Gilmore opposed to pay cuts for public sector

gurramok

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html

Eamon Gilmore wrote:

He proposed instead that the target figure could be reached through a combination of agreed public service reform, a reduction in the capital budget through lower tendering prices and more revenue from taxation through the elimination of tax relief for landlords and a new third rate of tax on incomes above €100,000.

So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

So reform can achieve €1.3bn(assume this figure here) per year until 2014??

I just find that very very hard to believe, there is only so much reform that can be done to get that amount of savings without touching anywhere else.

thatsa spicy

Gilmore knows right well that the revenue collected from such a plan would amount to only a drop in the ocean of what's needed. I'm assuming he knows this, because if he doesn't he's too stupid to be the leader of a political party. I'm assuming Joan Burton knows that she's spouting crap aswell when she refuses to acknowledge the need for savage cuts across the board.

whatnext

Riskymove wrote: »

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

I can't think of any public sector reforms that the unions would approve of off the top of my head, can you?

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

So reform can achieve €1.3bn(assume this figure here) per year until 2104??

it might, you'd have to see the detail proposed

bear in mind there is already over €2bn saved off the bill from measures already taken

Obviously there is reduced numbers as the biggest savings

I have heard things like...no overtime for certain areas, overtime at a reduced rate, rationalisation of allowances, strict monitoring of expenses, etc

I've also heard of an idea that rather than a pay-cut, public servants will agree to take a certain amount of unpaid leave over a specific period

Riskymove

whatnext wrote: »

I can't think of any public sector reforms that the unions would approve of off the top of my head, can you?

if it means avoiding a pay cut, you'll be surprised what they'd approve

Gilmore knows right well that the revenue collected from such a plan would amount to only a drop in the ocean of what's needed

tax is only one part of what he is proposing

murphaph

All this sh!te is akin to moving deckchairs on the Titanic. Cuts to core pay are the only thing that will set this country on the right road again. The private sector can see it plain as day and expect even more cuts there if the govt have the balls to hold firm and push one through on the public sector.

tapo

Public servants have to bear some of the pain that the rest of the country is experiencing and the only way that this can be done is through pay freezes and pay cuts
but it must be done with the higher earners paying more than the lower paid

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

Cuts to core pay are the only thing that will set this country on the right road again.

only way that this can be done is through pay freezes and pay cuts

they are not the only thing that can be done

whats important is reducing the public sector pay bill (and welfare and other spending) to a more sustainable level

there are many different options to doing that

tapo

Look, a message needs to be sent to public servants that they are not immune to the current state of our nation. They must take some of the pain

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

it might, you'd have to see the detail proposed

bear in mind there is already over €2bn saved off the bill from measures already taken

Obviously there is reduced numbers as the biggest savings

I have heard things like...no overtime for certain areas, overtime at a reduced rate, rationalisation of allowances, strict monitoring of expenses, etc

I've also heard of an idea that rather than a pay-cut, public servants will agree to take a certain amount of unpaid leave over a specific period

€2bn, link? If there indeed has been, €20bn is needed without touching welfare and with zero capital spending.

I just can't see public servants working longer unpaid hours, think you are an optimist

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

€2bn, link?

From irish times

At the talks yesterday the Department of Finance told trade unions that the Government will save about €2.3 billion next year as a result of measures introduced already to curb the public sector pay bill. Department officials said yesterday that the introduction of the pension levy would generate savings of €1.1 billion next year.

They also said that based on existing staffing levels in the public service, the suspension of the payment of the wage increases agreed by the Government under the social partnership deal reached in autumn last year would produce savings of €900 million next year. Officials indicated the moratorium on recruitment would save €300 million in a full year.

If there indeed has been, €20bn is needed without touching welfare and with zero capital spending.

for 2010

there is no way welfare budget will be untouched

if you want to go with the current plan, we are down to under €18bn taking the above into account

with government looking for €1.3 more off pay bill moves it to under €17bn


then you will have welfare and other savings of around €3bn I'd say for 2010

I just can't see public servants working longer unpaid hours, think you are an optimist

from the discussions i have had since I heard about it, it would be far preferable to people than a straight cut

btw, noone mentioned longer, unpaid hours

Riskymove

tapo wrote: »

Look, a message needs to be sent to public servants that they are not immune to the current state of our nation. They must take some of the pain

If you are interested in sorting out the finances of this country, there are options involved without implementing a core pay cut that will do that

it is not pain-free

papachango

Negative benchmarking is one of the essentials in normalising the economy to a sustainable level. slash the PS wage bill. Listening to the PS coming up with alternatives really shows how incompetent they really are. even when their salaries are on the line they cannot come up with anything. I have yet to here one decent proposal from them.

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

for 2010

there is no way welfare budget will be untouched

if you want to go with the current plan, we are down to under €18bn taking the above into account

with government looking for €1.3 more off pay bill moves it to under €17bn


then you will have welfare and other savings of around €3bn I'd say for 2010

Whats the 'other' savings?

