How to deal with the public sector and the unions

SLUSK

Step 1: Slash public sector salaries to get it in line with budget.
Step 2: If someone takes strike action fire these individuals.
Step 3: If the unions send in their goons to cause alot of trouble send in the police to bust some heads.

This solution has been tried and tested in many countries with good results. If Margaret Thatcher had the balls to do it why could you not find a leader in Ireland willing to do this?

Pygmalion

SLUSK wrote: »

If Margaret Thatcher had the balls to do it why could you not find a leader in Ireland willing to do this?

Because no-one wants to be Margaret Thatcher.

sceptre

SLUSK wrote: »

Step 2: If someone takes strike action fire these individuals.

A labour court hearing would have a field day with anyone wiling to fire individuals in a union-mandated strike action. You want a bigger bill and open state vs employee warfare as a result of your proposed actions, which comes with all the sophistication and planning of 1) Get underpants 2) ??? 3) Profit! As a hint, the underpants gnomes didn't really have much of a workable plan either.

As for either union goons or the state officially mandating head-breaking, you do realise this isn't Uganda and it isn't 1972, right? And that's a good thing. Because the seventies were crap, goons add nothing to the universe and state-mandated head-breaking is a bad thing.

No. As three-point plans go, silly suggestion with all the sophistication of governance through an empty beer glass.

SLUSK

Margaret Thatcher had somewhat similar policies during the great strikes in Britain. She stood up against the union and saved Britain. She was a true statesman unlike the Irish politicians who sell out Ireland to special interest groups.

History will remember Margaret Thatcher as a great hero, no one will remember Ahern and Cowen.

SLUSK

Pygmalion wrote: »

Because no-one wants to be Margaret Thatcher.

No politician will become a legend and a hero like Margaret Thatcher then.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SLUSK

I myself am not Irish and I truly despise the unions in my home country. Never been in a union, never will. In Sweden it is not unheard of of union members to use bully tactics and outright assault on people who are not in a union.

The unions are nothing but bullies.

P. Breathnach

SLUSK wrote: »

... The unions are nothing but bullies.

Not nearly on the same scale of bullying as that in your three-point plan.

molloyjh

While I agree something needs to be done about the unions this OP isn't exactly well thought out. In any way.

For starters, and being a public servant myself (not a civil servant I strangely feel the need to point out ), I am totally opposed to the wage cuts being proposed. Having already taken a 7.5% hit I'm not prepared to take a further 7% when there are so many others in the public sector getting so overpaid. I'm on less that I would be in the private sector as it is (I worked in the private sector for about 10 years so I know what I can expect) so don't view myself as being overpaid by comparison. I don't mind being paid less than in the private sector as this was the trade-off for job security. But there needs to be a staggered approach to the wage cuts. Those who are being most overpaid need to be hit the hardest. Spreading the pain out evenly over and uneven landscape is hardly fair.

I am not for a single second suggesting that I shouldn't take a further cut. I believe I should. I believe a 10% cut (total cut based on the start of the year) is fair given the circumstances with those with ridiculously high salaries getting slightly higher cuts. So another 3% cut would be ok, not 7%. I'd even go so far as another 5% if the argument for it was sound. I just don't believe that the 7% is justified across the board.

Unions are talking about alternatives to pay cuts. That is unrealistic. What needs to be discussed are alternatives that can help lessen the cut for those with lower salaries within the public sector. The pay cuts themselves are needed. If the unions were doing their job properly this is what they would be doing. They are only serving to marginalise themselves with their ridiculous and unrealistic stances on these issues.

ei.sdraob

ignore them, let them strike, the IMF or whoever wont be as kind about these "terrorist" like demands from the unions

nesf

molloyjh wrote: »

For starters, and being a public servant myself (not a civil servant I strangely feel the need to point out ), I am totally opposed to the wage cuts being proposed. Having already taken a 7.5% hit I'm not prepared to take a further 7% when there are so many others in the public sector getting so overpaid. I'm on less that I would be in the private sector as it is (I worked in the private sector for about 10 years so I know what I can expect) so don't view myself as being overpaid by comparison. I don't mind being paid less than in the private sector as this was the trade-off for job security. But there needs to be a staggered approach to the wage cuts. Those who are being most overpaid need to be hit the hardest. Spreading the pain out evenly over and uneven landscape is hardly fair.

