70% of companies have not had pay cuts

Jaysoose

maxximus wrote: »

I , I would imagine , am like the majority of people, have no bitterness to anyone making a few quid if they can in the current climate.

I dont begrudge anyone for what they earn , neither did I in the boom when a lot earned a lot more than I.

Pity , a lot of people on here dont look at it the same way.

Nobody forced you to work in the PS during the boom so people using this nonsense argument for the current farcical levels of benefits/pay being collected now (as the boom has well and truly bust) in the PS are off their rocker and do not understand basic economics.

Benchmarking has in effect contributed greatly to the impending bankruptcy of this country i just hope the unions etc are satisfied when it happens.

The money is not there anymore so adjustments must be made and quick, its not begrudgery its reality.

maxximus

jaysoose , i chose to work in the public service on the basis of security

Jaysoose

maxximus wrote: »

jaysoose , i chose to work in the public service on the basis of security

So using the "private sector made more than us during the boom" is not an argument that you can roll out.

The same private sector worker without garaunteed pay rises regardless of performance.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your inability to see any black economy activity other than that done by public service employees is due to the blinkers you choose to wear.

Do you see any black market economy activity ( apart from teachers + lecturers doing grinds etc ). What type of activity is it / what sector, and I hope you have reported it ?

jimmmy

maxximus wrote: »

jaysoose , i chose to work in the public service on the basis of security

Its just an unrelated bonus so that its better paid, better pension, shorter hours, more sickies etc. Good choice. Who would have thought our govt would do so much for the public service for so long.

gandalf

If people are doing "nixers" they should be shopped end of story. Now as for this 70% figure that is being bandied about does anyone have a source for this.

What is true is people ARE taking cuts in take home pay, I am down 30% from my earnings back in 2007, then again the company I was working with then until the beginning of this year no longer exists and over 20 people were made redundant. Some of those people are still looking for employment (luckly I left just before the axe fell!).

In the private sector if a company is not making money they correct the situation by cutting wages or numbers or both. If they are making money they don't, if they are doing well they reward the staff. In the PS at the moment the cost of staff is exceeding the money there for them. If you don't want a cut in your wages some of you will have to lose your jobs, do you really want this? One thing I agree with is the higher earners in the PS should take a higher proportion of the pain involved.

What really surprises me is the total lack of common sense being displayed by the PS as represented by alot of posters on this forum and their so called union leaders.

ednwireland

the pay gap is irrelevant the gov hasnt the money to pay the wages, when that happens in the co. i work for we get part wages until the money comes in (we also took a paycut btw)

if people are signing on and doing nixers (as a lot of builders did even during the boom then the benefits people arent doing their job properly, when i signed on in 2002 (company went bust) the people i saw signing on all had workwear on i was looked at funny when i signed off when i got odd days work here and there.

so where does the benefit fraud issue really lie?

give you a clue, the people who run the system

MikeC101

Without a source, the stat is fairly useless.

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

thats simply not the case and such a position is part of why we have so much debate on this issue

expenditure has to be reduced but wage cuts do not HAVE to be reduced in order to achieve that

over €2bn has already been shaved off the public pay bill without core pay cuts

This year the Irish government deficit will increase by €26 billion to an estimated €76 billion, made up of the public service wage bill, welfare, and programmes. Programmes are being cut, welfare is being cut...

cordially,
Scofflaw

maxximus

maxximus wrote: »

CSO figures shatter myth of huge pay gaps.

It shows that for permanent full-time employees between 25 and 49, the so called public sector premium is 12.6%. As this analysis dates from 2007, the differential would now be far less as public sector workers have since been hit with a pay cut in the form of the so called pension levy of an average of 7.5% of salary.

Irrelevant.
The government spends 500 million a week more than it earns.
That means it must cut it's cloth to suit it's measure or eventually the imf will do it for them.

I'm involved with a company by the way that has cut it's staff by two thirds so as to remain trading profitably.
They have not cut the wages of the remainder because they are doing 3 times the work now for a much lower turnover.
The same common sense in a recession should be applied to the public service.

gurramok

maxximus wrote: »

CSO figures shatter myth of huge pay gaps.

It shows that for permanent full-time employees between 25 and 49, the so called public sector premium is 12.6%. As this analysis dates from 2007, the differential would now be far less as public sector workers have since been hit with a pay cut in the form of the so called pension levy of an average of 7.5% of salary.

In hand, its about half of that 7.5% after tax relief. http://finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Publications/other/2009/pensiondedtablemay09.pdf

The private sector wage cuts have been decimated since 2006, why do you think income tax has fallen off a cliff since then?

dvpower

InReality wrote: »

Most of the threads I see here are "I took a 20% cut so the public sector should too".

If 70% of companies have not had any pay cut yhen it puts that sharing the pain mantra in a different perspective.

Yeah. This is a poor arguement. Its always been the case that if you work in a sector that's doing well, you will also do well. If you work in a sector thats under pressure, like construction, the motor industry or the Public Service then you too will be under pressure.

Calling for fairness or someone to share the pain is a little bit naive. The unemployed construction workers and car sales people know this already. Public servants are still on the learning curve.

murphaph

Does this 70% figure also take into account those who've been made redundant through the closure of a firm, then rehired by another firm on lower wages?

