34,000 public servants want 3.5% pay rise

Daragh101

NewDubliner wrote: »

Give an example of a successful country where that works.

china!

Theboinkmaster

Question - if the government announced in the budget PS cuts of 2-15% or whatever, effective 1 Jan and then thousands start going on strike and crippling the country.

Do they get paid while on strike? As in how strong is the government's hand, can they just stand by their cuts and wait for them to get fed up not getting paid?

If they do get paid while on official strike then what's to stop them all striking for 6 months and bankrupting the country? Why not then sign emergency legislation to be able to stop the pay of any striking PS employee (a bit drastic i know but these are unprecedented times).

Riskymove

eoinbn wrote: »

The government wants a 5% cut, the unions want a 3.5% increase, they will meet 1/2 way and agree on neither.

well, this is along the lines of what happened in the recent electricians strike so maybe they are hoping for something similar....however I dont think so...from what I hear they are simply trying to force the Governemnt into officially declaring the latest partnership deals dead

it seems that HSE staff are being pushed to do things agreed as part of the deal and their position now is "if the Government can ignore their commitments as employers, the staff are not gonna keep theirs"

i dont believe any of them expect an actual pay rise

Really, what does it matter? 5% off the PS pay bill will save €600-700m after you factor in reductions in tax/vat due to the cuts. A 5% cut in welfare would amount to something similiar, plus another €1b in taxs from somewhere. We are still left with at least a €18b shortfall.

So i will repeat what I have been saying for the last 12 months. It's completely obvious that there is no solution so stop wasting time and call the IMF.

very defeatist, lets just keep spending and bankrupt the place?

you seem to think we need to fully close the gap between expenditure and revenue, we do not, this country and generally every other one has borrowed some amount; the problem here now is that the gao is too large and is unsustainable...

...but we do not need to come up with savings of €20 billion to stabilise the situation...the plan agreed with EU is far less than that

Riskymove

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Do they get paid while on strike? As in how strong is the government's hand, can they just stand by their cuts and wait for them to get fed up not getting paid?

no they dont get paid if "on strike" (unless their union has a strike fund...but there is nio way any union could pay all staff an equivalent wage)

however there are other forms of industrial action below that which are far more likely than all out strikes

Long Onion

There would be no need to look at public sector pay cuts if successive govenments had not failed miserably to tackle the productivity issues. I regularly see hospital 'admin' staff sit around chatting for long periods of time (over an hour is quite common) whilst patients queue for services.

Most front line clerical staff (Revenue, tax, county councils etc) are just plain rude and uncaring. Working hours for hospital staff are shambolic (you cannot run hospital services based on 9-5 hours with everything else classed as overtime)

These are all strong indicators of poor management. Cut the staff headcount, I have no issue with paying over the odds if the service granted deserves it. As for the argument that nurses, gardai, fire service etc deserve whatever wages they get due to the nature of the work, I disagree. I realise that they perform tough jobs and essential ones but they know what they are signing up to. If you believe that the job is a nightmare, quit.

Diarmuid

population wrote: »

Eamonn Gilmore was saying today that he won't cut public sector pay, that there were 'other alternatives', strange he didnt seem to say what they were.........

The more I hear of Gilmore and Joan Burtons proposed "solutions" to our deficit the clearer it becomes to me, that they would make an even bigger balls of the situation than even ZanuFF. It beggars belief that they will have a major say in the next government.

timbel

Drumpot wrote: »

If a companys in trouble and needs to cut its costs, it tells the unions were to go and makes the changes it needs for the greater good . .

The problem with the above is that companys will take advantage of the recessionary period to attack the terms and conditions of employees whether they need to or not (funnily enough mgmt rarely see a reason to cutback their own renumeration).

I think if the govt came out and said 10% pay cut for all public service staff, and to show our solidarity, we (the politicians) and all top level public staff (secretary generals/judges/directors of state boards etc.) will take a 20% cut, there could be no argument from the majority.

Likelyhood of this happening (ie. politicans cutting there own bloated wages) - 0% unfortunately.

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

...but we do not need to come up with savings of €20 billion to stabilise the situation...the plan agreed with EU is far less than that

As i stated in the other thread

"Its supposed to be a €4bn gap per year that has to be plugged every budget per year. All agreed with the EU as part of a 5yr plan"

Direct tax rises were ruled out, they chickened out of a indirect tax(property) etc so its common sense its going to be cutbacks every year of maybe €4bn agreed with the EU.

