70% of companies have not had pay cuts

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.