Public sector pay: the wrong debate

fartmaster

Tipp Man wrote: »

Hmmm as expected you replied with a load of bull and completly ignored how the government was able to afford huge increase in ps pay since 2000 and now can't take those increases back

I'll respond later from the computer with domes figures for you to mull over

I find amusing the headhunting on here from people who are plain and simply jealous of PS workers. Be this because ye have no job of your own or you work in mickys dees doesnt matter, the state of this that we are in is NOT down to people who work in the PS, and I wouldnt blame their unions for trying to get them a better pay salary over the years as thats the job of the unions. If there is someone responsible for inflated salaries then its the government, yet they and the others in the private sector can dick the tax payers in this country and get away with it, how, by scapegoating the lower paid easy-to-target PS workers.

Wiley1

gurramok wrote: »

Temp staff, try harder.

You asked how many people had been let go, whether they be Temp or permanent is irrelevent, still jobs from the public sector.

how many of the private sector workers that were let go were temp staff? I'm sure there were quite a few too.

One hand you're saying cut the wage bill and when staff are let go (i.e cutting the wage bill) we're still not doing enough.

I have a pound of flesh here for Brian Cowen, would you like another one?

Begrudgery and Beguilery lives on !!!

Wiley1

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/fergus-finlay/government-spurns-major-public-sector-change-for-short-term-kudos-107333.html

BaZmO*

Wiley1 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/fergus-finlay/government-spurns-major-public-sector-change-for-short-term-kudos-107333.html

Nonsense. In particular this part...

Every single employer in Ireland, if they were confronted with a major cash crisis next year, would be delighted if their employees offered them 12 days’ pay as an immediate contribution to meeting the shortfall.

IF that offer was accompanied by a commitment to work through a detailed restructuring agenda that would copperfasten the short-term savings into the future, they’d be thrilled. I don’t know any private sector employer in the country who’d turn that approach down.

Most if not every employer in Ireland has already hit their staff with 10% pay cuts which is a hell of a lot of more than 12 days off.

MaceFace

BaZmO* wrote: »

Nonsense. In particular this part...


Most if not every employer in Ireland has already hit their staff with 10% pay cuts which is a hell of a lot of more than 12 days off.

I think it has been established that this is not the case. Very few have had pay decreases - mostly it is freezes.

Anyway, why are we talking about restructuring in 2009. I thought we done this already and rewared the flexibility of the PS with the large pay increases? :P

oldyouth

If reforms are identified that can save the State money and provide better service, impliment them NOW! Why does something have to be given in return......Get on with it!!!!!!!!

BaZmO*

MaceFace wrote: »

I think it has been established that this is not the case. Very few have had pay decreases - mostly it is freezes.

Really? Where has it been proved?

I know my experience is only anecdotal but everybody I know that work in the private sector have taken at least a 10% pay cut, myself included.

And they're the ones that have been lucky enough to have kept their jobs.

Sean Templar

Just an observation,
320k public/civil servants (i know too many of them by far)stop spending due to pay cuts/pension threats,include spouses, partners etc,probably 500k people cut back on spending.
As they spend most, if not all their money in the private sector (food,clothes,bills,hols,tradesmen etc,etc.) ... how many private sector jobs will be lost as a result of this.
How much more will taxes go up for us all,in future to cover the shortfall in vat/tax returns,social welfare payments for the new unemployed ,due to reduced spending etc,etc.

Yea i know we can't afford them but Is it an everending vicious circle.

Money makes the world go round as they say and most of what public sector workers earn end up in the private sector or government coffers,will the pay cuts cover the reduced tax returns/spending in the economy and the increased social welfare payments?.

PS:before you ask ,i used to be in public sector,not any more.
But i have family and friends that are in it,and eveyone of them have cut back spending,and are cutting back alot more due to an uncertain future.

irish_bob

Sean Templar wrote: »

Just an observation,
320k public/civil servants (i know too many of them by far)stop spending due to pay cuts/pension threats,include spouses, partners etc,probably 500k people cut back on spending.
As they spend most, if not all their money in the private sector (food,clothes,bills,hols,tradesmen etc,etc.) ... how many private sector jobs will be lost as a result of this.
How much more will taxes go up for us all,in future to cover the shortfall in vat/tax returns,social welfare payments for the new unemployed ,due to reduced spending etc,etc.

