Public sector pay: the wrong debate

You Suck!

The Government is in the same position as a private sector employer who has to make savings on labour costs except there is no way to lay people off.

Repeat ad infiniteum. I'm not feeling eloquent enough to put my thoughts in to writing atm, but theres just something wrong with that on all levels.

asdasd

Show us the skilled workers who have lost their jobs and not been able to get new ones.

I think you are mostly right. most job losses were in constuction and retail. Not all unskilled though.

However I dont see the relevence to the general debate here.

Badboy1977

I think peo should realise that many public servants dont want to take pay cuts so that surplus colleagues can be kept in employment. We are not over staffed in Education compared to the HSE. Why, at the very least dont they send us some of their surplus staff to check up on student attendance so we can concentrate on teaching/disciplining kids?

At present the ban on promotions makes no sense in Education. Kids are being left without year heads or class tutors. I aint doing it for free!

irish_bob

gdael wrote: »

No they dont. I have changed doctor about 3 times in the last 3 years, because the first one nearly killed me. And the second was never there, i always got the inexperienced guy when i went to see him. The one i am with now gives you a proper check up when you go. None of this getting you out in a couple of minutes and taking €50.

your problem is you define fact as being what you have experienced or witnessed , so it goes with doctor practices and job loss in the private sector

Nodin

gdael wrote: »

I'll say it again, for the 10th time. Show us the skilled workers who have lost their jobs and not been able to get new ones. Or the skilled workers who have had to suffer wage cuts. Where are they?

Carpenters, plasterers and other such trades are all skilled workers.....

There's around 396,000 persons on the dole.......
http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0605/jobless.html

gdael

Nodin wrote: »

Carpenters, plasterers and other such trades are all skilled workers.....

There's around 396,000 persons on the dole.......
http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0605/jobless.html

Yet another non-reading poster. Whats the point in me posting at all.

murphaph

gdael wrote: »

Yet another non-reading poster. Whats the point in me posting at all.

But what difference does the skill level matter in this debate. The people are unemployed regardless of skillset. Their taxes are no longer being contributed and they are no claiming social welfare. What they did before becoming unemployed is irrelevant wrt the current fiscal position and the cuts in PS wages we all agree upon.

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

the current fiscal position and the cuts in PS wages we all agree upon.

You and the the banking and property lobby are unanimous on this.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

You and the the banking and property lobby are unanimous on this.

Never head much from any banking lobby...if there was one why are they not blaming the central bank / financial regulator ? As regards the "property lobby", probably most families in the country have an interest in property , either through the value of their own property ownership , pension fund investment in property, working in a related industry or whatever. Never mind perceived lobbies, , NewDubliner...think of the greater good of the country / what the country can afford....why 300,000 state employees should not be pandered at the expense of everyone else.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Never head much from any banking lobby...if there was one why are they not blaming the central bank / financial regulator?

Because such a move would rebound on them. In any case the government is giving them what they want, why rock the boat?

jimmmy wrote: »

As regards the "property lobby", probably most families in the country have an interest in property , either through the value of their own property ownership , pension fund investment in property, working in a related industry or whatever.

But have been insulated from the full effect of market forces by NAMA, funded by my taxes and forthcoming reduced public services that I'll have to pay for out of my own pocket.

jimmmy wrote: »

Never mind perceived lobbies, , NewDubliner...think of the greater good of the country / what the country can afford....why 300,000 state employees should not be pandered at the expense of everyone else.

Why single out the public service and ignore the huge amounts of money being squandered elsewhere?

You're all in favour of free-market forces, except when it affects banks and property, why is this?

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

But have been insulated from the full effect of market forces by NAMA, funded by my taxes and forthcoming reduced public services that I'll have to pay for out of my own pocket.

We're not talking about reducing services, just pay! It has to fall in line with what's available to pay it. The cost of living is falling (see my CSO CPI link) month on month. We're almost at December 2006 prices!

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

We're not talking about reducing services, just pay! It has to fall in line with what's available to pay it.

The government is talking about reducing services. The pay bill is reduced not just by cutting pay outright but by stopping overtime work and letting go of temps and contractors and non-replacement of retirees/leavers.

murphaph wrote: »

The cost of living is falling (see my CSO CPI link) month on month. We're almost at December 2006 prices!

Does that include mortgage repayments? Last I heard, the private sector is still demanding repayment at pre-crash prices.

