My outrage at some members of the public service

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... 1. Public Sector worker on €50,000 gross, talking about the reduction caused by a 7% pension levy, on which pension relief is payable...

Just for clarity: it is not relieved as a pension contribution; it is relieved as a tax-allowable deduction from pay. It's an odd no-man's land, because pension contributions (the 6.5% that was already being paid) and PRSI are paid on the basis of a gross of €50,000, whereas income tax is paid on the basis of a gross of €46,500.

[I may be wrong about the PRSI; perhaps a currently-serving public service employee can clarify that detail.]

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

gurramok wrote:

... Nope, i gave examples. Read them again. They said 'i've taken a paycut of x%' when in fact it was really a paycut of x%-(tax relief%).

I saw your examples. They do not support your claim. When you said that "We have PS workers who always quote 'my take home pay is down 7%+ due to the pension levy" you were telling a lie.

I don't expect that you will admit to it.

Can the two of you stop wrangling over this? PS posters undoubtedly do say they've "taken a pay cut of x%", which suggests that they're missing x% take-home pay, but I don't think any of them have explicitly claimed that they're "missing x% of take-home pay" where that x% is the pension levy.

So I'd judge gurramok correct in principle (posters have implied they're taking a specific cut in take-home pay), and P. Breathnach literally correct (because they haven't explicitly said it).

My next step, if you don't drop this, will be to enforce a breathing space on both of you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tipp Man

Johnboymac wrote: »

For those who have not already seen this article, finally some one in the media making sense.
Public sector pay cuts unfair and counter-productive on the tax front
By Fergus Finlay
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I THINK if I were a public servant today, I*d be mad as hell.
......................................

First of all look at the author of this piece, do they get much more left in this country than him

Secondly about the only bit of sense that he wrote in the whole piece was the idea of scrapping the defined benifit scheme for PS, this is way overdue.

Rest is a lot of rubbish

meditraitor

Tipp Man wrote: »

First of all look at the author of this piece, do they get much more left in this country than him

If him and his ilk LEFT the country then we would be on the right track

Dozen Wicked Words

meditraitor wrote: »

If him and his elk LEFT the country then we would be on the right track

fyp

Wait, he has a deer in tow?

ck3960

murphaph wrote: »

American medical staff get paid a fortune because they have to contribute a fortune to their education! Becoming a doctor etc. in the US costs a hundred thousand dollars+

That money is borrowed and needs repaying somehow, so they charge a lot for their services.

Our doctors are trained for free, at the cost of the taxpayer (a GOOD thing) but then paid over the top by the same tax payer (a BAD thing).

If we pay to train our doctors they should be contractually obliged to work in Ireland at normal rates of pay for ca. 15 years. If they break the contract they should be liable to repay the costs of their training. End of brain drain.

my undergraduate degree was paid for, as is every other student
my postgraduate (midwifery) was sponsered (12,000 euro) on the agreement that i had to work in public service for at least 2 years as a midwife. cant speak for doctors now as i'm not one, but i hope there is a similar agreement. although i know international experience is necessary for them to progress in their profession

and by the way. i know plenty who paid the 12,000 euros and left because they couldnt stand it. what does that say??
it says that people are entitled to be happy in life and work (i cant afford 12,000 euros)

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... posters undoubtedly do say they've "taken a pay cut of x%", which suggests that they're missing x% take-home pay...

Note that I have taken this passage in isolation, deleting even the reference to the public service.

I don't think any reasonable person equates an x% cut in pay with an x% cut in take-home pay. That applies whether the cut is in a public service pay packet or a private sector pay packet.

Riskymove

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Note that I have taken this passage in isolation, deleting even the reference to the public service.

I don't think any reasonable person equates an x% cut in pay with an x% cut in take-home pay. That applies whether the cut is in a public service pay packet or a private sector pay packet.

+1

this is exactly what I was saying here

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Note that I have taken this passage in isolation, deleting even the reference to the public service.

I don't think any reasonable person equates an x% cut in pay with an x% cut in take-home pay. That applies whether the cut is in a public service pay packet or a private sector pay packet.

True, but this is a heated discussion on the internet, which implies a much lower standard of 'reasonable'...the problem that gurramok highlighted originally is that people are comparing apples and oranges, because a 7% pension levy (public sector) isn't the same as a 7% base pay cut (private sector).

