34,000 public servants want 3.5% pay rise

NOGMaxpower

Leave their pay alone, freeze it.

But take all their pension contributions away

if they dont like it sack them i'd love to move from the private sector to a chushy public job.

dodgyme

Just looking at the letters pages today I noticed 2 from the same dublin postcode which show two things.

1./ The Public sector constantly trying to avoid being targetted for anything and immediately start on about TD's or bankers (2) (3)

2./ How p*ssed off everyone else is listening to them. (1)

Anyhow judge for yourselves

---

Madam, – Paul Bell of Siptu has said, as one of the justifications for the submission on behalf of his members of a claim for a 3.5 per cent pay increase, that his members, “wouldn’t bear the burden” of the current economic situation.

Losing your job in the private sector – that’s bearing the burden. Taking a pay cut of 20 per cent or being put on short-time working – that’s bearing the burden. Having your pension to which you have contributed over years decimated and rendered almost worthless – that’s bearing the burden. How about sharing the burden that is being borne by the private sector?

Ictu has set November 6th for a day of protest, and union members are being called on to come out in support. This is national sabotage. I confidently predict that the vast majority of those protesting in November will be public service workers, people with safe jobs and safe pensions. The vast majority of private sector workers (those who have a job) will be taking good care of it, doing what they can in an environment where they could lose it all in a heartbeat.

And please, spare me the “I go and save children’s lives” or, “I teach your children” ripostes which are preferred to real debate by those who have no answer. A nation like ours needs people for all jobs. I have the height of respect for those who work in the fire service and for those who work in our hospitals, just as I do for those who work in shops and those who work in the construction industry.

Let us drop the “holier than thou” approach and deal with reality. (1)The public sector needs to absorb the same changes as the private sector and if this has to include pay cuts (which an increased pension contribution is not) and job losses, then so be it. When this begins to happen, then we’ll all be on the same side. – Yours, etc,

T GERARD BENNETT,

Templeroan Close,

Knocklyon, Dublin 16.

---

Madam, – Martin Giblin (September 30th) patiently explains to us, obviously intellectually challenged, public sector workers that our employer cannot afford us and we need to choose from a pay cut, longer hours and/or “to reorganise ourselves to reduce head count without reducing services.” Does it then apply that as soon as the economic status of said employer improves that we will automatically have all of these pay and conditions restored? Will the pension levy, which was only applied to the public service, be removed? Will the vital posts in our schools and hospitals that have been “suppressed” reappear? Based on past experience, I sincerely doubt it.

Could it be that the improved economic situation, when it happens, will be used to pay off more senior executives who know where the bodies are buried, to continue to pay for obscene (2)expenses and pensions that can be claimed by TDs and Senators with consummate ease, and all the other squandering of public money which seems to have rendered our normally talkative citizens speechless?

May I respectfully suggest to Mr Giblin that we in the (3) public service are not the legitimate target for his understandable anger? I sincerely believe that ordinary private and public sector workers need to stand together. We are, above all, obliged to resist the slick media campaign that is trying to divide us in the hope we will forget who presided over the most appalling and corrupt mismanagement of public finances in the history of this State. – Yours, etc,

ANGELA POWER,

Ballinteer, Dublin 16.

Chris_533976

If a PS pay cut is to be implemented, how about this way? It wouldnt hit low earners hard but would savage the high earners.

If you earn €18,000 gross, you take a 1.8% pay cut.
If you earn €45,000 gross, you take a 4.5% pay cut.
If you earn €80,000 gross, you take an 8.0% pay cut.
If you earn €250,000 gross, you take a 25% pay cut.
etc etc.

Earn x%, pay cut of x/10000 %.

How would that sound to people?

Riskymove

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Earn x%, pay cut of x/10000 %.

How would that sound to people?

actually i dont really like the idea of "savaging" high earners, its too simplistic to just think that as they are highly paid that they deserved to be hit more than others

I'd also add that there seems to be plenty of evidence that pay differentials are actually much higher at lower incomes

a 10% cut on someone earning €250k returns €25,000, a hefty saving

in addition i think there would be an extremely small number of people on such wages anyway

ardmacha

The Public sector constantly trying to avoid being targetted for anything and immediately start on about TD's or bankers

Are those calling for PS pay cuts also calling for bank pay cuts? The banks are essentially insolvent and public money is being used to keep them going. Should they not make a contribution?

