My outrage at some members of the public service

gurramok

Tony46 wrote: »

So lets take your brother for example. Before his 6% pay cut he was probably earning approx 41500. When I was on year 3 I certainly wasnt earning 50,000. Are you sure you saw that right?For argument sake lets take your 50,000. Thats his gross so you can take away approx 7% pension levy. 46,500 then take into consideration the allowances for unsocial hours. ie. public holidays, weekend nights etc. Youll find its not too far off your brothers job. Thats not taking into account for either the rest of the taxes and levies.

Tax relief on that 7%, you forgot that. Make that a 3.1% reduction instead. http://finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/2009/pensiondedtablemay09.pdf

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

Tax relief on that 7%, you forgot that. Make that a 3.1% reduction instead. http://finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/2009/pensiondedtablemay09.pdf

Are you implying that people should pay tax on an amount greater than they are paid? Those in the private sector who have taken pay cuts are taxed only on what they are currently paid, not on what they used to be paid.

And your computation of 3.1% is questionable -- no, I'll go further: it's simply wrong.

gurramok

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you implying that people should pay tax on an amount greater than they are paid? Those in the private sector who have taken pay cuts are taxed only on what they are currently paid, not on what they used to be paid.

Explain. Where did you get that gem from a simple correction of a calculation?

P. Breathnach wrote:

And your computation of 3.1% is questionable -- no, I'll go further: it's simply wrong.

No its not, look at the table. The net reduction is 3.1% on 41k gross, not 6%. Explain how its wrong, its there in black and white.

Gumbo

when my house is on fire and my family are screeming from the top window i know i want a fireman there and not a civil engineer........i dont care about his wages at that moment in time.


im degree qualified in Civil engineering from DIT Bolton Street and working in a local authority earning the same as your brother too, and imo the firemen deserve more than me!

Dickerty

Don't forget that in Dublin, fireman are also paramedics and run the ambulance service. They are not just trained to point a hose, they are trained paramedics.

oscar2

Firefighter with 3 years service isn't on 50000 without load of overtime. He's probably doing lots of Ambulance work which in Dublin go all day/night. Problem is at shift end they don't just get out and walk away. Whatever they're doing has to be finished. Ambulances get delayed at A&E too. So Ambulance crews get O/T almost every shift.

The real thing to be outraged about is the scarcity of Ambulances compared to other western countries and by the way Fire cover standards are poor to non existent in this country too.

Sneakee

I think we should compare that €50,000 figure after 3 years to the equivalent.
I choose New York as its more expensive to live in compared to Dublin and should be comparable to Dublin in that respect for high cost of living. The size of the city and face bigger dangers than they would face in Ireland.
The average FDNY fighter after 3 years earns $53,000 (Basic $45K)including fringe benefits.
So I think there is a big big difference compared to a "safer" firefighting job in Ireland.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

I spent 4 years in uni and I have met some Irish firefighters and most say they are in a dangerous job but the money is way too much. They surely can't be on more money than highly educated people. I spend 4 years in Uni and now in management now but I'm not even close to 50k after 2 years
There is something not right there!

MaceFace

S.L.F wrote: »

MaceFace wrote:

However, this does not mean they deserve big wages. Ask many firefighters if they would trade their job for a 9-5 office job and almost all would say no.

I am very annoyed that they will be striking as their pay and conditions are the ONLY thing that matters to them. They don't give a damn for the people they are dealing with.

You have contradicted yourself there

No I haven't.
Most firemen like what the job entails - exciting, every call is different etc and would not like to be stuck at a desk for 40 hours a week.
That has nothing to do with how much they care for the people they are supposed to protect.

On the 24th, the front line will go down to the level of service that we would get on Christmas day. Obviously this level is too low and they can not guarantee to be able to deal with the normal November Tuesday situations.

If they really cared, they would find a different way of showing their anger without putting peoples lives at risk.

But S.L.F. continue on with your 2+2=5 thoughts.

meditraitor

Count Dooku wrote: »

Total taxable income in 2008 was 81.517 Bn
Total number of taxpayers was 2,261,136
If we will remove 20 Bn of public services payroll bill and 350,000 PS workers, we will have about 61 Bn for 1,911,136. This figure includes part time workers, self-employed and billionaires. If you will divide 61 Bn by 1,911,136, you will get 31,918 per year.
It is average for whole private sector
If you will exclude people with income more then 275K, then you will get 28K as average private sector workers

If you will divide 20Bn by 350,000 – you will get 57K as absolute average for public sector.

32K vs 57K
Where is fairness?

