70% of companies have not had pay cuts

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?

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

.

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

I don't see people calling for that - I see people calling for a reduction in the PS wage bill, saying things like "how would you like it if you were made redundant", and saying that they believe that redundancies in the PS are necessary. That's not the same as calling for redundancies "even if it is not necessary".

Riskymove wrote: »

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

That's what all those comments about 'revenge', and indeed your comments above, come to. If you want to play the "I didn't use that exact phrase" game, it will be a short game.

Riskymove wrote: »

off the top of my head I dont know

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

That's what 'unemployed' means out here, in effect. If they weren't in full-time permanent jobs they had sufficient part-time work before to not need to sign on.

How many of that reduction in PS numbers have actually gone on the dole?

Riskymove wrote: »

thats an extremely condescending comment

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

I can see that you think that.

Riskymove wrote: »

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

That would certainly be a good start - and if it were sufficient, would be sufficient. I appreciate there's a good amount of PS-bashing going on, but don't mistake the few vocal PS-bashers for the majority of people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

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.

look, its either about getting the public sector pay bill to a sustainable level or it isn't

that should be the aim here

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.

there are plenty of such suggestions floating around

as I said they has already been over €2bn shaved off the pay bill without a straight pay cut with the measures already taken

a further €1.3bn is to be taken off in this budget and is likely to involve a pay cut

however some other things which could be considered instead of a cut or indeed in conjuction with a lower cut are:

extended working day
overtime strictly controlled and paud at reduced rates where necessary
compulsary unpaid leave
rationalisation of allowances
step-back increment scales

if there was to be a pay cut I would personally prefer to see the cut being the reversal of ebnchmarking awards rather than a straight across the board cut, thus meaning those who benfitted from that cynical exercise the most are cut the most and vice versa.

Scofflaw

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?

Before or after discussing these things with PS posters here? Your constant victimology and creation of straw men is definitely tipping me towards the latter.

He hasn't called for PS workers to be fired - he's pointing out that it's a form of pain you're not sharing. Those are not the same thing.

regards,
Scofflaw

herya

Riskymove wrote: »

if there was to be a pay cut I would personally prefer to see the cut being the reversal of ebnchmarking awards rather than a straight across the board cut, thus meaning those who benfitted from that cynical exercise the most are cut the most and vice versa.

Well said, that's how it should be done. But probably won't just now because of time constraints - might still be done in the future as the savings would be bigger that modest cuts they can aim at now.

BTW it's not the reversal of benchmarking, it's simply benchmarking. It cuts both ways.

maxximus

maxximus, like 100% of public sector workers have taken a pay cut , now mike c that is something you are unwilling to believe .

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't see people calling for that - I see people calling for a reduction in the PS wage bill, saying things like "how would you like it if you were made redundant", and saying that they believe that redundancies in the PS are necessary. That's not the same as calling for redundancies "even if it is not necessary".

well i beleive it is not necessary for any public servant to be made redundant in order to get the pay bill to a sustainable level (though there are those who should be fired for other reasons, believe me)

10% of the workforce have become unemployed, most in the construction sector....while my interpretation to "some" of the abve posts is that public servants pain must be compared to someone losing their job, yet losing your job is not the norm in the private sector.

thats what I mean when i talk about "revenge"

no-where will you find me arguing that the pay bill is sustainable or does not need to be tackled opr that public servants are singled out

How many of that reduction in PS numbers have actually gone on the dole?

how can one know that, but obviusly only a very small number - contract workers not being renewed for example

but as my comments above are about - how is that relevant, how is firing people when not neccessary going to achieve anything?

I can see that you think that.

sigh...continue in that vein if you must

That would certainly be a good start - and if it were sufficient, would be sufficient. I appreciate there's a good amount of PS-bashing going on, but don't mistake the few vocal PS-bashers for the majority of people.

my comments about revenge were made to specific posts not to all and sundry

seangal

jimmmy wrote: »

And what about the silent hundreds of thousands not with the luxury of guaranteed paychecks, or the option of going on the dole ? The self employed , not just the builder , architect + sparky but the shopkeeper, the salesman, the farmer, the repair man, the maker of luxury goods, the service provider....most of whose incomes are well down if not decimated, and pensions almost worthless, but yet they have no union which will whinge for them...