That remains the case, and is in danger of being obscured by a wrangle about who said exactly what, which adds heat rather than light to the discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but this is a heated discussion on the internet, which implies a much lower standard of 'reasonable'...the problem that gurramok highlighted originally is that people are comparing apples and oranges, because a 7% pension levy (public sector) isn't the same as a 7% base pay cut (private sector). That remains the case, and is in danger of being obscured by a wrangle about who said exactly what, which won't solve the issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree but In fairness the fact that a public sector worker saying they had a 7% pension levy was being "dishonest" didn't help

are private sector workers expected to consider pension reliefs when saying they contribute 20% or whatever to a scheme?

Dj Stiggie

_Kooli_ wrote: »

We chose to give him a pay cut because he is crap. Nobody else will be getting one.

Brilliant

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

I agree but In fairness the fact that a public sector worker saying they had a 7% pension levy was being "dishonest" didn't help

are private sector workers expected to consider pension reliefs when saying they contribute 20% or whatever to a scheme?

As long as people quote comparable numbers when comparing numbers, I don't really mind, but an argument based on comparing incomparable numbers is necessarily going to be circular and vexing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscar2

Riskymove wrote: »

for clarity

thats fulltime fire fighters only

most of the country are covered by retained firefighters

Retained cover larger geographical area. Full time cover large urban areas and attend more incidents.

For example 2006

131,386 incidents Total

Dublin Fire Brigade attended 95,277
Cork Fire Brigade attended 3,904
Limerick Fire Brigade attended 2,117

Source Dept Environment

This isn't meant to downgrade the retained they do wonderful work for little or no reward and they too are facing cuts in pay.

P. Breathnach

... the problem that gurramok highlighted originally is that people are comparing apples and oranges, because a 7% pension levy (public sector) isn't the same as a 7% base pay cut (private sector).

That remains the case, and is in danger of being obscured by a wrangle about who said exactly what, which adds heat rather than light to the discussion.

It's not really an apples and oranges comparison, more a mandarin and satsuma one. The similarities are far greater than the differences. The greatest point of similarity is that the effect on the pay packet is about the same.

CorkFenian

starbelgrade wrote: »

I have to question - how dangerous is it actually to be a fireman in Ireland? I'd hazard a guess that on a year to year basis, there are more deaths in the fishing, construction & commercial driving industries.

Just a thought.

Being a fireman in Ireland is nothing compared to being one in UK\continental Europe or the USA...Especially in the US it is an extremely dangerous well paid civil service job..Don't get me wrong have a lot of time for Irish equivalent....On another point someone said that people are bitter if they keep giving out about PS wages...IMHO they were benchmarked way too high and a pay cut is a lot better than the dole Q, there can really be no argument about that IMO.

Paulzx

CorkFenian wrote: »

Being a fireman in Ireland is nothing compared to being one in UK\continental Europe or the USA..

What the hell does that mean? Do firemen in the uk travel on the space shuttle instead of fire engines or something?

Scofflaw

Paulzx wrote: »

What the hell does that mean? Do firemen in the uk travel on the space shuttle instead of fire engines or something?

By catapult, actually - ever since Thatcher.

cordially,
Scofflaw

seclachi

Paulzx wrote: »

What the hell does that mean? Do firemen in the uk travel on the space shuttle instead of fire engines or something?

Fire is hotter and more dangerous in other countrys !

jimmmy

And the baddies are more dangerous, patients in hospitals sicker, the layers of civil service more complicated, the kids more challenging than in other countries etc. Of course those in Ireland need to be compensated more than the public services in other countries , in order to to deal with these increased problems. :rolleyes:

Tony46

Just to clarify things. In the original post it was clear that he was discussing gross pay. Therefore I continued discussing the subject while referring to gross pay and never once mentioned net pay. I also clearly stated that I didnt take into account any other taxes or levies for both parties.

With reference to the danger involved. A house fire is a house fire regardless what country its in, same for industrial fires. What determines fireman fatalities in a fire is the action taken. The risks we take all depends on the rewards. A large factory fire with no persons reported and no chance of saving the building would be fought from the outside.A large factory fire with persons reported would be a calculated risk which I or any of my colleuges would take without hesitation.

