Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Workers Walk Today

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    mikemac wrote: »
    Many in the private sector have taken far more then a 7% pay cut. No, this wasn't paying for a guranteed pension either
    The levy doesn't count towards a pension and the pension 'guarantee' is virtually worthless as the government can just change it anytime it wants to.


  • Options
    #93
    miftha
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭miftha


    S.L.F wrote: »
    jimmmy in the PS a person might only work Mon to Fri every single week but when it comes to sickness on a Monday or a Friday they are expected to get a cert for Saturdays and Sundays as they are deemed to work a seven day week.

    It probably seems crazy but that is the way it's done in the PS

    It is not crazy, it is done this way in the public service due to the high levels of absenteeism. They knew in the past sickies were huge and this is a method to try to stop it. Fails given how easy it is to get a cert.

    Even this logic of giving a certain number of uncertified days leave in the PS is crazy, it is a target. I have 5 days uncertified leave per year. I have 3 left so that is 3 days leave I have to take.

    In the private sector, too many sick days leads to poor year end review which means no salary increase/bonus and potential to be let go. In PS you still get your increments (if not on top of scale) irrelevant of what you did during the year.


  • Options
    #94
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    miftha wrote: »
    It is not crazy, it is done this way in the public service due to the high levels of absenteeism. They knew in the past sickies were huge and this is a method to try to stop it. Fails given how easy it is to get a cert.

    Citation, please, on the introduction of this rule.

    I ask for it because what you say does not accord with my experience of public service rules going back as far as the 1960s.


  • Options
    #95
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    miftha wrote: »
    Even this logic of giving a certain number of uncertified days leave in the PS is crazy, it is a target. I have 5 days uncertified leave per year. I have 3 left so that is 3 days leave I have to take.
    The idea is to reduce the cost of administering absence for minor illness. Similar arrangemnets exist in the private sector.

    Do you have have evidence that its being abused?


  • Options
    #96
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,025 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    The idea is to reduce the cost of administering absence for minor illness. Similar arrangemnets exist in the private sector.

    Do you have have evidence that its being abused?
    Does the PS worker get paid for these days?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    Similar arrangemnets exist in the private sector.

    Not everywhere... My last company had a zero tolerance on absence, even certified. Our policy stated that a medical certificate "Explaines the absence but doesn't excuse it"
    My SO manages a department in the HSE and the notion of entitlement to absence days doesn't seem to happen there. She does agree that wage cuts are the way forward and that benchmarking was a rediculous exercise. To this day she can't beleive that there was no policy of enforcing better work practices based on the significant wage increases given..


  • Options
    #98
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    bbam wrote: »
    Not everywhere... My last company had a zero tolerance on absence, even certified. Our policy stated that a medical certificate "Explaines the absence but doesn't excuse it"

    so if you were knocked down by a bus or had to have a life-saving operation....your absence was not excused?

    bit harsh there I'd say:pac:

    My SO manages a department in the HSE and the notion of entitlement to absence days doesn't seem to happen there

    it does not happen in most places in the PS

    the only place I know off where it seems to happen in certain transport companies
    Even this logic of giving a certain number of uncertified days leave in the PS is crazy, it is a target. I have 5 days uncertified leave per year. I have 3 left so that is 3 days leave I have to take.

    this IS crazy and unexcusable...but why do you use them then?
    To this day she can't beleive that there was no policy of enforcing better work practices based on the significant wage increases given..

    ALL of the national wage agreements included "better work practices" or "reforms" and so on

    Roll on the next round of benchmarking

    I think you should forget that, I doubt it would result in any recommendation for any meaningful cuts


  • Options
    #99
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    bbam wrote: »
    This shouldn't be pointed at any particular branch of public services... nurses do an important job (as do electricians, factory workers and plasterers).

    The overall wage bill needs to come down... any reasonable person can see this, they should also be able to see that a 7-10% cut in wages is much better than 7-10% being made redundant.

    The wage bill is coming down
    The pension levy bought it down on average 8% or about 1.8 billion euro and before any of yea say it it did not go in to the pension fund but straight back to the Dept of finance

    In the place I am working in the public sector there are people leaving every week be it end of contract or they are retiring and at this stage we have reduced our pay budget by €600k


  • Options
    #100
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    The overall wage bill needs to come down... any reasonable person can see this

    but a core pay cut is not always neccessary to reduce the pay bill

    on Morning Ireland this morning they were saying how the Unions were seeking the figure of what has been saved to date through the levy, reduced staff etc


    The Government has indicated its over €2bn, a 10% reduction


  • Options
    #101
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,993 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Riskymove wrote: »
    on Morning Ireland this morning they were saying how the Unions were seeking the figure of what has been saved to date through the levy, reduced staff etc
    I doubt they've saved nearly enough - the levy was the last budget. They need more reductions this budget. There may be people retiring, which helps, but they'll need more to go.

    Any figures on how many public servants are getting increments this year (based on length of service)?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    Riskymove wrote: »
    but a core pay cut is not always neccessary to reduce the pay bill

    on Morning Ireland this morning they were saying how the Unions were seeking the figure of what has been saved to date through the levy, reduced staff etc


    The Government has indicated its over €2bn, a 10% reduction

    They want to cut more because then they can
    a) Chop the minium wage
    b) chop social welfare
    a+b+ €2 billion more from public sector = more private sector job losses


  • Options
    #103
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ixoy wrote: »
    I doubt they've saved nearly enough - the levy was the last budget.

    but it only came into operation this year

    the basic point is that €2bn has been knocked off the pay bill already before any further decisions in this budget

    Any figures on how many public servants are getting increments this year (based on length of service)?

    not that I am aware of

    however, given the current moritorium the numbers will be reducing all the time


  • Options
    #104
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,993 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Riskymove wrote: »
    but it only came into operation this year
    Yes but they used projections to see how much it saved (as much as we can trust anything these guys project). I seem to recall it was in the order of 880m due to tax relief. So I imagine these projected savings have already been listed and now they need even more.

