Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

70% of companies have not had pay cuts

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


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

    and you have again missed mine

    I cant agree that the only way public servants can contribute or share pain is to also be exposed to an increased risk of redundancy


  • Options
    #123
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    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

    Let me get this straight...

    Instead of cutting the wage budget for a group of people you would rather cut the service budget for everyone...?

    Don't you think that's a bit selfish?

    For the record service expenditure is being cut at a rate of €3 for every €1 in wage cuts.


  • Options
    #124
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Riskymove wrote: »
    and you have again missed mine

    I cant agree that the only way public servants can contribute or share pain is to also be exposed to an increased risk of redundancy

    I've pointed out repeatedly that I'm not requiring that they should be - only that in the absence of that, or equivalent, they cannot claim to be "sharing the pain" in any meaningful sense.


    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #125
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Riskymove wrote: »
    I cant agree that the only way public servants can contribute or share pain is to also be exposed to an increased risk of redundancy

    Nobody would argue that " the only way public servants can contribute or share pain is to also be exposed to an increased risk of redundancy" when glaringly obvious measures also need to be taken eg reducing public sector pay and pensions.


  • Options
    #126
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Let me get this straight...

    Instead of cutting the wage budget for a group of people you would rather cut the service budget for everyone...?

    Don't you think that's a bit selfish?

    For the record service expenditure is being cut at a rate of €3 for every €1 in wage cuts.

    no you dont have it straight at all

    €2bn has been shaved off the PUBLIC SECTOR PAY BILL not the "services budget"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    murphaph wrote: »
    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?
    well you are quick to asume what you read in the media about public sector is true and that it represents what the public sector is all about


  • Options
    #128
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Riskymove wrote: »
    no you dont have it straight at all

    €2bn has been shaved off the PUBLIC SECTOR PAY BILL not the "services budget"

    I suggest you update yourself on the latest cuts.

    €3 billion is going to come from services/infrastructure projects, etc., €1 billion from the public service.

    It was in this weekend's Sunday Business Post.


  • Options
    #129
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Riskymove, do you really not understand Scofflaw's point?

    I'm not being smart here, I just don't see how you can possibly clarify it anymore than that soldier analogy he has given.

    What is the difference in risk?
    What is the opportunity cost of public over private? (There no longer is one, if ever there was one, for people at the skill level of a teacher)


  • Options
    #130
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I've pointed out repeatedly that I'm not requiring that they should be - only that in the absence of that, or equivalent, they cannot claim to be "sharing the pain" in any meaningful sense.

    i'm sorry but I dont see any difference between that and saying "in order to be sharing the pain public servants must be exposed to a risk of redundancy"


  • Options
    #131
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    I suggest you update yourself on the latest cuts.

    €3 billion is going to come from services/infrastructure projects, etc., €1 billion from the public service.

    It was in this weekend's Sunday Business Post.

    thats next year

    there has already been over €2bn shaved off the public sector bill through actions taken this year

    the €1.3bn will be in addition to that


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    herya
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭herya


    Riskymove wrote: »
    i'm sorry but I dont see any difference between that and saying "in order to be sharing the pain public servants must be exposed to a risk of redundancy"

    Easy.

    You risk redundancy, you can claim you share the pain.
    You have job security, you can't claim you share the pain.

    That's assuming that everybody gets similar paycuts, which is another story.


  • Options
    #133
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Let me get this straight...

    Instead of cutting the wage budget for a group of people you would rather cut the service budget for everyone...?

    Don't you think that's a bit selfish?

    For the record service expenditure is being cut at a rate of €3 for every €1 in wage cuts.
    By cutting the wage budget you are also cutting the service to the people.Moral in the public sector is as low now as it was in the early 1990 which is going to have a massive effect on service.
    i believe we were at a turning point in reform of the public sector but that is all gone now and it is a shame


  • Options
    #134
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Riskymove wrote: »
    i'm sorry but I dont see any difference between that and saying "in order to be sharing the pain public servants must be exposed to a risk of redundancy"

    That would only be a valid argument, if the only way of "sharing pain" was redundancy risk.
    But that is irrational.