It's a pay cut, but hidden behind a redundancy/rehiring.

maxximus

sorry lads , i make no apologies for choosing the public sector route i did 12 years ago , the choice was made on the basis of security as i said , i am now happy i made that choice.

meditraitor

maxximus wrote: »

sorry lads , i make no apologies for choosing the public sector route i did 12 years ago , the choice was made on the basis of security as i said , i am now happy i made that choice.

Good stuff, you made a good choice, but you cannot defend the indefensible. PS pay is too high.

maxximus

as is the private sector

Tipp Man

maxximus wrote: »

sorry lads , i make no apologies for choosing the public sector route i did 12 years ago , the choice was made on the basis of security as i said , i am now happy i made that choice.

Of course your delighted with yourself, your getting more salary than if you worked in private sector, better terms of employment, unrivaled job secrity and a DEFINED BENIFIT pension

meditraitor

Tipp Man wrote: »

Of course your delighted with yourself, your getting more salary than if you worked in private sector, better terms of employment, unrivaled job secrity and a DEFINED BENIFIT pension

All paid for by the taxpayer/private sector

Scofflaw

maxximus wrote: »

as is the private sector

True, but I think there's something you're not quite grasping here. When private sector pay rates fall, so does the government's income tax receipts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

maxximus

im not one who takes pensions seriously , ill worry about it when i reach it and through the pension levy and superannuation and widows and orphans ill have contributed enough towards it .

again , it was part of the deal when i chose the route i did and again i make no apologies for being successful in securing my employment 12 yrs ago.

Scofflaw

maxximus wrote: »

im not one who takes pensions seriously , ill worry about it when i reach it and through the pension levy and superannuation and widows and orphans ill have contributed enough towards it .

again , it was part of the deal when i chose the route i did and again i make no apologies for being successful in securing my employment 12 yrs ago.

You don't have to apologise, but you do have to take the rough with the smooth in the employment you were successful in securing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

maxximus

i will if i think it is done in a fair manner , otherwise i reserve my right to strike

herya

murphaph wrote: »

Does this 70% figure also take into account those who've been made redundant through the closure of a firm, then rehired by another firm on lower wages?

It's a pay cut, but hidden behind a redundancy/rehiring.

Or if a person has been moved internally to a new lower wage position
Or if their bonus has been cancelled or commission lowered
Or if their hours have been cut
Or if they have a pay freeze but get more duties
Or if they are forced to work unpaid overtime

It doesn't have to be called a pay cut to be a pay cut.

I'd hazard a guess that one or several of the above have happened in pretty much every company. Not to mention redundancies.

Jaysoose

maxximus wrote: »

as is the private sector

How do you come to this conclusion exactly? typical unionitsa ps logic based in some deluded sense of entitlement afforded to you by the current government.

MikeC101

maxximus wrote: »

as is the private sector

How is private sector pay too high? It responds to market conditions, if a company is paying too much it goes out of business or cuts costs.

Plus, if you want your wages to stay the same, the best thing for you would be if private sector wages, fueling income tax increases. Not that that's going to happen, but there really isn't a shred of logic in your thinking.

Tipp Man

maxximus wrote: »

i will if i think it is done in a fair manner , otherwise i reserve my right to strike

care to elaborate on this??

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

How do you come to this conclusion exactly? typical unionitsa ps logic based in some deluded sense of entitlement afforded to you by the current government.

there are any number of commentators saying that private wages are too high and this is affecting our competitiveness

its used as a reason why manufacturing is going to eastern europe etc

have you a different explanation?

Nody

maxximus wrote: »

i will if i think it is done in a fair manner , otherwise i reserve my right to strike

Please do; it is one day we don't have to pay an overflated PS salary bill at least.

MikeC101

Riskymove wrote: »

there are any number of commentators saying that private wages are too high and this is affecting our competitiveness

its used as a reason why manufacturing is going to eastern europe etc

have you a different explanation?

Yes - and the result of wages being too high is - the manufacturers leave and go to Eastern Europe. The jobs are gone. The regulator is keeping electricity costs high, minimum wage and unions don't allow pay cuts. But you're not really comparing the average pay of low paid manufacturing plant workers in danger of losing jobs to eastern europe to the average public sector worker are you?

Unlike the public sector, where the employer simply borrows more money, at a huge cost to future generations, to keep paying wages it can't afford to pay.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: If every private sector worker was to take a pay cut, in accordance with some notion of "fairness", the tax take would fall EVEN FURTHER, and we would need to borrow MORE MONEY to pay public sector / welfare wages, unless the cuts to that could offset the fall in tax income. Basically, we'd all be much worse off, except for the multinationals, who could repatriate more profits back home.

Riskymove

MikeC101 wrote: »

Yes - and the result of wages being too high is - the manufacturers leave and go to Eastern Europe. The jobs are gone.

Unlike the public sector, where the employer simply borrows more money, at a huge cost to future generations, to keep paying wages it can't afford to pay.

another move the goalposts answer...his point was that there are issues with private sector wages being too high AS well as the cost of the public sector being too high...you disagreed

he is correct...both need to change if we are to solve our problems