Public sector pay: the wrong debate

Wiley1

Wiley1 wrote: »

It's true that it isn't taken as seriously as the private sector but a bad review and you're increment isn't approved in some cases, I think i earn my keep and you are right, a reformation of all public sector workings, earnings, spendings and labour force is badly needed. weed out the wasters and get pro-active with the public's money.

Sorry, made a balls of that last quote, hope you get the point in the top quote box too

jimmmy

Wiley1 wrote: »

It's true that it isn't taken as seriously as the private sector but a bad review and you're increment isn't approved in some cases, I think i earn my keep and you are right, a reformation of all public sector workings, earnings, spendings and labour force is badly needed. weed out the wasters and get pro-active with the public's money.

I broadly agree with the above but do not think it goes far enough, quick enough. The situation is too serious. How many years would a "reformation of all public sector workings, earnings, spendings and labour force " take ? Would it really "weed out the wasters" as you advocate ? How many more billions would be borrowed before all this starts to happen ? I hate to be negative, but given their current stance I could not see the unions going along with what is really needed.

optocynic

Wiley1 wrote: »

It's true that it isn't taken as seriously as the private sector but a bad review and you're increment isn't approved in some cases, I think i earn my keep and you are right, a reformation of all public sector workings, earnings, spendings and labour force is badly needed. weed out the wasters and get pro-active with the public's money.

That is EXACTLY what I think.
We are singing off the same Hymn sheet here.

It is the guys who are unwilling to upset the disfunctional Status Quo that irk me.

Wiley1

jimmmy wrote: »

I broadly agree with the above but do not think it goes far enough, quick enough. The situation is too serious. How many years would a "reformation of all public sector workings, earnings, spendings and labour force " take ? Would it really "weed out the wasters" as you advocate ? How many more billions would be borrowed before all this starts to happen ? I hate to be negative, but given their current stance I could not see the unions going along with what is really needed.

This is true, a shake up would be flatly be turned down by the unions, the original reason that the unions were set up "to protect the worker" has fallen by the wayside, considering that the union dues are a percentage of your wages why would the unions allow pay cuts, they'll lose money.

I don't know how long it would take to reform or how much it would cost but being in the public service and seeing some of the waste i'm thinking the sooner the better and spare no one or nothing. Bit radical but I honsetly think it could/would save massive finances....

jdivision

potlatch wrote: »

People working in the private sector shouldn't be complaining about public sector workers. They should be complaining about employers' refusal to provide the same good pay, job security and employment conditions in the private sector as those in the public sector.

I think the nation's been brainwashed. Private sector workers need to take employers on for a fair deal like those in the public sector.

*Facepalm*

Dyr

Wiley1 wrote: »

considering that the union dues are a percentage of your wages why would the unions allow pay cuts, they'll lose money.

That's fascinating, which irish unions do this?

Wiley1

Bambi wrote: »

That's fascinating, which irish unions do this?

I have been informed that this is the way Impact operate. Open to correction of course. Ta

Wiley1

optocynic wrote: »

That is EXACTLY what I think.
We are singing off the same Hymn sheet here.

It is the guys who are unwilling to upset the disfunctional Status Quo that irk me.

With all change comes a bit of give and take, at the end of the day we're all just trying to get on with things and make a good life for ourselves and family.

Stop the rot, remove the government and go again, get some joy with the unions and try and make a more fair, equal drink from the well for all taxpayers.

optocynic

Wiley1 wrote: »

With all change comes a bit of give and take, at the end of the day we're all just trying to get on with things and make a good life for ourselves and family.

Stop the rot, remove the government and go again, get some joy with the unions and try and make a more fair, equal drink from the well for all taxpayers.

If only all PS workers and union reps were as level headed and practical as you. Rather than the knee jerk defensive nonsense we get every time.

asdasd

It depends on the Union.

I agree with the comment about the inflated mortgages. In fact we cant really have any debate about income distribution in Ireland unless we talk about the cost of housing. A older person on 30K could easily be clearing a much higher disposable income ( after housing) than a younger person on 50K. If the younger guy has the bigger mortgage. In terms of wealth as it is traditionally measured ( net worth), the guy on 50K could be in negative net worth. That makes him poorer than a homeless guy.

