The not-so-civil Civil War

Rantan

jimmmy wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

You think the govt had been underpaying you by more than €300 a week because the government had a moral duty to pay you the average public sector pay ? It does not work like that. It is not a type of perfect communist country where everyone is paid the same ( that did not happen even in communist countries, believe me ). If you were higher qualified, or were lucky enough to have joined the Gardai instead of the army for example, chances are you would be higher paid. There is no law saying the govt has to pay all soldiers the average public sector wage.

I know this is not my argument but In all fairness I dont think that was his point...?

jimmmy

Rantan wrote: »

jimmmy wrote: »

I know this is not my argument but In all fairness I dont think that was his point...?

What was his point ? With averages there are always going to be higher and there are going to be lower, when you are dealing with 300,000 plus people. What the c.s.o. did was come up with the average. That is their job. They are well qualified and paid to do it. Because they are a govt organisation they cannot be accused of influence from the private sector.

Rantan

jimmmy wrote: »

Rantan wrote: »

What was his point ? With averages there are always going to be higher and there are going to be lower, when you are dealing with 300,000 plus people. What the c.s.o. did was come up with the average. That is their job. They are well qualified and paid to do it. Because they are a govt organisation they cannot be accused of influence from the private sector.

...dont know really, dont care either to be honest....I have kind of tuned out of ye're fight over average salaries so I'll leave ye too it,
appologies for butting in.....I'm trying to start a fight with a fireman!!

Rob67

Tony46 wrote: »

Disgusting is a word I would use for the abuse I got off anti public service louts while on duty over the weekend. I am not responsible for this mess.

Is expressing your disatisfaction with alternative opinions on an internet forum not what you do on a daily basis?

On a sincere note I would not wish injury on any person, friend or foe, Im sorry I mentioned the stupid high horse but it was only meant as a visualisation and not a veiled threat as you put it. I wouldnt of tought you'd be so sensitive.

Just to put your comparisons into context, Greater Manchester as an example has a popualtion of approx 2.5 million with 41 fire stations. Dublin has approx 1.4 million with 12 stations. We are overstretched as is.

On a personal note,My wife is currently on the dole with no future prospect of employment at the moment and with more pay cuts looming over my head the future aint looking too bright.

To Rob67, apologies for my part in the direction this thread has taken away from your original post.

No apology is required or sought, it was going to be hijacked by the anti-PS crowd anyway.

Rob67

jimmmy wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

You think the govt had been underpaying you by more than €300 a week because the government had a moral duty to pay you the average public sector pay ? It does not work like that. It is not a type of perfect communist country where everyone is paid the same ( that did not happen even in communist countries, believe me ). If you were higher qualified, or were lucky enough to have joined the Gardai instead of the army for example, chances are you would be higher paid. There is no law saying the govt has to pay all soldiers the average public sector wage.

Thanks! I really mean it too. You have just proved to me you are also single-minded, constantly looking for ways to feel aggrieved, seeking out proof that all Public Sector workers are greedy, selfish individuals. I asked for debate on my original post and just like your cohort, Irishbob you have nothing to say of any consequence. Very disappointing.

I realise that what you are stating is to elicit a response, I considered just ignoring you because your vitriol is saddening to witness at this point in time, but I'll take the time to correct you (again).

Just to qualify:

I never said I thought I was underpaid, I opined that maybe I was underpaid using humour, obviously it escaped you, it didn't escape Rantan, maybe subtlety is not your thing.

By the way, do you know me? I have never mentioned any of my qualifications to individuals on this forum. Or are you trying to say that because I joined the army that somehow I had no qualifications at all? I'm now assuming your dislike for all things Public Sector extends to the excellent work the Defence Forces has conducted for this country, at home and overseas? You belittle me.

Seeing as you claim in other posts/threads that you are self-employed here's where I am coming from:

For your delectation; I joined the Army because I wanted to and I had waited 2 years to get it too. I progressed through the system receiving promotions, commendations and developing my skills base further. Yes, I could have joined the Gardai, but I wasn't that interested. I liked weaponry too much! (That was humour, just in case you missed that). I left the Army because I had served my time and would never be paid to the level of skills/qualifications I possess no matter how far I rise in rank.

I work in the Private Sector now, paid reasonably well for what I do

I agree not every Public Sector worker (or Soldier) should be paid the average (despite inherent discrepancies) that you constantly quote ad nauseum and should be paid to their level of skill.

Just in case you missed out on it, yes, I am more than a little annoyed. I really tried to create a thread to rationally debate the issue and you try to drag it down.

hallelujajordan

OP, Your thread opener was a well written opinion and it is a shame that this thread has deteriorated in the manner it has, but there is fault, and there have been personal jibes from both sides and I don't think anyone has the right to claim the moral high ground on here. . . (for example, it isn't nice to continually attack someone's spelling in the way that you have)

I would like to take issue with some of the comments from your first post. .

You claim that it is not the fault of the individual public sector workers that they have the contracts / pensions that they have. Indeed, it is not their fault but I do have the right to hold them responsible for refusing to accept changes to their inequitable position. The unions are refusing to accept any pay cuts for the public sector. The Unions can only take such a position if they have a mandate from their members and several strike-action polls have reinforced that mandate. When tens of thousands of public sector workers take to the streets this month to reinforce the union position I as a taxpayer have a right to hold them individually responsible and to criticise them for taking this position.

You claim that the government could have already reached a agreed position if they had engaged earlier . . Well they have continued to engage and the unions refuse to shift their opinion. . The unions will not even allow negative benchmarking on the table so I think you are wrong in this assertion. You criticise the government for playing a media war but lets be fair the unions are just as good at the media circus.

