Public sector workers willing to take pay cuts?

ronbyrne2005

jimmmy wrote: »

Rubbish. Every survey, study etc says otherwise. Even public service security guards get paid almost double their private sector equivalent, per hour. Compare the pay + pensions of our politicians, nurses, police, teachers with other countries....it is considerably more.

You're right. All the stats from CSO, ESRI, Eurostat etc proves it but the self preservation society that is the PS doesnt want to hear it and odesnt want benchmarking to work in reverse or to include pensions and other benefits.

merlynthewizard

25% wage drop and 15% of jobs to go.

That would be fair.

meath commuter

All very interesting. I think most are agreed that we have a somewhat bloated public sector - especially with the black hole that is the HSE.

However, does no-one wish to comment on the issue of tackling the black economy? Is it not relevant to this discussion??

jimmmy

meath commuter wrote: »

All very interesting. I think most are agreed that we have a somewhat bloated public sector

understatement of the century

meath commuter wrote: »

- especially with the black hole that is the HSE.

start a seperate thread on the HSE if you want to discuss the HSE in detail, rather than the overpayment of the public service in general

meath commuter wrote: »

However, does no-one wish to comment on the issue of tackling the black economy? Is it not relevant to this discussion??

Is there a black economy bleeding the public finances dry the same as govt expenditure is ? If you think so, feel free to set up a new thread and discuss that .

amacca

merlynthewizard wrote: »

25% wage drop and 15% of jobs to go.

That would be fair.

O.K. then, that's that one solved. I'm glad we had this little chat.

Tks v.much Merlyn old boy/girl. Perhaps you could now wave your staff or wand in the general direction Leinster House and the Revenue Commissioners and sort those mofos out as well.

It was all so simple in the end...who knew. Thankfully I can now go back to using the interweb for looking at dirty pictures, reading frivolous joke emails and sending money to prince membabwe in nigeria so he can send me some conflict diamonds from his own personal mine.

Lemming

amacca wrote: »

It was all so simple in the end...who knew.

TBH, unless public finances are put in some semblance of order the IMF will most likely be invited in. And when the IMF come in, they will make the above and other things "all so simple". I would hope to see nobody lose jobs, but tbh, wishing away fiscal reality and the reality that a severe scalpel is most likely in need of public expenditure control wont help matters. A token 5% (to pick figures I've seen mention by folks here as to what they consider acceptable reduction) and a pension levy whilst drinking coffee on your mid-morning break and reading about the live register nearing 500,000 really wont pass muster I feel.

amacca

TBH it may in some senses be better if they were. (obviously not all).
The much talked about "PAIN" might get spread more evenly on the toast that is our economy.

At least no vested interests could influence their decisions, at least I presume they would simply be interested in getting their money back and unlikely to listen to or bend to pressure from

the vocal poor and unemployed careerists(not the actual hard luck cases and people who have genuinely lost their jobs or are in need of social welfare, have contributed etc)

unions

the very wealthy (and influential)

Big business lobby groups.
.
.
.
.

I do however find some poster stating that x% reduction in wages and y% reduction in numbers is fair a little laughable without back up.

Why not z% in wages and q% in numbers?

And while were at it lets get Yogi Bear in to head up the CSO, he is after all smarter than the average bear.


On the otherhand the above tug of war will be interesting to the neutral (more or less) onlooker in the coming months if the IMF don't come in.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

R Even public service security guards get paid almost double their private sector equivalent, per hour.

Where are the public-sector securiyty guards? Any public sector I've ever visited employs private sector security companies and guards. Like, cleaners, they're outsourced.

kippy

A somewhat decent thread has descended again into a them versus us.
The usual suspects have rowed in with their usual "ideas", nothing solid, concrete or workable, just very one sided.

I've outlined countless times on a few threads at this stage how costs can be saved across all areas of the public service without hitting take home pay. And so long as costs were saved elsewhere across the public sector (not just wages) I would have no problem taking another 5-10% in the next 24 months or so. I'd also echo amaccas first post above. It would make it that bit easier to take a cut if other things outside of the public sector paid their way.
As well, as that, and also highlighted by me on other threads, theres a serious lack of foresight in creating jobs in this economy. There's the usual retoric from the politicians but feck all money has been set aside for "stimulus" or help for people without work, despite untold billions being bandied about for the "toxic debt". This to be honest is one of the hardest things to take in all of this melee. We can throw undefined BILLIONS gambling with NAMA and not spend a few million on grants schemes, research grants, other schemes to get the economy moving again.
Again probably outside the realms of this post but I daresay by the end of this thread,
public sector being paid significantly more than any public sector in the whole wide world, pensions we dont pay for, flex time we dont deserve, 30 days holiday a year, etc etc will all have been thrown in there.

