What would the public sector accept?

Bruce2008

I just thought of something... a rare happening in itself...

If the Public Service are so overpaid ...

and we give them a wage cut ...

then they will have less to spend ....

so there will be less taxes coming in :eek:...

so we have to reduce spending more :eek:...

so we give them another wage cut :mad:...

ahhhhhhhh my head is spinning ....

oh but then the Public Service are spending all their wages up the north so a wage cut wont affect our tax income :rolleyes:....

now I can rest easy .....

ei.sdraob

Bruce2008 wrote: »

I just thought of something... a rare happening in itself...

If the Public Service are so overpaid ...

and we give them a wage cut ...

then they will have less to spend ....

so there will be less taxes coming in :eek:...

so we have to reduce spending more :eek:...

so we give them another wage cut :mad:...

ahhhhhhhh my head is spinning ....

oh but then the Public Service are spending all their wages up the north so a wage cut wont affect our tax income :rolleyes:....

now I can rest easy .....

you must be a teacher? your maths is all funny



whats better?

scenario A:
take a loan of 100 > payout 100 > tax 50
result: 50 in coffers + owe 100 + owe 10 interest on this ( total of -60 )

scenario B:
take a loan of 70 > payout 70 > tax 35
result: 35 in coffers + owe 70 + owe 7.5 interest on this (total of -52.5)


the public sector gravy riders forget that the money taken in debt to pay them

will have to be paid back

+ interest

and it will have to be paid back by wealth/exports generate by the private sector



i swear it maddens me to explain simple economics

Bruce2008

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i swear it maddens me to explain simple economics

Then don't do it.....

I'm not a teacher by the way... just someone that has a sense of humour...

not someone with the time to spout boring maths and expect anyone else to be actually interested in it...

I wait in anticapation for your reply...:D

damo

'boring maths'

ok.....so tell me, where can we find 500 million euro a week to without reducing public sector pay?

enough of this already.....bring in the imf.

P. Breathnach

damo wrote: »

... enough of this already.....bring in the imf.

No chance.

Fortunately.

seclachi

damo wrote: »

'boring maths'

ok.....so tell me, where can we find 500 million euro a week to without reducing public sector pay?

enough of this already.....bring in the imf.

Im guessing the EU would kicking before the IMF did, they dont want any embarrassment.

damo

No chance?

Why is there no chance exactly?

Bruce2008

damo wrote: »

'boring maths'

ok.....so tell me, where can we find 500 million euro a week to without reducing public sector pay?

enough of this already.....bring in the imf.

The only thing that will interest ye lot come budget day is how hard will the government hit the public sector...

then ye will all go away happy....:D

until sometime later in the middle of a daydream you will suddenly realise every other cut the government has snuck in underneath all the talk of public sector pay...

then and only then will you realise you have been duped...:eek:

damo

Bruce2008 wrote: »

The only thing that will interest ye lot come budget day is how hard will the government hit the public sector...

then ye will all go away happy....:D

until sometime later in the middle of a daydream you will suddenly realise every other cut the government has snuck in underneath all the talk of public sector pay...

then and only then will you realise you have been duped...:eek:

Bruce,

I'm really not sure after reading your posts that you have a fundamental grasp of the economic reality that faces ireland.

What will interest me come budget day is not how hard the government hits the poor 'victimised' (my arse) public sector, what will interest me is what steps we have taken towards economic recovery. The international markets need to see signifcant steps taken to address the budget deficit so that they will keep lending us money (because you do understand that the country is bankrupt, right?)

I'll be interested to see if we have taken steps towards regaining our lost competitiveness in order to attract foreign investment back to the country some day. We need job and wealth creation in the real economy (the private sector) in order to enable us to pay the public sector.

So, you didnt answer my previous question - How do we go about addressing the massive budget deficit without reducing pay and numbers in the public sector? If you're so opposed to these cuts what alternatives do you offer?

gerry28

Personally speaking i'm willing to give nothing away... they can (and prob will) take more money of me in the budget. They will take it of me kicking and screaming though.

I can't swallow all this 'share the pain', 'parity of pain', 'pay my share' rubbish.

Are the really rich offering to 'pay their share', 'share the pain'.... not a chance - many of them are not even willing to pay their taxes here. Has any of the people who lead us down this path offered anything??

In germany the rich offered to put together a fund to help the country. Our rich have done a runner with their celtic tiger gold.

But all the talk is of 'parity of pain' for the ordinary plebs like me on 28K a year.

I don't really care if i lose my job in the PS. After I pay my mortgage and running costs for my car to get to work, i'm left with between 150 and 180 a week. Whats it all for.... friends of mine getting rent allowance and dole are as well off.

This country is ruined as it is - maybe we'd be better off it it all crashed and we built it up from scratch again.