If we don't get the €4bn in 2009...it will be interesting what happens.

deise blue

The Government really are in a difficult situation , if they introduce an across the board pay cut of 5% they will face hugely damaging strikes and the unions will refuse to negotiate public sector reform ( such reform being an area that could yield savings far in excess of a 5% pay cut )
As another poster has pointed out it is unlikely to be be a case of the Government facing down an all out strike , the Unions are far smarter than that tactically these days and it will be far more likely that we will see a series of 1/2 day rolling stikes by different areas of the sector which will impact pay less severely than an all out strike !
Quite a good move by SIPTU pushing for the rise at this time in a bid to stave off any pay cuts down the road.

NewDubliner

NewDubliner wrote: »

Wonder what would happen if a householder told the bank to take a 30% cut in mortgage repayments?

That's not a good example, householders owe the bank money, the public servents are owed f all.

jimmmy

Daragh101 wrote: »

some people in public sector defo deserve a pay cut, but not nurses or gardai..imo!...

Why are nurses and police in any other government in the world not as well paid as ours so ? Is Mullingar more dangerous than Manchester or Munich or Madrid ?
As Eddie Hobbs pointed out on the tv the other night, our Gardai s pension is equivalent to them contributing 48% of their salary if they had to pay the full economic cost. What a huge perk that is, and to be able to retire on full pension ( with a big tax free lump sum of 1.5 years salary ) after only 30 years service. Many can expect to live another 30 years or more on their pension after that.

kmick

There are two scenarios here.

1) Picture 10 union heads sitting in a room laughing their heads off and congratulating themselves on such a clever strategy. Lets totally piss of Cowen and everyone else in Ireland and ask for a pay rise ha ha ha.
2) 10 union heads sitting in a room and convincing themselves that now is the time to ask for a rise because like the shampoo ads "were worth it".

Neither gives me much confidence in the viability of these groups going forward.

Soldie

If only we had our own Maggie.

mickoneill30

Daragh101 wrote: »

exactly and do the same in the private sector!.

Why? If your employer is making profit would you expect employees to take a pay cut? The point is the pay in the public sector is more than the employer can afford. If it was a private sector employer they'd be bankrupt and the employees would be taking a 100% pay cut. If the employer is not making a profit then absolutely the employees should take a pay cut. That's the way it normally works. My company is making SFA this year. They've let people go, we've taken a pay cut and services have been cut back. That's what the government need to do but instead you read that unions are looking for a pay rise.

Daragh101 wrote: »

some people in public sector defo deserve a pay cut, but not nurses or gardai..imo!... anyone that does a job like that especially a burse deserves more than they get....one of the toughest jobs i could imagine!

Do you know how much a nurse or a Gard gets paid? Is a nurse in Ireland a tougher job than a nurse in the UK or elsewhere?

Long Onion

timbel wrote: »

The problem with the above is that companys will take advantage of the recessionary period to attack the terms and conditions of employees whether they need to or not (funnily enough mgmt rarely see a reason to cutback their own renumeration).

I think if the govt came out and said 10% pay cut for all public service staff, and to show our solidarity, we (the politicians) and all top level public staff (secretary generals/judges/directors of state boards etc.) will take a 20% cut, there could be no argument from the majority.

Likelyhood of this happening (ie. politicans cutting there own bloated wages) - 0% unfortunately.

The problem with the above post is that it smacks of the same Marxist drivel which is losing the Unions the support of many members of the public. Are you really saying that all employers are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a recession because it finally affords them the chance to cut pay and conditions? THis is an absurd stance. With regards to the management point, I personally know quite a few small and medium sized business owners, some of them have pared back their own remuneration to the bare minimum and increased lines of credit in order to avoid having to lay off staff members.

Secondly, you seem to be asserting the fact that the unions would be glad for their members to take a 10% pay cut provided the government take 20% - Mssrs Mr O'Connor, Beegs & McLoone if this is so. I suspect you will find otherwise.

Thirdly, you speak of the politicians on their bloated salaries - look at the salaries that the three aforementioned union heads are drawing (paid for by the very workers they say are in dire need). Why should these 'champions of the downtrodden' not be the first to lead by example?

