europe standing at 10% compared to 45% in France or 35% in Italy. Irish workers work nearly three weeks more per year than their European counterparts. Im really perplexed as to the suggestion that we are in someway ''uncompetitive'' with our European counterparts. The most comprehensive review of the Irish public sector was carried out by the OCED in 2008. Public spending increased 30% between 1995 and 2005. It did not entail an increase in borrowings, rather was retrieved from the greater share of surplus. Ireland ran a huge budget surplus until 2007. According to the OCED Ireland ranks third lowest with regards public expenditure in % of the GDP -ahead only of South Korea and Mexico.

So what do our liberal friends mean when they say Ireland is uncompetitive when we take the above into consideration. What they mean is that we are uncompetitive with eastern european labor markets. Now, in order to compete with a Polish wage we would require a decrease in the region of 80% - something that is ridicules given the cost of living ect. However, it is important to understand that these liberal lapdogs who espouse IBECs line - are in favor of the very deregulation that institutionalizes such gross reductions in wage ect. They seek to remove restrictions on capital so it may relocate and undermine various regional agreements ect. Liberalism is an idealogical tool of class warfare - this needs to be understood clearly by all workers of this nation.

As far as the pensions go public sector workers pay 6 and a half % of their wage towards it - where private sector schemes exist the average rate is 5%. Higher clerical officers for instance start on 24,255py and over the course of twelve years hit 36,977py - the average industrial wage. Support officers in an-post start at 24,024 - after 14 years reach 36,087. There (are) however administrators and consultants that receive astronomical wages - academics in UCD on 400,000py and many university admins on 250,000py. When these are calculated into the average it can naturally distort the overall picture, needless to say this strata of the public sector are un-unionized.

Additionally reductions in wage cause a decrease in demand - and invariably deepen recessions.

Kama

Might be worth mentioning that this downward wage push doesn't extend to managerial renumeration:
(figures for manufacturing sector)


Wage costs increasing, while non-managerial wages declining...the knife of 'competitiveness' seems somewhat selective in its cuts, somewhat consistent with the Warren Buffett approach of 'there's a class war and we're winning it'.



The assumption that the critical variable in our cost base nationally is the 'bloated public sector', like any ideological presupposition, is taken as given, and requires no justification. The public sector costs may not be a mote, but IBEC are studiously inattentive to their own beam; the mouths that speak of 'sharing the pain', curiously do not see that sharing as including themselves.

synd wrote:

Additionally reductions in wage cause a decrease in demand - and invariably deepen recessions.

Indeed. And those towards the bottom of the income distribution spend their wages back into consumption to a greater extent, so the deflationary effects are greater.

But sure we're pro-cyclical, manic-depressive Irish. Must be the weather...

di2772

I worked for IBEC a good few years ago.
Do not under any circumstances believe a word from them.
The ordinary worker (not the company owners) would have a fit if they saw the specs of their software that they produce their reports from and compile info.
To say their data is "massaged" would be an understatement.

irish_bob

synd wrote: »

To clear up a few myths espoused by the propagadistic lapdogs of IBEC.

According to the OCED benefits and wages database Irish private sector wages are around 11% below the EU15 average. Employers benefit from the lowest social security contributions in Europe standing at 10% compared to 45% in France or 35% in Italy. Irish workers work nearly three weeks more per year than their European counterparts. Im really perplexed as to the suggestion that we are in someway ''uncompetitive'' with our European counterparts. The most comprehensive review of the Irish public sector was carried out by the OCED in 2008. Public spending increased 30% between 1995 and 2005. It did not entail an increase in borrowings, rather was retrieved from the greater share of surplus. Ireland ran a huge budget surplus until 2007. According to the OCED Ireland ranks third lowest with regards public expenditure in % of the GDP -ahead only of South Korea and Mexico.

So what do our liberal friends mean when they say Ireland is uncompetitive when we take the above into consideration. What they mean is that we are uncompetitive with eastern european labor markets. Now, in order to compete with a Polish wage we would require a decrease in the region of 80% - something that is ridicules given the cost of living ect. However, it is important to understand that these liberal lapdogs who espouse IBECs line - are in favor of the very deregulation that institutionalizes such gross reductions in wage ect. They seek to remove restrictions on capital so it may relocate and undermine various regional agreements ect. Liberalism is an idealogical tool of class warfare - this needs to be understood clearly by all workers of this nation.

