Public Servants & Mortgages

Mcloke

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

And, I feel, would be welcomed by most members of the Public Service.

Yes I would think so....well those who would keep their jobs anyway which I believe would be many. Honestly, who wants to be the good teacher putting in extra hours in order to do the best by their students (yes it happens) getting a hard time because of their poor colleagues who do the minimum....who wants to be a hard working civil servant working alongside people who take the piss....whether you work in the private or public sector there is nothing more annoying (IMO) than having to work with people who don't do what they should do.

Diarmuid

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

And, I feel, would be welcomed by most members of the Public Service.

Really? Well you should contact your union representative and let them know. Because I have not heard one single union rep support any reduction in numbers.

TGPS

Diarmuid wrote: »

Really? Well you should contact your union representative and let them know. Because I have not heard one single union rep support any reduction in numbers.

Of course not.

Redundancies = less staff = less members = less subs

The turkeys are not going to vote for Christmas even if the membership advocate it.

bbam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't agree, as I have already indicated in an earlier post. Irish consumers tolerate a great deal of poor service. BostonB's examples include firms that give poor service and yet continue to prosper.

Yes... but their bottom line is in the green so they can continue.

Say for example that their salaries, pensions, privledge days and conditions were costing more than their revenue, action would need to be taken.

I appreciate that PS will never be in the green but I also accept that we cannot just go ahead borrowing more and more to sustain the status quo.

Also, I can and do choose not to shop in stores where poor service is given... now I want to choose to pay less to sectors of the PS to help the recovery and survival of the country.

hellboy99

bridgitt wrote: »

The more people shop up North , and if everyone done their shopping and trade and holidays outside the country, the quicker the country will collapse and government cheques bounce, so you are doing the right thing.

Our government need to wake up, start thinking straight and not be driving thousands up north each week, in the UK they brought VAT down, here they put it up, afterwards admitted it was a mistake and still didn't bring it down :rolleyes:. Rent, taxes, running costs are far to high here too.

Look at all what they are purposing in the upcoming budget, that will just send more north. So if your going to place the blame on anyone it should be directed to our government first.

Mcloke

Diarmuid wrote: »

Really? Well you should contact your union representative and let them know. Because I have not heard one single union rep support any reduction in numbers.

TGPS wrote: »

Of course not.

Redundancies = less staff = less members = less subs

The turkeys are not going to vote for Christmas even if the membership advocate it.

Why do you assume Euro_Kraut is a public sector worker...I have no idea and wouldn't assume one way or the other.

Just because Unions may not voice the opinion does not mean that public sector workers do not want or would not support reform....whether they trust the government to do it properly well now thats another debate entirely

and no I am not a public sector worker :rolleyes:

BostonB

Diarmuid wrote: »

Really? Well you should contact your union representative and let them know. Because I have not heard one single union rep support any reduction in numbers.

Public sector deal likely to include job cuts, warns McLoone

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1103/1224257963754.html

I not really a fan of the unions, or their methods. but even they know it has to happen. They are just being difficult to get the best deal they can. Which is their purpose I suppose.

BlackNinja

I'm a public sector worker on €28k after 4 years service(€22k take home money) with my husband out of work i am the sole mortgage and bill payer. I work in a busy public counter office and get abuse day in day out.

Can people look past the job and see the human trying to cope and not cry (laugh if you want but after a while it does ware you down) from being verbally abused all the time about her job and realise that many lower paid public sector workers are supporting an out of work private sector worker husband/partner at home?

The fat cats at the top are the ones pushing up the 'averages' and they and the top government jobs can afford more cuts. It looks to me like the rich well paid people are being shielded by the government which is so corrupt it makes me sick

Thanks for listening

hellboy99

BlackNinja wrote: »

I'm a public sector worker on €28k after 4 years service(€22k take home money) with my husband out of work i am the sole mortgage and bill payer. I work in a busy public counter office and get abuse day in day out.