As long as the unions and their supporters keep referring the argument back to the premise that employers exist soley to screw the workers, there will never be any meaningful progress made.

population

Soldie wrote: »

If only we had our own Maggie.

Yeah coz we really don't have enough deluded corrupt self serving politicians in Ireland.

optocynic

population wrote: »

Yeah coz we really don't have enough deluded corrupt self serving politicians in Ireland.

Maggie was not deluded. She was just ruthless. And would not be held to ransom by marxist half-wits!..

She was pro-business, and recognised the immeasurable value of entrepeneurs to an economy.

Unfortunately, we are a nation of narrow-minded, self-serving, short-sighted, childish, begrudgers... we hate successful people... we sneer ar the 'rich'...

Why?

timbel

Long Onion wrote: »

The problem with the above post is that it smacks of the same Marxist drivel which is losing the Unions the support of many members of the public. Are you really saying that all employers are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a recession because it finally affords them the chance to cut pay and conditions? THis is an absurd stance. With regards to the management point, I personally know quite a few small and medium sized business owners, some of them have pared back their own remuneration to the bare minimum and increased lines of credit in order to avoid having to lay off staff members. .

Sorry, Maxist drivel? I am talking about my own experience with mgmt in the company I work for. Mgmt will not take any reductions, but staff are expected to (and are, by the way). Obviously, you have a different experience

Long Onion wrote: »

Secondly, you seem to be asserting the fact that the unions would be glad for their members to take a 10% pay cut provided the government take 20% - Mssrs Mr O'Connor, Beegs & McLoone if this is so. I suspect you will find otherwise.
.

I don't give a toss about the heads of unions - to me they are as complicit in the state of the country as the govt. I am talking about the ordinary people in the country, be they be in a union or not.

Long Onion wrote: »

Thirdly, you speak of the politicians on their bloated salaries - look at the salaries that the three aforementioned union heads are drawing (paid for by the very workers they say are in dire need). Why should these 'champions of the downtrodden' not be the first to lead by example?
.

As I stated above, I include the union leaders as being complicit with the govt.

Overall, what I am saying is that the leaders of our country/unions/companys felt the need to renumerate themselves too much in my opinion during the boom.
The ordinary joe soaps were given scraps of the table.
I would like to see all these "captains of industry"/union leaders/govts lead the way in accepting a bigger cut.
If they do, I feel ordinary worker will follow.

Long Onion

timbel wrote: »

Sorry, Maxist drivel? I am talking about my own experience with mgmt in the company I work for. Mgmt will not take any reductions, but staff are expected to (and are, by the way). Obviously, you have a different experience

Your post was not company specific, but general and how certain are you that management did not take a cut, did they disclose their salary arrangements to you?.

timbel wrote: »

I don't give a toss about the heads of unions - to me they are as complicit in the state of the country as the govt ... As I stated above, I include the union leaders as being complicit with the govt.

Fair enough, good choice (in my mind anyway)

timbel wrote: »

I am talking about the ordinary people in the country, be they be in a union or not.

Who are the ordinary people, is the middle manager who turns up from 9-5 to do his job for his salary included here? What about the senior manager who runs a dept for is superiors in exchange for salary? At what point does one cease to be an ordinay worker? Is it when you reach a certain level of salary, perhaps its educational level, no-one can explain who is ordinary and who is not

timbel wrote: »

The ordinary joe soaps were given scraps of the table.

I would class this as Marxist drivel - others may disagree.

timbel wrote: »

I would like to see all these "captains of industry"/union leaders/govts lead the way in accepting a bigger cut.
If they do, I feel ordinary worker will follow.

Experience would lead me to disagree here. Most people are ultimately self serving. If we are unwilling to pay increased taxes in order to improve the provision of services to the ill, elderly and volnerable, why would you think that we would be willing to lessen our lot just because the 'extra-ordinary' are willing to do so?

deise blue

optocynic wrote: »

Maggie was not deluded. She was just ruthless. And would not be held to ransom by marxist half-wits!..

She was pro-business, and recognised the immeasurable value of entrepeneurs to an economy.

Unfortunately, we are a nation of narrow-minded, self-serving, short-sighted, childish, begrudgers... we hate successful people... we sneer ar the 'rich'...

Why?