So income tax is not really a fair tax in these situations.

Heres what I think.

Reform the bankruptcy laws to allow people to hand in their keys to the banks. And let it last a year. If this accelerates the banks decline, so be it. They need vast amounts of government money anyway. Push all the new debt into a bad bank owned by the government - in effect the government will own the mortages and this the collatoral for houses where the debtor is declared bankrupt. thus all the houses. Rent the houses back to the bankrupt for two years at a (very low) market rate.

Then slash salaries. We wont get nowhere with expensive housing. We need low cheap housing as a government priority.

Hootanany

Its just not the PS Unions look at the Bricklayers one

brianthebard

optocynic wrote: »

If only all PS workers and union reps were as level headed and practical as you. Rather than the knee jerk defensive nonsense we get every time.

I thought you said you don't bash public sector workers? As for the union bashing, its getting old.

Wiley1

asdasd wrote: »

It depends on the Union.

I agree with the comment about the inflated mortgages. In fact we cant really have any debate about income distribution in Ireland unless we talk about the cost of housing. A older person on 30K could easily be clearing a much higher disposable income ( after housing) than a younger person on 50K. If the younger guy has the bigger mortgage. In terms of wealth as it is traditionally measured ( net worth), the guy on 50K could be in negative net worth. That makes him poorer than a homeless guy.

So income tax is not really a fair tax in these situations.

Heres what I think.

Reform the bankruptcy laws to allow people to hand in their keys to the banks. And let it last a year. If this accelerates the banks decline, so be it. They need vast amounts of government money anyway. Push all the new debt into a bad bank owned by the government - in effect the government will own the mortages and this the collatoral for houses where the debtor is declared bankrupt. thus all the houses. Rent the houses back to the bankrupt for two years at a (very low) market rate.

Then slash salaries. We wont get nowhere with expensive housing. We need low cheap housing as a government priority.

Amen, what are the consequences if you try to hand back the keys to your house, this post makes a lot of sense. Good stuff.:)

Wiley1

brianthebard wrote: »

I thought you said you don't bash public sector workers? As for the union bashing, its getting old.

I don't think that was a bash at workers, Unions maybe, or maybe just Union leaders...lol

asdasd

The consequences are bankruptcy. You cant have any other net wealth either, to declare bankruptcy ( so you cant hand in the keys on just one house).

i am not sure about liquid assets, but I presume they have to be zero too.

Bankruptcy is merely a protection from creditors. In Ireland you cant do it - as far as I know - to evade payments on your house. In the UK and the US ( surprisingly) bakruptcy laws are less severe - meaning you are a bankrupt for less time ( in legal terms a bankrupt will not legally get a loan, however even declaring it can affect your credit rating from then on in).

If bankruptcy is not legally severe then it is a wise economic choice. in fact it should be more common according to standard economic theory ( why hold an asset of -100K?) but human beings are not rational actors in economics. They dont see houses as just investments, but a home, and bankruptcy brings a certain amount of shame.

akaredtop

Public sector pay is very relevant.The Unions/Banks have the country broken. If you want a permanent job and guaranteed pension then you should be earning less than the average industrial wage.You cannot have it every way.

NewDubliner

akaredtop wrote: »

PThe Unions/Banks have the country broken.

I suppose you must be a property developer then?

asdasd

Ad hominem much?

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

I suppose you must be a property developer then?

Property developers were just playing by the rules, as set out and implemented by the politicians / public service ( Central Bank, regulator etc ). Its not as if the politicians / public service were not paid enough / get high enough perks like guaranteed pensions etc. Property developers paid big bucks to the govt in the form of stamp duty ( @ 9%, amongst the highest going ), vat etc. The govt got used to paying themselves + their employees way too much ( amongst the highest in the world )....hence the huge current deficit once this honey pot dried up.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Property developers paid big bucks to the govt in the form of stamp duty ( @ 9%, amongst the highest going )

Do you know much about stamp duty, jimmmy? Like, who pays it and when?

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Do you know much about stamp duty, jimmmy? Like, who pays it and wehen?