You are correct to assert that the pension levy is a tax by another name. You are also correct that it is a tax that can only be imposed on the public sector, but the implication is that this is in some way unfair. You ignore the fact that the Public sector pension is a benefit that is only available to the public sector. The government have decided that it is time to pass on in part the cost of this benefit. . I don't think that is unreasonable ! The only thing I would have done differently is given the public sector workers the option to opt out of the pension scheme if they didnt want to pay it . . I wonder if a single public sector worker would have taken this choice ?

I agree with your final point that we need to stop looking after our vested interests. The first vested interest that should be removed is the expectation from those in the public sector (based on the mandated union position) that it is appropriate to raise taxes in order to protect what has been clearly shown by several analyses to be an overpaid position.

NewDubliner

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I do have the right to hold them responsible for refusing to accept changes to their inequitable position. The unions are refusing to accept any pay cuts for the public sector.

How is this different from the banks refusing to accept lower mortgage repayments? If it's OK for banks and governments to renege on agreements with their staff, why is it not OK for hombuyers to ask for an economic adjustment?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The government have decided that it is time to pass on in part the cost of this benefit.

The term 'pension levy' is a clever bit of spin to win over private sector begrudgers. The legislation makes it very clear that the 'pension' levy confers no entitlement to anything. The money extracted is not being used to pay for the pensions, its not ring-fenced in any way.

Rev. BlueJeans

Rob67 wrote: »

Neither do I. I had bad experiences with PDFORRA and it's only a representative organisation!

Mrs. Bluejeans is ex PDF, and she'd agree with you wholeheartedly there.

Nice post btw

Rob67

At last!!! Someone to finally engage rationally!

hallelujajordan wrote: »

OP, Your thread opener was a well written opinion and it is a shame that this thread has deteriorated in the manner it has, but there is fault, and there have been personal jibes from both sides and I don't think anyone has the right to claim the moral high ground on here. . . (for example, it isn't nice to continually attack someone's spelling in the way that you have)

I know, I should hang my head in shame... but not in this case, the individual/s cited fails to engage in any manner less than heckling and is fond of taking offence at a hint of perceived slight, I really only do it to wind them up, sadly it has failed... I will try to refrain from baiting, it really isn't fair.

I would like to take issue with some of the comments from your first post. .

You claim that it is not the fault of the individual public sector workers that they have the contracts / pensions that they have. Indeed, it is not their fault but I do have the right to hold them responsible for refusing to accept changes to their inequitable position. The unions are refusing to accept any pay cuts for the public sector. The Unions can only take such a position if they have a mandate from their members and several strike-action polls have reinforced that mandate. When tens of thousands of public sector workers take to the streets this month to reinforce the union position I as a taxpayer have a right to hold them individually responsible and to criticise them for taking this position.

Does any worker, who has union representation, really accepting or happy to take a pay cut? Especially if another way can be utilised (and I'm not condoning the current union stance, I do understand it though). the primary reason for this strike, in my opinion, is that the Public Sector has already taken a hit and is facing into losing even more. Whilst the Private Sector, which has received a substantial shock, is not as adversely affected as is claimed by IBEC.

There have been massive lay-offs in mainly one sector, construction, if the government had done it's job and controlled the boom, the Celtic Tiger years could have survived better than it has.

As I pointed out, money could have been saved by more prudent spending, this was the remit of government and the senior CS. The lower grades (the one who are most affected are angry that the hard work that they have done has been for nothing and made to feel worthless by sometimes baseless accusations.

Added to this has been the constant media attention with a very heavy anti-Public Sector slant. That alone can generate enough anger to insure no-one listens to another point of view or be placed in a position of further weakness.

You have the right to hold them responsible if you feel that way, but you may be pointing the finger at the wrong people...

You claim that the government could have already reached a agreed position if they had engaged earlier . . Well they have continued to engage and the unions refuse to shift their opinion. . The unions will not even allow negative benchmarking on the table so I think you are wrong in this assertion. You criticise the government for playing a media war but lets be fair the unions are just as good at the media circus.

Both sides are playing brinkmanship here and trying to control the media war. Government did not try to negotiate in the manner they claim, it was purely a take it or leave it offer. Again the unions were going to operate in the best interests of the membership and govt is going to negotiate in the best interests of itself. This is going to remain a stalemate as far as I can see, neither side is basking in glory here.

You are correct to assert that the pension levy is a tax by another name. You are also correct that it is a tax that can only be imposed on the public sector, but the implication is that this is in some way unfair.

Personally speaking, I did feel it was unfair, especially for those who were not permanent staff with fixed short-term contracts. To all intents and purposes these people do not have the same rights and entitlements as their permanent, established colleagues.

You ignore the fact that the Public sector pension is a benefit that is only available to the public sector.

And you ignore the fact that Private Sector pensions are not available to Public Sector workers with that claim, Public Sector workers are actually disallowed from creating one.

Take into account my former colleagues in the Army; the majority of them have short term contracts, which can be renewed, but a number every month are not, many never reach pensionable service due to early discharge and can't transfer the pension into civilian life and continue subscriptions, this is all at extra cost with no return. That could be as much as twenty years wasted of paying into something they will never receive, do you consider that fair?

The government have decided that it is time to pass on in part the cost of this benefit. . I don't think that is unreasonable !

In the great scheme of things, no, it isn't unreasonable. However the method in which it was applied was less than reasonable. It was knee-jerk reaction with little forethought and applied with all the grace of a sledgehammer on a peanut. So the negative response from the Public Sector was to be expected.

The only thing I would have done differently is given the public sector workers the option to opt out of the pension scheme if they didnt want to pay it . . I wonder if a single public sector worker would have taken this choice ?