I'd also add that there seems to be plenty of evidence that pay differentials are actually much higher at lower incomes

While a small number of central bank governors etc get ridiculous amounts, the better paid professional end of the PS do not earn vastly more than the private sector, according to the stats. So cut the bizarre €200,000+ figures, but apply a standard approach for others in the middle. Now you can say that one group are better able to pay than another, but this should be reflected in the tax system.

Riskymove

ardmacha wrote: »

Are those calling for PS pay cuts also calling for bank pay cuts? The banks are essentially insolvent and public money is being used to keep them going. Should they not make a contribution?

of course they should but as their pay doesn't form part of government expenditure it doesn't help towards the basic problem

deise blue

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

In that case, why would you support the unions?
They are not protecting your and your colleagues interests, they are protecting themselves.

i)The unions are not pushing for reform of the public sector (most notably the HSE).
ii)The unions have said nothing about the politicians, judges and consultants who are still earning ridiculous amounts of money.

That means it is the simple public sector worker who is going to suffer.
The PS Unions are fighting the wrong battle. Cutbacks are going to happen, they should be trying to ensure that the cutbacks are fair, and thatpoliticians are also reverse benchmarked.



Either this government will, or the next one will, or as a last resort the IMF will. And you know this.
This is a simple economic truth, and you as former financial sector employee know that better than anyone else.

Believe me, I do not want to see you suffer or my father who is a PS employee suffer either. If income tax could be increased without damaging the economy, I would agree to that.
Increasing the income tax will lead to a PS reduction anyway, as people will being to emigrate and the tax base will narrow even more, meaning even less PS workers can be afforded. I'm not going to spell that out, because I know for a fact you already understand this.

Lets move the debate away from emotion and inject a bit of pragmatism/realism.
Let me put the question to you:
A) How do you suggest we generate the €24 billion required without increasing income, excise, or corporate tax?
If we do not reduce our expenditure and do not generate the extra €24 billion, what are we going to do?

R
Absolute rubbish , the Unions are simply doing what they exist to do and that is to protect in as far as possible the terms and conditions of it's members and the Government seem to realise that it's a fight it cannot win as can be seen by the Tanaiste's comments that reform/efficiencies are preferable to pay cuts , even Brian Lenihan today when asked would not say that the 3.5% pay rise demanded by SIPTU on behalf of 34,000 HSE workers was unjustified !
Do you really think this Government is prepared/able to take on the unions ?
I personally would far prefer to see an equitable tax system , after all if public sector workers are earning that much more then they will pay more tax - we after all have one of the most benevolent tax regimes in the EC ( if not the most benevolent ) - what wrong with those that earn more pay more ?

ardmacha

of course they should but as their pay doesn't form part of government expenditure

But bank pay reducing their profitability and their profitability determines when the government gets its money back. Essentially PS pay requires government borrowing and bank pay does too.

NewDubliner

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

But take all their pension contributions away

You mean abolish the pension levy or take money from the pension fund and give it to the banks?

optocynic

deise blue wrote: »

R
Absolute rubbish , the Unions are simply doing what they exist to do and that is to protect in as far as possible the terms and conditions of it's members and the Government seem to realise that it's a fight it cannot win as can be seen by the Tanaiste's comments that reform/efficiencies are preferable to pay cuts , even Brian Lenihan today when asked would not say that the 3.5% pay rise demanded by SIPTU on behalf of 34,000 HSE workers was unjustified !
Do you really think this Government is prepared/able to take on the unions ?
I personally would far prefer to see an equitable tax system , after all if public sector workers are earning that much more then they will pay more tax - we after all have one of the most benevolent tax regimes in the EC ( if not the most benevolent ) - what wrong with those that earn more pay more ?