Reminds me of an interview with Ricky Tomlinson of Royle family fame.
Ricky was jailed for union " activities " in his youth and held an abiding hatred for Maggie Thatcher.
The interviewer asked him that if with the passing of the years and in view of changes in the UK and in his own circumstances would he attend Maggie's funeral , Ricky replied " Yes certainly

---

as long as the funeral was tomorrow "

timbel

Long Onion wrote: »

Your post was not company specific, but general and how certain are you that management did not take a cut, did they disclose their salary arrangements to you?.

Suffice to say that we know, and they admit it.

Long Onion wrote: »

Who are the ordinary people, is the middle manager who turns up from 9-5 to do his job for his salary included here? What about the senior manager who runs a dept for is superiors in exchange for salary? At what point does one cease to be an ordinay worker? Is it when you reach a certain level of salary, perhaps its educational level, no-one can explain who is ordinary and who is not

with regard to the cutoff point in 10% or 20% wage cut, a salary of XXX would need to be decided. The same process is used for the cutoff points in tax rates, so I don't see a problem here - lets make it €95,000 per year as the cutoff so we can include all the TDs!

Long Onion wrote: »

I would class this as Marxist drivel - others may disagree.

Ok, what I meant by scraps of the table, was that in general lower paid workers got less of a pay hike in the boom years compared to those at the top of the tree in all sectors. (only exception I see is the trades, but they have zero work these days due to construction bust)

Long Onion wrote: »

Experience would lead me to disagree here. Most people are ultimately self serving. If we are unwilling to pay increased taxes in order to improve the provision of services to the ill, elderly and volnerable, why would you think that we would be willing to lessen our lot just because the 'extra-ordinary' are willing to do so?

The statement above is the problem in a nutshell.
Everyone agrees there should be cuts, but nobody wants themselves to be affected.
So we have a stand-off.

The only fair way to do it is if EVERYONE takes a hit.
By the bigger earners taking a bigger hit, they are showing how to lead by example. Probably naive, I know.

irish_bob

population wrote: »

Eamonn Gilmore was saying today that he won't cut public sector pay, that there were 'other alternatives', strange he didnt seem to say what they were.........

in fairness to gilmore , he and labour cannot turn on the public sector as that is all labour have , you cannot ignore your base and make any gains in politics , its different with fianna fail , they have much more than the public sector yet through a mixture of spinelessness and hunger for votes from just about anywhere , they will not tackle them

Amhran Nua

timbel wrote: »

The only fair way to do it is if EVERYONE takes a hit.

Higher taxes would hit public servic workers too, it can't be used to pay for the wages and salaries currently in place.

irish_bob

Diarmuid wrote: »

The more I hear of Gilmore and Joan Burtons proposed "solutions" to our deficit the clearer it becomes to me, that they would make an even bigger balls of the situation than even ZanuFF. It beggars belief that they will have a major say in the next government.

labour wont have any say in the next goverment if two things happen , fine gael replace enda and the irish people vote for descision making instead of horse trading like has always happend in the past with coaltion goverments

irish_bob

jimmmy wrote: »

Why are nurses and police in any other government in the world not as well paid as ours so ? Is Mullingar more dangerous than Manchester or Munich or Madrid ?
As Eddie Hobbs pointed out on the tv the other night, our Gardai s pension is equivalent to them contributing 48% of their salary if they had to pay the full economic cost. What a huge perk that is, and to be able to retire on full pension ( with a big tax free lump sum of 1.5 years salary ) after only 30 years service. Many can expect to live another 30 years or more on their pension after that.

because guards are sacred cows and nurses are the most sacred of sacred cows in this country , both proffesions are extremley well paid in this country and thier wages are outrageous compared to other countries , i would much perfer see nurses and guards seeing pay cuts than those who fill pot holes on the road or collect rubbish and while nurses work hard ,a guard is a doss of a job in most parts of this country

Long Onion

timbel wrote: »

with regard to the cutoff point in 10% or 20% wage cut, a salary of XXX would need to be decided. The same process is used for the cutoff points in tax rates, so I don't see a problem here - lets make it €95,000 per year as the cutoff so we can include all the TDs!

What you are actually saying here, in the context of your reply to my post is that regardless of the job you have, or how you do it, if you earn a salary of "XXX" you cease to be an 'ordinary worker' and thus are a fair target for anyone with an axe to grind?