They're not permitted, but I can tell you that some would have taken the option knowing that they could carry on paying into one after they have left the Public Sector. The added benefit (which has just come to mind) is that there would be less institutionalised Public Sector worker syndrome, you know the ones who stay for 30+ years without moving up (or out).

I agree with your final point that we need to stop looking after our vested interests.

Thanks.

No, don't do it, damn, you are going to say it, aren't you? Ah, well....

The first vested interest that should be removed is the expectation from those in the public sector (based on the mandated union position) that it is appropriate to raise taxes in order to protect what has been clearly shown by several analyses to be an overpaid position.

And the first vested interest that should be removed is the expectation from those in the Private Sector by baying for massive, and sometimes unrealistic, pay cuts and trying to kill off morale by devaluing the work of the majority of Public Servants which, at certain levels, are underpaid for the work they do.

Do you see were I'm going with this? It's like economics using Newtonian law: 'For every action there is an equal (but negative) reaction'.

There is no ready answer, from what I've seen so far, both sides need to take a deep breath and work really hard at developing a plan of action, together, where ground is given and taken in many areas. The detractors on both sides, who are not leaders of either side, I mean the average Private and Public Sector worker, has a lot to play in this. But that would be like wishing for Utopia.


If this is a little disjointed, I apologise, I started work at 4.30 this morning and I am quite shattered.

hallelujajordan

Rob67 wrote: »

Does any worker, who has union representation, really accepting or happy to take a pay cut? Especially if another way can be utilised (and I'm not condoning the current union stance, I do understand it though). the primary reason for this strike, in my opinion, is that the Public Sector has already taken a hit and is facing into losing even more. Whilst the Private Sector, which has received a substantial shock, is not as adversely affected as is claimed by IBEC.

The difficulty I have with this position is that nobody in the unions, the public sector or the opposition parties are really suggesting any credible alternatives . . and the reason is because there are none. . There is a gap of 4bn and we have a public sector that is paid somewhere between 25 and 40% higher than their private sector equivalents. The only alternative way to bridge the gap would be to increase taxes but whatever way i look at it I still come back to the same fundamental question : Why does it make sense to increase taxes on everyone in order to maintain this privileged differential for the public sector ? ? I can't work that out !

There have been massive lay-offs in mainly one sector, construction, if the government had done it's job and controlled the boom, the Celtic Tiger years could have survived better than it has.

This is an oversimplification . . there have been layoffs in lots of different industries throughout the country . .

Both sides are playing brinkmanship here and trying to control the media war. Government did not try to negotiate in the manner they claim, it was purely a take it or leave it offer. Again the unions were going to operate in the best interests of the membership and govt is going to negotiate in the best interests of itself. This is going to remain a stalemate as far as I can see, neither side is basking in glory here.

I agree but I still don't get the Unions position. Given that the majority of ICTU's membership exists in the private sector, why are they ignoring this constituency and focusing only on the public sector. If the unions were really representing their entire membership they would work towards controlled, appropriately distributed negative benchmarking across the public sector

Take into account my former colleagues in the Army; the majority of them have short term contracts, which can be renewed, but a number every month are not, many never reach pensionable service due to early discharge and can't transfer the pension into civilian life and continue subscriptions, this is all at extra cost with no return. That could be as much as twenty years wasted of paying into something they will never receive, do you consider that fair?

Apologies, I am not familiar with the Army pension scheme so I cannot argue/contradict you at all on this . . but I do know a lot of other public servants (teachers, nurses, librarians, care workers) who are in permanent pensionable positions, and their entitlements are way above anything available / affordable to those in the private sector.

In the great scheme of things, no, it isn't unreasonable. However the method in which it was applied was less than reasonable. It was knee-jerk reaction with little forethought and applied with all the grace of a sledgehammer on a peanut. So the negative response from the Public Sector was to be expected.

Agreed and understood . . doesn't alter the principle though.

Do you see were I'm going with this? It's like economics using Newtonian law: 'For every action there is an equal (but negative) reaction'.

There is no ready answer, from what I've seen so far, both sides need to take a deep breath and work really hard at developing a plan of action, together, where ground is given and taken in many areas. The detractors on both sides, who are not leaders of either side, I mean the average Private and Public Sector worker, has a lot to play in this. But that would be like wishing for Utopia.


If this is a little disjointed, I apologise, I started work at 4.30 this morning and I am quite shattered.

Point taken, but putting all personal positions aside and trying to look at thing objectively, the data clearly shows that there is an inequity between the two sectors that a)doesn't make sense and b)cannot be afforded. There is a lot of talk about alternatives but without concrete suggestions this talk is meaningless.

hallelujajordan

NewDubliner wrote: »

How is this different from the banks refusing to accept lower mortgage repayments? If it's OK for banks and governments to renege on agreements with their staff, why is it not OK for hombuyers to ask for an economic adjustment?

Its not, I agree with you . .

The term 'pension levy' is a clever bit of spin to win over private sector begrudgers. The legislation makes it very clear that the 'pension' levy confers no entitlement to anything. The money extracted is not being used to pay for the pensions, its not ring-fenced in any way.

Why does it matter where each piece of money goes ? The point in principle is that public service pensions are a significant benefit that up until now were provided for free; The government have (in my view quite rightly) decided that this should now be taxed.

Rantan

Rob67 wrote: »

At last!!! Someone to finally engage rationally!



Does any worker, who has union representation, really accepting or happy to take a pay cut? Especially if another way can be utilised (and I'm not condoning the current union stance, I do understand it though). the primary reason for this strike, in my opinion, is that the Public Sector has already taken a hit and is facing into losing even more. Whilst the Private Sector, which has received a substantial shock, is not as adversely affected as is claimed by IBEC.