+1

When you put it like that, there can be no arguing that PS workers(a good %) are on the gravy train

dan_d

Fireman might be a bad example - that kind of a job is paid risk money.
Anyway, back to the old stupid idea - too much money going out - not enough money going in.
Very simple.
Firemen may be entitled to higher wages than most - but once other public sector wages drop, a fireman's will have to drop relative to them. As in, he may be being paid 50,000, to the say 30,000 a (for example) admin civil servant gets paid....but if the civil servant wage drops to 20,000, then a fireman's should drop to 40,000, at least.
All very simplistic I know, but it's just a very rough example. Regardless of your job, wages have to drop. Firemen in France and Germany do the same job as those here, but they don't get paid 50,000 a year. It's all relative.

meditraitor

dan_d wrote: »

Fireman might be a bad example - that kind of a job is paid risk money.
Anyway, back to the old stupid idea - too much money going out - not enough money going in.
Very simple.
Firemen may be entitled to higher wages than most - but once other public sector wages drop, a fireman's will have to drop relative to them. As in, he may be being paid 50,000, to the say 30,000 a (for example) admin civil servant gets paid....but if the civil servant wage drops to 20,000, then a fireman's should drop to 40,000, at least.
All very simplistic I know, but it's just a very rough example. Regardless of your job, wages have to drop. Firemen in France and Germany do the same job as those here, but they don't get paid 50,000 a year. It's all relative.

Wages have to drop alright but I think a simpler way of doing it is to increment the reduction

Up to 30 -2%
30- 40K -3%
40-50K -5%
50-70K -8%
70- 90K -12%
+90K -15%

Just a thought

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

Explain. Where did you get that gem from a simple correction of a calculation?

You took Tony46's post which, rather obviously, was dealing with gross pay rates, and wrote: "Tax relief on that 7%...". So you are taking a gross pay discussion and applying net pay arguments.

No its not, look at the table. The net reduction is 3.1% on 41k gross, not 6%. Explain how its wrong, its there in black and white.

The first paragraph introducing the table includes: "Actual outcomes will vary based on personal profiles." For an income of €40k (the nearest example given) for a post-1995 recruit, the suggested outcomes range from 3.1% to 4.1%.

S.L.F

MaceFace wrote: »

No I haven't.
Most firemen like what the job entails - exciting, every call is different etc and would not like to be stuck at a desk for 40 hours a week.
That has nothing to do with how much they care for the people they are supposed to protect.

Yes you have.

Obviously don't know any firemen if you did you'd know you were talking nonsense when you say they care nothing for the people they save.

I know a fireman down the country he had to pull the bodies of children from buildings and then had to face the parents who he knew.

Don't tell me he didn't care.

Or when bodies float in from the sea it is usually firemen who get to take them in.

MaceFace wrote: »

On the 24th, the front line will go down to the level of service that we would get on Christmas day. Obviously this level is too low and they can not guarantee to be able to deal with the normal November Tuesday situations.

Those same firemen if they saw an accident happening in front of them would rush to save whoever it was even if it was on a strike day, in fact would even put their lives at risk to do so.

MaceFace wrote: »

If they really cared, they would find a different way of showing their anger without putting peoples lives at risk.

Why don't you tell us how you think they should show their fury.

MaceFace wrote: »

But S.L.F. continue on with your 2+2=5 thoughts.

5

gurramok

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You took Tony46's post which, rather obviously, was dealing with gross pay rates, and wrote: "Tax relief on that 7%...". So you are taking a gross pay discussion and applying net pay arguments.

Well, the PS supporters here always quote the take home pay as evidence of paycuts

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The first paragraph introducing the table includes: "Actual outcomes will vary based on personal profiles." For an income of €40k (the nearest example given) for a post-1995 recruit, the suggested outcomes range from 3.1% to 4.1%.

Income was about 41k on 3 yrs service according to the poster so the range is 3.1% only as the table gives that figure from 40k to 45k. Not 6% or 7%.

Now, if thats wrong, kindly explain.

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

... Income was about 41k on 3 yrs service according to the poster so the range is 3.1% only as the table gives that figure from 40k to 45k. Not 6% or 7%.

Now, if thats wrong, kindly explain.

I did explain. Go follow your own link and read the cautionary note and the tables (there are four of them, showing different outcome possibilities).

And it is deceptive to use net pay figures in gross pay discussions.

MaceFace

S.L.F wrote: »

Yes you have.

Pantomine season doesn't start for another month.

S.L.F wrote: »

Obviously don't know any firemen if you did you'd know you were talking nonsense when you say they care nothing for the people they save.