Yip, people pay it when they buy assets ( eg property, shares ). It was one of the main sources of revenue for the govt during the boom.

asdasd

Actually, stamp duty is really a tax on the seller masquarding as a tax on the buyer. Since buyers compete with other buyers to buy property they will buy at the highest cost they can afford, a cost which includes stamp duty if there. So if the house is nominally 200K, and stamp duty 10% the real cost is 220K. Thats what the buyer - and plenty like him - can afford for that property. During the boom it was the maximum a buyer in that category would afford. Remove the tax and the nominal cost of similar houses becomes 220K. The tax is therefore on the seller.

( for that reason developers and real estate agents were demanding the tax be removed during the boom - to "aid" first time buyers. Everytime these cartels were "aiding" ftbs, ftbs should have run for the hills. 100% mortgages were another "aid" that wasnt. What is good for ftbs is a property collapse).

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Yip, people pay it when they buy assets ( eg property, shares ). It was one of the main sources of revenue for the govt during the boom.

And was this cost was passed on to the purchaser, who looked for more pay to be able to afford that and the inflated prices demanded by the developers?

Those houses are now worth a lot less, any chance of a refund?

brianthebard

akaredtop wrote: »

Public sector pay is very relevant.The Unions/Banks have the country broken. If you want a permanent job and guaranteed pension then you should be earning less than the average industrial wage.You cannot have it every way.

What so now the unions and banks are interchangeable? I don't remember hearing much about SIPTU giving out bad loans to developers on the news, got any links?

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

Those houses are now worth a lot less, any chance of a refund?

You knew your house price could fall as well as rise when you bought it, right?

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

You knew your house price could fall as well as rise when you bought it, right?

Did the banks and the property developers tell people that their houses would be worth 50% less and that they would, a year later, be calling on the government to reduce their salaries?

If people cannot count on their houses at least keeping their value and if they cannot know what their salary will be, how can they ever trust a an economic system?

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

Did the banks and the property developers tell people that their houses would be worth 50% less and that they would, a year later, be calling on the government to reduce their salaries?

If people cannot count on their houses at least keeping their value and if they cannot know what their salary will be, how can they ever trust a an economic system?

Are you going to answer my question?

MaceFace

brianthebard wrote: »

What so now the unions and banks are interchangeable? I don't remember hearing much about SIPTU giving out bad loans to developers on the news, got any links?

I think the Unions do have a lot to answer for where we are at the moment. I have been through over 5 sets of redundancies and lucky escaped the axe every time. No one blamed the company at all for letting people go as they just couldn't afford to keep them on. So every time we ended up with less people but the same amount of work.
Those of us who were left worked harder and smarter to make sure we met our customers expectations.

The Unions (whether they are public or private sector unions) expect renumeration for any change in work practices. They expect pay increases regardless of how much money the employers have (you only have to listen to the radio over the last 12 months to hear them bladder on about they never got the latest installment of their "entitlements" - remember the electricians).

This is not a public vs private sector rant, but one at Unions - they are only interested in their members and never think of the big picture and don't care about anyone that is not in their union.

I am sick of hearing people going on about how they can't take any more pain and then they go home with a takeaway and stick on Sky sports bitching to their other half about how it wasn't them who caused the problems of the world while thinking where they will go on holidays next year.

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

Are you going to answer my question?

No, you should not ask personal questions here.

I'm interested in the morals of a situation where banks and property developers continue to be paid at boom-time prices (on houses bought during the boom) and ordinary employees get salary cuts on salaries agreed during the boom.

What impact do you think will this have on society?

bonkey

NewDubliner wrote: »

Those houses are now worth a lot less, any chance of a refund?

A refund from whom, exactly?

If you bought the house from someone other than a property developer, you're free to go ask them. You can go ask the property developer, if that's who you bought it off, but they're broke, so I doubt they have a refund to give you.

The bank can't give you a refund...you haven't bought anything off them and they're broke to boot.

You could argue, of course, that the government should bail you out just like its bailing out the banks and the property developers. In that case, you're asking your fellow countrymen - public and private sector employees alike - to pay for your mistake....which is ironic, given that your objection seems to be rooted in just that idea....the regular Joes having to pay for others ****ing up.