There have been massive lay-offs in mainly one sector, construction, if the government had done it's job and controlled the boom, the Celtic Tiger years could have survived better than it has. ......."

Its not a question of whether they would be happy to accept a pay cut or not - I wont take a day's hols from unemployment to march around dublin complaining I lost my job!!(considering it now though)..
Dont agree that Private sector is not adversely affected - what level of unemployment would you consider adverse??
Manufacturing has also being destroyed in this country - its not just construction, Dell in limerick, for example - was it 2,000 lost jobs there??.

Rob67

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The difficulty I have with this position is that nobody in the unions, the public sector or the opposition parties are really suggesting any credible alternatives . . and the reason is because there are none. . There is a gap of 4bn and we have a public sector that is paid somewhere between 25 and 40% higher than their private sector equivalents. The only alternative way to bridge the gap would be to increase taxes but whatever way i look at it I still come back to the same fundamental question : Why does it make sense to increase taxes on everyone in order to maintain this privileged differential for the public sector ? ? I can't work that out !

Neither can I, there are few alternatives to pay cuts except maybe reductions in staff but I would have to agree that over-taxing the working population would not be the way to go. Having said that, don't be surprised if the govt opens the tax bands so as to include those on the minimum wage, rather than tax the very wealthy in the near future. I was never opposed to pay cuts, I would have preferred that than the current method of claw-back, however, within the Public Sector there is a strong mentality of: 'What I have, I hold'. That is going to be very hard to break down. You are going to have to see it from the perspective of a lower paid Public Sector worker (earning equal to or less than the industrial average) who are going to feel the brunt of this and make up the majority of the PS. They are the ones who are going to be far worse off after the budget.

This is an oversimplification . . there have been layoffs in lots of different industries throughout the country . .

I used it as an example, not a definitive. Apologies for lack of clarification.

I agree but I still don't get the Unions position. Given that the majority of ICTU's membership exists in the private sector, why are they ignoring this constituency and focusing only on the public sector. If the unions were really representing their entire membership they would work towards controlled, appropriately distributed negative benchmarking across the public sector

They still have to represent their members regardless of what sector they are in. If you listen to what they are saying though they are laying the groundwork for further action regarding the Private Sector. Ultimately though, what affects the public Sector will eventually affect the Private Sector in the future.

Apologies, I am not familiar with the Army pension scheme so I cannot argue/contradict you at all on this . . but I do know a lot of other public servants (teachers, nurses, librarians, care workers) who are in permanent pensionable positions, and their entitlements are way above anything available / affordable to those in the private sector.

Granted you may not be familiar with how the Defence Forces work but the pension scheme that it has is essentially the same as the rest of the Public Sector (just very much lower remunerative benefits). As far as I can find out, no-one entitled to a Public Sector pension is permitted to set up a private pension plan (I don't know why either). I would be one of the those who feel that will need to change, mind you I can understand if a Public Sector worker would be happy if that happened

Agreed and understood . . doesn't alter the principle though.

Then we will have to agree to disagree then.

Point taken, but putting all personal positions aside and trying to look at thing objectively, the data clearly shows that there is an inequity between the two sectors that a)doesn't make sense and b)cannot be afforded. There is a lot of talk about alternatives but without concrete suggestions this talk is meaningless.

There is inequity, agreed, however it has to be recognised that there are a lot of jobs in the Public Sector that have no Private equivalent (Gardai, Soldiers etc) So it is not really fair to try to do so and there is no point trying to compare against other nations, too many variables start to skew the figures to get a valid comparator.

The Public Sector pay bill is too large, I freely admit this, it needs trimming, particularly at the higher grades. There are too many staff in admin roles that are no longer in existence. There are practices that are antiquated and no longer relevant to today's requirements.

I have never had a problem with change, I worked through similar changes in 1998 and they have been successful so I can't see why they can't be applied everywhere else.

If the govt were to introduce the necessary cuts in the next budget, as recommended by McCarthy i.e. 17,000 personnel cut free, that's still going to be a burden on the state when they join the dole queue, albeit at reduced rates.

I expect that there will be cuts in pay and possible reductions in staff announced in the next budget which will probably result in widespread anger from Public Sector workers and possible industrial action. I don't agree with striking it gets nothing in real terms except bad blood in my opinion.

Alternatives? An increase in the base rates of tax? 'You can't tax your way out of a recession' is often heard, maybe you can, but within reason, this may be a 'low tax economy' but we pay high levels on products/services in this country, that needs to change, so as to induce people to spend a little more. Taxing the super rich, I would agree with, maybe a 'temporary' wealth levy? (Just putting it out there, don't take my head off!) Removing most of the tax relief's/ escape clauses would be more effective.

I don't have all the answers, I'm good but not that good. I try my best to be moderate and fair to both sides, however it is hard to be when there is so much hyperbole about perceptions about one sector that is open to public scrutiny when those baying for hypothetical blood are not open to the same scrutiny and actual scales of loss are not wholly transparent from unscrupulous employers when they let people go or enforce pay reductions... No-one is whiter than white in this mess.

dvpower

Another shot has been fired in this Civil War. The teachers are going to attack the general public with a one day strike

Rob67

Rantan wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

At last!!! Someone to finally engage rationally!



Does any worker, who has union representation, really accepting or happy to take a pay cut? Especially if another way can be utilised (and I'm not condoning the current union stance, I do understand it though). the primary reason for this strike, in my opinion, is that the Public Sector has already taken a hit and is facing into losing even more. Whilst the Private Sector, which has received a substantial shock, is not as adversely affected as is claimed by IBEC.

