70% of companies have not had pay cuts

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

maxximus

valid point , riskymove

Mr. Incognito

OP where's the link?

What paper- when- kindly post a link to this statistic.

maxximus

nody , i will imagine it will be more than one day

Blazer

Riskymove wrote: »

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

Why?
It's our government that's broke not companies.
If companies are making a profit they can afford to pay high wages. And some are still making profits.
However we all know that the country is broke, we can't continue paying social welfare and public sector their wages so we can done 1 or 2 things...
either lower the wages via cuts...or lay off people..
Which do you prefer?
And more to the point..why the hell do the PS not understand this?
We pay your wages...not the other way around.
If our wages are cut then it's less money to the government which is turn means less money to the public sector? Do you understand?? probably fúckin not..:p

MikeC101

Riskymove wrote: »

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

How am I moving the goalposts? Continually accusing people of this is just ad hominem crap to avoid answering tough questions.

You're saying there's an issue with private sector wages being too high leading to us losing manufacturing jobs to eastern europe - I agree. But we're seeing what happens, the jobs are going. That's the reality in the private sector.

Both need to change? Then we need to cut minimum wage and our electricity costs I suppose. Go for it.

I fully accept we're in a terrible situation, and cuts need to be made. Minimum wage needs to be dropped, social welfare needs to be cut, public sector wages need to go down. It all has to be done, I don't just think the public sector needs to be punished - but at the moment the biggest resistance to change is coming from public sector unions.

herya

Riskymove wrote: »

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

Makes sense to start with the worst value for the economy first.

Jaysoose

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?

The point im making PS and unions are stating the 'private sector wages are high' without giving any facts as to which sector, which position, were the companies are located .. etc etc they would have us believe that every member of the private sector made a fortune in the boom when its clearly a load of rubbish.

No doubt minimum wage is contirbuting to the costs of doing business but its not exclusively the reason for our lack of competitiveness, how about Business rates set by the council, rents being far to high, income tax etc etc.

To say its wages alone is a very weak statement by the Public service unions or the various commentators and pretty much all you can expect from a group that would never let the facts get in the way of their sense of entitlement.

Scofflaw

herya wrote: »

Makes sense to start with the worst value for the economy first.

It's more that the change is already happening in the private sector, and we're arguing about it happening in the public sector - that's what the PS unions are striking to try and prevent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr. Incognito

The public sector HAVE NOT taken a pay cut- they had to make a contribution to their pension.

Masimus- you chose your job for job security- ie no matter how crap you are at your job you can't be fired.

That is the problem with the public service- I have no problem leaving their currently salary levels if you allow an independent body to go in an cut out all the dead weight and useless public sector employees.

maxximus

pension levy is a pay cut , i am inspected every 2-3 years , also have internal centre evaluation and external assessment evaluation ongoing to ensure accountability and output.

i do not wish to accept another pay cut , unless i see done in a fair and just way, and in my opinion cutting ps wages singularly is not a fair way.

Riskymove

[

QUOTE=Berkut;63068600]Why?
It's our government that's broke not companies.

companies are not in trouble, going out of business etc?

However we all know that the country is broke, we can't continue paying social welfare and public sector their wages so we can done 1 or 2 things...
either lower the wages via cuts...or lay off people..

and....have i argued against this notion?

If our wages are cut then it's less money to the government which is turn means less money to the public sector? Do you understand??

ah...but lower wages would attract more jobs and then unemployment is reduced (welfare spend) and more jobs = more overall taxes

probably fúckin not..:p

nice...

meglome

Was talking to my friend yesterday and asked him how things were going. He's doing better than ever and he has no intention of cutting wages. Not only that he's introducing a profit share to encourage his workers to work harder. Now his employees already work hard but he's incentivising them even more. The important thing to remember is if he wasn't doing well and/or his workers were inefficient he'd cut their wages or get rid of them, as he's had to do in the past. So it goes both ways, it seems that it's just the public sector that is not aware of that.

MikeC101

maxximus wrote: »

i do not wish to accept another pay cut , unless i see done in a fair and just way, and in my opinion cutting ps wages singularly is not a fair way.

Can you clarify, what do you want done? No pay cuts, so redundancies in the public sector? Tax increases across the board? What?

KindOfIrish

InReality wrote: »

Seen this statistic in the papers recently.

Puts the private sector wailing in a new light ..

70% of companies have not had pay cuts just because they pay mininum wage probably.

MikeC101

Riskymove wrote: »

ah...but lower wages would attract more jobs and then unemployment is reduced (welfare spend) and more jobs = more overall taxes

Hopefully yes. But, it may not happen fast enough, or in big enough numbers to boost the tax take in time, or even significantly. So we cut public sector wages at the same time.