And no sane politician would ever propose we cut all public servants pay by the same percentage. So your worry is a non-issue.

The thing is we need pay cuts in the public sector not because it's fair to cut public servants' pay but because we cannot as a nation afford the bill. That's the reality.

Deadalus

I'm a public servant on 25,300 a year. I would like to see the unions talk about how to minimise the impact of a pay cut on the lower paid. For example my commute to work costs 50 euro a week. Thats about 10 percent of my salary. If I was allowed to transfer to a dept. in my home town such as the social welfare office where they are under severe pressure I would be able to take a 7% hit as I would no longer have the commuting expense.

Another idea to help lower paid staff - who are usually younger - would be a revision of the incentivised career break scheme. The initial one required us to take 3 years which in my opinion is too long to take out of ones career. However if they made it availble for on a one year term then I'm confident that there would be huge uptake on this especially amonst junior staff who would use it as a chance to travell and at the same it would save the government plenty of cash over the comming 12 months.

How about a 4 day week but actually being allowed to collect the dole for the fifth day the same as people who have been put on a 4 day week in the private sector. If I volunteer to take a 4 day week I can't collect the dole. I have to be forced into it. I would volunteer if that was available to me.

If the government came out with some different options such as these that people could volunteer for then I'm confident there would be huge support amonst public servants and a change from hostility to cooperation between employer and employee.

There are plenty of ways to reduce the wage bill and I would happily volunteer for a wage cut if there where just some options put in place for me that might help me off-set the cost or at least better absorb it.

irish_bob

molloyjh wrote: »

While I agree something needs to be done about the unions this OP isn't exactly well thought out. In any way.

For starters, and being a public servant myself (not a civil servant I strangely feel the need to point out ), I am totally opposed to the wage cuts being proposed. Having already taken a 7.5% hit I'm not prepared to take a further 7% when there are so many others in the public sector getting so overpaid. I'm on less that I would be in the private sector as it is (I worked in the private sector for about 10 years so I know what I can expect) so don't view myself as being overpaid by comparison. I don't mind being paid less than in the private sector as this was the trade-off for job security. But there needs to be a staggered approach to the wage cuts. Those who are being most overpaid need to be hit the hardest. Spreading the pain out evenly over and uneven landscape is hardly fair.

I am not for a single second suggesting that I shouldn't take a further cut. I believe I should. I believe a 10% cut (total cut based on the start of the year) is fair given the circumstances with those with ridiculously high salaries getting slightly higher cuts. So another 3% cut would be ok, not 7%. I'd even go so far as another 5% if the argument for it was sound. I just don't believe that the 7% is justified across the board.

Unions are talking about alternatives to pay cuts. That is unrealistic. What needs to be discussed are alternatives that can help lessen the cut for those with lower salaries within the public sector. The pay cuts themselves are needed. If the unions were doing their job properly this is what they would be doing. They are only serving to marginalise themselves with their ridiculous and unrealistic stances on these issues.

ive yet to come across a public servant who didnt claim they took a pay cut when they joined the state sector , nine out of ten times , they are talking nonesense , as ive said before ,the unions would have us all believe that all 350,000 ps workers could have been multi millionaire entrapanuers had they not decided to serve mother ireland instead

any guard i know had two choices this past ten years , shovell cement for a grand a week with no pension entitlements and no job security or pull motorists for tax with extremley generous pension entitlements and absolute job security for 1200 per week

the same goes for women who became nurses or teachers , where exactly in the private sector were theese people going to do better

nesf

irish_bob wrote: »

ive yet to come across a public servant who didnt claim they took a pay cut when they joined the state sector , nine out of ten times , they are talking nonesense , as ive said before ,the unions would have us all believe that all 350,000 ps workers could have been multi millionaire entrapanuers had they not decided to serve mother ireland instead

any guard i know had two choices this past ten years , shovell cement for a grand a week with no pension entitlements and no job security or pull motorists for tax with extremley generous pension entitlements and absolute job security for 1200 per week

the same goes for women who became nurses or teachers , where exactly in the private sector were theese people going to do better