I can only speak for Dublin alone in that we have not had any fatalities in the line of duty in over ten years. Thats thanks to the high level of training and proven fireground procedures. I hope to finish my career with the same statistics but worry that as is already evident in the brigade that training is being reduced due to budgetry constraints.

I personally couldnt give a s**t if people think its dangerous or not but a bit of respect from some people on here would suffice.

jimmmy

Tony46 wrote: »

I personally couldnt give a s**t if people think its dangerous or not but a bit of respect from some people on here would suffice.

Who do people respect more : an Irish group of unionised cartel workers, who do not have competition, who have job security and who work shorter hours , who dip their fingers in your pocket, or their counterparts abroad who do the same job for less money, and without going on strike ? Irish hospital consultants are paid double by the Irish government what hospital consultants in Berlin are paid by the German government. Both groups of consultants are respected in their medical capacity. Part of the lack of respect goes to the Irish govt who was weak enough to pay the public service in the first place. If the public service workers suffered a cut in gross pay and did not strike then they would earn some respect.

Scofflaw

Tony46 wrote: »

Just to clarify things. In the original post it was clear that he was discussing gross pay. Therefore I continued discussing the subject while referring to gross pay and never once mentioned net pay. I also clearly stated that I didnt take into account any other taxes or levies for both parties.

With reference to the danger involved. A house fire is a house fire regardless what country its in, same for industrial fires. What determines fireman fatalities in a fire is the action taken. The risks we take all depends on the rewards. A large factory fire with no persons reported and no chance of saving the building would be fought from the outside.A large factory fire with persons reported would be a calculated risk which I or any of my colleuges would take without hesitation.

I can only speak for Dublin alone in that we have not had any fatalities in the line of duty in over ten years. Thats thanks to the high level of training and proven fireground procedures. I hope to finish my career with the same statistics but worry that as is already evident in the brigade that training is being reduced due to budgetry constraints.

I personally couldnt give a s**t if people think its dangerous or not but a bit of respect from some people on here would suffice.

I wouldn't denigrate the risks involved - I've done fire training a few times, and I appreciate fire service is no joke. However, people might make the point that the level of pay isn't really related to the risk, but to what the government of the day - and, by extension, the electorate - was prepared to pay for an easy life when there was a lot of money in the kitty.

Whether that level of pay is sustainable in changed circumstances is a separate discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

In 2006 80,000 applied for 3900 positions in public sector.

https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2007/apr/01/open-access-to-public-service-jobs/



BTW, in 2002 private sector was also suffering from absence of workforce. This is why 67,000 work permits have been issued to fill gaps in private sector.

In 2004 cheap new-EU labour filled gaps in private sector and native Irish started to move into safe place

The perceived wisdom is that it was practically impossible to get into public sector positions, even during the boom.

This is bullsh1t. As you can see, people didn't want these jobs that were paid 26% above that which was available in the private sector, with full security and a gilt edged gold plated pension.

Apparently.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

The perceived wisdom is that it was practically impossible to get into public sector positions, even during the boom.

This is bullsh1t. As you can see, people didn't want these jobs that were paid 26% above that which was available in the private sector, with full security and a gilt edged gold plated pension.

Apparently.

What part of this:

In 2006 the Public Appointments Service, through Publicjobs. ie, attracted some 80,000 applicants to apply for jobs throughout the public service. These positions ranged from clerical officers, junior diplomats and legal professionals in the civil service to engineers and senior managers in local authorities to hospital consultants and administrators in the health sector. In the past 2 years alone in excess of 17,000 people nationally and internationally used this facility to apply for positions in An Garda Siochana.

suggests a lack of applicants? If Count Dooku is correct that those 80,000 applicants in 2006 were applying for 3,900 positions, then approximately 20 people applied for each position - at the "height of the boom".

I don't know how you can look at that figure and claim nobody wanted the civil service positions.

perplexed,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

What part of this:



suggests a lack of applicants? If Count Dooku is correct that those 80,000 applicants in 2006 were applying for 3,900 positions, then approximately 20 people applied for each position - at the "height of the boom".

I don't know how you can look at that figure and claim nobody wanted the civil service positions.