As far as the pensions go public sector workers pay 6 and a half % of their wage towards it - where private sector schemes exist the average rate is 5%. Higher clerical officers for instance start on 24,255py and over the course of twelve years hit 36,977py - the average industrial wage. Support officers in an-post start at 24,024 - after 14 years reach 36,087. There (are) however administrators and consultants that receive astronomical wages - academics in UCD on 400,000py and many university admins on 250,000py. When these are calculated into the average it can naturally distort the overall picture, needless to say this strata of the public sector are un-unionized.

Additionally reductions in wage cause a decrease in demand - and invariably deepen recessions.

our level of public spending appears low due to the fact that we spend pittence on defense

amacca

Kama wrote: »

Might be worth mentioning that this downward wage push doesn't extend to managerial renumeration:
(figures for manufacturing sector)


Wage costs increasing, while non-managerial wages declining...the knife of 'competitiveness' seems somewhat selective in its cuts, somewhat consistent with the Warren Buffett approach of 'there's a class war and we're winning it'.



The assumption that the critical variable in our cost base nationally is the 'bloated public sector', like any ideological presupposition, is taken as given, and requires no justification. The public sector costs may not be a mote, but IBEC are studiously inattentive to their own beam; the mouths that speak of 'sharing the pain', curiously do not see that sharing as including themselves.

IBEC are every bit as bad as any of the public sector unions. They wish create more Indians with less of almost everything between them while they remain chiefs.

amacca

The Muppet wrote: »

Here's a radical idea, How about dropping the actual cost of living first and then lowering wages in line with that.

It just doesn't work like that, the egg must come before the chicken in this case unfortunately.

The Muppet wrote: »

Saying the cost of living will definitely drop is a red herring IMO. Petrol, energy prices, existing mortgage's etc are only going one way over the next few years and it's not down.

I do agree with you here, I think what will happen if wages decrease is the cost of living as measured by the CPI will just rise a little slower than it would have if there were no wage cuts. But i believe its definitely going to rise for the majority of families. If they experience significant wage reductions then it could be a very painful double whammy....the pain depending of course on how over borrowed they are and what reliefs those in difficulty get if any.

Mortgage rates are definitely only going one way.

thebman

amacca wrote: »

IBEC are every bit as bad as any of the public sector unions. They wish create more Indians with less of almost everything between them while they remain chiefs.

lol don't have to work for them to see that.

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

the public sector go to the dance and flirt all night in public with labour but they go home with fianna fail in private

Well done Irish_bob, you stick to those prejudices in the face of all proof to the contrary.

FGR

Re: pay increases based on productivity.

To tickle Irish_Bob's mind:

How would you like Gardai to increase their productivity?

Maybe go by arrest, summons and ticket returns and remove professional discretion entirely. This will have them prosecute you for going 0.1kph over the speed limit? Prosecute you for having dirt on your number plate? Tax disc out by a day? Summons your well behaved child who decided to drive (just once) in the countryside on their provisional whilst unaccompanied? Summons you for jay walking (which yes; is an offence which is dealt with through arrest + summons in Ireland)? They'll have to do this to retain this new 'quota' which has been reduced to ensure they don't stay on a basic wage.

How about nurses? We'll rate their pay by how many patients they put through the system. So queue rushing and patients feeling neglected as nurses aren't going to be rated on how much quality time they spend with their patients - making them feel somehow more comforted knowing they're being looked after. Same goes for doctors. They'll have to have their own quota, too.

How about teachers? We'll grade them on how many of their students pass exams and the individual grades they get. That's nice. Considering as we all know all parents bring their children up well and to encourage good studying practices.

All of these things will decrease the wage bill, sure, but will increase stress; increase sick leave and more than likely increase the public's anger at not getting a chance (be it through paying tickets and being treated like garbage)?

As for Irish Rail and CIE - regardless of union related matters it's unfair to expect them to be run like private enterprise. Look what's going on in Britain after privatising the railway network. It's in shambles!

We need bus services in rural areas and intercity rail services that may not be 100% full 100% of the time.

People need to realise that some parts of the public service cannot be rated on performance or for-profit ideology. It's madness. Even the US Government pays it's public sector through fairer means than what's proposed.

dresden8

Riskymove wrote: »

pure fantasy (but of course bob must actually know how everyone voted due to his omnipotence)

Maybe he's like jimmmy, they've met different sets of people in exactly the same circumstances, one set public and one set private, who were prepared to discuss all aspects of their private lives, purely to re-inforce the prejudices of their interviewers that the public sector are ripping everybody off.