And there's no need for you to repeat the same post, almost verbatim in content, across multiple threads.

hallelujajordan

molloyjh wrote: »

While I agree something needs to be done about the unions this OP isn't exactly well thought out. In any way.

For starters, and being a public servant myself (not a civil servant I strangely feel the need to point out ), I am totally opposed to the wage cuts being proposed. Having already taken a 7.5% hit I'm not prepared to take a further 7% when there are so many others in the public sector getting so overpaid. I'm on less that I would be in the private sector as it is (I worked in the private sector for about 10 years so I know what I can expect) so don't view myself as being overpaid by comparison. I don't mind being paid less than in the private sector as this was the trade-off for job security. But there needs to be a staggered approach to the wage cuts. Those who are being most overpaid need to be hit the hardest. Spreading the pain out evenly over and uneven landscape is hardly fair.

I am not for a single second suggesting that I shouldn't take a further cut. I believe I should. I believe a 10% cut (total cut based on the start of the year) is fair given the circumstances with those with ridiculously high salaries getting slightly higher cuts. So another 3% cut would be ok, not 7%. I'd even go so far as another 5% if the argument for it was sound. I just don't believe that the 7% is justified across the board.

Unions are talking about alternatives to pay cuts. That is unrealistic. What needs to be discussed are alternatives that can help lessen the cut for those with lower salaries within the public sector. The pay cuts themselves are needed. If the unions were doing their job properly this is what they would be doing. They are only serving to marginalise themselves with their ridiculous and unrealistic stances on these issues.

Deadalus wrote:

I'm a public servant on 25,300 a year. I would like to see the unions talk about how to minimise the impact of a pay cut on the lower paid. For example my commute to work costs 50 euro a week. Thats about 10 percent of my salary. If I was allowed to transfer to a dept. in my home town such as the social welfare office where they are under severe pressure I would be able to take a 7% hit as I would no longer have the commuting expense.

Another idea to help lower paid staff - who are usually younger - would be a revision of the incentivised career break scheme. The initial one required us to take 3 years which in my opinion is too long to take out of ones career. However if they made it availble for on a one year term then I'm confident that there would be huge uptake on this especially amonst junior staff who would use it as a chance to travell and at the same it would save the government plenty of cash over the comming 12 months.

How about a 4 day week but actually being allowed to collect the dole for the fifth day the same as people who have been put on a 4 day week in the private sector. If I volunteer to take a 4 day week I can't collect the dole. I have to be forced into it. I would volunteer if that was available to me.

If the government came out with some different options such as these that people could volunteer for then I'm confident there would be huge support amonst public servants and a change from hostility to cooperation between employer and employee.

There are plenty of ways to reduce the wage bill and I would happily volunteer for a wage cut if there where just some options put in place for me that might help me off-set the cost or at least better absorb it.

I can't tell you how refreshing it sounds to hear two Public Sector workers acknowledge the need for wage cuts within the Public Sector, however within both of your posts you demonstrate some of the thinking that is across the Public Sector that is just not realistic or sensible in today's society and that really needs to be challenged . .

• The public sector have not had any decrease in their wages (other than some roles, like our politicians). You have had a decrease in your take home pay because you have been asked to contribute to a pension scheme that, frankly should never have been in place, and is entirely at odds with anything those who work in the private sector have available to them . . (I would happily take a 7% cut in my take home pay for an equivalent pension !)
  