Can people look past the job and see the human trying to cope and not cry (laugh if you want but after a while it does ware you down) from being verbally abused all the time about her job and realise that many lower paid public sector workers are supporting an out of work private sector worker husband/partner at home?

The fat cats at the top are the ones pushing up the 'averages' and they and the top government jobs can afford more cuts. It looks to me like the rich well paid people are being shielded by the government which is so corrupt it makes me sick

Thanks for listening

That's just it, we don't hear from the likes of yourself taking home well below 30k. All we see and hear are the ones on 55K and above complaining and moaning looking for their mortgages to be paid, these people are really giving the likes of yourself a bad name and tarnishing all PS with the same brush. This is why you get a lot of stick because the majority of us that are not in the public sector think you are all rich.

BlackNinja

hellboy99 wrote: »

That's just it, we don't hear from the likes of yourself taking home well below 30k. All we see and hear are the ones on 55K and above complaining and moaning looking for their mortgages to be paid, these people are really giving the likes of yourself a bad name and tarnishing all PS with the same brush. This is why you get a lot of stick because the majority of us that are not in the public sector think you are all rich.

Well thanks Hellboy, its nice to hear that people can understand that it is not all easy sailing for every public sector employee.
I can understand though how some high paid lazy bones can give a bad perception for us at the lower end.

Mostly though i hate the fact that there is such a huge division in thought and feeling now. Its almost like verbal civil war every day and i wish it would just stop one way or the other.

hellboy99

BlackNinja wrote: »

Its almost like verbal civil war every day and i wish it would just stop one way or the other.

Maybe it's time for all the lower paid public sector workers to confront all the moaning 55K and above earners, I'm sure there's plenty of lower paid workers getting by so whay can't they.

parsi

bridgitt wrote: »

waffle waffle waffle

jimmmy is thatt youu ?

Mcloke

hellboy99 wrote: »

This is why you get a lot of stick because the majority of us that are not in the public sector think you are all rich.

Yes but in fairness it is a bit naive for private sector workers to not realise that there are many many BlackNinja folk out there struggling to cope just like people in the private sector are stuggling to cope.

Theboinkmaster

TGPS wrote: »

I'm a public servant on a decent wage who works bloody hard for it. My wages have been cut, my response has been to start a part-time buisiness.

During the boom years I bought a modest house outside of Dublin and I've never driven anything newer than about 3 years old.

I watched my colleagues buy first one house, then a second one and in some daft cases even a third one on similar salaries to myself. I could never understand it - I've always lived well within my means.

Now, I'm still living within my means - I save more than I actually did five years ago but the car is 10 years old and the lifestyle has changed (in some ways for the better).

I shop up North; I shop online - partly because out of necessity; partly in protest at the Government; and partly because Irish business representative bodies are forever having a go at myself and my colleagues, which they're entitled to do, but they can't complain if the people they are bitching about on Monday, don't morph into loyal customers on Saturday.

I didn't strike on Tuesday because I believed that industrial action in this case was morally and ethically unjustifiable.

Breath of fresh air - great to hear this, thanks

bbam

BlackNinja wrote: »

I'm a public sector worker on €28k after 4 years service(€22k take home money) with my husband out of work i am the sole mortgage and bill payer. I work in a busy public counter office and get abuse day in day out.

Can people look past the job and see the human trying to cope and not cry (laugh if you want but after a while it does ware you down) from being verbally abused all the time about her job and realise that many lower paid public sector workers are supporting an out of work private sector worker husband/partner at home?

The fat cats at the top are the ones pushing up the 'averages' and they and the top government jobs can afford more cuts. It looks to me like the rich well paid people are being shielded by the government which is so corrupt it makes me sick

Thanks for listening

Thanks for sharing this, it brings reality to many discussions and points made...

Firstly SHAME on members of the public who abuse any frontline staff they deal with public or private..