Go ask them where they put the money the ripped off the irish people for the last 10 years.
They must have got some monet inflation was running at over 5 %
o i remember now they spend it on 5 hoilday a year and a new four wheel drive every year

MikeC101

maxximus wrote: »

maxximus, like 100% of public sector workers have taken a pay cut , now mike c that is something you are unwilling to believe .

Why would I be unwilling to believe it? The issue is that, in light of the state of our current public finances, it's not enough and they're going to have to take more, like it or not.

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

Before or after discussing these things with PS posters here? Your constant victimology and creation of straw men is definitely tipping me towards the latter.

you have decided to take the view I am protraying some kind of victimology and cant see past it

He hasn't called for PS workers to be fired - he's pointing out that it's a form of pain you're not sharing. Those are not the same thing.

then my point again, can the public sector ever seen to be sharing the pain unless some are fired?

even if being fired is only what has happened to a small proportion of the workforce

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

well i beleive it is not necessary for any public servant to be made redundant in order to get the pay bill to a sustainable level (though there are those who should be fired for other reasons, believe me)

10% of the workforce have become unemployed, most in the construction sector....while my interpretation to "some" of the abve posts is that public servants pain must be compared to someone losing their job, yet losing your job is not the norm in the private sector.

thats what I mean when i talk about "revenge"

And that's what I mean when I say you don't actually get it - it's not solely a question of whether one has lost one's job, but of the risk of losing one's job. Nor does the additional 10% on the dole mean that 10% of the private sector have lost their jobs and the other 90% haven't - it means that an additional 10% of the private sector are currently experiencing unemployment.

If, of 10 people employed, 4 experience 3 months unemployment in a year - the first from Jan-Mar, the second from Apr-Jun, the third from Jul-Sep, and the last from Oct-Dec, then a snapshot at any point will show 1 person unemployed (10% of the 10). However 40% of the 10 will have experienced unemployment during the year - so the risk of unemployment in this imaginary cohort is 40%, not 10% as you would read it.

Riskymove wrote: »

no-where will you find me arguing that the pay bill is sustainable or does not need to be tackled opr that public servants are singled out

how can one know that, but obviusly only a very small number - contract workers not being renewed for example

but as my comments above are about - how is that relevant, how is firing people when not neccessary going to achieve anything?

You "beleive it is not necessary for any public servant to be made redundant in order to get the pay bill to a sustainable level". Other people disagree.

Riskymove wrote: »

sigh...continue in that vein if you must

I'm not seeing anything to change my mind.

Riskymove wrote: »

my comments about revenge were made to specific posts not to all and sundry

No, they're made whenever anyone mentions redundancy - and whether you believe that redundancies in the PS are necessary or not, redundancy is certainly part of the discussion.

regards,
Scofflaw

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

but as my comments above are about - how is that relevant, how is firing people when not neccessary going to achieve anything?

I don't think the bulk of the private sector want to see mass sackings from the public sector. We still need the services provided by the public sector, we just can't afford to pay what we've paid you in the past for your work.

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

you have decided to take the view I am protraying some kind of victimology and cant see past it

Like I said, I'm not seeing anything to change my view of it.

Riskymove wrote: »

then my point again, can the public sector ever seen to be sharing the pain unless some are fired?

even if being fired is only what has happened to a small proportion of the workforce

Let's go with an analogy. Two soldiers go into combat. One suffers the loss of both legs in an IED attack. The second suffers some bad cuts.

When the second soldier says "hey, I suffered too", he's telling the truth. However, if he says "I shared the pain" he's making an unrealistic comparison. And when the first soldier says "but you didn't lose your legs" he's not calling for the other soldier to have his legs cut off - he is pointing out the disparity in the level of suffering, which renders meaningless the claim of the second soldier to have shared the pain.

You're not suffering an increased risk of redundancy, or the reality of redundancy, so you're not really "sharing the pain". That doesn't mean you should suffer redundancy, it means your claim is meaningless. If you suffered a level of pay cuts equivalent to the risk and reality of redundancy in the private sector, you could make that claim meaningfully. Currently, you can't.