Yes I do. If you read above, you would see I already said that.
There is a big difference between caring for a person you come across in a particular situation and a person that you don't know and you have never met.
I stand over the claim that if you truely cared about the people you are paid to protect you would not be withdrawing your services because of your pay packet.

S.L.F wrote: »

I know a fireman down the country he had to pull the bodies of children from buildings and then had to face the parents who he knew.

Don't tell me he didn't care.

Or when bodies float in from the sea it is usually firemen who get to take them in.

Of course they care as they know this person.
Again, if they cared about the public, why put peoples lives at risk by withdrawing services?

S.L.F wrote: »

Those same firemen if they saw an accident happening in front of them would rush to save whoever it was even if it was on a strike day, in fact would even put their lives at risk to do so.

Like any decent human being.
Why don't they go to work and make sure that those that need their help don't have to be "in front of them" to get their help.
[/QUOTE]

S.L.F wrote: »

Why don't you tell us how you think they should show their fury.

Well, firstly I think the Fire Brigade (and hospitals) should be like the Gardai and not be allowed to strike.
If they want to show their fury - let them go out and march but not when they are supposed to be on duty.

Again, putting peoples lives at risk for their own wealth is just wrong.

Drawing Dead

Tony46 wrote: »

Oh and one of the biggest civil engineering companies in the country. Surely during boom times their wages were far higher than this with generous bonuses. PS wages certainly wouldnt of been as much with no bonus.

yes of course people were well paid in the boom! the point is that now its over the private sector are correcting their pay but the public sector lags behind thinking their pay sould only ever go one way and if it isn't they go walk about claiming they aren't well paid!!

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you implying that people should pay tax on an amount greater than they are paid? Those in the private sector who have taken pay cuts are taxed only on what they are currently paid, not on what they used to be paid.

And your computation of 3.1% is questionable -- no, I'll go further: it's simply wrong.

cross-purposes? I think Gurramok is challenging Tony46's reduction:

So lets take your brother for example. Before his 6% pay cut he was probably earning approx 41500. When I was on year 3 I certainly wasnt earning 50,000. Are you sure you saw that right?For argument sake lets take your 50,000. Thats his gross so you can take away approx 7% pension levy. 46,500 then take into consideration the allowances for unsocial hours. ie. public holidays, weekend nights etc. Youll find its not too far off your brothers job. Thats not taking into account for either the rest of the taxes and levies.

What Tony46 is doing is taking a PS salary of €50,000, and saying that with a pension levy of 7% it comes down to €46,500. Gurramok is quite correct to challenge that, because the pension levy allows for tax relief, so while the gross has technically fallen, the comparison is not valid - for the reasons you're outlining (I think).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tipp Man

I find it amazing that a lot of the PS workers on here talk about take home pay when they want to give the impression of a small number but then often in the same sentence go on to use the gross pension levy, implying that they have a 7-10% reduction in take home.

Now either they don't understand the difference or they are very cute at minipulating the realities

Not saying this is the case in this particular instance just an observation in general

oscar2

This thread reads like an Irish Independent front page with an a Sunday times analysis thrown in.

3 year Firefighters don't earn 50000.

What research states that Firefighting is safer here than elsewhere.

I can't be bothered to go on.

S.L.F

MaceFace wrote: »

Pantomine season doesn't start for another month.

Funny even as I was writing it it never crossed my mind

MaceFace wrote: »

There is a big difference between caring for a person you come across in a particular situation and a person that you don't know and you have never met.

Of course there is but it doesn't mean they give anything less.

MaceFace wrote: »

I stand over the claim that if you truely cared about the people you are paid to protect you would not be withdrawing your services because of your pay packet.

I think you phrased that badly, they are being paid to protect people and that wage is being cut so why would they not go out on strike.

MaceFace wrote: »

Of course they care as they know this person.
Again, if they cared about the public, why put peoples lives at risk by withdrawing services?

The lads I know hate to do things like this but their backs are up against the wall

MaceFace wrote: »

Well, firstly I think the Fire Brigade (and hospitals) should be like the Gardai and not be allowed to strike.
If they want to show their fury - let them go out and march but not when they are supposed to be on duty.

Again, putting peoples lives at risk for their own wealth is just wrong.

If our govt had kept up its end of Partnership there would be no strike, if you want someone to blame then you should blame the ones responsible for this mess in the first place.

irish_bob

_Kooli_ wrote: »

Oh dear. Another thread from someone too sore that they couldnt make a career for themselves that would pay a decent wage, so they want anyone on a decent wage to have a cut.
In the private sector you can make way more than €50k .... if you take an interest in developing your career. tbh anyone in the private sector earning less than €50k has not looked after their career at all.
Stop crying over what others get and sort yourself out.