Added to which, if private sector wages were to drop significantly, there's even less justification for keeping public sector wages at their current level.

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

they would have us believe that every member of the private sector made a fortune in the boom when its clearly a load of rubbish.

I dont see any point like that being made here

No doubt minimum wage is contirbuting to the costs of doing business but its not exclusively the reason for our lack of competitiveness, how about Business rates set by the council, rents being far to high, income tax etc etc.

I cant really agree about income tax but the other things are also too high

we are in recession and all these things need to come down

To say its wages alone is a very weak statement

no one said anything like this either

Newaglish

What a nonsense statistic. 70% of "companies"?

Put it this way:

Holding Company A (1 employee)
Holding Company B (1 employee)
Holding Company C (1 employee)
Holding Company D (1 employee)
Limited Liability Partnership (2000 employees)
Sole Trader (20 employees)
Trading Company (1000 employees)

Let's just say everyone gets a paycut except for the holding companies (of which there are bloody loads in this country). That means 99.8% of employees have taken a paycut. Oh but only 20% of companies!

Also, as others have pointed out, it doesn't factor in the 100% paycuts lashed around the place for those made redundant (clue, they're not all coming from the public sector that's for sure).

Scofflaw

KindOfIrish wrote: »

70% of companies have not had pay cuts just because they pay mininum wage probably.

Actually, I think it may not just be anecdotal, but entirely the wrong way round:

Tough choices – seven in ten companies change the pay and conditions of their staff in face of the recession

Co. Dublin, Ireland — 19 Oct. 2009

A major new survey shows that 70% of companies in Ireland have changed their employees’ pay and conditions or are planning to do so, in light of the recession.

The “Tough Choices” research by Hays, the world’s leading recruiting experts in qualified, professional and skilled people, found that 39% of companies have already changed staff pay and conditions in order to save costs and a further 31% are intending to.

Hays surveyed 608 employers and 853 employees from around the country in September 2009 for this research.

“These findings are very much backed up by what we are hearing from our clients on a weekly basis,” says Richard Eardley, Managing Director of Hays in Ireland. “For example, we have qualified accountants reporting 20% salary reductions, as both basic pay and bonuses have been cut and architectural companies who are now operating on three day weeks. “

The survey also asked employers and employees nationwide for their opinions on the best way to save staff costs in their companies in the face of the recession. Both employers and workers agree that cutting discretionary bonuses should be the first port of call in saving costs.

However, they differ widely in relation to targeting pay. Employers cite pay cuts as the second best option for reducing staff costs, while this is the second least favoured option for employees.

“This situation is reflected in the debates that we are already seeing between employee representatives and employer bodies over the best way of implementing cost cutting measures in the workplace,” commented Richard Eardley.

“There is broad agreement from both sides on less contentious issues, like cutting bonuses, benefits and even pension contributions as methods of reducing costs,” he continued. “But there is a real divide on where pay and job cuts should occur. Unsurprisingly, most employees favour the targeting of higher earners only, with employers favouring across the board reductions.”

In relation to compulsory redundancies, the groups are again divided with seven in ten employees against this method of saving staff costs compared to only 48% of employers being against it.

The Hays research also shows that the option of voluntary redundancies may be ineffective in cutting staff costs. While 87% of employees believed that offering voluntary redundancies is the best option open to management when attempting to save costs, two-thirds of employees say they would not take voluntary redundancy if offered it.

“The findings should send out a warning signal to any company which opts for voluntary redundancy as a payroll cost cutting measure – our survey would suggest employers may not get the up-take that they need,” says Richard Eardley.

Both employers and employees agree however, that lower level staff should not be unduly targeted for either pay or job cuts.

For further information about Hays visit www.hays.ie

Source

You could just about say that 60% of the companies surveyed hadn't done anything yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jaysoose

Riskymove wrote: »

I dont see any point like that being made here



I cant really agree about income tax but the other things are also too high

we are in recession and all these things need to come down



no one said anything like this either

Apparently the 'various commentators' you mentioned did or are you changing your point to suit yourself?

MikeC101

Scofflaw wrote: »

That suggests the title of the thread should be "70% of companies have had pay cuts or changed working conditions".

cordially,
Scofflaw

One wonder, in light of the above, will maxximus now start saying that he feels like he should, in the interest of fairness, take a pay cut?

Seems unlikely.

Jaysoose

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?

Ahem ...i can pick holes in arguments to.