What pay cut should be applied to the public servants running NAMA? How should they be incentivisied?

gurramok

gdael wrote: »

I'll say it again, for the 10th time. Show us the skilled workers who have lost their jobs and not been able to get new ones. Or the skilled workers who have had to suffer wage cuts. Where are they?

In the American MNC I work for. They only threw out a few hundred on the dole in the last year. Plus they have been looking for paycuts, some imposed depending on your dept.

Highly skilled people I know who have left my company through redundancy have been struggling to find work. Same for those that want to leave but cannot as there has been nothing worthwhile out there for them to jump ship to. From what happened since October last year when the cuts came and up to the summer, the average time to get a new skilled job has been about 5 months.

amen

We are not over staffed in Education compared to the HSE

I was recently told by a politican that there are over 10,000 admin staff in the Dept of Education. Anyone know if this is true and if so what do they do all day?

NewDubliner

amen wrote: »

I was recently told by a politican that there are over 10,000 admin staff in the Dept of Education. Anyone know if this is true and if so what do they do all day?

There are 1,681 civil servants in the Department of Education.

You should know better than to listen to a politician. What party was he?

Tipp Man

irish_bob wrote: »

your problem is you define fact as being what you have experienced or witnessed , so it goes with doctor practices and job loss in the private sector

exactly

amen

What party was he?

was actually FF.

I did think the number was very high

aftermn

why is it that the focus of all this media attention is on getting the boot into the public servants.

Have we seen any mention of the billions poured into infrastructure contracts agreed during the boom, the rates for which are now even more out of line the public sector wages. Any attempt to reduce expenditure on public private partnerships, on exhorbitant lease deals for office space for the now defunct decentralisation, storage for voting machines or the advisors, consultants, barristers, contractors and all the other private sector recipients of public monies.

These contracts are apparently untouchable, while public sector wages are fair game.

cyclopath2001

aftermn wrote: »

These contracts are apparently untouchable, while public sector wages are fair game.

NAMA is the elephant in the room.

asdasd

Yet another non-reading poster. Whats the point in me posting at all.

i dont get your argument here. You asked for evidence of skilled workers, and suggested that it was only construction and retail workers who were getting laid off*; and then when a poster ( nodin) replies that there were skilled workers in construction laid off, you reply with that nonsense.

You remind me of a teacher - the kind that goes around the class until he gets the "correct" answer.

asdasd

Lets keep to the debate. The argument of tu quoque ( what aboutary) is not relevent. Plenty of Public Sector workers will gain from the fact that NAMA will keep asset prices artifically high. But that is not the argument on this thread. Nor do I understand the relevence of the qualifications of who is getting laid off in the private sector.

cyclopath2001

asdasd wrote: »

Plenty of Public Sector workers will gain from the fact that NAMA will keep asset prices artifically high.

How do you know this? Evidence that PS workers have investment properties?

asdasd

How do you know this? Evidence that PS workers have investment properties?

All they have to own is any property. If the government buys up property that would otherwise be on the market it is artifically maintaining the property market upwards. So if you own a house, you benefit.

cyclopath2001

asdasd wrote: »

All they have to own is any property. If the government buys up property that would otherwise be on the market it is artifically maintaining the property market upwards. So if you own a house, you benefit.

I don't follow your logic. Surely this only benefits people selling houses and who are not buying another one? If the price is artificially inflated, won't this mean more property tax to pay?

More to the point, who benefits the most from cutting public service pay and diverting taxes to finance NAMA? Private sector or public sector?

asdasd

I don't follow your logic. Surely this only benefits people selling houses and who are not buying another one? If the price is artificially inflated, won't this mean more property tax to pay?

no. It benefits anybody with money in a house. A house is a financial asset. People who own houses and whose wealth is maintained are going to benefit. You argument is like saying that bank shareholders will only benefit when they sell? What? An asset is an asset.

More to the point, who benefits the most from cutting public service pay and diverting taxes to finance NAMA? Private sector or public sector?

As usual in the debate with Public sector acolytes the differences between the private sector(s) are ignored. Who will benefit. The developers ( but only because all houseowners will, and only some), the banks. Bank Shareholders - which does not exclude the public sector since we dont actually stop members of the public sector from buying bank shares.

Who will lose out? Who really loses? The guy who rents in the private or public sector. he is paying to keep his rent higher.

I am totally opposed to NAMA by the way. I say let houses go to their real value - which for many is zero. Then let people declare bankrupty - which should last a year - and given the assets to a (government run) bad bank. The bank can lend the same house back to the bankrupt for a nominal fee - and then we can slash wages with little or no effect on livign standards.

axer

asdasd wrote: »

no. It benefits anybody with money in a house. A house is a financial asset. People who own houses and whose wealth is maintained are going to benefit. You argument is like saying that bank shareholders will only benefit when they sell? What? An asset is an asset.

