Protest over public sector pay

Sam Vimes

tallaght01 wrote: »

Taxing the rich will provide us with as much money as we allow it to. Work out how much money we need, and tax people in increasing increments as they earn more.

Making excuses why the people living on the breadline should pay for the same public sector the better off use is very sad to see. But, like I said, not unexpected.

There are not millions and millions of millionaires all sitting on vast amounts of wealth ready and willing to be tapped. As K-9 pointed out the top 20% already pay 80% of income tax, they are already paying massive amounts. Yes they are still on high wages but their wages reflect their jobs and it is "unfair" to keep taking money off them until someone is earning a Tesco employee's salary for running a multi billion euro company. What you're suggesting is pretty much communism.

But of course the most important point is that even if they taxed 100% of every cent earned over, say, €100,000, they would still fall massively short of their target

johnnyrotten

baaaa wrote: »

Just throwing it out there,anybody fancy protesting about the excessive rates of public sector pay and their refusal to take the neccessary cuts?
The unemployed should be marching,it's they who will suffer the cuts if the public sector won't climb down(assuming the country is still running).

Why should the public sector take a pay cut?

tallaght01

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are not millions and millions of millionaires all sitting on vast amounts of wealth ready and willing to be tapped. As K-9 pointed out the top 20% already pay 80% of income tax, they are already paying massive amounts. Yes they are still on high wages but their wages reflect their jobs and it is "unfair" to keep taking money off them until someone is earning a Tesco employee's salary for running a multi billion euro company. What you're suggesting is pretty much communism.

But of course the most important point is that even if they taxed 100% of every cent earned over, say, €100,000, they would still fall massively short of their target

I never mentioned millionaires. I said you pay more tax the more you earn.

A guy on 60k should pay more towards the cockup than the guy on 14 euro an hour. Though I'm pretty sad to see I'm in a minority in thinking this. But, like I said, you'll have your moment of joy in a few weeks. It's just sad, though.

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes they are still on high wages but their wages reflect their jobs and it is "unfair" to keep taking money off them until someone is earning a Tesco employee's salary for running a multi billion euro company. What you're suggesting is pretty much communism.

So surely using this logic anyone who can prove that a job similiar to theirs in the private sector which is currently paid more already should recieve no pay cut as part of a cut on public sector wages?

I mean we wouldn't want people doing a job in the public sector and being paid something that is equitable to "a Tesco employee's salary" would we?

K-9

tallaght01 wrote: »

I never mentioned millionaires. I said you pay more tax the more you earn.

A guy on 60k should pay more towards the cockup than the guy on 14 euro an hour. Though I'm pretty sad to see I'm in a minority in thinking this. But, like I said, you'll have your moment of joy in a few weeks. It's just sad, though.

He already does. A single guy on 60k pays roughly 20k tax and levies, the guy on 30k pays 5k.

tallaght01

K-9 wrote: »

He already does. A single guy on 60k pays roughly 20k tax and levies, the guy 30k pays 5k.

Yea I'm perfectly aware of that.

Sam Vimes

tallaght01 wrote: »

I never mentioned millionaires. I said you pay more tax the more you earn.

A guy on 60k should pay more towards the cockup than the guy on 14 euro an hour. Though I'm pretty sad to see I'm in a minority in thinking this. But, like I said, you'll have your moment of joy in a few weeks. It's just sad, though.

You clearly have no concept of the sh!t we're in. This isn't pocket change, it's €450 million a week.

Rob_l wrote: »

So surely using this logic anyone who can prove that a job similiar to theirs in the private sector which is currently paid more already should recieve no pay cut as part of a cut on public sector wages?

I mean we wouldn't want people doing a job in the public sector and being paid something that is equitable to "a Tesco employee's salary" would we?

People are paid what their companies can afford to pay them. One of the major problems with the PS is that they already did what you're talking about and then added about 25% on top of it

K-9

tallaght01 wrote: »

Yea I'm perfectly aware of that.

So the guy who earns 30k more only receives 15k of it. Suppose we could take another couple of grand of him too. Then next year when there's another €4 Billion to be found another couple of grand, then the following year...........................

4/5 years of that, because that's what's needed and there'll be no point in earning over 30k! :rolleyes:

See, this is why you can't rely on tax only. If you do tax it has to be done fairly and everybody pays extra, otherwise you end up with an 80's system.

tallaght01

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You clearly have no concept of the sh!t we're in. This isn't pocket change, it's €450 million a week.