Your situation is exactly why many support a graded system of cuts where those at the lower end could be spared and those who can well afford it shoulder up to their responsibilities..

hellboy99

Mcloke wrote: »

Yes but in fairness it is a bit naive for private sector workers to not realise that there are many many BlackNinja folk out there struggling to cope just like people in the private sector are stuggling to cope.

They're not naive they just like complaining and playing off one another, we always hear the bad news before the good.

OMD

bbam wrote: »

Your situation is exactly why many support a graded system of cuts where those at the lower end could be spared and those who can well afford it shoulder up to their responsibilities..

why spare those at the lower end? This has been said over and over again. Are a couple both earning 25k less able to afford cuts than a couple with 1 earner getting 40k? Of course not. How about a coupleboth earning 50k should they pay less than the single earner in a family getting 100,000?

bbam

OMD wrote: »

why spare those at the lower end? This has been said over and over again. Are a couple both earning 25k less able to afford cuts than a couple with 1 earner getting 40k? Of course not. How about a coupleboth earning 50k should they pay less than the single earner in a family getting 100,000?

I think you're mistaken here.... TAX should be calculated on the total household income, pay rates are personal to an individual and cannot take spouses rate into account..

P. Breathnach

bbam wrote: »

I think you're mistaken here.... TAX should be calculated on the total household income, pay rates are personal to an individual and cannot take spouses rate into account..

There is some truth in that, but what often happens in discussions here is that people take the individual's circumstances into account when suggesting how much they should be paid.

If a public sector worker posts that he or she is paid €28k and is the only income earner in the household, a common response is that it would be wrong to cut that person's pay. Yet the pay for a similar job in the private sector might be €25k.

Yet if the same public sector worker said that his or her spouse has an income of €80k, people would be less likely to feel bad about cutting the €28k to €25k.

Yes, pay rates are personal to the individual, but the rate should be related to what the job is worth, not how much sympathy one might feel for an individual in difficult circumstances.

The ESRI has calculated that the "public sector premium" is far greater in the lower grades (22-31%) than in the higher grades (8%) [http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2848]. This does not take account of the "pension related deduction", which can be seen as having eliminated the premium at the higher grades, and reduced it somewhat at the lower grades.

BostonB

P. Breathnach wrote: »

...Yes, pay rates are personal to the individual, but the rate should be related to what the job is worth,....

Pay rates are related to what you can get, not they are worth.

P. Breathnach

BostonB wrote: »

Pay rates are related to what you can get, not they are worth.

That's what a lot of people have been complaining about. As I said, pay rates should be related to what the job is worth.

BostonB

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's what a lot of people have been complaining about. As I said, pay rates should be related to what the job is worth.

Thats not how the free market works.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

...Would you mind if I put the original question to you?...

If you answer it also.

Didn't take on mortgages/obligations as a result of high income while working in Public Sector. Income would be less than same job in Private sector. Not much I can cut. Household income down at least 50% compared to few years ago. Thats partly intentional to have better quality of family life. Could increase wages by moving back to private sector, as other colleagues have done that.

Dannyboy83

BostonB wrote: »

If you answer it also.

I answered already, see original text below where I asked you.

OMD

bbam wrote: »

I think you're mistaken here.... TAX should be calculated on the total household income, pay rates are personal to an individual and cannot take spouses rate into account..

Exactly. Everyone in public service should have pay reduced the same percentage and then tax those who can afford to pay more. The more they can afford the more tax they pay.

seclachi

nesf wrote: »

Economies are highly complex entities. They behave in very complicated and interesting ways. Any concept of linear ideas of deflationary effects (i.e. a 1% increase in tax will decrease spending by X at all possible times) isn't going to capture the behaviour when you're looking at times of unusual highs or lows in public mood/tax levels and what have you.

Interesting and correct from what I have seen. Economy's are every bit as organic as the people who create them.