To put it simply... you are robbing Peter to pay Paul...
The 'well-off'.. or 'rich'... (the adjective I prefer is 'successful').. are the people who drive economies. They spend more on goods/services... they create companies... are entrepeneurs... and ultimately create jobs..
I am all for treating the least among us fairly... but what about how we treat the best among us... have they not earned their money... and as such.. earned the right to spend it themselves.. rather than se it squandered on a boondogle that is an inflated PS??

lmimmfn

loads of public sector workers should be fired. The size of the public sector is based on 5% unemployment of 12+months ago with large civil projects, now we have nearly 15% unemployment with public spending being seriously curbed, less people travelling etc. etc. we no longer need such a large public service. Time to bring out the pink slips, not only that time to kill the fact that they can all hide behind unions and cripple the state whenever they decide to do so.

elDiablo79

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Could you back up a few of the assertions in this post please. As I understand it Irish nursing staff do better than most (€56k average compensation) and there are a lot more of them than other comparable countries. Also could you give us a list of the duties that Irish nursing staff are no longer doing, such as drawing blood and helping to move patients?

Just the facts please.

And could you please tell me in that ignorant little head of yours where you got the idea from that nurses dont move patients?? You really havent got a clue. And where on earth did you come up with a figure like that??

elDiablo79

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

Leave their pay alone, freeze it.

But take all their pension contributions away

if they dont like it sack them i'd love to move from the private sector to a chushy public job.

Well you should have applied for one then. Your own fault

NewDubliner

lmimmfn wrote: »

The size of the public sector is based on 5% unemployment of 12+months ago with large civil projects,

Not quite certain about this logic, why is the size of the public sector linked to the size of civil projects?

Surely it's the other way around, more unemployed means more work for social welfare and also for Revenue having to watch the black economy? And won't we need more people to scrutinse the banks?

thatsa spicy

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.

Agree with this. I really hope these wafflers have no/ little say in how things are to be run after the next election. Never once have I heard Eamonn Gilmore state in specific terms how he would handle the balooning deficit without touching public sector pay or, well, anything else.

On topic: Surely these union eegits don't expect to get this pay rise? Another cut and a bit of pruning to weed out the slackers and wasters and unnecessaries in whats in order, obviously.

irish_bob

thatsa spicy wrote: »

Agree with this. I really hope these wafflers have no/ little say in how things are to be run after the next election. Never once have I heard Eamonn Gilmore state in specific terms how he would handle the balooning deficit without touching public sector pay or, well, anything else.

On topic: Surely these union eegits don't expect to get this pay rise? Another cut and a bit of pruning to weed out the slackers and wasters and unnecessaries in whats in order, obviously.

the public sector is the labour partys base , no party can turn thier back on thier base and remain a force in politics , a vote for labour is a vote for the status quo in the state sector

Dannyboy83

deise blue wrote: »

R
Absolute rubbish , the Unions are simply doing what they exist to do and that is to protect in as far as possible the terms and conditions of it's members and the Government seem to realise that it's a fight it cannot win as can be seen by the Tanaiste's comments that reform/efficiencies are preferable to pay cuts , even Brian Lenihan today when asked would not say that the 3.5% pay rise demanded by SIPTU on behalf of 34,000 HSE workers was unjustified !
Do you really think this Government is prepared/able to take on the unions ?
I personally would far prefer to see an equitable tax system , after all if public sector workers are earning that much more then they will pay more tax - we after all have one of the most benevolent tax regimes in the EC ( if not the most benevolent ) - what wrong with those that earn more pay more ?

Hi,
I'd have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever, if it were 5 years in the past, or 5 years into the future (when we stabilize).
Right now, there is an issue with debt as you have already agreed.



Can you please answer my questions below?


A) How do you suggest we generate the €24 billion required without increasing income, excise, or corporate tax?
If we do not reduce our expenditure and do not generate the extra €24 billion, what are we going to do?

Naz_st

deise blue wrote: »

I personally would far prefer to see an equitable tax system , after all if public sector workers are earning that much more then they will pay more tax - we after all have one of the most benevolent tax regimes in the EC ( if not the most benevolent ) - what wrong with those that earn more pay more ?

But the income tax that public servants pay is not a net gain to the exchequer - it's merely an exercise in bookkeeping. The government doesn't pay 60k to a public servant and then "earn" 15k back in tax - it simply pays out 45k.