If that 10% does happen in the next while, my take home after all is said and done, will be approximately half my gross, and my gross isnt significant, and that is without all the other stealth taxes, levies, carbon taxes that will also come in in the next budget.
We all have hard luck stories to tell, some far worse than others, but the way this country is going one really has to ask is the PS a "job for life" at all? I'll soon be considering a jump back into the private sector solely because of wages and I hate being forced into career decisions based purely on money.

ixoy

Whatever else about the cuts, I had to laugh at the INO union head claiming the McCarthy economists were on a:
"'cosy platform detached from reality'."

The ironing is delicious.

gerry28

There is generally sympathy for people who lose their jobs.

But it seems there is a baying mob calling for thousands of public sector workers to lose theirs (some posters here included). As in 'they deserve all they get' sort of thinking.

Were ordinary people who go to work every day to do a job. Tone down the contempt a little??

irish_bob

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Listening to economic commentators and people close to power they are likely to benchmark public sector to average rates in public sectors across Europe which would mean substantial pay cuts as PS here are paid a lot more than EU average. I cant really see any justification for complaints against such a process, as we are part of EU and in competition with other EU countries. Maybe the PS could be cut to average EU levels plus a bit extra to cover for higher cost of living here relative to EU average. We are no more than an average EU country now so can only afford to pay average EU payrates.

if public sector wages and social wellfare levels dropped by 30% in the morning , by next monday the cost of living would have also dropped a huge amount , the market responds quickly but wages have to go down before the cost of living goes down

irish_bob

mellyzeb wrote: »

Wake up folks - the average public servant doesn't earn more than their private sector equivilant. The 'average wage' people know about is taking into account the huge salaries top public servants are on - there is a huge disparity between this and the middle to lower paid staff who make up most of the public workforce.

not true and disprooved my numerous reports

kippy

irish_bob wrote: »

not true and disprooved my numerous reports

Indeed, however I wouldnt say "numerous reports" prove or disprove anything. (for either side)
What they generally do is put forward a load of statistics sometimes without actually looking a bit deeper into it.
There are numerous reports out there stating that the average Public Sector wage equates to circa 48K PA, Gross.
The only other "average" people have to weigh this against is the "average industrial wage" which I believe stood at approximately 35k PA.
People on the street get very peeved off at the disparity, however when you analyse it a bit more you can see a number of reasons why these averages may be so far apart.
1. The number of highly qualified, skilled workers in the Public Service (pushing the average wage up)
2. The number of low skilled (no need for college education etc) jobs in the private sector, pulling the average down.

Not making excuses/disagreeing with you, just asking people to keep a relatively open mind on the various figures/percentages/perks being put out there as fact in these recent times.

Stark

I agree on points 1 and 2. However I also notice that when public servants look at the benchmarking process, they take the example of a top performer doing a similar job to theirs in the private sector and say "I want his salary". When the performance requirements of their job only entitle them to the equivalent pay of a low to average performer in the private sector. If there was a meaningful performance evaluation process in the public sector, then I would say yes of course your top performers are entitled to the same pay as top performers in the private sector. As far as I'm aware, Ireland is in a minority of countries when it comes to paying its public sector workers more than its private sector workers.

For one thing, they need to get rid of this collective bargaining bull****. If you want a higher salary, you should be able to justify to your employer that it's worth more to them to keep you and pay you more than to take the risk of getting poor performance from someone cheaper. If your employer still doesn't pay you what you feel you deserve, leave and go private sector. Don't hold your employer (the taxpayer) to ransom in order to earn your keep.

boodlesdoodles

merlynthewizard wrote: »

25% wage drop and 15% of jobs to go.

That would be fair.

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages. Hey while you're at it, lets just cut all public funding and see what happens.

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

efb

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages. Hey while you're at it, lets just cut all public funding and see what happens.