  • Options
    #135
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    herya wrote: »
    You risk redundancy, you can claim you share the pain.
    You have job security, you can't claim you share the pain.
    .

    thats how i interpret scofflaws views alright but I cannot agree

    are you really saying irregardless of what cuts we take, practices we change etc we can never be said to be sharing the pain unless we are exposed to a risk of redundancy?


  • Options
    #136
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    herya wrote: »
    Easy.

    You risk redundancy, you can claim you share the pain.
    You have job security, you can't claim you share the pain.

    That's assuming that everybody gets similar paycuts, which is another story.
    man if they had the guts to do it they could take away job security in the morning and let go 30k people who were employed after 1995 but dont blame the public sector employees if it employer has no guts


  • Options
    #137
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    seangal wrote: »
    man if they had the guts to do it they could take away job security in the morning and let go 30k people who were employed after 1995 but dont blame the public sector employees if it employer has no guts


    Thats a very valid point, a lot of these PS threads strike a cord with the common man because of the vast difference in renumeration the PS enjoy but I can also understand the PS workers for being a bit miffed at the constant attacks (justified in most cases,not all).

    They only did what anyone of us would do and pushed(using unions) for higher pay and expenses. Lucky for them and to the detriment of the country they got it because of a weak Government.

    The real culprits are FF and to some extent the PD/Greens for getting into bed with them and watching the economy go up in flames because of ignorant/arrogant deceisions made over the last 10 years.



    To any PS workers I would like to say please dont expect an easy ride but most people understand why your fighting to stay in the cushy numbers you have.


  • Options
    #138
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    seangal wrote: »
    By cutting the wage budget you are also cutting the service to the people.

    I reckon you could computerise quite a few of the paper based jobs, i.e. do what Revenue did.


  • Options
    #139
    herya
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭herya


    Riskymove wrote: »
    thats how i interpret scofflaws views alright but I cannot agree

    are you really saying irregardless of what cuts we take, practices we change etc we can never be said to be sharing the pain unless we are exposed to a risk of redundancy?

    You could - if it really happened - but probably not equally, only to a degree. If "the pain" consists of several factors and you're immune to a significant one it's only logical, no?

    You can share some of the pain then.


  • Options
    #140
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Riskymove wrote: »
    I've pointed out repeatedly that I'm not requiring that they should be - only that in the absence of that, or equivalent, they cannot claim to be "sharing the pain" in any meaningful sense.
    i'm sorry but I dont see any difference between that and saying "in order to be sharing the pain public servants must be exposed to a risk of redundancy"

    Well, now I've highlighted it for you - it's the "or equivalent" bit. It's quite possible to put a monetary value on job security. You take a pay cut that's equivalent to the monetary value of your job security, and then you can claim to be 'sharing the pain'.

    Simple. Just to give you an idea, the 'risk premium' for a self-employed person on a given job of work is about 50% - that is, we charge 50% above what a permanent employee would charge to do the same work, to cover for the fact that each job of work has to be won individually.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #141
    maxximus
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭maxximus


    so now scofflaw wants to penalise the public sector for having the common sense to achieve security in their position , most who will have chose that career path before the boom.

    forgive me , ha ha ha , that is most ridiculous thing i have heard on here and epitomises the bitterness and begrudgery that is prevalent from people in this post tiger depression.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    maxximus wrote: »
    so now scofflaw wants to penalise the public sector for having the common sense to achieve security in their position , most who will have chose that career path before the boom.

    forgive me , ha ha ha , that is most ridiculous thing i have heard on here and epitomises the bitterness and begrudgery that is prevalent from people in this post tiger depression.

    ^
    That's what you call deliberately misunderstanding something.