LOL I'm not sure your maths is too amazing either. If you want to raise an extra 450 million every week then it will be easier to do so by speading extra taxes amongst all the workers, rather than taking it all from the tax of 1/6th of the country's employees!

Bizarre.

I probably don't think about the money too much. i don't think much about money at all, I have to say. I give it very little thought. If I did care about it, i'd be creaming it in the private sector for less hours and better conditions. But I do know those on a low wage really struggle to get by. That's why I'm not keen for them to pay for a better economy that we can all enjoy. but, like i said, I can accept I'm in a minority.

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You clearly have no concept of the sh!t we're in. This isn't pocket change, it's €450 million a week.


People are paid what their companies can afford to pay them. One of the major problems with the PS is that they already did what you're talking about and then added about 25% on top of it

So your just going to continue making ridiculous claims about the public sector.

How did you arrive at a figure of +25% on wages?

Still though its better than using most majority or more, I guess!

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People are paid what their companies can afford to pay them. One of the major problems with the PS is that they already did what you're talking about and then added about 25% on top of it

The PS is still Benchmarking obsessed. Always will be until they get back to the concept of Public Service and stop trying to compare themselves with the Private Sector.

Sam Vimes

tallaght01 wrote: »

LOL I'm not sure your maths is too amazing either. If you want to raise an extra 450 million every week then it will be easier to do so by speading extra taxes amongst all the workers, rather than taking it all from the tax of 1/6th of the country's employees!

Bizarre.

Jesus tap dancing christ would people please stop calling a pay cut a tax!

As I have said over and over again, I have no problem with extra taxes but aswell as cutting the public sector pay bill. I want every single thing you want tallagh01, except I also recognise that the massive problem of the public sector pay bill needs to be addressed.

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

So your just going to continue making ridiculous claims about the public sector.

How did you arrive at a figure of +25% on wages?

Still though its better than using most majority or more, I guess!

An ESRI study:
http://agenda.ibec.ie/e_article001549881.cfm?x=b11,0,w

ESRI study reveals 25% public sector pay premium
by Fergal O'Brien

The ESRI has recently published a research report comparing pay levels in the public sector with those in the private sector, drawing on comprehensive data in the 2006 National Employment Survey (NES).

The paper adjusts the NES data for employee characteristics such as age, education and length of service and produces a like-for-like analysis on public and private sector pay levels. The methodology used has been employed extensively in a range of international studies and builds on a number of other papers on the subject published previously in Ireland.

The study found that on a like-for-like basis employees in the public sector earned 22% more than those in the private sector in 2006. The public sector pay premium had widened considerable from the 10% recorded in 2003. When an arbitrary value for pensions coverage was incorporated into the analysis the reward gap was found to increase further to 25% for 2006.

The authors acknowledge, however, that this remains a conservative estimate as they did not attempt to quantify the vastly superior value of public sector pensions. IBEC estimates show that if the full value of the pensions is incorporated and the figures are updated to take account of recent developments such as the public sector pensions levy the public sector pay premium currently remains in excess of 30%.

tallaght01

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing christ would people please stop calling a pay cut a tax!

As I have said over and over again, I have no problem with extra taxes but aswell as cutting the public sector pay bill. I want every single thing you want tallagh01, except I also recognise that the massive problem of the public sector pay bill needs to be addressed.

But the difference is I don't think we should be getting the money from guys on 14 euro an hour. But, like I said, I can accept that most of the media, and subsequently the public, aren't worried about that.

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing christ would people please stop calling a pay cut a tax!

As I have said over and over again, I have no problem with extra taxes but aswell as cutting the public sector pay bill. I want every single thing you want tallagh01, except I also recognise that the massive problem of the public sector pay bill needs to be addressed.

Then the government should do it the correct way and reduce the staff not cut everyones wages to an unacceptable level

sack 70,000 from the "public sector" that will bring us back to 2001 levels reducing everyones pay so that certain workers can not survive on it is not acceptable.

I do accept that soemthing has to be done I just dont think that pay cuts is the correct procedure, as it still leaves us with a bloated public sector.