Bruce2008

damo wrote: »

Bruce,

I'm really not sure after reading your posts that you have a fundamental grasp of the economic reality that faces ireland.

and you do... are you David McWilliams in disguise???

damo wrote: »

(because you do understand that the country is bankrupt, right?)

he's talking down to me again....
are we officially bankrupt or does it just suit your argument to make us bankrupt... we have been worse off... maybe you don't remember the bad times before the good times?

damo wrote: »

We need job and wealth creation in the real economy (the private sector) in order to enable us to pay the public sector.

oh please come and save us from our public sector sins, please private sector become rich again so we can be paid.... didn't ye make enough money last time around... or did you blow on the housing market???

damo wrote: »

So, you didnt answer my previous question - How do we go about addressing the massive budget deficit without reducing pay and numbers in the public sector? If you're so opposed to these cuts what alternatives do you offer?

Lets see...hands up anyone (apart from thierry henry, you keep you hands well down!!!) who made money in the good times.... yes public sector aswell... are we all willing to give a bit to the ould country... yes private sector aswell... yes even those who pretend to be bankrupt behind the big gates... if the celtic tiger created so much wealth in this country... where is it gone??? cause if we could find it... share the pain... share the pain is the cry from our leader...

I'm not saying public sector should not be touched... but every other tax hits private and public... this cut is public only... next time around if they said it was a tax on private only the private sector would erupt... its like the private sector is hiding behind cuts for the public sector to avoid more cuts for them... its feckin handbags at dawn... venue and date to be decided... stay tuned....

average_runner

Giving people upaid leave is great if they have the money to do something with it.

Wont help a person creche fees as they are paid if kid is there or not for those 14 days!

Just makes the public servants look really stupid now, they strike for no reason and now got a worst scenario.

Goverment laughing all the way now, keep the rich guys on their side so they get the vote!!

a 100,000 a year salary takes the same percentage cut as a 30,000 salary!

MaceFace

average_runner wrote: »

Giving people upaid leave is great if they have the money to do something with it.

Wont help a person creche fees as they are paid if kid is there or not for those 14 days!

Just makes the public servants look really stupid now, they strike for no reason and now got a worst scenario.

Goverment laughing all the way now, keep the rich guys on their side so they get the vote!!

a 100,000 a year salary takes the same percentage cut as a 30,000 salary!

Agree and until the Union members stand up for themselves and demand for "a fairer way" the rich will get richer!

Count Dooku

average_runner wrote: »

a 100,000 a year salary takes the same percentage cut as a 30,000 salary!

But unions will sell to their members as
1) it was not pay cut, just unpaid leave
2) everybody in public sector must share their pain equally
and PS workers will buy it

I don’t understand how low paid workers can still believe that unions on their side and not using them as shield to protect high paid civil servants

diverdriver

I said it in every other thread that mentioned this subject. Unpaid leave is a pay cut. No one is going to be fooled by that. The unions are run by idiots.

Count Dooku

diverdriver wrote: »

I said it in every other thread that mentioned this subject. Unpaid leave is a pay cut. No one is going to be fooled by that. The unions are run by idiots.

I think it is opposite
Union leaders sure that their member are idiots

kippy

To be honest, its the "best" form of a pay cut that there is.
People still in jobs, their wages will no doubt be spread over the whole year and they can do what their like with their unpaid leave, whether that be further education, spend more time with their families, do bits and pieces otherwise.......

I personally believe its a good way of pushing a pay cut and as a public service member I dont think its as bad as a straight pay cut - ie working the same amount for less money.


The actual pay cuts will probably come next year.
It wont suit everyone, but something like this had to be done.

average_runner

Yes its a pay cut but not a fair pay cut, ie lower pay taking the same percentage as a high pay person!

Not in the PS but i thought the whole strike was to get a fair deal for the lower pay!

kippy

average_runner wrote: »

Yes its a pay cut but not a fair pay cut, ie lower pay taking the same percentage as a high pay person!

Not in the PS but i thought the whole strike was to get a fair deal for the lower pay!

So basicilly the lower paid should get less unpaid leave?
5 days as opposed to 10?

I suppose that could work.

Riskymove

average_runner wrote: »

Yes its a pay cut but not a fair pay cut, ie lower pay taking the same percentage as a high pay person!

Not in the PS but i thought the whole strike was to get a fair deal for the lower pay!

so your interpretation of "fair" is that someone should lose a higher proportion of their pay than someone else?

P. Breathnach

diverdriver wrote: »

I said it in every other thread that mentioned this subject. Unpaid leave is a pay cut. No one is going to be fooled by that.

While I do not think the proposal is likely to achieve a great deal because it is unworkable in vast areas of the public service, it does entail giving people something in exchange for the pay they forgo: extra leisure time. Private sector workers on a three-day week know that their pay has been reduced, but accept the situation on the basis that it is better than the alternative.

The unions are run by idiots.

Unions are democratic organisations. In a broad sense, they are run as their members want them run.