How did Tubridy get the late late gig given the interview skills of the two greatest interrogators the state has ever seen.

Or are they Tubridy? Hmmmmmmm.......................

The Muppet

dearg lady wrote: »

Do you want the government to get involved and start setting prices? :eek:

irish_bob wrote: »

that would mean the state going around the country and forcing every retail outlet to drop their prices , completley unrealistic , when wages and wellfare drop , the market will see to it that cost of living drops as the peoples purchasing power will be reduced , thats the reason a cup of coffe in down town lagos doesnt cost 10 euro , the vast majority of people there cant afford it , the reason coffee shops in monte carlo charge this and more is the people there can

If need be yes. They are involved in setting wages , so why not prices? Desperate times means desperate measures. Prices are way to high here, wages meerly reflect that. Nobody would have to go around to enfroce them, The consumer could inforce it by only buying properly priced goods and services.

amacca wrote: »

It just doesn't work like that, the egg must come before the chicken in this case unfortunately.



I do agree with you here, I think what will happen if wages decrease is the cost of living as measured by the CPI will just rise a little slower than it would have if there were no wage cuts. But i believe its definitely going to rise for the majority of families. If they experience significant wage reductions then it could be a very painful double whammy....the pain depending of course on how over borrowed they are and what reliefs those in difficulty get if any.

Mortgage rates are definitely only going one way.

Why must the egg come first though? It is a chicken and egg situation I agree buy why not be radical, change common practice . Take measures and lower the actual cost of living first and then lower wages in line with that. That would certainly be less controversial with the nation than the alternative.

amacca

The Muppet wrote: »

Why must the egg come first though? It is a chicken and egg situation I agree buy why not be radical, change common practice . Take measures and lower the actual cost of living first and then lower wages in line with that. That would certainly be less controversial with the nation than the alternative.

I respectfully disagree. I think you are wrong but I remain open to correction. I think you would be unprepared for just how radical (and thus "controversial" a change you would have to make to our society (and indeed many others) to make the cost of living decline before wages decline. I apologise if I have misjudged your appetite for political and social change.

I'm sure many others will be able to spout economic theory etc but intuitively a business will charge what its customers can afford to pay for a product. And when people have sufficient money (or credit) they will in the main be prepared to pay that price for a product. Older generations inbuilt thriftiness and unwillingness to pay over the odds for things came directly from not having very much cash or access to large amounts of credit for large parts of their lives imo (this was a good thing in many ways).

When wages decline a business's/retailer's customers will no longer be willing to pay the same price for a product and in order to shift units the retailer will slash prices until it no longer makes any worthwhile profit on the product or it doesn't even make much sense to use the product as a loss leader. At this point it either looks for an alternative product to fill demand or stops offering the product altogether as demand will have dried up. That is the natural way of things.

What you are suggesting is imposing an artificial limit on the price of goods and services. An artificial solution is always much much more complicated to set up than a natural one. Essentially I think its like trying to win the tour de france on a unicycle. Sure you could do it if you bred some sort of genetic superman and pumped him full of steroids while altering the rules of the competition to allow him gain entry, but why would you want to do such a thing it would destroy the whole competition, the original audience wouldnt want to watch it, it would attract negative press, revenues would drop etc etc.

Think of it also in terms of the wages of a person running a business. All around me peoples wages are staying high while I'm being told to drop the prices of my products. So I'm working hard (and I believe that most business people do..its in their own interest after all) and a government agency/directive whatever tells me its illegal for me to sell that packet of mikados at €2.90 as its daylight f#cking robbery for some deliciously sugary foam and a bit of jam on a mouldy oul biscuit......unfortunately however my wages depend on me shifting x packets of crap at €2.90 as I run a small local shop and I cant compete with the large multiples. Mrs 2.4 kids was still willing to pay €2.90 for her sugary child bribes as her wages hadnt gone down and she could afford it and anyway she likes to support her local shop as soon there may not be many of them around etc etc but now im forced to sell cheaper than I know I could sell it?