Yea i know we can't afford them but Is it an everending vicious circle.

Money makes the world go round as they say and most of what public sector workers earn end up in the private sector or government coffers,will the pay cuts cover the reduced tax returns/spending in the economy and the increased social welfare payments?.

PS:before you ask ,i used to be in public sector,not any more.
But i have family and friends that are in it,and eveyone of them have cut back spending,and are cutting back alot more due to an uncertain future.

we hear a lot of this , how cutting public servants pay will mean they have less money to spend in the local shops etc , as if the public sector dollar was worth more , what we dont hear is that not cutting wages in the public sector will mean further raising income taxes which will result in employers having to put extra money aside for the tax man , money they could have either spent in the local shops or spent investing in thier business and perhaps employing new people who are on the dole , if maintaining public sector pay was so lucrative for the econonomy , more would be calling for increases in public sector pay and indeed in social wellfare

thebman

MaceFace wrote: »

I think it has been established that this is not the case. Very few have had pay decreases - mostly it is freezes.

Anyway, why are we talking about restructuring in 2009. I thought we done this already and rewared the flexibility of the PS with the large pay increases? :P

Many have had pay cuts and many who haven't have lost their jobs and the others that haven't have those in their office that lost their jobs to thank for not having to take a cut.

If someone hasn't taken a cut and there have been no job losses then their employers can afford to pay them those wages as they are still doing ok and we should be thankful there are at least some businesses in that position in the country.

MysticalRain

It's also worth pointing out that in the private sector market forces dictate wages. In a downturn, average wage levels decrease. So if someone changes jobs, or gets promoted, they will end up being paid less than they would have in the boom times. Also, someone who works in sales might not have had his basic salary touched, but his commission may have been wiped out. Same for someone who I have relied on doing a lot of overtime.

I suspect that none of those scenarios are being taken into account every time public-sector workers make the claim that "only 30% of private-sector workers have taken a pay cut".

TCP/IP_King

I wonder if there's an Irish version of this

http://www.bottomlinesecrets.com/store/mags/order_tlh_mag.html?sk=904961&sid=A102705A1A&l=5

MaceFace

BaZmO* wrote: »

Really? Where has it been proved?

I know my experience is only anecdotal but everybody I know that work in the private sector have taken at least a 10% pay cut, myself included.

And they're the ones that have been lucky enough to have kept their jobs.

I could actually say the opposite - I know very few people who have had a pay decrease, but I do know quite a number of people who lost their job.

There was a report out recently which said something like 20% have had decreases (someone will no doubt correct this figure for me).

Wiley1

BaZmO* wrote: »

Nonsense. In particular this part...


Most if not every employer in Ireland has already hit their staff with 10% pay cuts which is a hell of a lot of more than 12 days off.

Can you actually say for a fact that you know and understand the unions mandate? I don't think so, therefore you can't dismiss it as nonsense.

I don't understand chinese but it doesn't mean that it's nonsense....

It's this attitude that the government took that led to the breakdown of the talks. Typical reaction with this government.

BaZmO*

Wiley1 wrote: »

Can you actually say for a fact that you know and understand the unions mandate? I don't think so, therefore you can't dismiss it as nonsense.

Isn't a Union's mandate to get the best deal for their clients?

Wiley1

oldyouth wrote: »

If reforms are identified that can save the State money and provide better service, impliment them NOW! Why does something have to be given in return......Get on with it!!!!!!!!

If you read the examiner link from Fergus Finlay you'll see that the public sector weren't just getting 12 nice holidays, there were conditions. However the government didn't even entertain them.

Government brought the unions in for talks to stop strikes, let them have their say until time had run out to organise action and then went ahead with their original pay cut plan. How deceptive are the people that are running/ruining the country, then they are discussing the cencus of Frogs in the country a day before the most crucial budget since 1919...

Imagine what the rest of the world is thinking watching us, sure cut the price of drink and the Irish will say nothing....

CRAP !!!!!

Wiley1

BaZmO* wrote: »

Isn't a Union's mandate to get the best deal for their clients?

Exactly, and your point is?

norrie rugger

Wiley1 wrote: »

Exactly, and your point is?

Probably that he does indeed know what a union's mandate is?

Wiley1

norrie rugger wrote: »

Probably that he does indeed know what a union's mandate is?

Clever....Apologies...