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

I'd say most of the builders and subcontractors have had a reduction in wages far greater than 25%

ixoy

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

Great idea - that'd help hugely to reduce the debt

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages.

People are very annoyed with the bankers. However, why would you suggest cutting the wages of anyone above the average wage? That's not going to help balance the debt. Cutting into the public sector cost would have far more of a effect (rightly or wrongly).

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

Well a tiny minority are partially responsible (advisors, financial regulator, etc) but the fact is that the pay bill is just unsustainable. Many other sectors have had to re-adjust their pay and numbers and now so too does the PS. There can no longer be an "only way is up" mentality to wages and that's unfortunate but a sad reality. You just cannot be paid in the same volume at the same level.

Stark

We were getting by fine on tax yields similar to our current tax yields in 2002/2003 and we were considered wealthy then. Between 2003 and 2009, spending rose to crazy levels as interest groups started salivating at the incoming revenue generated by the property bubble, which should have been going into infrastructure to provide us with a soft landing when the bubble burst. Like it our not, the public sector was one of the biggest benefactors of this unsustainable spending binge.

hobochris

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages. Hey while you're at it, lets just cut all public funding and see what happens.

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

Same tired public service argument over and over...

Builders and Sub-contractors are in the private sector and take risks to make money, as a consumer and tax payer you have a choice as to weather you want to solicit their services. Many builders and sub-contractors are feeling "the pain" right now as people are not soliciting their services and many are on the dole.

The public sector however don't have to take risks to make more money, over the past few years If they wanted more money they've just cried to their unions that they want more and FF went along with their demands through Benchmarking to buy votes.

Also on the other hand PAYE workers through out the country have no choice but to pay for the public sector wage bill through taxes.. a lot of these "services" provided by the public sector,most of us will never use, Also if a builder or sub-contractor makes a mistake they are held accountable, wheres the accountability in the public service???

erictheviking

stereo_steve wrote: »

The Public sector don't pay taxes. They are a loss to the system. Before someone jumps on me, this is not an attack!! Just pointing it out for your calculations..

Rubbish! Their tax Euros are just as good as anyone elses.
The rubbish about them earning 30k then giving back 7k means they aren't really paying tax???:rolleyes:
Don't they do anything to earn their wage? As usual this is just turning into an attack on ordinary workers who are being tarred with the same brush as high earning TD's and their fat cat mates.

stereo_steve wrote: »

So its better to have public sector employees out of work from a financial perspective. Ideally we would move excess public sector employees to the private sector assuming there were jobs.

I agree but not all are excess staff. Most are actually needed.

kippy

Stark wrote: »

I agree on points 1 and 2. However I also notice that when public servants look at the benchmarking process, they take the example of a top performer doing a similar job to theirs in the private sector and say "I want his salary". When the performance requirements of their job only entitle them to the equivalent pay of a low to average performer in the private sector. If there was a meaningful performance evaluation process in the public sector, then I would say yes of course your top performers are entitled to the same pay as top performers in the private sector. As far as I'm aware, Ireland is in a minority of countries when it comes to paying its public sector workers more than its private sector workers.

For one thing, they need to get rid of this collective bargaining bull****. If you want a higher salary, you should be able to justify to your employer that it's worth more to them to keep you and pay you more than to take the risk of getting poor performance from someone cheaper. If your employer still doesn't pay you what you feel you deserve, leave and go private sector. Don't hold your employer (the taxpayer) to ransom in order to earn your keep.

I'd agree with this summation, however implementing it would be extremely difficult and measuring performance in certain public sector areas is extremely difficult.

merlynthewizard

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages. Hey while you're at it, lets just cut all public funding and see what happens.

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

The builders have taken a hit...most people in building are sitting at home doing nothing.
The fact is our Public Sector is paid Waaaaaay to much for what they do,there is Waaaaaaaaaaaay to much of them doing very little and the pensions they get with these wages are crazy.
It has to stop....now!
It's PS workers like you which make me think feed them to the IMF.

dvpower

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

It hardly matters who's responsible.

The simple fact of the matter is that we can no longer afford to pay for the public service that we have, so we need to reduce the cost of the public service.