If you are thinking of cutting prices in terms of people deliberately abstaining or not paying for the products of their own free will then I think you are unrealistic. This kind of discipline in my mind only comes from people not having that much money to spend. You seen what happened to prices in this country when people did have money to spend, the reverse will be true on the downslope of the graph. Large amounts of people live for the now to some extent (and this is no bad thing either..it just has to be legislated for and curbed to some extent)

thebman

The Muppet wrote: »

If need be yes. They are involved in setting wages , so why not prices? Desperate times means desperate measures. Prices are way to high here, wages meerly reflect that. Nobody would have to go around to enfroce them, The consumer could inforce it by only buying properly priced goods and services.

I'm pretty sure the EU would literally rip off their heads and scream down their necks if they tried to that.

The state should not price fix. If anything given the governments past performance they'd set them higher due to lobbying and political donations and you'd just end up more screwed.

Why must the egg come first though? It is a chicken and egg situation I agree buy why not be radical, change common practice . Take measures and lower the actual cost of living first and then lower wages in line with that. That would certainly be less controversial with the nation than the alternative.

Because its not a chicken and egg situation. People are willing to pay a price based on what they have. When they have more they'll part with more. Its natural. Unless you can change human behavior on a national scale then you can't do it the other way.

irish_bob

thebman wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the EU would literally rip off their heads and scream down their necks if they tried to that.

The state should not price fix. If anything given the governments past performance they'd set them higher due to lobbying and political donations and you'd just end up more screwed.



Because its not a chicken and egg situation. People are willing to pay a price based on what they have. When they have more they'll part with more. Its natural. Unless you can change human behavior on a national scale then you can't do it the other way.

it is simply , the way of things

loves_to_spooge

As a private sector worker, I think it might be fair (not to mention relevant given the fact that people obviously don't know their facts & figures) to point out a few misconceptions the majority of people have in regard to public sector workers.

Let's start with: 'Who are public sector workers?' Well, they are nurses, prison officers, emt's & the gardai to name but a few.
The jobs they do are difficult as they have to deal with a system that was underfunded in the supposed time of economic prosperity with building contractors running rampant who probably would've built on a postage stamp had they been given planning permission; and they'd probably have gotten that.
It's very easy to blame the public sector for our current economic woes, after all it's not like their jobs are as dangerous or as stressful as ours, given the fact we have to deal with criminals, drug-dealers & the constant threat of physical injury (prison officers & the gardai); or dealing with unsustainable numbers of critically ill patients on a daily basis while working long shifts (nurses & emt's).

A few common misperceptions about the public sector:
1. Pensions: 'Aren't their pensions secured unlike ours?' Despite what may be circulating 2.4 billion euro of public revenue goes towards public sector pensions, and this is a fraction of the amount that would be needed to fully pay the total number of those pensions. Also two thirds of this 2.4 billion euro is paid for by... the public sector workers themselves. And like private sector workers, a sizeable portion of a public sector workers wages are paid into a pension fund.
2. While a public sector worker earning 30,000 euro a year is being already levied 7.5% and will no doubt be levied far more after the budget, the highest earning private sector workers (& also the highest earners full stop; a certain Irish rock band springs to mind) will not be further levied... How fair.

Why am I taking the public sectors side given the fact that I don't work in it?... Because I'm a grown up, who realises that I don't want to do what public sector workers do (not all of them sit on their arses and play solitaire all day) and that is most often hard, crappy & thankless (not to mention often dangerous) jobs.
I also realise that pissing off pretty much every single trade union in the country might not be the brightest thing to do given the fact that if strike action is taken the next time you need the gardai, or the fire brigade, or need somebody to ensure prisoners are supervised, or that somebody you know is well looked after in hospital (or an ambulance to get them there), or you need a train to get to work, or the roads to be in a fit condition on a winters morning to drive there, none of the above may be available.

Why? Because we castigated them so mercilessly for nearly a full year, making the people who provide the truly important and basically necessary services that many of us couldn't do feel like criminals for trying to ensure that they don't have to endure the total brunt of the cut-backs necessary for economic recovery.
What a truly pathetic nation we have become in less than two decades. Just remember after you've discarded this 'rant' by someone who's supposed to be on 'our side' of the argument, that you probably know one of those 'leeching' public sector workers, or you're friends with one. Try to remember that some of them are young & struggling to secure, letalone pay a mortgage; & not every one of them is over 50 & looking to retire early.