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Its another urban myth spewed by Unions with 1,000's willing to swallow it.

An increase of about 25% in numbers over the last decade also contradicts it, but it doesn't fit in with the persecution complex.

irish_bob

Johnboymac wrote: »

For those who have not already seen this article, finally some one in the media making sense.
Public sector pay cuts unfair and counter-productive on the tax front
By Fergus Finlay
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I THINK if I were a public servant today, I*d be mad as hell.
With a few well documented political exceptions, I*ve never known anyone who went into the public service to make money.
In fact if you wanted to make money, the last place you*d go for a career is into the public service.
Some people choose a public service career for security and many choose it because it offers the chance to do something or to be something they*ve always wanted to be. A nurse, a doctor, a teacher, a fireman. To work
at healing the sick, catching the baddies, teaching the kids - I*ve known people who grew up from childhood wanting to do just that, and who have found tremendous fulfilment from following a chosen career as a public
servant.
And I*ve known public servants who maybe ended up in places they never expected to find themselves, and nevertheless did the state more than a little service. It is public servants who run our libraries (and if you haven*t visited a library lately, go and take a look - it will knock
your socks off).
It is public servants who help Irish manufacturers to market their goods and to export them. It is public servants who, behind the scenes, probably did as much and more to bring peace to this island than any of the
higher profile politicians who routinely claim their place in history.
I could go on. But you*re going to have to take my word for this, if you haven*t had direct experience of the public service. As I said, I*ve never met a public servant who was in it for the money. And I*ve never met a public servant who wanted to let his or her country down.
Sure, they*re not all equally able. They*re not even all equally pleasant.
We*ve all, I*m guessing, had both good and bad experiences at the hands of public servants. But I*m guessing we*ve all had mixed experiences at the
hands of business people, bankers, priests, shopkeepers, mechanics, car salesmen, dentists, doctors, and the thousands and thousands of other people who make their living in the private sector in Ireland.
So why, I wonder, are public servants being told, day after day, that they have to bear the brunt of the public expenditure cuts? In addition to that, why are public servants being constantly attacked and derided as if
they had suddenly become the fat cats in our society?
Why is there such division, and it seems such jealousy, between the public and the private sector? When public servants, quite rightly, point out that their pay has been hit by the pension levy, the commentators immediately
snap that it*s only a modest contribution to the real cost of their pensions.
But for years and years public service pay in Ireland was calculated on the basis that the value of the pension had to be taken into account when making comparisons. In other words, public service salaries tended to be lower than those in the private sector because there was more security in the public service and the pensions were related to income rather than to the contribution made.
I*ve always argued (and I see the OECD is doing it too) that some government has to bite the bullet on the pension issue by closing down the "defined benefit" scheme (which relates pension to salary) for new entrants to the public service, and by placing all new entrants on a defined contribution scheme (which relates pension to the amount you pay into the scheme).
Such a change would bring the cost of funding public service pensions down dramatically over time. It would also mean that everyone in the economy who was working towards a pension, whether in the private or the public sector, would be on the same footing.
But you know what? The pensions entitlements of public servants haven*t actually changed at all. What has changed is that many pension schemes in the private sector have lost huge value partly because of mismanagement and also because the equities and stocks and shares they have been invested in have been damaged by greed and incompetence. More than a few pension funds, for instance, invested heavily in Irish bank shares. Need I say more?
And we*re being told every day that public service pay is at the heart of the whole public expenditure problem because it accounts for a massive proportion of public spending.
When they*re talking about public spending, commentators seem to use
whatever figure comes into their heads. I*ve heard it solemnly
reported on
the radio that public service pay accounts for proportions of spending
ranging from 50% to 75%. There*s a mantra about it - "it*s simply
impossible to cut public spending (and thereby save the economy is the
inference) without cutting pay because pay simply accounts for too
much".
The actual figure is about one-third. Public service pay is about
one-third
of public spending. So every €3 you take off a public servant should
give
you about €1 in public spending cuts.
There*s a couple of problems with this. First, every time you take €3
off a
public servant, you lose anything up to €1 in tax revenue because
(unlike a
lot of people in the private sector) public servants are all PAYE
workers -
cut their pay and you immediately lose the income tax they give you.
So
actually, if you want to get a cut of €1 in overall public spending
from
public service pay, you have to take around €4.
The Government has said it wants to take €1.3 billion from public
servants
as their contribution to resolving our financial crisis. If it means
that
as a net figure (taking account of the loss in tax revenue), it*s
going to
have to cut pay by around €1.7bn in fact. That*s 10% of the public
pay bill
from January 1 next.
BUT IF it wants to apply that kind of a cut so that lower paid public
servants have to take a hit of, say, 5%, it*s going to have to cut
middle
income public servants by around 15%.
It was not the public service, nor anyone in the public service, who
precipitated this crisis in the first place. And when we*re not busy
sneering at public servants, we totally depend on them. Take away our
public service in Ireland and you drive a huge hole into our quality
of
life.
Against that background, the kind of cuts that are now having to be
considered, to yield a net €1.3bn in public spending reductions, are
savage. They will have a huge impact on thousands of families (some
commentators don*t like us noticing that public servants have
families,
too) and they will seriously damage morale in vital services.
Despite what the commentators might like us to think, cuts of that
magnitude are fundamentally unfair. I mightn*t agree - in fact I
don*t
agree - with the proposition that our economy and our school system can
be
shut down for a day, or maybe more, by public sector protest. But
because
the whole approach is so unfair, I can fully understand the anger
behind
that protest.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner
Tuesday,
November 17, 2009