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

Riskymove wrote: »

Apparently the 'various commentators' you mentioned did or are you changing your point to suit yourself?

not changing anything

there are commentators who say private wages are too high and are affecting competitiveness

I did not mention "wages alone" or "all private wages" or anything like that

You could just about say that 60% of the companies surveyed hadn't done anything yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

that logic can be applied to any study based on a point in time in order to question is credibility

What a nonsense statistic

indeed, there are plenty of them around

your explanations can be applied to all these "averages" about the public service

the_syco

If the private sector does badly, people get let go, wages slashed, and companies go under.

If the public sector does badly, they strike for better conditions.

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote:

that logic can be applied to any study based on a point in time in order to question is credibility

I'm not actually questioning the credibility of the study, so much as pointing out that the original claim this thread is based on - and for which no substantiation has been offered at all - is most likely based on a misremembering of that Hays study.

70% of private sector companies have either changed employee pay/conditions, or are planning to. Where does that leave the argument that the public sector are "sharing the pain"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

.

70% of private sector companies have either changed employee pay/conditions, or are planning to. Where does that leave the argument that the public sector are "sharing the pain"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

the government have changed the pay/conditions of 100% of the public service and...are planning to do so again in a few weeks

murphaph

Newaglish wrote: »

What a nonsense statistic. 70% of "companies"?

Put it this way:

Holding Company A (1 employee)
Holding Company B (1 employee)
Holding Company C (1 employee)
Holding Company D (1 employee)
Limited Liability Partnership (2000 employees)
Sole Trader (20 employees)
Trading Company (1000 employees)

Let's just say everyone gets a paycut except for the holding companies (of which there are bloody loads in this country). That means 99.8% of employees have taken a paycut. Oh but only 20% of companies!

Top point which I had completely overlooked and I worked for 2 firms that had a load of holding companies above us. It's very common!

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

the government have changed the pay/conditions of 100% of the public service and...are planning to do so again in a few weeks

Which is necessary, since 100% of Irish governments are currently in financial trouble.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is necessary, since 100% of Irish governments are currently in financial trouble.

cordially,
Scofflaw

but the point remains that 100% of public servants have had their pay/conditions changes and are about to have this happen again

..is this not "sharing the pain"?

ronbyrne2005

Havent read this thread but in those companies who have yet to make pay cuts I'd say people working there are doing more for same pay, unpaid OT ,no bonus etc. If a few members of staff were let go the rest of staff are expected to pick up their work. Also Im sure a lot of these 70% of companies that it's claimed havent cut pay pay a lot less than the money in the PS and anyway what private companies pay for their employees is a matter for their shareholders and is dictated by COMPETITION and supply of labour not the power of a union. As that famous UK PM said, one mans pay cut saves another mans job.

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

but the point remains that 100% of public servants have had their pay/conditions changes and are about to have this happen again

..is this not "sharing the pain"?

Depends how their pay and conditions have been altered. I would not consider it "sharing the pain" if public servant A has a 4% pay cut (after tax relief is applied and assuming you accept the pension levy is a pay cut) to a lad getting a 100% pay cut and going on the dole.

The public sector will see no job losses from any permanent staff. In this light, I think it's fair that their pay should be cut much more.

In any case-there's no money to pay the wages as tax revenues have nosedived and the private sector is in trouble.

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

but the point remains that 100% of public servants have had their pay/conditions changes and are about to have this happen again

..is this not "sharing the pain"?

Not yet, since all that's happened is the pensions levy and a bit of a cut-back in temporary contracts.

Just to remind you of the amount your goalposts have moved - the point of this thread was that since 70% of companies had not suffered pay cuts, asking public sector workers to "share the pain" was a crock. That argument has obviously had to be abandoned, given it was based on an almost perfect reversal of the reality - but now instead we have the claim that the PS is already sharing the pain, despite not losing pensions, jobs, contracts, etc, in any equivalent numbers.

Public sector workers shouldn't think that most people in the private sector want them to suffer unfairly, but what seems to be at issue is that the public sector believe any cut in core pay is unfair - whereas the private sector does mostly believe that the public sector taking no core pay cut is unfair. So we have different definitions of unfair.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

Depends how their pay and conditions have been altered. I would not consider it "sharing the pain" if public servant A has a 4% pay cut (after tax relief is applied and assuming you accept the pension levy is a pay cut) to a lad getting a 100% pay cut and going on the dole.

ah yes....revenge...there are many with that sort of viewpoint

The public sector will see no job losses from any permanent staff. In this light, I think it's fair that their pay should be cut much more.

there are 3,000 less public servants now than this time last year

In any case-there's no money to pay the wages as tax revenues have nosedived and the private sector is in trouble.

er..yes I think we got that from the other million threads!

mickoneill30

Riskymove wrote: »

there are 3,000 less public servants now than this time last year

When you quote that you should quote how many people have become unemployed in total since this time last year.