There have been massive lay-offs in mainly one sector, construction, if the government had done it's job and controlled the boom, the Celtic Tiger years could have survived better than it has. ......."

Its not a question of whether they would be happy to accept a pay cut or not - I wont take a day's hols from unemployment to march around dublin complaining I lost my job!!(considering it now though)..
Dont agree that Private sector is not adversely affected - what level of unemployment would you consider adverse??
Manufacturing has also being destroyed in this country - its not just construction, Dell in limerick, for example - was it 2,000 lost jobs there??.

I never said adversely, I said 'as adversely', there are still employers taking on staff and there is growth in some areas, so I am correct in my assertion and I meant it as an example not definitive case (obviously got lost in translation!).

What I'm trying to point out, is that some of the employers are not playing fair with their employees. I can cite a gas installer I know; last year his boss, without consultation, cut their overtime pay and claimed it was the recession that made him do it, however, the guy still had the same level of work that he always had available, just no overtime pay. That's not fair and very sharp practice, no?

According to the news this morning 1 in 4 companies are, or have been, letting people go. So it isn't a case of; 'everyone is letting people go', regardless of the opinions of certain individuals. As for Dell letting 2,000 staff go, while a huge figure and is hard to comprehend, no-one batted an eyelid when the Army reduced its numbers by 1,750 in 1998. It is very much about scale.

irish_bob

Rob67 wrote: »

Neither can I, there are few alternatives to pay cuts except maybe reductions in staff but I would have to agree that over-taxing the working population would not be the way to go. Having said that, don't be surprised if the govt opens the tax bands so as to include those on the minimum wage, rather than tax the very wealthy in the near future. I was never opposed to pay cuts, I would have preferred that than the current method of claw-back, however, within the Public Sector there is a strong mentality of: 'What I have, I hold'. That is going to be very hard to break down. You are going to have to see it from the perspective of a lower paid Public Sector worker (earning equal to or less than the industrial average) who are going to feel the brunt of this and make up the majority of the PS. They are the ones who are going to be far worse off after the budget.



I used it as an example, not a definitive. Apologies for lack of clarification.




They still have to represent their members regardless of what sector they are in. If you listen to what they are saying though they are laying the groundwork for further action regarding the Private Sector. Ultimately though, what affects the public Sector will eventually affect the Private Sector in the future.




Granted you may not be familiar with how the Defence Forces work but the pension scheme that it has is essentially the same as the rest of the Public Sector (just very much lower remunerative benefits). As far as I can find out, no-one entitled to a Public Sector pension is permitted to set up a private pension plan (I don't know why either). I would be one of the those who feel that will need to change, mind you I can understand if a Public Sector worker would be happy if that happened



Then we will have to agree to disagree then.



There is inequity, agreed, however it has to be recognised that there are a lot of jobs in the Public Sector that have no Private equivalent (Gardai, Soldiers etc) So it is not really fair to try to do so and there is no point trying to compare against other nations, too many variables start to skew the figures to get a valid comparator.

The Public Sector pay bill is too large, I freely admit this, it needs trimming, particularly at the higher grades. There are too many staff in admin roles that are no longer in existence. There are practices that are antiquated and no longer relevant to today's requirements.

I have never had a problem with change, I worked through similar changes in 1998 and they have been successful so I can't see why they can't be applied everywhere else.

If the govt were to introduce the necessary cuts in the next budget, as recommended by McCarthy i.e. 17,000 personnel cut free, that's still going to be a burden on the state when they join the dole queue, albeit at reduced rates.

I expect that there will be cuts in pay and possible reductions in staff announced in the next budget which will probably result in widespread anger from Public Sector workers and possible industrial action. I don't agree with striking it gets nothing in real terms except bad blood in my opinion.

Alternatives? An increase in the base rates of tax? 'You can't tax your way out of a recession' is often heard, maybe you can, but within reason, this may be a 'low tax economy' but we pay high levels on products/services in this country, that needs to change, so as to induce people to spend a little more. Taxing the super rich, I would agree with, maybe a 'temporary' wealth levy? (Just putting it out there, don't take my head off!) Removing most of the tax relief's/ escape clauses would be more effective.

I don't have all the answers, I'm good but not that good. I try my best to be moderate and fair to both sides, however it is hard to be when there is so much hyperbole about perceptions about one sector that is open to public scrutiny when those baying for hypothetical blood are not open to the same scrutiny and actual scales of loss are not wholly transparent from unscrupulous employers when they let people go or enforce pay reductions... No-one is whiter than white in this mess.

we have a low tax base for those on low to moderate wages , those on high wages pay as much as anywhere else , in germany , someone on 20 k per year would pay 5 k in tax , in ireland they pay none , we have a situation in ireland where close to half the population are net beneficaries of the state in that they recieve more from the state than they put in

Tony46

Rantan wrote: »

A couple of things from your post - I'm not trying to make light of your position, I can only use my own experience to compare, but I am assuming you are a fireman, you're are on pretty good money, your not loaded but you are comfortable, you work hard and deserve your pay(all assumptions). How come your missus is getting dole for one thing? Surely she was means tested and on your salary(assumed) should not be entitiled to it. THats what happened my wife last time she was out of work, dole officer lauged at her(literally) when she told her my salary, believe me I am not wealthy, we could afford to live of it but for the two of us its a survival existence with just my salary. Secondly, when you say the future for you isn;t too bright I ask you to consider my situaltion, I will be on the dole in two weeks, my missus works 3 days a week for a pittance and will probably be out of work in the new year also. I agree you may face some tough times but you will have a relatively good salary and one guaranteed job in the family, I dont think that is really a bad position to be in at the moment to be honest. I now this isn;t a misery competition but its just that I believe public sector guys dont fully realise or apprecaite exactly how good you have it and that is whats causing anger amongst people like me, especially when ye go out marching/striking and making threats about what will happen when ye strike.
( that threat reference is in reference to some interview I heard on radio with some guy from 24/7 or one of thoses bodies, he did make some backhanded allusion, to what would happen if there were no fireman/gardia around etc etc he was basiccally holding the country to ransom, so I'm not making that up - just for the record)!!