• The Incentivised Career Break scheme : Why ? Why should the taxpayer pay for you or anyone else in the Public Sector to take a holiday for one year, two years or three years. If there is not enough work for you to do and if your department can manage without you for 1-3 years then why don't we save the taxpayer some money and make you redundant. I know this sounds harsh but why should the taxpayer continue to pay for people who are not needed and maintain an inflated public sector.
  
• 4 Day week with dole for the fifth day . . Seriously, if we are going to pay you for the 5th day why would we not expect you to work for that day too ? ?
  
• The principle that the higher paid should contribute more : Why ? This is a philosophy that the Unions spout all the time, particularly in reference to the Private Sector. Can we not recognise that (at least in the private sector) those who are highly paid are usually those who are more skilled and/or more experienced and/or contribute more to their organisations. They are often motivated at least in part by their salaries and that's not a bad thing. In a free market economy you have a right to earn a higher salary if you are able to and if we over-penalise such people we a)take money out of the economy and b)force them to take their skills to alternative economies. For any economy to become successful we have to allow people to grow their wealth and their lifestyle in line with their skills and experience.

The Public Sector believe (and you both in your own way demonstrate that belief) that you are entitled to maintain your positions and entitlements long term regardless of how much society need your services and it is exactly this mindset that needs to be broken down; We need to create a Public sector that can operate to a private sector business model.

fly_agaric

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Can we not recognise that (at least in the private sector) those who are highly paid are usually those who are more skilled and/or more experienced and/or contribute more to their organisations. They are often motivated at least in part by their salaries and that's not a bad thing. In a free market economy you have a right to earn a higher salary if you are able to and if we over-penalise such people we a)take money out of the economy and b)force them to take their skills to alternative economies. For any economy to become successful we have to allow people to grow their wealth and their lifestyle in line with their skills and experience.

The job of the public sector is not really to generate new wealth. As lots of people here point out it spends money (or at best collects it!) Greed should not really be a motivator for those running it IMO. Why should the leaders expect to draw down the money they might get if they started a successful business/company, were a top manager in a multinational, or a partner in a law firm or something? The top tier of the public sector was relatively poorly paid in the past (probably too poorly paid) but that seems to have swung around the opposite way now.

The payment of very high salaries to staff at upper levels in the public sector is more galling for another reason. The highly paid individuals in the Public sector (mostly) do not have their arse/shirt on the line in the same way as individuals in the private sector if they do a bad job. They have steady jobs, massive gratuities and pensions no matter what.

starbelgrade

SLUSK wrote: »

History will remember Margaret Thatcher as a great hero,

Not in Argentinian history books, it won't.

hallelujajordan

fly_agaric wrote: »

The job of the public sector is not really to generate new wealth. As lots of people here point out it spends money (or at best collects it!) Greed should not really be a motivator for those running it IMO. Why should the leaders expect to draw down the money they might get if they started a successful business/company, were a top manager in a multinational, or a partner in a law firm or something? The top tier of the public sector was relatively poorly paid in the past (probably too poorly paid) but that seems to have swung around the opposite way now.

The payment of very high salaries to staff at upper levels in the public sector is more galling for another reason. The highly paid individuals in the Public sector (mostly) do not have their arse/shirt on the line in the same way as individuals in the private sector if they do a bad job. They have steady jobs, massive gratuities and pensions no matter what.

I don't believe that being motivated by money; wanting to increase your salary and by extension improve your lifestyle is greedy and i actually find such an assertion a little bit offensive if I am honest . . It is a natural human behaviour and this left wing ideology that those more senior, more skilled or more experienced should not earn proportionately more money is in my view misguided. . .

I believe that the senior ranks in the public sector should be paid equivalently high salaries to those in the private sector but I think you've hit the nail on the head . . their arse/shirt should be on the line if they are not able to deliver the same level of service, delivery and efficiency that we demand every day in the private sector. .