The question for public servants is, do they want to keep their jobs (at a lower rate of pay) or keep their pay (but with fewer jobs)?

ronbyrne2005

Public sector workers my not be responsible for the mess we are in but they were happy to take the massive increases in pay/pensions/staff numbers which WAS DIRECTLY funded by temporary tax windfall.

ronbyrne2005

Stark wrote: »

We were getting by fine on tax yields similar to our current tax yields in 2002/2003 and we were considered wealthy then. Between 2003 and 2009, spending rose to crazy levels as interest groups started salivating at the incoming revenue generated by the property bubble, which should have been going into infrastructure to provide us with a soft landing when the bubble burst. Like it our not, the public sector was one of the biggest benefactors of this unsustainable spending binge.

in 2002/2003 private sector debt-gnp ratio was much better. A lot of the growth in taxes was fuelled by rapidly rising private sector debt.

Drumpot

Employer to Worker: "Im sorry, we cannot afford your wages, we are going to have to ask you to take a paycut"
Employee: "But I have more qualifications, work harder, am more productive and contribute more to the company then I did when I joined". "Its not my fault the company is in trouble"
Employer to Worker: " Im sorry, I understand you work hard and had nothing to do with our drop in income but we simply cannot afford it. Either we discuss a redundancy package or you agree to a paycut". "This is not because I want to give you a paycut . . Its because I have no choice".

Now, whether you are public or private worker . . What exactly does "Its not my fault" have ANYTHING to do with a debate on whether or not you should take a pay cut ?

One of the major differances is if a company cannot afford its wages, it looks to cut these costs. Any extra costs are on the companies own back so they are motivated to bring costs in line with their profits.

If a country cannot afford its wages its the taxpayers that end up footing the costs with increased taxes for everybody. If taxes are increased it only means we will get the same public services that we currently get (ie we dont get more for our money).

If public servants wonder why there is so much bitterness in their direction its for this very reason. A select few are responsible for this crisis and we are all footing the bill, so why do I constantly read P.S. posts of "we didnt get us into this mess"? Some could argue that it was the highest paid public servants that did in fact walk us into this recession, but that gets us nowhere . .

If public service costs arent cut then it will be those in the private sector who are paying for it. If private sector costs are cut, it will be the private sector workers who will be paying for it. Either way, how do private sector workers get some sort of "value for cuts"?

I propose an end to the generous Public service pension. That would save us 1bil+ straight away and sure many P.S.'s dont seem to value their pension anyways so it shouldnt be a problem (but of course as soon as they find out how valuable they are, there will be uproar!).

Bottom line is that we have a 20billion + deficit that needs to be plugged. To expect the taxpayer to foot the public service bill because you feel you are entitled to a salary is no less ridiculous then for people to expect the public service to pay the entire price for this crisis . .

Theboinkmaster

I've a question:

Anyone who is sensible knows the public sector pay needs to be cut ASAP and everyone has their ideas as to what those cuts need to be, and implemented etc however my question is:

What is likely to happen?

Will the government cut pay in the public sector in the budget? And if so how much? Will they cut the dole and child benefit etc?

IMHO it's very simple - €50bn out and €30bn leaves €20bn to be cut somehow. So they should cut public sector by overall by 15%, the dole by 15% etc.

And I don't see how any public servant cannot see this - there are only 2 ways to cut your wages bill -> pay cuts or redundancies. So presumably it's better to keep as many people working so pay cuts are obvious

My fear is the government won't do this - but then if they don't the situation will further deteriorate and the IMF will be in by this time next year and just slash everything 30%. If I was Cowen I'd prefer pay cuts and risk industrial action rather than lose control of my country to the IMF...

Stark

A country doesn't lose control to the IMF. The IMF offers a country a loan and negotiates a set of changes that ensure the IMF has its loan repaid. This can be a good thing for governments as they can tell the voting population that the IMF forced their hand, whereas the cuts were cuts the government wanted to make anyway but were afraid of losing votes over.

In any case, for better or for worse we have the EU and the ECB standing between us and the IMF. They don't want the risk of destabilization from having the IMF coming into a Eurozone country.

P. Breathnach

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Public sector workers my not be responsible for the mess we are in but they were happy to take the massive increases in pay/pensions/staff numbers which WAS DIRECTLY funded by temporary tax windfall.

I think "large" should be substituted for "massive". It is closer to the reality, and is not a loaded term.