When I say my missus is on the dole she was let go last week so application pending but as you say it seems she may not be entitled to it. I agree with you that your situation is a lot worse than mine and I wish you the best of luck.

Yes I have a secure job which I am very greatfull for and in the current economic climate even more so. Thats one of the reasons i joined the ps. But we have already taken a pay cut yet 9 months later they want to take more. You really think we should just let the government do as they wish? As for strikes, I really hope it doesnt come to that.

In relation to you wanting to start a fight with a fireman, If I was irish Bob id be up in arms and extremly upset now over that comment but Im not that sensitive;)

Rob67

irish_bob wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

we have a low tax base for those on low to moderate wages , those on high wages pay as much as anywhere else , in germany , someone on 20 k per year would pay 5 k in tax , in ireland they pay none , we have a situation in ireland where close to half the population are net beneficaries of the state in that they recieve more from the state than they put in

In Germany, the standard of living, service provision and health care is quite high, which is a reflection of the rate of taxation. I have a sister who lives there, my other sister lives in Luxembourg were the story is very similar.

Not playing victim-hood here, I take it you mean Public Sector workers or do you refer to social welfare claimants, or do you mean both?

Rantan

Rob67 wrote: »

Rantan wrote: »

I never said adversely, I said 'as adversely', there are still employers taking on staff and there is growth in some areas, so I am correct in my assertion and I meant it as an example not definitive case (obviously got lost in translation!).

What I'm trying to point out, is that some of the employers are not playing fair with their employees. I can cite a gas installer I know; last year his boss, without consultation, cut their overtime pay and claimed it was the recession that made him do it, however, the guy still had the same level of work that he always had available, just no overtime pay. That's not fair and very sharp practice, no?

According to the news this morning 1 in 4 companies are, or have been, letting people go. So it isn't a case of; 'everyone is letting people go', regardless of the opinions of certain individuals. As for Dell letting 2,000 staff go, while a huge figure and is hard to comprehend, no-one batted an eyelid when the Army reduced its numbers by 1,750 in 1998. It is very much about scale.

I agree with you on the "cute hoorism" that some employers get up to in construction, I've witnesed and experienced a lot of s**t in my time - it is a very backward industry in many ways that really needs to get with the times.
1 in 4 companies letting people go is massive!! It sounds like you're almost relieved to hear it's so small(I may be wrong on that but thats how it comes across). Does that statistic include companies who have gone tits up completely, reduced working hours, reduced pay etc etc probably not I would guess? I've spent a lot of time in the last two weeks looking for work and theres sweet fa out there so I have relevant experience of that.
I remember that about the army, there was a lot of concern regarding the barracks in my home town, which just managed to stay open thankfully. I suppose though that 1,750 jobs nationwide at a time of full employment just did'nt seem too bad back then. Would the guys let go then have got good payouts/redundancies?

hallelujajordan

Rob67 wrote: »

Neither can I, there are few alternatives to pay cuts except maybe reductions in staff but I would have to agree that over-taxing the working population would not be the way to go.

Rob67 wrote: »

Alternatives? An increase in the base rates of tax? 'You can't tax your way out of a recession' is often heard, maybe you can, but within reason, this may be a 'low tax economy' but we pay high levels on products/services in this country, that needs to change, so as to induce people to spend a little more. Taxing the super rich, I would agree with, maybe a 'temporary' wealth levy? (Just putting it out there, don't take my head off!) Removing most of the tax relief's/ escape clauses would be more effective.

I'm not sure I get your position. Are you in favour of raising taxes or not ?

The maths are really quite simple here. . we won't arrive at any magic solution if we all work really hard at it . . The government have three simple choices to make :

- Reduce the paybill of the public sector either through job cuts or pay cuts. The analysis shows that the sector is payed more relative to the private sector and to other equivalent economies. It is also widely accepted (from inside the public sector and out) that there is huge inefficiency in the sector and that jobs could be removed without reducing services (as long as those jobs were removed in a targetted manner)

- Increase taxes throughout the country. Hit everyone equitably in order to maintain the inequity in pay levels that exists between public and private sector. By doing this you will take money out of the economy and almost certainly see the effect in increased job losses within the private sector (primarily in the manufacturing and services sectors)

- Reduce the social welfare bill. Other than the relatively modest savings that can be achieved by means testing the entitlements like child benefit that are available to everyone, this is really taking from those who are most vulnerable and exposed. It is also hitting again the 200,000 or so private sector workers who lost their jobs last year, again with the primary aim of maintaining the inequity between public and private ?

I like to think I am a logical man and for me this is a no-brainer. Of the three choices above only one makes economic sense. . I'd like to think that if I worked in the public sector I'd still hold this view but I probably wouldn't. . .

Rantan

Tony46 wrote: »

When I say my missus is on the dole she was let go last week so application pending but as you say it seems she may not be entitled to it. I agree with you that your situation is a lot worse than mine and I wish you the best of luck.

Yes I have a secure job which I am very greatfull for and in the current economic climate even more so. Thats one of the reasons i joined the ps. But we have already taken a pay cut yet 9 months later they want to take more. You really think we should just let the government do as they wish? As for strikes, I really hope it doesnt come to that.