So raising the wage of a public servant does not increase the tax take from them, it just raises the cost to the exchequer. Similarly, lowering the wage of public servants does not lower the tax take, it just lowers the expenditure.

eoinbn

irish_bob wrote: »

the public sector is the labour partys base , no party can turn thier back on thier base and remain a force in politics , a vote for labour is a vote for the status quo in the state sector

The labour party base is the working class, not the public sector. The recent gains that labour have made have been the public sector moving from FF to Labour.

deise blue

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Hi,
I'd have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever, if it were 5 years in the past, or 5 years into the future (when we stabilize).
Right now, there is an issue with debt as you have already agreed.



Can you please answer my questions below?


A) How do you suggest we generate the €24 billion required without increasing income, excise, or corporate tax?
If we do not reduce our expenditure and do not generate the extra €24 billion, what are we going to do?

Whatever gave you the impression that the Government is trying to generate €24 billion , at most they are looking to save 4.75€ billion in the December budget primarily by spending cuts and then hope to maintain borrowing at €20 billion next year.
There is NO intention of generating €24 billion - an impossible dream !

amacca

irish_bob wrote: »

the public sector is the labour partys base , no party can turn thier back on thier base and remain a force in politics , a vote for labour is a vote for the status quo in the state sector

No need to answer if you do not wish but just out curiosity, If there were a general election now, who would you vote for?

What combination of parties do you think has the best chance of sorting out the problem to your satisfaction if any?

If I have asked this earlier and you answered I apologise.

Unfortunately I suppose my approach would be to vote for the candidate I believe will do the best job (parish pump politics again) or the candidate I think works hard is fair minded and the majority of whose policies or party policies I agree with be they independent or FG or FF or Labour etc (although its getting harder to see what policies some parties truly have these days)

Who do you think would really break the status quo?

BroomBurner

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If we do not reduce our expenditure and do not generate the extra €24 billion, what are we going to do?

I know I'm cherry-picking your questions, but want to make a point on the above.

Before ANY cuts in pay to the PS, the whole issue of expenditure needs to be sorted. I'm talking about anything non-wage related. It is an uphill battle trying to get people to be accountable for money they are spending that is not theirs.

NewDubliner

BroomBurner wrote: »

It is an uphill battle trying to get people to be accountable for money they are spending that is not theirs.

Agreed, just how are we going to make sure that we get value for money from bank bailouts and the NAMA project?

Tipp Man

NewDubliner wrote: »

Agreed, just how are we going to make sure that we get value for money from bank bailouts and the NAMA project?

How are we going to make sure that we get value for money from the public sector employees and the various quangos and semi state bodies which are costing the state billions??

NewDubliner

Tipp Man wrote: »

How are we going to make sure that we get value for money from the public sector employees and the various quangos and semi state bodies which are costing the state billions??

By putting people before profit.

Amhran Nua

NewDubliner wrote: »

By putting people before profit.

By... paying them more?

Diarmuid

NewDubliner wrote: »

Agreed, just how are we going to make sure that we get value for money from bank bailouts and the NAMA project?

You do realise that even if you killed the NAMA project, the deficit would be exactly the same? You'd still have to deal with it regardless of NAMA

Diarmuid

NewDubliner wrote: »

By putting people before profit.

This has got to be the biggest BS phrases I've heard in a long time. If you think through the consequences of following this mantra for 2 minutes you will see the problems with it.

Tipp Man

Diarmuid wrote: »

You do realise that even if you killed the NAMA project, the deficit would be exactly the same? You'd still have to deal with it regardless of NAMA

And thats a problem, people are throwing this NAMA thing around like it is the root of all evils in this country, fact is we have 2 problems
1) a huge current budget deficit which is growing by the hour with so far nothing really being done to tackle it, 2 things need instant attention, the welfare system and public sector reform, including wages, staff numbers, perks/expenses, productivity, accountability
2) our banks solvency/liquidity problems which it seems are being addressed by NAMA (now whether or not you agree with NAMA is a different story but at least something is being done)

I really wish people would differentiate between the 2

optocynic

NewDubliner wrote: »

By putting people before profit.

Without profit.. there are no jobs for people..

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!!

'People before profit' is a socialist bumper sticker!
A narrow minded ideal.. without regard for reality!