fergus ( no child should have to make do with hand me down school uniforms ) finlay is an idiot of the highest order , he is the quientesential champagne socilist

he came out this cracker a week ago on rte , if they dont reinstate the xmas bonus , their are people on social wellfare who will go hungary this christmas , this despite the fact that deflation is officially running at 6% , the man is a clown posing as an intelectual

graduate

The perceived wisdom is that it was practically impossible to get into public sector positions, even during the boom.

Well I work in a university where there are many vacant positions, these were advertised in the 2007-2008 period but suitable candidates were not found. So either there was shortage of people or people recruited in this part of the PS are of such an exceptional standard that they are not easily found. Neither conclusion quite sits with the consensus in this forum.

Scofflaw

graduate wrote: »

Well I work in a university where there are many vacant positions, these were advertised in the 2007-2008 period but suitable candidates were not found. So either there was shortage of people or people recruited in this part of the PS are of such an exceptional standard that they are not easily found. Neither conclusion quite sits with the consensus in this forum.

That the University couldn't find suitable candidates is no indication whatsoever of how many people wanted the jobs. As a result, it sits quite easily with the facts as per publicjobs.ie, which is where the figure of 80,000 applicants in 2006 comes from.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

graduate wrote: »

Well I work in a university where there are many vacant positions, these were advertised in the 2007-2008 period but suitable candidates were not found. So either there was shortage of people or people recruited in this part of the PS are of such an exceptional standard that they are not easily found. Neither conclusion quite sits with the consensus in this forum.

I looked at positions in one of the Universities a number of years ago. At the time, they wanted an application filled out with multiple references from all your previous employers, presumably so these could be cross-checked.

Now maybe, such a system works well if your a University employee, since Universites typically don't shut down but it is total at variance with the reality of much of the private sector. There, companies do close down, they do get taken over and absorbed by larger companies (sometimes with the loss of entire sections of the taken-over company), they do change their names etc. In addition, there is high mobility in many industries of personnel as people either leave voluntarily, get laid off, go freelance or are re-organised from one division to another on a regular basis. As such getting multiple references from previous employers is very difficult to do with the passage of time.

As such, the entire application process struck me as being essentially a barrier to entry which would effectively block private sector -> university sector movement.

In the US, it is not uncommon for people to move between the private sector, government sector and university sectors in the course of their careers. How many individuals do you recall offhand that have done something similiar in Ireland?

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

What part of this:



suggests a lack of applicants? If Count Dooku is correct that those 80,000 applicants in 2006 were applying for 3,900 positions, then approximately 20 people applied for each position - at the "height of the boom".

In the normal course of business, any private sector firm that found it had 20 applications for every available position would conclude it must be offering too much for the positions and adjust the salaries (downwards) accordingly. So how much were the public sector starting salaries adjusted downwards in light of the above figures?