In relation to you wanting to start a fight with a fireman, If I was irish Bob id be up in arms and extremly upset now over that comment but Im not that sensitive;)

thanks, bit of leisure time complements of the governemt can't be that bad I hope!!
I think we have missed the boat regarding letting the government get aaway with this s**t. Its too late now - we have already let them get away with it and we are paying the price now unfortunately. I dont think we have a choice. Stable doors and horses come to mind.
Strikes would be very bad, would really create more division and resentment that we dont need right now.

Tony46

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Its not, I agree with you . .



Why does it matter where each piece of money goes ? The point in principle is that public service pensions are a significant benefit that up until now were provided for free; The government have (in my view quite rightly) decided that this should now be taxed.

This is a common misconception with people. The public servants have always paid a contribution to their pensions. They were never free as you put it

Rob67

Rantan wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

I agree with you on the "cute hoorism" that some employers get up to in construction, I've witnesed and experienced a lot of s**t in my time - it is a very backward industry in many ways that really needs to get with the times.
1 in 4 companies letting people go is massive!! It sounds like you're almost relieved to hear it's so small(I may be wrong on that but thats how it comes across). Does that statistic include companies who have gone tits up completely, reduced working hours, reduced pay etc etc probably not I would guess? I've spent a lot of time in the last two weeks looking for work and theres sweet fa out there so I have relevant experience of that.
I remember that about the army, there was a lot of concern regarding the barracks in my home town, which just managed to stay open thankfully. I suppose though that 1,750 jobs nationwide at a time of full employment just did'nt seem too bad back then. Would the guys let go then have got good payouts/redundancies?

From what I gather, strange as it sounds, that is a good thing, although it seems massive it could be a lot worse. (starts praying that it doesn't) Don't forget I work in the Private Sector and subject to the same vagaries in the marketplace as most people. There is work out there, it's just employers are now being extra picky and can bide their time on hiring people at the right cost. It took me 2 1/2 months to get my job!

There were early retirement packages, but compared to what is standard redundancy rates they were paltry.

irish_bob

Rob67 wrote: »

irish_bob wrote: »

In Germany, the standard of living, service provision and health care is quite high, which is a reflection of the rate of taxation. I have a sister who lives there, my other sister lives in Luxembourg were the story is very similar.

Not playing victim-hood here, I take it you mean Public Sector workers or do you refer to social welfare claimants, or do you mean both?

germany has better social services than ireland for two reasons , they have a wider tax base and they dont pay their health staff near as much as we do , consultants in germany earn half what they do in ireland , doctors in germany earn the same as nurses in ireland

Rob67

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I

'm not sure I get your position. Are you in favour of raising taxes or not ?

I would be in favour of Tax rate increases if there were a third band or 'wealth levy'.

The maths are really quite simple here. . we won't arrive at any magic solution if we all work really hard at it . . The government have three simple choices to make :

True

- Reduce the paybill of the public sector either through job cuts or pay cuts. The analysis shows that the sector is payed more relative to the private sector and to other equivalent economies. It is also widely accepted (from inside the public sector and out) that there is huge inefficiency in the sector and that jobs could be removed without reducing services (as long as those jobs were removed in a targetted manner)

I agree, even if I were still there it, unfortunately, does make sense and in a targeted manner as you say. I would not agree, however, to a massive pay cut in excess of 5% for the lower paid, less would be better, but that's my opinion. I really feel that pay cuts are coming but they will not be at the levels that some individuals want (25-30%). This is going to sound very repetitive, but when the Army went through it's re-org, it was a big fear that it would never be able to maintain overseas missions and home operations, it did though, albeit at a cost personally.

- Increase taxes throughout the country. Hit everyone equitably in order to maintain the inequity in pay levels that exists between public and private sector. By doing this you will take money out of the economy and almost certainly see the effect in increased job losses within the private sector (primarily in the manufacturing and services sectors)

Moderate increases, I feel, are coming anyway. If not, it will be water rates, property tax or something else, either way the tax burden is going to increase. I do believe though the tax system, should be completely over-hauled. The govt won't increase taxes just to assuage the Public Sector, it would be political suicide.

- Reduce the social welfare bill. Other than the relatively modest savings that can be achieved by means testing the entitlements like child benefit that are available to everyone, this is really taking from those who are most vulnerable and exposed. It is also hitting again the 200,000 or so private sector workers who lost their jobs last year, again with the primary aim of maintaining the inequity between public and private ?

Don't get me wrong, there are people out there, mainly recently unemployed, who deserve the full rate they have worked and provided to the state and the state should care for them. But if it goes past two years... well, as far as I'm concerned that is taking the proverbial biscuit and downward adjustments need to be looked at.

I like to think I am a logical man and for me this is a no-brainer. Of the three choices above only one makes economic sense. .

I have never believed in absolutes, I always seek alternates that leave the least crappiest taste in the mouth, so I would be of the mind to say that a combination of the above might be the way to go; moderate reduction in pay, reduction in PS numbers (starting with non-effectives), moderate increases in tax to the wealthier, reduce Child Benefit to very high earners, reduce VAT, there are no winners in this, no matter what you do.

I'd like to think that if I worked in the public sector I'd still hold this view but I probably wouldn't. . .