I wonder how the recent flooding will affect things. On one hand the cleanup work may generate a bit of work, but on the other hand there will be a massive loss of business and a hit on public mood.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I answered already, see original text below where I asked you.

Same boat as me so, with less minime's.

TGPS

bbam wrote: »

Thanks for sharing this, it brings reality to many discussions and points made...

Firstly SHAME on members of the public who abuse any frontline staff they deal with public or private..

Your situation is exactly why many support a graded system of cuts where those at the lower end could be spared and those who can well afford it shoulder up to their responsibilities..

I'd have to admit to reading BlackNinja's original post and not being too bothered about the abuse bit - then I read bbam's and realised the reason I wasn't bothered by BlackNinja's post was because verbal abuse has become the routine now in my organisation.

We have a front, public facing operation and the abuse the staff on the counters get is horrendous. We obviously have a system reporting such abuse and I've noticed that the threshold for someone initiating a report has gradually risen over the last few years, for example a couple of years ago someone raising their voice and swearing at a staff member would have triggered a report, now it generally has to be a stream of verbal insults.

We've had one incident of physical violence (last year) and one where someone spat on the desk of an interview room (about 3 months ago) BUT to put that in context we've had literally thousands of interactions were people have behaved in a civil fashion even when receiving news or a decision that upsets them.

The vast, vast majority of people are decent - there's a few who react badly who are otherwise reasonable the rest of the time - and there's a a very few tw@ts who are too pig ignorant to understand how nasty they actually are in themselves.

MaceFace

TGPS wrote: »

I'd have to admit to reading BlackNinja's original post and not being too bothered about the abuse bit - then I read bbam's and realised the reason I wasn't bothered by BlackNinja's post was because verbal abuse has become the routine now in my organisation.

We have a front, public facing operation and the abuse the staff on the counters get is horrendous. We obviously have a system reporting such abuse and I've noticed that the threshold for someone initiating a report has gradually risen over the last few years, for example a couple of years ago someone raising their voice and swearing at a staff member would have triggered a report, now it generally has to be a stream of verbal insults.

We've had one incident of physical violence (last year) and one where someone spat on the desk of an interview room (about 3 months ago) BUT to put that in context we've had literally thousands of interactions were people have behaved in a civil fashion even when receiving news or a decision that upsets them.

The vast, vast majority of people are decent - there's a few who react badly who are otherwise reasonable the rest of the time - and there's a a very few tw@ts who are too pig ignorant to understand how nasty they actually are in themselves.

Why are the people being abusive? Do they have reason to?

I just ask because recently I was in a supermarket and the front line staff there (the elderly lady on the checkout) was pig ignorant. Didn't say please or thank you. When I put my hand out to accept my change, she dropped it from about 3 inches above into my hand and then put the receipt on the belt for me to pick it off that.
It was like I had the plague.

I wanted to call her an ignorant b1tch but I am not that type of person.

TGPS

MaceFace wrote: »

Why are the people being abusive? Do they have reason to?

I just ask because recently I was in a supermarket and the front line staff there (the elderly lady on the checkout) was pig ignorant. Didn't say please or thank you. When I put my hand out to accept my change, she dropped it from about 3 inches above into my hand and then put the receipt on the belt for me to pick it off that.
It was like I had the plague.

I wanted to call her an ignorant b1tch but I am not that type of person.

I'd stress that most people most of the tme are fine, but at least once day we have someone either insulted or shouted at and it's got to the stage where the staff shrug it off. I'm not sure if it's to do with the particular climate prevailing at the moment or a general decline in behaviour.

In the last few months we have noticed a marked increase in people lashing accusations around of the staff being overpaid / under-worked etc. The irony being that the person they are hurling the abuse at is usually one of the lowest paid people in the place and has probably expended a good deal of effort in trying to resolve the matter in hand.

Before it was understandable frustration being vented at the system - now it's irrational abuse being hurled at the person.