The advantages of this proposal over straight pay cuts lie in the fact that nominal pay rates are maintained. This protects pensions (how do you put me on unpaid leave?); overtime rates are maintained; the unions can interpret this as a temporary measure, to be rolled back when conditions improve.

But I think there are so many difficulties in implementation that the usefulness of the proposal is fairly limited.

[As a general observation, I would say that participants here who accuse people of being idiots or morons do not show strong evidence of being any wiser than those they condemn.]

diverdriver

Don't call me an idiot Breathnach, if you think you can avoid been accused of ad hominen by that subtle inflection think again.

Unions are democratic organisations. In a broad sense, they are run as their members want them run.

I've been and around unions long enough to know that not neccessarily true, you know it as well. Oh sure there are elections, shop stewards are elected, officials are elected. All very democratic on the surface. Not so when you dig a bit. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I've also being around unions long enough to form an opinion of one or two of the leadership who I've met personally. Perhaps idiot and moron is too kind, quite frankly.

Darragh29

What the public sector needs now is permanent unpaid leave for those that are in unproductive paperpusher positions, the civil service is artifically inflated by 10-20%, with thousands of useless quango's and the likes.

ixoy

A few weeks ago one of the unions (IMPACT I think) had an advertising campaign with a little baby on it, purporting that cuts would affect the little baby and how we should support the PS.
Now this same union is going for a tactic that would affect said baby far more than a pay cut would - how do they stand behind their original campaign?

jimmycrackcorm

ixoy wrote: »

A few weeks ago one of the unions (IMPACT I think) had an advertising campaign with a little baby on it, purporting that cuts would affect the little baby and how we should support the PS.
Now this same union is going for a tactic that would affect said baby far more than a pay cut would - how do they stand behind their original campaign?

Said baby gets some quality unpaid leave time with one or more parents perhaps?

Ste.phen

ixoy wrote: »

A few weeks ago one of the unions (IMPACT I think) had an advertising campaign with a little baby on it, purporting that cuts would affect the little baby and how we should support the PS.
Now this same union is going for a tactic that would affect said baby far more than a pay cut would - how do they stand behind their original campaign?

Shh, you're not supposed to notice inconvenient things like that

jimmycrackcorm

average_runner wrote: »

Yes its a pay cut but not a fair pay cut, ie lower pay taking the same percentage as a high pay person!

Not in the PS but i thought the whole strike was to get a fair deal for the lower pay!

The person with higher pay will have higher expenses such as a bigger mortgage so that the cut is have an equal end-effect.

You could almost argue that single people renting accommodation could take a higher pay cut regardless of income because they could go back to living with mammy

McTigs

kippy wrote: »

So basicilly the lower paid should get less unpaid leave?
5 days as opposed to 10?

I suppose that could work.

They probably do most of the work anyway so more than 5 days wouldn't be feasable.

P. Breathnach

diverdriver wrote: »

Don't call me an idiot Breathnach, if you think you can avoid been accused of ad hominen by that subtle inflection think again.

I didn't call you an idiot. I suggested that you have shown no evidence of being wiser than those you choose to call idiots. Now it seems that you want carte blanche to use offensive language about people who happen not to be here and with whom you disagree, but you also want to be exempt from the use of any phrasing that might relate to you and to which you take exception.

My core objection to your posting style is the unnecessary use of terms of abuse. It reduces discussion to the level of name-calling.

I've been and around unions long enough to know that not neccessarily true, you know it as well.

So it's okay to characterise me as a liar?

Oh sure there are elections, shop stewards are elected, officials are elected. All very democratic on the surface. Not so when you dig a bit. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I've also being around unions long enough to form an opinion of one or two of the leadership who I've met personally. Perhaps idiot and moron is too kind, quite frankly.

I won't give ground to many on personal experience of how unions work, as I was an active trade unionist for many years. I can probably trump any anecdotal evidence that you can offer with my anecdotal evidence. That's why I qualified my judgement that "they are run as their members want them run" with "in a broad sense".

There are two main reasons why the democracy in unions is mediated by the leadership, one bad and one good.

The bad one is that unions attract people who like the political game, and seek to win power and influence simply because it is there to be contested. In that, unions parallel all types of organisation including our system for national government, sporting bodies, and social and cultural organisations.

The good reason is that unions need to be more orderly than mobs, and to have a strategy rather than a series of randomly-adopted tactical moves. Yet, as the membership often has the unconsidering attitude of the mob, they need also to give some expression to the mood of the members. It's a subtle balancing act which they sometimes manage very well, other times less so.

P. Breathnach

McTigs wrote: »

They probably do most of the work anyway so more than 5 days wouldn't be feasable.

That's cheap shot stuff.

Having worked for years alongside people at lower, median, and higher pay levels, I think that I can fairly say that those at the higher levels generally work harder.