I could guarantee it:)

Rob67

irish_bob wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

germany has better social services than ireland for two reasons , they have a wider tax base and they dont pay their health staff near as much as we do , consultants in germany earn half what they do in ireland , doctors in germany earn the same as nurses in ireland

They also have a substantially larger population than we do and have more wealth generators (my sister being one of them) than we do. Costs for products and services are lower too, it's all about economies of scale.

irish_bob

Rob67 wrote: »

irish_bob wrote: »

They also have a substantially larger population than we do and have more wealth generators (my sister being one of them) than we do. Costs for products and services are lower too, it's all about economies of scale.

red herring , if that was what made the key difference , luxembourg would have the worst health service in europe

Rob67

irish_bob wrote: »

Rob67 wrote: »

red herring , if that was what made the key difference , luxembourg would have the worst health service in europe

Luxembourg has most of the banks living there and very wealthy native population, it is also somewhat of a tax haven. It also contains a lot of the bureaucracy for the European Parliament and houses the European Courts of Justice etc, generally all quite wealthy people. So, to reflect that, services had to be of a standard. I should know, both my parents worked there. It is also a low direct tax economy but high indirect taxes i.e. electronics, clothing... Added to al this it does not support a dependence on social welfare, you get 6 months assistance if you haven't found a job, they find you something to do or you get nothing at all. Highly organised country both public and private. I would love to live there but my beloved other half won't!

hallelujajordan

Rob67 wrote: »

I would be in favour of Tax rate increases if there were a third band or 'wealth levy'.

Short term thinking. . a wealth levy would raise money in the short term but cost money in the medium term as the wealthier would almost certainly move themselves and/or their money out of Ireland. This is not a short term problem . . the changes made now will need to be effective over a 5-10 yr term

I agree, even if I were still there it, unfortunately, does make sense and in a targeted manner as you say. I would not agree, however, to a massive pay cut in excess of 5% for the lower paid, less would be better, but that's my opinion. I really feel that pay cuts are coming but they will not be at the levels that some individuals want (25-30%). This is going to sound very repetitive, but when the Army went through it's re-org, it was a big fear that it would never be able to maintain overseas missions and home operations, it did though, albeit at a cost personally.

I have heard people identify a 25-40% differential but I have not heard anyone calling for a pay cut as large as that. . Personally I would think that a sliding cut between 5 and 15% depending on level / salary etc would be effective.

I have never believed in absolutes, I always seek alternates that leave the least crappiest taste in the mouth, so I would be of the mind to say that a combination of the above might be the way to go; moderate reduction in pay, reduction in PS numbers (starting with non-effectives), moderate increases in tax to the wealthier, reduce Child Benefit to very high earners, reduce VAT, there are no winners in this, no matter what you do.

I could probably live with that but I do think that the government need to be careful about any increases in taxes. We need to get money into the economy and increasing taxes will have the opposite effect. However, the Public Service will accept No Paycuts and No Redundancies and will drive the country to a standstill to prove their point.

ParkRunner

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your position. Are you in favour of raising taxes or not ?

The maths are really quite simple here. . we won't arrive at any magic solution if we all work really hard at it . . The government have three simple choices to make :

- Reduce the paybill of the public sector either through job cuts or pay cuts. The analysis shows that the sector is payed more relative to the private sector and to other equivalent economies. It is also widely accepted (from inside the public sector and out) that there is huge inefficiency in the sector and that jobs could be removed without reducing services (as long as those jobs were removed in a targetted manner)

- Increase taxes throughout the country. Hit everyone equitably in order to maintain the inequity in pay levels that exists between public and private sector. By doing this you will take money out of the economy and almost certainly see the effect in increased job losses within the private sector (primarily in the manufacturing and services sectors)

- Reduce the social welfare bill. Other than the relatively modest savings that can be achieved by means testing the entitlements like child benefit that are available to everyone, this is really taking from those who are most vulnerable and exposed. It is also hitting again the 200,000 or so private sector workers who lost their jobs last year, again with the primary aim of maintaining the inequity between public and private ?

I like to think I am a logical man and for me this is a no-brainer. Of the three choices above only one makes economic sense. . I'd like to think that if I worked in the public sector I'd still hold this view but I probably wouldn't. . .

When does the job creation stimulus start I agree however there should and will be cuts in public sector pay and social welfare.

I disagree with your point that cutting social welfare is taking from those who are most vulnerable and exposed. Personally I know many people living the high life on social welfare, getting their rent paid and they have enough money to regularly go out to the pub and enjoy themselves. Others living on social welfare are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table so I think a redistribution of social welfare expenditure could alleviate some of the hardship that those struggling to survive on social welfare are experiencing..dare I say it, a better fairer way

I dont think the income tax rates should be increased either, but there is definitely scope there to broaden the tax bands and spread the burden over the wider population rather than forcing the middle income earners to take all the hits..a better, fairer way!

There is without doubt waste in the public service but I wouldnt go so far as to say there is huge inefficieny. Efficiencies are already being railroaded through the public sector as staff are being redeployed to Social Welfare without being replaced, those retiring/going on maternity leave/career breaks etc are not being replaced, those on contracts are not having their contracts renewed, expenses have been cut back to an absolute minimum etc.

I do agree that a public sector contract should not be for life however, as it only encourages poor performance, which is frustrating for the rest of the hard working public sector workers who have to carry the slackers on their backs and unfairly take the generalised vitriol that is currently being directed at public sector workers.

Despite the strikes which are imminent, public sector pay will no doubt be cut further across the board. What this will achieve in real terms is anyones guess as this will result in further money being taken out of the economy and the very real possibility of further private sector job losses. Without a significant job stimulus package in the forthcoming budget, public sector pay cuts will only damage the economy further in my opinion.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/exchequerstatements/2009/Octoberexstatfinal.pdf

As is clear from above, voted departmental expenditure has decreased in all areas except for Social and Family Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, yet the exchequer deficit has doubled compared to this time last year. We need jobs and we need them fast!