Drumpot

irish_bob wrote: »

in fairness to gilmore , he and labour cannot turn on the public sector as that is all labour have , you cannot ignore your base and make any gains in politics , its different with fianna fail , they have much more than the public sector yet through a mixture of spinelessness and hunger for votes from just about anywhere , they will not tackle them

I perish the thought of a labour led government . . .

I have said it time and time again . . Gilemore's mandate (if there is such a one) is to simply do whatever the opposite is to FF and whatever is popular.

Our country is fked right now because people just accept the drivel they are fed by politicians, unions , even the media. . If the electorate (and P.S.'s) would actually use their brains and actually think about certain things they are being told, we might get out of this mess quicker. .

I fear that this is wishful thinking and that the "herd" mentality will rule. We will get Public sector strikes (half them thinking that the government are "attacking the public servants" ) and we will have a labour party into government that can only give us answers to questions when they hear what FF think of situations or when they see opinion polls on topics. .

And we slag off the Americans for voting in Bush . . . As a nation, we are more self absorbed and ignorant then the americans ever are. At the very least in many cases, they believe that they are putting their country first, ahead of their own needs.

timbel

Long Onion wrote: »

What you are actually saying here, in the context of your reply to my post is that regardless of the job you have, or how you do it, if you earn a salary of "XXX" you cease to be an 'ordinary worker' and thus are a fair target for anyone with an axe to grind?

No, what I am saying is that the whole country, no matter what job you do, is overpaid. You cannot debate this surely?

The reason I am saying that the leaders of the country should take a bigger hit (the different % cuts and cut off rates are up for debate) is to lead by example.

Is this being unfair?
Cant a person of 200,000 pa more easily afford a 40,000 (20%) reduction than a person on 20,000 can afford a reduction of 2,000 (10%)?

Long Onion

timbel wrote: »

No, what I am saying is that the whole country, no matter what job you do, is overpaid. You cannot debate this surely?

The reason I am saying that the leaders of the country should take a bigger hit (the different % cuts and cut off rates are up for debate) is to lead by example.

Is this being unfair?
Cant a person of 200,000 pa more easily afford a 40,000 (20%) reduction than a person on 20,000 can afford a reduction of 2,000 (10%)?

The question I posed you was this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Onion

Who are the ordinary people, is the middle manager who turns up from 9-5 to do his job for his salary included here? What about the senior manager who runs a dept for is superiors in exchange for salary? At what point does one cease to be an ordinay worker? Is it when you reach a certain level of salary, perhaps its educational level, no-one can explain who is ordinary and who is not

Your answer was this:

timbel wrote: »

with regard to the cutoff point in 10% or 20% wage cut, a salary of XXX would need to be decided. The same process is used for the cutoff points in tax rates, so I don't see a problem here - lets make it €95,000 per year as the cutoff so we can include all the TDs!

I am all for leading by example, the country needs more principled leaders but what irks me is all this talk about 'ordinary workers' and 'average joe's' without any thoughts as to what classifies one thus. Is the single factory worker on €25k who lives at home and drinks his money any more worthy of protection than the highly qualified manager on €80k who has a wife and 3 kids and works long hours?

It's the outdated rhetoric that gets in the way of progress.

irish_bob

Drumpot wrote: »

I perish the thought of a labour led government . . .

I have said it time and time again . . Gilemore's mandate (if there is such a one) is to simply do whatever the opposite is to FF and whatever is popular.

Our country is fked right now because people just accept the drivel they are fed by politicians, unions , even the media. . If the electorate (and P.S.'s) would actually use their brains and actually think about certain things they are being told, we might get out of this mess quicker. .

I fear that this is wishful thinking and that the "herd" mentality will rule. We will get Public sector strikes (half them thinking that the government are "attacking the public servants" ) and we will have a labour party into government that can only give us answers to questions when they hear what FF think of situations or when they see opinion polls on topics. .

And we slag off the Americans for voting in Bush . . . As a nation, we are more self absorbed and ignorant then the americans ever are. At the very least in many cases, they believe that they are putting their country first, ahead of their own needs.

at least the americans are idealogues , irish people are the least idealogical people on the planet , thats why i believe a reagan or a thatcher or even a chavez on the other extreme could ever get elected to any real possiton of power in this country , we love populists and centrists too much , this explains the phenomenol success of one bertie aherne