If welfare is really targeted in this budget, can it be targeted every year?

Do you agree with Gilmore that his plan is feasible?

meditraitor

gurramok wrote: »

Do you agree with Gilmore that his plan is feasible?

You havent posted a single point that shows its not? So clearly you and Gilmore come from the same school

Are there savings to be made in the public/civil service other than wage cuts/ lay offs? of course!

Im not saying its enough but your being a vague as Gilmore so I can only think it Gilmore that has inspired your ire and not the fact he is proposing something other than job cuts and pay reductions.

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

Whats the 'other' savings?

public expenditure is basically set out as 3 categories

1. Welfare

2. Public sector pay bill

3. everything else

If welfare is really targeted in this budget, can it be targeted every year?

of course

welfare is the biggest sectoral spend, it cannot be avoided

it encompasses a myriad of items, its not just dole and oap

Do you agree with Gilmore that his plan is feasible?

there's not enough detail to say

basically he is saying he can see a way of getting €4bn through certain cuts in public sector, some tax changes and savings in capital expenditure

I'm sure you could do that..though i am no tax expert....but you'd have to see specific proposals

Taxipete29

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html



So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

I love the way you only quoted the part of the article that suits your argument. It states very clearly in the first couple of lines that he is in favour of reducing the overall pay bill through negotiations.Reducing the overall pay bill has the same net effect as reducing wages assuming it can be done to the levels needed.

He said reducing the capital budget through lower tendering prices. Everyone knows that we have got bad value for money in most of the major capital projects in this country and that needs to change. Labour are in favour of capital spending.

Are you suggesting their are no Union members in any of the other main political parties?? The fact is that Labour was established as a political arm of the Union movement. Hence the name. The way you suggest its riddled with Union members makes no sense. Its a shame that there arent more Union members supporting Labour.

whatnext

Riskymove wrote: »

if it means avoiding a pay cut, you'll be surprised what they'd approve




tax is only one part of what he is proposing

In my 34 years on this earth the Unions have never surprised me and I don't expect them to start now.

What I asked for was an example of what reforms you would expect them to accept to gernerate the savings required.

My arguement is that I don't believe they will accept any reforms, therefore making the public sector reform arguement a complete waste of time in my opinion.

murphaph

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I love the way you only quoted the part of the article that suits your argument. It states very clearly in the first couple of lines that he is in favour of reducing the overall pay bill through negotiations.Reducing the overall pay bill has the same net effect as reducing wages assuming it can be done to the levels needed.

He said reducing the capital budget through lower tendering prices. Everyone knows that we have got bad value for money in most of the major capital projects in this country and that needs to change. Labour are in favour of capital spending.

Are you suggesting their are no Union members in any of the other main political parties?? The fact is that Labour was established as a political arm of the Union movement. Hence the name. The way you suggest its riddled with Union members makes no sense. Its a shame that there arent more Union members supporting Labour.

Pete, we're running a 25bn budget defecit-There is no money for capital expenditure. We need to cut current expenditure, NOT capital expenditure (huge mistake actually).

Gilmore is waffling. Benchmarking was fine on the way up, now it should be fine on the way down....but it isn't for Labour and the unions it seems. Sickening attitude to 'benchmarking'. The term "reverse benchmarking" should not be used. Benchmarking automatically implies salaries should be able to fall in the public sector, does it not?

gurramok

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I love the way you only quoted the part of the article that suits your argument. It states very clearly in the first couple of lines that he is in favour of reducing the overall pay bill through negotiations.Reducing the overall pay bill has the same net effect as reducing wages assuming it can be done to the levels needed.

He said reducing the capital budget through lower tendering prices. Everyone knows that we have got bad value for money in most of the major capital projects in this country and that needs to change. Labour are in favour of capital spending.

Are you suggesting their are no Union members in any of the other main political parties?? The fact is that Labour was established as a political arm of the Union movement. Hence the name. The way you suggest its riddled with Union members makes no sense. Its a shame that there arent more Union members supporting Labour.

'Negotiated'. Do you honestly think PS workers will take a paycut when they are going to strike AGAINST any paycuts before they are even announced??

Labour are heavily associated with unions, the other major parties like FF/FG who can grab power are not.

Gilmore wants tax increases for all of us to support public sector wage levels, that is wrong.
Capital spending is what, €15-18bn where PS pay and welfare are about 20bn and 21bn.
Revenues are 30-33bn. Even if capital spending is reduced to zero(very bad), the deficit will be 10bn!!

gurramok

meditraitor wrote: »

You havent posted a single point that shows its not? So clearly you and Gilmore come from the same school

Are there savings to be made in the public/civil service other than wage cuts/ lay offs? of course!

Im not saying its enough but your being a vague as Gilmore so I can only think it Gilmore that has inspired your ire and not the fact he is proposing something other than job cuts and pay reductions.