Sam Vimes

tallaght01 wrote: »

But the difference is I don't think we should be getting the money from guys on 14 euro an hour. But, like I said, I can accept that most of the media, and subsequently the public, aren't worried about that.

I don't think we should either, I hate the idea of taking money off low earners. The problem is though that taking the money off the people you want to take it off will not begin to address the problem.

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

Then the government should do it the correct way and reduce the staff not cut everyones wages to an unacceptable level

sack 70,000 from the "public sector" that will bring us back to 2001 levels reducing everyones pay so that certain workers can not survive on it is not acceptable.

I do accept that soemthing has to be done I just dont think that pay cuts is the correct procedure, as it still leaves us with a bloated public sector.

I'd love that, I think that's the best way to go about it as loads of the private sector did, but the unions won't allow that to happen.

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd love that, I think that's the best way to go about it as loads of the private sector did, but the unions won't allow that to happen.

The unions dont want to allow pay cuts either but thats route the government is taking.

So I dont think its the union that is stopping the government, its time for strong leadership not pay cuts

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

The unions dont want to allow pay cuts either but thats route the government is taking.

So I dont think its the union that is stopping the government, its time for strong leadership not pay cuts

Firstly, I love how after talking about fairness you'll so easily turn on your fellow public sector workers and allow them to get sacked so you can keep your current wage. But anyway, pay cuts are the easier option. If you want redundancies talk to your union and I'm sure the government will be amenable to any suggestions

tallaght01

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think we should either, I hate the idea of taking money off low earners. The problem is though that taking the money off the people you want to take it off will not begin to address the problem.

ON the contrary. Taking an extra 10-15% off guys earning 14 euro an hour won't make much of an inroad into the problem.

We can raise as much money as we need through taxes.

K-9

Rob_l wrote: »

The unions dont want to allow pay cuts either but thats route the government is taking.

So I dont think its the union that is stopping the government, its time for strong leadership not pay cuts

You'd have to take Social Welfare and Redundancy costs into account for those 70,000. Mighn't save as much as people think. I suspect there's a reason they picked the pension levy and wage cut route, inept and all as they are.

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, I love how after talking about fairness you'll so easily turn on your fellow public sector workers and allow them to get sacked so you can keep your current wage. But anyway, pay cuts are the easier option. If you want redundancies talk to your union and I'm sure the government will be amenable to any suggestions

I would quite happily take redundancy if it were offerred, my meaningless pension so lauded here is worthless if I dont survive to 65 to collect it.

I could then join the private sector at higher wages and complain about how crap the public sector is. Life would be good then.

Sam Vimes

tallaght01 wrote: »

ON the contrary. Taking an extra 10-15% off guys earning 14 euro an hour won't make much of an inroad into the problem.

We can raise as much money as we need through taxes.

Your plan only works if there are an infinite number of people making infinity euro a year.As the public sector are at pains to point out, the majority of them are on a very low wage. The majority of the whole country are on low wages. It's only the select few who are lucky enough to be very well paid.

Taking 10-15% of one guy earning 14 euro an hour won't do much but when you add up the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who are on that wage it will make massive inroads into the problem. One of the major problems in Ireland is that huge numbers pay no tax at all. I can't remember the exact figure but it was about 20% iirc. Contrary to popular opinion Ireland is a low tax economy for the low paid. Your plan, while noble, will not solve the problem. There are far more poor people than rich people

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

I would quite happily take redundancy if it were offerred, my meaningless pension so lauded here is worthless if I dont survive to 65 to collect it.

I could then join the private sector at higher wages and complain about how crap the public sector is. Life would be good then.

So what you're telling me is that the only thing stopping you leaving your secure PS job and taking one of the ample number of high paying private sector jobs is your redundancy money? If you feel so hard done by I think you should just bite the bullet and quit. You won't get the redundancy money but you'll still be better off than you are now on these higher private sector wages.

You should probably look for another job first though

mickoneill30

tallaght01 wrote: »

ON the contrary. Taking an extra 10-15% off guys earning 14 euro an hour won't make much of an inroad into the problem.

Yes it will. Most people are near that rate. Most people are not rich. If you taxed every cent at 100% of everybody earnings over €100,000 you'd only get a couple of billion. That is of course if those people earning over €100,000 just didn't bother giving up and moving abroad. Also if that was done then nobody would bother earning over €100,000.

tallaght01 wrote: »

We can raise as much money as we need through taxes.