Maybe he does know the overall unions mandate, my wording error, what i should have said was does he know all details of the revenue saving proposals that the government snubbed but will allow at a later on the table after the public sector workers throats have been cut.

Mark my words, the government will run with the unions proposals and try and tell Joe public that it was all thier idea.

I still can't believe the general population still allow themselves to be hoodwinked every time by this shower of liers....

BaZmO*

Wiley1 wrote: »

Clever....Apologies...

Maybe he does know the overall unions mandate, my wording error, what i should have said was does he know all details of the revenue saving proposals that the government snubbed but will allow at a later on the table after the public sector workers throats have been cut.

Mark my words, the government will run with the unions proposals and try and tell Joe public that it was all thier idea.

I still can't believe the general population still allow themselves to be hoodwinked every time by this shower of liers....

My "nonsense" comment was in reference to the points made in the article that was linked. I thought that was quite clear, no?

irish_bob

MaceFace wrote: »

I could actually say the opposite - I know very few people who have had a pay decrease, but I do know quite a number of people who lost their job.

There was a report out recently which said something like 20% have had decreases (someone will no doubt correct this figure for me).

in the private sector , when the going gets tough for business,s , the boss is more likely to let people go then tinker around with pay cuts , entirely different story than in the public sector where letting people go is almost unheard of

irish_bob

Wiley1 wrote: »

If you read the examiner link from Fergus Finlay you'll see that the public sector weren't just getting 12 nice holidays, there were conditions. However the government didn't even entertain them.

Government brought the unions in for talks to stop strikes, let them have their say until time had run out to organise action and then went ahead with their original pay cut plan. How deceptive are the people that are running/ruining the country, then they are discussing the cencus of Frogs in the country a day before the most crucial budget since 1919...

Imagine what the rest of the world is thinking watching us, sure cut the price of drink and the Irish will say nothing....

CRAP !!!!!

soon as you mentioned fergus finlay , i tuned out

Wiley1

BaZmO* wrote: »

My "nonsense" comment was in reference to the points made in the article that was linked. I thought that was quite clear, no?

It was clear alright but i chose to ignore it as you seem to have ignored the ligitimate propsals put forward by the unions (contained partly in that article).

Wiley1

irish_bob wrote: »

soon as you mentioned fergus finlay , i tuned out

Sure grab yourself a copy of The Sun and read about Tiger Woods....

BaZmO*

Wiley1 wrote: »

It was clear alright but i chose to ignore it as you seem to have ignored the ligitimate propsals put forward by the unions (contained partly in that article).

My comment wasn't about the Unions, it was about what Fergus Finlay had written in in article, that's why I quoted him. Again, was that not clear?

norrie rugger

irish_bob wrote: »

in the private sector , when the going gets tough for business,s , the boss is more likely to let people go then tinker around with pay cuts , entirely different story than in the public sector where letting people go is almost unheard of

as is pay cutting, it seems


Also loads of people on the private sector are on min wage, and can not have their wage cut. Distorting the % cut Vs not.

Wiley1

norrie rugger wrote: »

as is pay cutting, it seems


Also loads of people on the private sector are on min wage, and can not have their wage cut. Distorting the % cut Vs not.

Well, Public sector pay cuts are in, close down this debate, I feel the pounds of flesh dissappearing....

BaZmO*

Public sector pay cut of 5% on first €30,000 salary, 7.5% on the folllowing €40,000 of salary and 10% on next €55,000 No pay increase for judges during lifetime of current Government Taoiseach to have pay cut by 20% Permanent pay reduction of 12% for those over €200,000

irish_bob

Wiley1 wrote: »

Sure grab yourself a copy of The Sun and read about Tiger Woods....

would be more objective and balanced , thats for sure

sunflower27

irish_bob wrote: »

in the private sector , when the going gets tough for business,s , the boss is more likely to let people go then tinker around with pay cuts , entirely different story than in the public sector where letting people go is almost unheard of

I agree with this. I am in the private sector and am fortunately safe enough in my current job, although I was made redundant at the start of the recession last year after being in the job 6 years!!! I know a good few people in the private sector that have lost jobs, had pay cuts or pay freezes.

Of those I know in the public sector, there was never a serious threat of losing a job.

I would happily take a 5% pay cut if it meant my employment was secure.

Yes, things are tough but losing 5% or whatever to keep my job... I'd do it without a second thought.