Seriously, tax rises in what Gilmore wants does not work as raising taxes in a recession fails. Taxes were raised in the previous 2 budgets and revenue is still falling.

Reducing capital spending with competitive tenders sounds good alright, it goes nowhere to reducing the currentdeficit so a non-starter there.

He opposes paycuts for PS workers and opposes welfare cuts, so eh, where does the money come from to pay for these?

Sleipnir

Riskymove wrote: »

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

Reform of public services doesn't work because the public sector workers have no desire to change what they do day-to-day.
Or, they want more money for doing so and if they don't get it, they won't get off their arses.

Gilmore is suggesting what Brian Cowen has already admitted has failed.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-ive-failed--on-public-sector-overhaul-1937655.html

Taxipete29

murphaph wrote: »

Pete, we're running a 25bn budget defecit-There is no money for capital expenditure. We need to cut current expenditure, NOT capital expenditure (huge mistake actually).

Gilmore is waffling. Benchmarking was fine on the way up, now it should be fine on the way down....but it isn't for Labour and the unions it seems. Sickening attitude to 'benchmarking'. The term "reverse benchmarking" should not be used. Benchmarking automatically implies salaries should be able to fall in the public sector, does it not?

I agree with your definition of benchmarking. Why then did FF not start a benchmarking process at the start of the year when we all knew that cuts would have to be made. It would of been alot harder for the Unions to fight back against cuts under the same process that they gained from. Another Major error from FF.

Allowances, automatic increments. Its items like these that should be addressed first. If it doesnt reap the neccessary levels of savings then actual pay or job cuts will have to be looked at. Its seems though that attacking core pay without looking at some of the crazy allowances that Gardai and the like get is madness.

We obviously need to see figures for these proposed savings, but I know Gilmore is no fool and I doubt he his making spurious claims without knowing that it is possible. It should also be noted that Labour do not support the economic proposals laid out by the ICTU in the last few weeks. They support some of the individual measures as did alot of people but they rejected the majority of it.

Taxipete29

gurramok wrote: »

Seriously, tax rises in what Gilmore wants does not work as raising taxes in a recession fails. Taxes were raised in the previous 2 budgets and revenue is still falling.

Reducing capital spending with competitive tenders sounds good alright, it goes nowhere to reducing the currentdeficit so a non-starter there.

He opposes paycuts for PS workers and opposes welfare cuts, so eh, where does the money come from to pay for these?

Raising taxes across the board fails. We are still for the most part a low tax economy. The tiger was built on consumption taxes which have dried up.

How many jobs have been lost since the last 2 budgets?? How much has consumer spending dropped??

We need to broaden the tax base. Its too narrow. There are too many people not paying any tax( apart from a 1% levy, Im open to correction on that). We need a third bracket for higher earners. We need to stop tax breaks for landlords, developers etc.

The fact is there are ways to achieve savings without totally screwing middle income earners who always seem to be the worst hit. It just takes a little bit of imagination and creative thinking. Anyone can say cut cut cut. Its cutting in the right place that makes a person a good leader.

ParkRunner

Sleipnir wrote: »

Reform of public services doesn't work because the public sector workers have no desire to change what they do day-to-day.
Or, they want more money for doing so and if they don't get it, they won't get off their arses.

Gilmore is suggesting what Brian Cowen has already admitted has failed.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-ive-failed--on-public-sector-overhaul-1937655.html

Has the way you deal with the Revenue Commissioners changed in any way in the last few years?

Sleipnir

EF wrote: »

Has the way you deal with the Revenue Commissioners changed in any way in the last few years?

Yeah, they got a website. How much did that save? Did any public servant subsequently get made redundant?

ParkRunner

Sleipnir wrote: »

Yeah, they got a website. How much did that save? Did any public servant subsequently get made redundant?

I dont know. Im sure many got transferred to social welfare to meet the increased demand there though.

K-9

Riskymove wrote: »

From irish times






for 2010

there is no way welfare budget will be untouched

if you want to go with the current plan, we are down to under €18bn taking the above into account

with government looking for €1.3 more off pay bill moves it to under €17bn


then you will have welfare and other savings of around €3bn I'd say for 2010





from the discussions i have had since I heard about it, it would be far preferable to people than a straight cut

btw, noone mentioned longer, unpaid hours

Irish Times wrote:

They also said that based on existing staffing levels in the public service, the suspension of the payment of the wage increases agreed by the Government under the social partnership deal reached in autumn last year would produce savings of €900 million next year. Officials indicated the moratorium on recruitment would save €300 million in a full year.

That isn't a saving on current expenditure though, all they did was not increase expenditure. Basically they agreed not to make a bad situation worse.

papachango

Someone should suggest that the Private sector wages are 'benchmarked' to the Public sector wages. This might make the PS realise how out of touch they are with reality and that economic realities or the laws of physics cannot be changed or ignored to protect the Public dis-service anymore.