I'm not against increased taxes. I'm all for streamlining the public sector too though. That means pay cuts and a lot of redundancies and changes to work practices. If I'm paying increased taxes I'm like most people, I'd want value for money.

mickoneill30

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can't remember the exact figure but it was about 20% iirc.

I heard a minister on Newstalk quoting 50% last week. He was also quoting the 48% of all tax comes from 4% of the people.

I've no idea where he got the figure though and ministers aren't the brightest so he could have been way off about the 50%.

mickoneill30

Rob_l wrote: »

I could then join the private sector at higher wages and complain about how crap the public sector is. Life would be good then.

There's the flaw. I'm not sure if you've heard but there are shag all jobs available these days in the private sector. And whats the bit about the higher wages? Do you know something we don't?

Rob_l

mickoneill30 wrote: »

There's the flaw. I'm not sure if you've heard but there are shag all jobs available these days in the private sector.

My personal situation is a bit off topic.

I could still get a better paying job but most likely requiring me to move to Britain as there are not too many places here that would require my skills. I could have taken such a position earlier in the year but I decided to hold out because I like my current position and this country!

irish_bob

tallaght01 wrote: »

You can't seriously say that you'd be ok with paying the public sector bonuses, while on the other hand say the fundamental problem is that it costs too much, regardless of productivity. Seriously, come on.

Taxing high earners is exactly the solution. We need x amount of money every week to run the public sector, which we all use. So, our options are for 1/6th of the workforce to pay for that. Or we can all pay for that.

It's the guy on 14 euro an hour paying for it, or the guy on 100 euro helping him out.

The guy on 100 euro an hour still uses the roads, and the police and the fire service and revenue etc. Probably uses them more than the guy on 14 euros an hour anyway.

He'll sure as hell benefit from more generous banks, and a better economic climate.

But, look, I'm not naive. I know people will see a victory in a guy on 500 euro a week with kids getting a pay cut, while guys on 100k a year don't pay any extra. I know people will post on AH about how great that is when it happens in december.

I'm just saying it's sad to see. I guess that's all I ever wanted to say in all this.

let me draw you a picture

lets say a business man has a net turnover of one million euro and is paying income tax at a rate of 50% , this means he has to put aside 500,000 euro for the tax man

lets say the rate of tax is increased to 60% , this means our business guy has to set aside 600,000 euro for the tax man , while you might say yippee , in reality this means he has a hundred thousand less which he might have used to employ four people who under the higher rate of tax could now well be on the dole and paying theese people costs the state money , so you see , somtimes by taking more , you end up with less

personally i believe 50% is as high a rate as anyone should have to pay

irish_bob

Celtic67 wrote: »

I genuinely don't know anyone in the Private Sector who has taken a pay cut. Obviously lots of people who work in construction have less work and may be struggling but that's one particular sector.

But take large private sector co.s like AIB,BOI,ILP, Ernst & Young, PWC, KPMG, Intel, Hewlett Packard - I have not heard of any basic pay cuts in any of these institutions. Should the thousands employed by these not share some of the pain also??

As a private sector worker I am down €500-€600 pm gross on this time last year with the income & pension levy. With further pay cuts and when mortgage/interest rates increase I am f**ked.

the car trade is down 70% this year , you can bet your bottom dollar thier have been massive layoff and wage cuts in this sector , contrast this with ryanair who have reported increased profits this year , why would ryanair staff be expected to take a pay cut

irish_bob

johnnyrotten wrote: »

Why should the public sector take a pay cut?

because its employer is taking in half of what it is spending , because the source of revenue which funded the public sector has disapeared and because money doesnt grow on trees

tallaght01

irish_bob wrote: »

let me draw you a picture

lets say a business man has a net turnover of one million euro and is paying income tax at a rate of 50% , this means he has to put aside 500,000 euro for the tax man

lets say the rate of tax is increased to 60% , this means our business guy has to set aside 600,000 euro for the tax man , while you might say yippee , in reality this means he has a hundred thousand less which he might have used to employ four people who under the higher rate of tax could now well be on the dole and paying theese people costs the state money , so you see , somtimes by taking more , you end up with less

personally i believe 50% is as high a rate as anyone should have to pay

We can just as easily discuss the long term effects of poverty on far more than 4 people if you really want to go down that road.