P. Breathnach

fly_agaric wrote: »

The job of the public sector is not really to generate new wealth...

That's true, but only to the extent that the public sector is not in any real sense trading in order to generate profits for itself.

One of the many things the public sector should be doing, and is indeed trying to do, is create the conditions for wealth creation. It's there fairly directly in the remits of departments like Enterprise and Finance, but it also affects education, energy, infrastructure development, transport, communications, security, planning, and much else.

dresden8

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's true, but only to the extent that the public sector is not in any real sense trading in order to generate profits for itself.

One of the many things the public sector should be doing, and is indeed trying to do, is create the conditions for wealth creation. It's there fairly directly in the remits of departments like Enterprise and Finance, but it also affects education, energy, infrastructure development, transport, communications, security, planning, and much else.

No, the public sector are leeches.

Did you not get the memo from finance?

Hillel

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't believe that being motivated by money; wanting to increase your salary and by extension improve your lifestyle is greedy and i actually find such an assertion a little bit offensive if I am honest . . It is a natural human behaviour and this left wing ideology that those more senior, more skilled or more experienced should not earn proportionately more money is in my view misguided. . .

I find it very objectionable that public sector workers, who were happy to accept benchmarking awards when private sector wages grew, are now unwilling to take downward adjustments when the private sector is in trouble. I'll go much further - I consider it offensive, self-serving and unpatriotic. What we have we hold, even if our country, and our children's future is at risk.

This has nothing to do with left wing ideology. Rather, I want a future, other than the emigration boat, for my children. I'm simply sick of this mantra that "we are all in this together". No we're NOT, the private sector has been set adrift. I don't blame individual public servants - I do blame their senior managers, officials in public sector unions and a spineless Taoiseach.

P. Breathnach

dresden8 wrote: »

No, the public sector are leeches.

Did you not get the memo from finance?

One of the cost-saving measures is ceasing to circulate memos to the retired.

ascanbe

SLUSK wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher had somewhat similar policies during the great strikes in Britain. She stood up against the union and saved Britain. She was a true statesman unlike the Irish politicians who sell out Ireland to special interest groups.

History will remember Margaret Thatcher as a great hero, no one will remember Ahern and Cowen.

Eh, she obliterated manufacturing industries and led Britain towards concentrating on services, especially financial services.
You might have noticed that Britain and other countries that went this route are in the **** right now
Why in the hell would anyone regard her as a hero?

SLUSK

Britain prospered during the Tory years especially under Thatcher, it is the Labour government who is fully responsible for the mess we see today.

starbelgrade

SLUSK wrote: »

Britain prospered during the Tory years especially under Thatcher, it is the Labour government who is fully responsible for the mess we see today.

When Thatcher left office, she did so with a tear (how touching - the Iron Lady risked self harm by inflicting rust). She also left with 4 million on the dole queue, the manufacturing industries destroyed & replaced by a financial sector that lead the UK into the mire it's in now.

The housing bubble that has been source of so many recent difficulties, was kickstarted by Thatcher. Selling off council houses to their owners was a popular idea at the time, but by refusing to allow councils to build more stock, it ultimately forced up prices as demand rose. When the Tories slashed the state pension and people started looking around for a way of ensuring financial security in their old age, bricks and mortar seemed like a sound investment.

Yes, Labour are no angels & under Blair, turned almost more conservative than the Tories, but the Milk Snatcher has a hell of a lot to answer for. Hero, my a*se.

Bertie is a hero, Thatcher is a Demi-God.

hallelujajordan

Hillel wrote: »

I find it very objectionable that public sector workers, who were happy to accept benchmarking awards when private sector wages grew, are now unwilling to take downward adjustments when the private sector is in trouble. I'll go much further - I consider it offensive, self-serving and unpatriotic. What we have we hold, even if our country, and our children's future is at risk.