One of the guys i work with has got a pay cut recently and was off on a rant about the public sector. We chose to give him a pay cut because he is crap. Nobody else will be getting one.

dumbest post ive ever read , the average industrial wage is more than ten grand less than 50 k , are you saying that every worker in the private sector on the average industrial wage is lacking in ambition or failing in some way , you havent a clue

MaceFace

oscar2 wrote: »

This thread reads like an Irish Independent front page with an a Sunday times analysis thrown in.

3 year Firefighters don't earn 50000.

What research states that Firefighting is safer here than elsewhere.

I can't be bothered to go on.

My information is that they indeed earn this amount when you take into account the add-ons and overtime.
I was told >50k directly from a fire fighter.

gurramok

irish_bob wrote: »

dumbest post ive ever read , the average industrial wage is more than ten grand less than 50 k , are you saying that every worker in the private sector on the average industrial wage is lacking in ambition or failing in some way , you havent a clue

What is it, the vast majority of the workforce earn under 50k? (whatever the exact figure is, its a majority who have not reached the 50k level)

Epic fail on the majority of ye out there

EDIT http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63041551&postcount=26

80.28% of ye 'have not developed your careers!!

ronbyrne2005

Our fireman friend can also retire with great pension at 55 and do another job while receiving that pension. Salary comparisions arent enough as they dont include the other benefits of PS workers, job security(private sector worker must purchase income insurance at high price), great riskless pension etc.

Emergency services deserve to be looked after well but we simplay cant afford to keep paying our PS the best pay/pensions in Europe. We are not a rich country, look at private and public debt and the lack of infrastructure like that which exists in rest Europe (internet, roads, rail,schools etc).

Maybe the younger members of frontline group with massive mortgages could get less cuts than the older members who i know for a fact are generally very comfortable with little or no mortgage etc.

irish_bob

coach23 wrote: »

in the real world people get into situations they cant handle they ring 999 and ask for help we're the ones who answer and react to your cry for help surely we deserve some credit



how happy would your "friend" be knowing you are publicly bashing him behind his back your a real good "friend"



and how much do you think he should get paid?

in your humble opinion how much is your "friends" life and well being
worth a year?

when was the last time your brother went home after work having walked into a building that was on fire carried out a family and physically resusitated some of them and failed on the others as the family neighbours friends etc watched on finished his shift, went home cooked dinner became a father to kids the same age as the ones he couldn't revive became a husband to a wife similar to the widow who had just lost her husband gone to bed and went into work the next day did it all over again.........day after day after day, sure they sit around for a bit but when they work they do things that will be on their minds every time they have to sit and wait on that phone to ring................how much would you pay that person a year?

whenever i hear the frontline workers ( nurses , guards , fireman ) reaching for the pull at the heartstrings card , i ask them one simple question , are the challenges facing , nurse , guards or fireman any greater in ireland than in the uk or germany where they recieve at least 30% less pay i might add ???

Lockstep

Fairly surprised by the amount of times "average" wealth is mentioned here.

Ecnomics books I've read have been extremely sceptical about the term (Krugman uses the example of Bill Gates walking into a bar and the average income of the customers skyrockets)

Median income seems a much fairer way to calculate these; the person who is richer than one half but poorer than the other half.

Also fairly surprised by people using reserve/part timer forces as evidence that they aren't jobs noone wants to do; speaking as an army reservist, it's absolutely nothing like what the PDF have to go through. You also get paid for it and it's done on your own time (as are most of the reserve/volunteers listed)
Big difference to the work done by the full timers.

irish_bob

Count Dooku wrote: »

it was 80 applicants in average for each position, advertised in public sector in 2006
Doesn’t looks that nobody wanted it

why let the facts get in the way of recyled union rhetoric

NO ONE WANTED TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR DURING THE BOOM
THE PRIVATE SECTOR CREAMED IT DURING THE BOOM
WE DIDNT CAUSE THIS MESS
THE BANKS
THE DEVELOPERS

time for new slogans

Scofflaw

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Fairly surprised by the amount of times "average" wealth is mentioned here.

Ecnomics books I've read have been extremely sceptical about the term (Krugman uses the example of Bill Gates walking into a bar and the average income of the customers skyrockets)

Median income seems a much fairer way to calculate these; the person who is richer than one half but poorer than the other half.

That's a fair point, since 9 workers on €25K plus 1 worker on €150K gives and average salary of €37.5K - and to act as if every one of those 10 was getting that salary would be unjust to 9 of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

The 2004 LC careers booklet thing warned that public sector jobs were getting harder to come by as the economy was slowing down compared to the boom years.

Anyone got any stats for PS applications in the boom years?