  • Options
    #143
    maxximus
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭maxximus


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    ^
    That's what you call deliberately misunderstanding something.


    oh danny danny danny , the public sector expert on here who approx 75% of his posts are having a go at the ps , enlighten me , please


  • Options
    #144
    NinjaTruncs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭NinjaTruncs


    maxximus the bitterness doesn't come from the fact that PS workers have job security. It comes form the fact that during the boom every year the PS threatened to strike if their wages were not benchmarked against Private wages. now that times are tough and the money isn't around the PS are threatening to strike before any wage cuts are announced.

    And finally answer me this, when did you get your last pay rise?

    4.3kWp South facing PV System. South Dublin



  • Options
    #145
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    maxximus wrote: »
    so now scofflaw wants to penalise the public sector for having the common sense to achieve security in their position , most who will have chose that career path before the boom.

    forgive me , ha ha ha , that is most ridiculous thing i have heard on here and epitomises the bitterness and begrudgery that is prevalent from people in this post tiger depression.

    I never wanted that particular form of security - I've taken, and passed, the PS exams, but prefer being self-employed. I traded security for freedom.

    Do I expect you to have to trade something for the security you value*? When the alternative is that I should pay more taxes in order for you not to have to make a trade-off, I most certainly do, and I will cheerfully support the government in reducing your wages to a level commensurate with the security you enjoy. As it happens, I suspect I'm not alone in that view, and the government has little option in any case, so we shall see who laughs longest in December.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    *I'm assuming you're on the level here, but that assumption is fading.


  • Options
    #146
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    maxximus wrote: »
    oh danny danny danny , the public sector expert on here who approx 75% of his posts are having a go at the ps , enlighten me , please

    Can't be bothered mate.
    If people don't want to understand, they won't.


  • Options
    #147
    maxximus
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭maxximus


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I never wanted that particular form of security - I've taken, and passed, the PS exams, but prefer being self-employed. I traded security for freedom.

    Do I expect you to have to trade something for the security you value*? When the alternative is that I should pay more taxes in order for you not to have to make a trade-off, I most certainly do, and I will cheerfully support the government in reducing your wages to a level commensurate with the security you enjoy. As it happens, I suspect I'm not alone in that view, and the government has little option in any case, so we shall see who laughs longest in December.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    *I'm assuming you're on the level here, but that assumption is fading.
    Well at least you are honest , your bitterness is now there for everyone to see , imo i have traded a pay cut already for the security you so bravely turned down for your freedom . And allow me to laugh at your obvious stupid decision to turn down that security. Psst , ill still have a job after december , he he hee he .

    Regards , Maxximus


  • Options
    #148
    maxximus
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭maxximus


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Can't be bothered mate.
    If people don't want to understand, they won't.


    Danny , so fitting that its you that should utter that statement.:)


  • Options
    #149
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    maxximus wrote: »
    Danny , so fitting that its you that should utter that statement.:)

    ^^
    And thats what we call resistance to change.:)


  • Options
    #150
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    maxximus wrote: »
    Well at least you are honest , your bitterness is now there for everyone to see , imo i have traded a pay cut already for the security you so bravely turned down for your freedom . And allow me to laugh at your obvious stupid decision to turn down that security. Psst , ill still have a job after december , he he hee he .

    Regards , Maxximus

    In fact, this year has been better for me than last, which was in turn better than 2005-2006. Next year currently looks OK, as far as I can tell - and still I have my freedom. You're still in the public sector, and will be as long as you do have a job. Of the two of us, I'd much rather be me.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    herya
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭herya


    maxximus wrote: »
    Well at least you are honest , your bitterness is now there for everyone to see , imo i have traded a pay cut already for the security you so bravely turned down for your freedom . And allow me to laugh at your obvious stupid decision to turn down that security. Psst , ill still have a job after december , he he hee he .

    Lovely! You couldn't represent your kind better.


Advertisement