You're trying to equate your type of pain with a much larger and quite different type of pain that you have no actual experience of.

regards,
Scofflaw

seangal

Look AIB says it all about private sector employers
Greed Greed and more greed
To protect profits private sector sack people
And now the private sector has gone back to the black economy
Anybody now that I ask to to a job for me will only take cash
Private sector cause all this and have destroyed 2 generation to come
Shame and them and shame on anybody who try’s to stand up for them

murphaph

seangal wrote: »

Look AIB says it all about private sector employers

If you believe that a bank represents the entire private sector you really haven't a clue.

How does this bank (supported against their will by private sector taxpayers) compare to the bloke who serves you your french fries in McDonalds?

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not seeing anything to change my mind.

my activity on this thread:

1. to criticise the use of the 70% statistic as a smokescreen to hide private sector redundancies, unpaid leave etc which does not help anyone

2. a discussion on whether private sector wages are also high affecting competitiveness

3. a disagreement that a pay cut is strictly neccessary in tackling the pay bill

4. an argument that all public servants have had some change in pay/conditions and that more is on they way and that they are "sharing"

5. a disagreement that public servants must be compared to losing your job (or the risk of losing your job if you like) in order to be "sharing"

6. setting out how the pay bill needs to be tackled, is being tackled and will be tackled further - suggesting any pay cut be a reversal of benchmarking


nowhere do i say the pay bill should not be tackled

nowhere so I say the public sector is being singled out

nowhere do i say i would not take a pay cut



you seem to be isolating this "revenge" comment and attempting to portray me as someone with a victim complex who is trying to ignore reality

I have to disagree strongly with that view

I am entitled to a view that redundancies are not necessary purely for finanical reasons and that public servants do not have to face unemployment before they are contributing to the solving of our current crisis or "sharing pain"....

seclachi

Yet another public sector/private sector thread, I never fail to be mystified by some peoples attitudes on both sides of the camps. What I hate the most is this kind of weird eye for an eye thing, I got a paycut, therefore you should. (its at its most funny when public sector workers say it, not realising the loss of income tax is a pay cut for them too)

Im disappointed by the unions on the PS side, the pension levy cant really compare with the rampant job losses suffered in the private sector, and the pay cuts on everybody else. The sad truth of this climate is that some companies arent even doing that badly, but when they see people "sharing the pain" and that pay cuts are the norm they charge in and slap in a few pay cuts of there own.

Look AIB says it all about private sector employers
Greed Greed and more greed
To protect profits private sector sack people
And now the private sector has gone back to the black economy
Anybody now that I ask to to a job for me will only take cash
Private sector cause all this and have destroyed 2 generation to come
Shame and them and shame on anybody who try’s to stand up for them

In a captalist society people will do what ever is legal to make money, if the government dont see a behaviour as being a threat (aka cos there useless) they wont make a law against it and the country goes down the jacks. The governement have of course partaken in all the nonsense of the last few years to there own benifit as well, and that of the public sector.

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're trying to equate your type of pain with a much larger and quite different type of pain that you have no actual experience of.

so your view is that the public service cannot be "sharing the pain" until they have felt the same pain as those who have suffered the most in the private sector, even if its not the norm

well for me thats not sharing or working together or equity

Dannyboy83

Ah, on second thoughts, not constructive. Ignore.

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they're made whenever anyone mentions redundancy - and whether you believe that redundancies in the PS are necessary or not, redundancy is certainly part of the discussion.

no thats not true

i have no problem discussing the idea of whtehr redundancies are required in the public service to bring the wage bill to a sustainable level and have done on occassions

it is the concept that redundancies must happen simply because they have happened in the private sector or that public servants must suffer significant cuts in order to be comparable with the private sector is what i took issue with

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

so your view is that the public service cannot be "sharing the pain" until they have felt the same pain as those who have suffered the most in the private sector, even if its not the norm

well for me thats not sharing or working together or equity

Again you've missed the point. Everyone in the private sector currently has an increased risk of redundancy, and you don't.

regards,
Scofflaw