One last thing. About ten years ago there was a bit of a recession in Australia, or in other words... a major one. One day every single public sector worker dropped tools or walked out of the prisons & hospitals & public buildings, leaving the prisoners to riot, ill patients to become even more ill & pretty much the country to come to a standstill... It took exactly... 3 minutes for their government to rescind their budget there... for all our governments (I wonder if 10% was too much of a pay-cut for them to take?) ignorant & agressive blustering these past seven months regarding the issue... I doubt they'll last more than a minute before caving; don't you?

Have a good day now, and enjoy the mindless complaining without even a bare knowledge of the facts; we're good for that in Ireland, it's our favourite pastime!

thebman

loves_to_spooge wrote: »

As a private sector worker, I think it might be fair (not to mention relevant given the fact that people obviously don't know their facts & figures) to point out a few misconceptions the majority of people have in regard to public sector workers.

Let's start with: 'Who are public sector workers?' Well, they are nurses, prison officers, emt's & the gardai to name but a few.

My whole problem with this debate is people only mention these areas of the public sector.

There are plenty of other less essential services than a nurse/gardai/prison officer/teacher. of course essential services are the last to go. Why does nobody ever bring up the non-essential services?

Drumpot

Lovestospooge.

An interesting take, but to be honest what about the attack on the private sector thats going on undiscussed ?

Its not actually a debate, its simply a harsh physical reality. My wife took a 30% paycut and will be lucky if she still has a job by christmas.

In the industry I work in, over half my business has stopped coming in because of the decline in investments and mortgages (which means less life insurance).

Who is defending us ? Sure we arent on tv banging on about being "attacked", but that doesnt mean its not happening. We are getting our heads down, working harder for less and just trying to get by, so I am sure you can see why there is resentment towards a section of society that feel we should pay more tax, so they dont really have to be part of this economic disaster our country is in.

The biggest problem is that this is what the unions have done, made this into a personal agenda when its should be seen simply as a business decision.

You talk about the public servants holding the country to randsom because they can simply "down tools" and leave our country fked. Just shows the kind of mentality these people have if they are willing to risk the future of this country in their own self interest.

Thats not even getting into the fact that the only way we can sustain current expenditure is by loans (which we are getting from the EU based on the principle we will lower our expenses purse sooner rather then later) or by taxing the already hard pressed private sector employee.

The wider implications of not dealing with an expense bill that you cannot afford is plain and simple. Foreign investment firms will see a country that cannot even do whats right for itself, will see a public service that believes it deserves treatment better then private employees (with the same paygrade!) and will see a private sector workforce fed up with yet more increased taxes (because thats what the public sector wants, me to pay more for them).

I have to say, I have NEVER met a guarda (with only one house!) that was struggling on their salary. Would I be a guarda ? I dont particularly want to be, but then again theres lots of jobs that I wouldnt do in the private sector that others do. This is a completely lame arguement to say "sure they do jobs others dont want to do" , so do binmen, roadsweepers . .

The unions are hiding behind the Nurses and the Guards and are mis-informing them of the ramifications of their actions.

As usual, they are speaking about this on a national level forgetting that we have made ourselves into one of the most globalised dynamical countries in the world. We rely heavily on foreign investment.

Basically, the unions are acting like our politicians and their members are following. The issues of entitlement and "we deserve" and "fairness" has finally caught up with us. I mean, whats fair about the current state of our country ? Whats fair about half a million (mainly previous private sector employees) unemployed? Bertie gave them everything they wanted and now they are the beast of ignorance thats prepared to take us all down.

They talk about "Sharing" the pain. I would gladly take (and my wife would of) a 12.5% paycut if I knew I would definitely have a job in the morning. This isnt even factoring in their pension, their apparent sick leave entitlements or the comfort of knowing your boss can afford your wages (my wife's boss missed her last wage).

I wonder how many of the half a million unemployed came from the public service ? Oh, but sure thats not the same as taking a paycut ! ! :rolleyes:



I wake up every morning (as my wife does) and think, will I have a job or will I be told later to move on. I dont see it as being "attacked", I see it as life, thats what happens IN THE REAL WORLD of business. Public servants have demanded parity with private sector employees and now they want a safety net to protect them against the real problems that private sector employees have to contend with. Thats called wanting your cake, eating it and still wanting your cake to be there.

Quite simply, if the public service think that a 7.5% levy is them "taking the pain" of the countrys biggest economic problems (arguably in its history), its a case closed situation regarding the ignorance they cling onto.