There are opportunity costs for everything. The money the 14 euro an hour man would have spent, had he not lost it, would have helped keep people in jobs. The same money will get spent in the economy. It's just a case of who should pay it.

BUt like I said, I do accept that money comes before a social conscience for most people. The only point I'm making is how sad I think that is. BUt I do see why you want to keep your money rather than letting the poor keep theirs.

irish_bob

Rob_l wrote: »

So surely using this logic anyone who can prove that a job similiar to theirs in the private sector which is currently paid more already should recieve no pay cut as part of a cut on public sector wages?

I mean we wouldn't want people doing a job in the public sector and being paid something that is equitable to "a Tesco employee's salary" would we?

do you know what the job of a clerical officer in the civil service entails

Sam Vimes

irish_bob wrote: »

the car trade is down 70% this year , you can bet your bottom dollar thier have been massive layoff and wage cuts in this sector , contrast this with ryanair who have reported increased profits this year , why would ryanair staff be expected to take a pay cut

Because if anyone does better than a public sector employee that's not "fair" and they should be taxed to the hilt but if anyone does worse than a public sector employee that's their tough luck for taking a risky private sector job and they should pay extra taxes to "share the burden". That's the fair way after all, it seems the only luck a public sector employee thinks it's "fair" for a private sector employee to get is bad luck

Rob_l

irish_bob wrote: »

do you know what the job of a clerical officer in the civil service entails

Yes and I know it depends on the section and office they work in!

It can range from It support (CO programmers or CO computer operators) to typists to working claims in revenue or processing payments in a social welfare office or many many other differing types of work!

Do you know?

Sam Vimes

tallaght01 wrote: »

BUt like I said, I do accept that money comes before a social conscience for most people. The only point I'm making is how sad I think that is. BUt I do see why you want to keep your money rather than letting the poor keep theirs.

tallaght01, money is not coming before a social conscience here. I am not one of the people that you are saying should be targeted, I simply recognise that targeting them will not solve the problem. There are not as many of them as you think and they're already taxed far more than you think. "The rich" are not an infinite source of cash. Yes they can and should be made to pay more but that will not change the fact that the public sector pay bill is too high

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because if anyone does better than a public sector employee that's not "fair" and they should be taxed to the hilt but if anyone does worse than a public sector employee that's their tough luck for taking a risky private sector job and they should pay extra taxes to "share the burden". That's the fair way after all, it seems the only luck a public sector employee thinks it's "fair" for a private sector employee to get is bad luck

The burden is state debt not Public sector debt!

The people of the state should share the burden of the states debt!

Public services are provided for the people, so they have benefitted from the increased spending on those services now is the time for all of us to pay for that!

irish_bob

Rob_l wrote: »

Yes and I know it depends on the section and office they work in!

It can range from It support (CO programmers or CO computer operators) to typists to working claims in revenue or processing payments in a social welfare office or many many other differing types of work!

Do you know?

the grade i deal with mostly have duties which are similar to what a receptionist or secretary would have in a solcitor or accountants office

thebman

Rob_l wrote: »

My personal situation is a bit off topic.

I could still get a better paying job but most likely requiring me to move to Britain as there are not too many places here that would require my skills. I could have taken such a position earlier in the year but I decided to hold out because I like my current position and this country!

Unfortunately that means you have to take the consequences of that decision like the rest of us which if your in the public sector most likely means pay cuts.

----
As for the whole the whole tax everyone else to get the money argument doesn't make sense.

Why exactly should everyone take a hit on their earnings to make sure public sector workers take a smaller pay cut?

I mean realistically, your asking someone else to take a paycut because you don't want to. Good luck with that because increasing taxes without improving services will not be acceptable to most people and the government will lose support if they do it and despite the polls, they still fancy their chances of getting re-elected again.

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes they can and should be made to pay more but that will not change the fact that the public sector pay bill is too high

Indeed it is, we are both agreed on this!
I dont not feel low level or even ordinary public servants are paid excessive wages.

That ESRI report you pointed me towards earlier shows some of the problem it is in the top earners in the Public service not the rank and file and it is the rank and file who will pay the most of this and feel the most burden.

I agree restructuring needs to happen, I agree number need to be cut. I disagree that those cuts should start with rank and file who are not earning massively excessive wages.