This has nothing to do with left wing ideology. Rather, I want a future, other than the emigration boat, for my children. I'm simply sick of this mantra that "we are all in this together". No we're NOT, the private sector has been set adrift. I don't blame individual public servants - I do blame their senior managers, officials in public sector unions and a spineless Taoiseach.

mmmm . . not sure you read all of my post . . . ??

I quite agree that the public sector should take a pay cut across the board . . I'm just sick of listening to everyone spout on about how the burden of pay cuts or tax hikes in either sector should be loaded disproportionately to the higher paid and that the frontline workers should be left alone . . . There is no shame in earning a high salary whether you are in the public or private sector (assuming it really is earned and you take with the salary an appropriate level of responsibility and accountability)

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

I find it very objectionable that public sector workers, who were happy to accept benchmarking awards when private sector wages grew, are now unwilling to take downward adjustments when the private sector is in trouble..

I find it very objectionable that banks and property developers who were happy to take in huge mortgage repayments when wages grew are now unwilling to take downward adjustments now that people are being paid less.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

I find it very objectionable that banks and property developers who were happy to take in huge mortgage repayments when wages grew are now unwilling to take downward adjustments now that people are being paid less.

I think you are a bit confused there, old chap. "Banks and property developers" did not tamper with the capital cost of mortgages already agreed when most of societies wages grew, so its out of the question that they can in general tamper with capital cost of mortgages already agreed when most of societies wages falls.

For example, fifteen years ago a mortgage may have been on 100k
The person paying the mortgage paid the same mortgage even though his / her wages may have doubled or tripled over the fifteen years.
The bank did not come along five years ago and say, the house is now worth 300k, I think you should pay a mortgage based on that.

hallelujajordan

jimmmy wrote: »

I think you are a bit confused there, old chap. "Banks and property developers" did not tamper with the capital cost of mortgages already agreed when most of societies wages grew, so its out of the question that they can in general tamper with capital cost of mortgages already agreed when most of societies wages falls.

For example, fifteen years ago a mortgage may have been on 100k
The person paying the mortgage paid the same mortgage even though his / her wages may have doubled or tripled over the fifteen years.
The bank did not come along five years ago and say, the house is now worth 300k, I think you should pay a mortgage based on that.

I think his point is probably that if there is so much taxpayers money going to bail out the banks , is it not appropriate that they pass on some of this revenue to give the over-extended home-owners a bail out ?

jimmmy

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think his point is probably that if there is so much taxpayers money going to bail out the banks ,

The Nama money is supposed to be, in effect, a loan, not a gift. The govt is acquiring the Nama properties for a fraction of what their market values were 2 years ago. Nama is proposed to be self financing in the long terms : the govt should even make money from it. The govt is currently earning good interest on the few billion it has / is already lending top AIB + B of I.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

is it not appropriate that they pass on some of this revenue to give the over-extended home-owners a bail out ?

The "revenue " you speak of is scarce. "over-extended home-owners" eg those now redundant who took out mortgages - are currently on a stay of execution - they are not being chucked out.....so you could say they are being subsidised by banks other revenue. Most mortgage holders are not " over-extended "....interest rates were never as low as now. For people employed most are ok, especially those in secure - dare I mention it - public service jobs / big business jobs. Public service wages were never in the history of the state - or any other known state - as high as they are now ....€ 973 p.w. according to the c.s.o. The people finding mortgage payments difficult are unemployed people, or some self employed people whose income has collapsed and who are not eligible for the dole.

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

is it not appropriate that they pass on some of this revenue to give the over-extended home-owners a bail out ?

No its not

we'd all like someone else to help pay our bills and while I have sympathy for people, there is already mortgage interest relief and its not feasible in the current climate for the government to be paying mortgages

For people employed most are ok, especially those in secure - dare I mention it - public service jobs / big business jobs

you'd be surprised jimmmy

I have colleagues in danger of losing a home due to being unable to pay and i also know of some private sector the same...none are unemployed...however the common demonator is that they bought the home recently enough and stretched themselves too far