    So I imagine it'll be a combination of pay cuts (quickest way) and tax hikes (or lowering of thresholds - there's far too many people outside the tax net).


  • Options
    #105
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    ixoy wrote: »
    Riskymove wrote: »
    Yes but they used projections to see how much it saved (as much as we can trust anything these guys project). I seem to recall it was in the order of 880m due to tax relief. So I imagine these projected savings have already been listed and now they need even more.

    So I imagine it'll be a combination of pay cuts (quickest way) and tax hikes (or lowering of thresholds - there's far too many people outside the tax net).
    i agree but i think the big mistake that this goverement is making is that they refuse to bring in a higher tax band for those over 100k
    i think if they did then the public sector would follow that lead and accept a paycut without any strikes
    all we here from goverement when and idea is put to them is that will not bring in the required money
    Did they never here about leading by example
    Take on the judges and cut there pay
    Tell DRUM to go and jump for his bonus
    And stop paying TD's expences to travel to there work in the dail we all have to travel to work and they new where the DAil was before they ran for election


  • Options
    #106
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    seangal wrote: »
    They want to cut more because then they can
    a) Chop the minium wage
    b) chop social welfare
    a+b+ €2 billion more from public sector = more private sector job losses

    i see you attended the same economics course as siptu

    reducing minimum wage means more employers can afford to hire people
    cutting social wellfare means more people will have a greater incentive to look for work
    cutting public sector pay means not having to raise taxes on the private sector which means thier is more money available to either grow business or perhaps employ extra staff


  • Options
    #107
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    irish_bob wrote: »
    cutting public sector pay means not having to raise taxes on the private sector which means thier is more money available to either grow business or perhaps employ extra staff
    Or more money to give to the banks and unlucky property speculators.

    Remember, this is Fianna Fail we're dealing with.


  • Options
    #108
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,995 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    seangal wrote: »
    Take on the judges and cut there pay
    That would require a referendum as it would involve changing the Constitution. Holding a referendum would cost multiple amounts of any income raised through judicial pay cuts.


  • Options
    #109
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    That would require a referendum as it would involve changing the Constitution.

    REally, and does raising pay take a referendum?


  • Options
    #110
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    Or more money to give to the banks and unlucky property speculators.

    Remember, this is Fianna Fail we're dealing with.

    FF only care about getting re-elected. Do you think they would be doing this if there was any other option?

    This budget will lose them so many votes.


  • Options
    #111
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    asdasd wrote: »
    REally, and does raising pay take a referendum?

    The Government's advise at the time of the pension levy was that they couldn't impose it on judges because it could be deemed a pay cut. They can hardly impose an actual pay cut.
    Article 35.5 wrote:
    Remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Jesus, that constitution was obviously amended by a lawyer. Did he sneak it in?

    I dont get the pension levy argument, what happens to any potential tax on higher earners? Are judges exempt from all tax increases once in office. Has this stopped them suffering tax increases in the Eighties?


  • Options
    #113
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    asdasd wrote: »
    Jesus, that constitution was obviously amended by a lawyer. Did he sneak it in?

    Maybe we could make them redundant and bring them back as yellow pack judges:D
    asdasd wrote: »
    I dont get the pension levy argument, what happens to any potential tax on higher earners? Are judges exempt from all tax increases once in office. Has this stopped them suffering tax increases in the Eighties?
    I didn't get that argument either. But maybe the legal advise was conservative because it might eventually have come for decision before a judge.


  • Options
    #114
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,995 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    AFAIK it is in the Constitution to prevent the Government from attempting to influence decisions made by the judiciary or president (i.e. threatening to reduce judges pay as a consequence of the outcome of a particular case going 'against' the Government).


  • Options
    #115
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Very dubious as regards tax, though. A tax applied across the board is not specifically targeted to Judges. Whose going to complain anyway, Judges? And who is going to rule on the complaint?


  • Options
    #116
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    asdasd wrote: »
    ... I dont get the pension levy argument, what happens to any potential tax on higher earners? Are judges exempt from all tax increases once in office. Has this stopped them suffering tax increases in the Eighties?

    Judges are not exempt from tax increases.

    The advice was that the pension levy could not be applied to them because it was really a pay cut.


  • Options
    #117
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    The advice was that the pension levy could not be applied to them because it was really a pay cut.

    in the form of being a levy, or in the common tongue, a tax.


  • Options
    #118
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    asdasd wrote: »
    in the form of being a levy, or in the common tongue, a tax.

    So even when the government that imposed it accepted that it is effectively a pay cut, you think you can designate it otherwise.


  • Options
    #119
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    thebman wrote: »
    FF only care about getting re-elected. Do you think they would be doing this if there was any other option?
    They know they won't get back this time. So the game will be to channel as much money as they can to their cronies.


  • Options
    #120
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Judges are not exempt from tax increases.

    The advice was that the pension levy could not be applied to them because it was really a pay cut.
    o for god sake
    lt is not seen as a pay cut when it comes to the public sector


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    seangal wrote: »
    o for god sake
    lt is not seen as a pay cut when it comes to the public sector

    That depends on who is doing the seeing.


Advertisement