Rob_l

thebman wrote: »

I mean realistically, your asking someone else to take a paycut because you don't want to. Good luck with that because increasing taxes without improving services will not be acceptable to most people and the government will lose support if they do it and despite the polls, they still fancy their chances of getting re-elected again.

So if they reduce pay can the public servants reduce service?

Rob_l

irish_bob wrote: »

the grade i deal with mostly have duties which are similar to what a receptionist or secretary would have in a solcitor or accountants office

So is the answer, you dont know what they do, but you do know what a few do?

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

The burden is state debt not Public sector debt!

The people of the state should share the burden of the states debt!

Public services are provided for the people, so they have benefitted from the increased spending on those services now is the time for all of us to pay for that!

The problem is that the private sector's debt is all their own and their staff have to take the burden without relief from anyone but the public sector's debt is everyone's to share. I share in your cut but you don't share in mine and you call that fair. What's fair is for the public sector to be treated no differently to any other employee. My employer's revenue dropped and I took a cut. I didn't come knocking on your door asking to take half of it. Now your employer's revenue has dropped so you have to take a cut and I don't like you coming knocking on my door asking me to take half of it.

Tell me Rob_l, when you got your last pay rise did you say "This is state money not Public sector money! The people of the state should share the benefit of the states money!" and come knocking on my door offering me half of it, or did you keep your pay rise all for yourself?

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem is that the private sector's debt is all their own and their staff have to take the burden without relief from anyone but the public sector's debt is everyone's to share. I share in your cut but you don't share in mine and you call that fair. What's fair is for the public sector to be treated no differently to any other employee. My employer's revenue dropped and I took a cut. I didn't come knocking on your door asking to take half of it. Now your employer's revenue has dropped so you have to take a cut and I don't like you coming knocking on my door asking me to take half of it.

Tell me Rob_l, when you got your last pay rise did you say "This is state money not Public sector money! The people of the state should share the benefit of the states money!" and come knocking on my door offering me half of it, or did you keep your pay rise all for yourself?

Do you have children?

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

Indeed it is, we are both agreed on this!
I dont not feel low level or even ordinary public servants are paid excessive wages.

That ESRI report you pointed me towards earlier shows some of the problem it is in the top earners in the Public service not the rank and file and it is the rank and file who will pay the most of this and feel the most burden.

I agree restructuring needs to happen, I agree number need to be cut. I disagree that those cuts should start with rank and file who are not earning massively excessive wages.

Then talk to your union. If anything the government wants redundancies but it's almost impossible to sack a public sector worker.

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

Do you have children?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours. You are arguing that your cuts should be shared by everyone because "the people of the state should share the burden of the states debt", so when you got your last pay rise did you refuse to take half of it on the basis that "the people of the state should share the benefit of the states money"

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then talk to your union. If anything the government wants redundancies but it's almost impossible to sack a public sector worker.

I have!

At no point has the government offered redundancy to the unions to reduce the wage bill

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Answer my question and I'll answer yours. You are arguing that your cuts should be shared by everyone because "the people of the state should share the burden of the states debt", so when you got your last pay rise did you refuse to take half of it on the basis that "the people of the state should share the benefit of the states money"

They do!

When the state is rich do they not spend more on health(for the people)
Schools(for the people) childrens allowance was raised, old age pensions were raised, in this way the people share when the state has money!

Sam Vimes

Rob_l wrote: »

I have!

At no point has the government offered redundancy to the unions to reduce the wage bill

Do you think they would accept it if they did? Why would the government not want redundancies in a PS that is commonly known to have massive deadwood? The McCarthy reports recommended about 17,000 redundancies afaik

edit: yup
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1017201.shtml

Rob_l

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you think they would accept it if they did? Why would the government not want redundancies in a PS that is commonly known to have massive deadwood? The McCarthy reports recommended about 17,000 redundancies afaik

edit: yup
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0721/1224250994021.html

If they wre offerred resonable redundancy terms I think they would have to put it to their members for a vote, I may be wrong unions are not my thing!


Dont start with the McCartney report has the government accepted one single suggestion from that report no they refused them all. They setup a group to discuss cuts to state expenses and then dismissed everything in it.

And from my ivory tower in the quilted land of public servants i would suggest tripling that number