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

ah yes....revenge...there are many with that sort of viewpoint

Equity isn't the same as revenge. Nor can one claim that one is being "singled out" for pain if one is "sharing the pain". You appear to wish to claim both - and the accurate version of the claim made on this thread makes it clear that you can't have the "singled out" argument.

Riskymove wrote: »

there are 3,000 less public servants now than this time last year

And, just to compare apples with apples, how many of those were permanent positions as the man said?

Riskymove wrote: »

er..yes I think we got that from the other million threads!

I don't think you have got it, actually.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not yet, since all that's happened is the pensions levy and a bit of a cut-back in temporary contracts.

ah i see.....but thats whats been done specifically to the public service,

i.e. in addition to the general pain they have shared with the private sector with regards to income levy, pRSI, health levies etc

or is that to be ignored

Just to remind you of the amount your goalposts have moved - the point of this thread was that since 70% of companies had not suffered pay cuts, asking public sector workers to "share the pain" was a crock. That argument has obviously had to be abandoned, given it was based on an almost perfect reversal of the reality - but now instead we have the claim that the PS is already sharing the pain, despite not losing pensions, jobs, contracts, etc, in any equivalent numbers.

First of all I think you need to have a quick read of my first few posts on this thread and what i thought of it

after that I'd ask, like the poster above, do you feel the only way for public sector to contribute to recovery or to "share pain" is if 10%(i.e. comparable amounts) of them are fired and put on the dole?

what would that achieve?

Tipp Man

Riskymove wrote: »

there are 3,000 less public servants now than this time last year

So thats less than 1% of the entire PS, also how many of these were full time employees?? How many are on career breaks?? How many retired but not replaced??

No how many private sector workers have lost their jobs in the last 18 months??

jon1981

not every industry enjoyed the boom years with over inflated salaries, and regular yearly increases...there are industries out there that kept modest salaries...see no relevance to that statistic.

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

Equity isn't the same as revenge

.

it seems to be at the moment

some people have lost jobs therefore the same amount of public servants must lose theirs in order to "share the pain" even if it is not neccessary

Nor can one claim that one is being "singled out" for pain if one is "sharing the pain". You appear to wish to claim both

I claim no such thing

can you please show me where I have claimed that the public service is bieng singled out and that there is no pain in the private sector

And, just to compare apples with apples, how many of those were permanent positions as the man said?

off the top of my head I dont know

were all those now unemployed in full-time permanent jobs?

I don't think you have got it, actually.

thats an extremely condescending comment

I think its clear from my contributions to discussions that I am well aware of the current situation

its my clear view, expressed on many threads that

the public pay bill, welfare and other expenditure all have to be reduced

I have also called for benchmarking awards to be reversed

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

ah i see.....but thats whats been done specifically to the public service,

i.e. in addition to the general pain they have shared with the private sector with regards to income levy, pRSI, health levies etc

or is that to be ignored

No, it's not to be ignored, but it does have to be compared to the job security, conditions, and pensions of the public sector.

Riskymove wrote: »

First of all I think you need to have a quick read of my first few posts on this thread and what i thought of it

after that I'd ask, like the poster above, do you feel the only way for public sector to contribute to recovery or to "share pain" is if 10%(i.e. comparable amounts) of them are fired and put on the dole?

what would that achieve?

No, I'd prefer you were kept on, but took a commensurate pay cut - that is, I'd rather you took a 10% pay cut than 10% of you were fired. I'd also rather you came up with 10% of savings from the wage bill (which would actually be a larger saving than a 10% pay cut) without pay cuts or redundancies, but I can't see how that will work, and haven't seen any constructive suggestions to that effect. If you have a suggestion for reducing the costs of employing public servants without reducing their wages, now would be a good time to put it forward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

Tipp Man wrote: »

Riskymove wrote: »

No how many private sector workers have lost their jobs in the last 18 months??

were they all in one sector of the private sector?

is there a relevance to a private:public ratio

the reduction in numbers is start with plans for up to 17,000

but again such things are just dismissed

So thats less than 1% of the entire PS, also how many of these were full time employees?? How many are on career breaks?? How many retired but not replaced??

what does it matter?

there are 3,000 less being paid

why do people want to see people fired just for being public servants

its about reducing the public sector pay bill.....not firing people to feel better...isn't it?