A house is a Fixed Asset. It is intended to as a longer term asset. While people can include depreciation and apprecitation to see their worth, house prices do not affect the owner until the house is sold. (unless you want to include insurance costs for the house being worth more etc).

asdasd

While people can include depreciation and apprecitation to see their worth, house prices do not affect the owner until the house is sold. (unless you want to include insurance costs for the house being worth more etc).

Shares do not "affect' the owner until sold. YOu need to look up some economics 101. An asset is an asset. If it is being maintained at a higher cost by government action then that is a subsidy. You cant spend the money you have in BOI until you sell the shares. The same with any asset. NAMA is a subsidy for the householder as much as an y developer, or bank share holder.

axer

asdasd wrote: »

Shares do not "affect' the owner until sold. YOu need to look up some economics 101. An asset is an asset.

I have no idea what shares has got to do with this discussion but anway. Shares are normally deemed to be current assets as opposed to fixed assets (property, buildings etc) since they are easily disposed (highly liquid). Maybe an asset is an asset in economics 101 but take a look at economics 102+ and you will really learn something.

asdasd wrote: »

If it is being maintained at a higher cost by government action then that is a subsidy. You cant spend the money you have in BOI until you sell the shares. The same with any asset. NAMA is a subsidy for the householder as much as an y developer, or bank share holder.

Nama does not affect householders UNTIL they sell their house (excluding valuations for insurance policy fees etc) - that is until they release their fixed asset. Generally people do not relase such an asset quickly i.e. property and houses are not highly liquid like stocks and shares.


What has this got to do with the public sector pay being reduced?

I think I heard talk of a 5% cut of public service pay If that is through it is a cop out and does not bring the public sector into line. We need drastic cuts in public sector pay and the dole (not job seekers benefit) and we need child benefit means tested. We need some reality.

asdasd

I have no idea what shares has got to do with this discussion but anway. Shares are normally deemed to be current assets as opposed to fixed assets (property, buildings etc) since they are easily disposed (highly liquid).

An asset is an asset. YOu clearly think that the "private sector" is benefiting from NAMA - I assume that means the bansk etc. This is because their assets are being secured. Same with housing.

ey sell their house (excluding valuations for insurance policy fees etc) - that is until they release their fixed asset. Generally people do not relase such an asset quickly i.e. property and houses are not highly liquid like stocks and shares.

It doesnt matter how liquid an asset is. A house can be sold. Therefore maintaining it's value is a subsidy. That is how developers are being subsidised.

as for what this is all about. I started this by saying that NAMA is off topic. You brought it back on topic. If you are opposed to NAMA - like I am - say it. And give another solution. Like I did. That would mean that your house will collapse, though.

If you are in favour of the NAMA then the costs of NAMa need to be met - and public sector pay needs to come down. Because we cant afford both NAMA and PS salaries.

axer

asdasd wrote: »

An asset is an asset. YOu clearly think that the "private sector" is benefiting from NAMA - I assume that means the bansk etc. This is because their assets are being secured. Same with housing.



It doesnt matter how liquid an asset is. A house can be sold. Therefore maintaining it's value is a subsidy. That is how developers are being subsidised.

as for what this is all about. I started this by saying that NAMA is off topic. You brought it back on topic. If you are opposed to NAMA - like I am - say it. And give another solution. Like I did. That would mean that your house will collapse, though.

If you are in favour of the NAMA then the costs of NAMa need to be met - and public sector pay needs to come down. Because we cant afford both.

I think a big misunderstanding here. I think there needs to be dramatic cuts in the public sector. I think NAMA is a massive mistake which only helps developers and speculators. It does not help the ordinary householders who plan on living in their house even if they paid over the odds for it i.e. it only helps those who dispose of the asset. I think it benefits the private sector most.

Liquidity of assets is extremely important. You cannot just sell a house like you would sell stocks. Massive differences. House price increases for example don't mean anything until you actually get the cash into you hand. If a share price increases you can sell instantly, if house prices increase you are not even guaranteed to sell your house. Massive differences.

I was not stupid enough to purchase a house during the "boom" years but I will pay now if NAMA gets through. I will be paying for those private developers taking a massive risk that did not pay off.

You don't need to support NAMA to be for public pay cuts. We need these pay cuts to keep the country moving even before taking into account NAMA.