Have the Public Servants won the dispute?

Flex

Ignoring the effect this has on public services efficiency, what happens next year and the year after when the government has to reduce expenditure again? Next year theyre expecting €29B in revenue from tax (over €2B less than this years expected take). By then the disparagee between public sector and private sector conditions will be even greater and PS workers/unions will be even more reluctant to compromise on pay. So, another 2 weeks unpaid holidays? In 3 or 4 years will the PS be entitled to 40-50 days additional unpaid holidays???

And how must this make us look to the ECB (lending us €500m a week) as well as any potential foreign investors or multi-national companies that the government cant deal with prats like Jack O Connor who rant about socialism and "the bad fat cats" while being paid ~€130,000 a year?

My greatest worry is this will fail (whether this year or next), the government will try make the cuts again unsuccessfully and we'll find ourselves in a situation like the 1980's where we raise taxes ridiculously to try spend our way out of recession/depression and ultimately need another "Tallaght Strategy" when the ECB gets fed up loaning money or the IMF threathen to intervene.

bobblepuzzle

Flex wrote: »

Ignoring the effect this has on public services efficiency, what happens next year and the year after when the government has to reduce expenditure again? Next year theyre expecting €29B in revenue from tax (over €2B less than this years expected take). By then the disparagee between public sector and private sector conditions will be even greater and PS workers/unions will be even more reluctant to compromise on pay. So, another 2 weeks unpaid holidays? In 3 or 4 years will the PS be entitled to 40-50 days additional unpaid holidays???

And how must this make us look to the ECB (lending us €500m a week) as well as any potential foreign investors or multi-national companies that the government cant deal with prats like Jack O Connor who rant about socialist garbage "the bad fat cats" while being paid ~€130,000 a year?

My greatest worry is this will fail (whether this year or next), the government will try make the cuts again unsuccessfully and we'll find ourselves in a situation like the 1980's where we raise taxes ridiculously to spend our way out of recession/depression and ultimately need another "Tallaght Strategy" when the ECB gets fed up loaning money or the IMF threathen to intervene.

Mate, I fear you haven't seen the start of it... the reluctance of public sector workers to face reality will have a crippling effect, this country is on downward spiral right back to the 80's!!! Politicians only run on votes... and it wouldn't surprise me if this country got back to the early 80's and 70's were people ridicule you for even having a job!

kippy

Pringles^IRE wrote: »

I would like to see the government (as would pretty much all private sector workers) abolish gauranteed pensions, and make them get private pensions. The pay bill needs to be cut by 1.3 billion, if it takes 1995 levels, than so be it!

Are you happy to see the whole economy return to 1995 levels, including public service pay, social welfare, cost of living, private sector wages?

What do you mean by "private pensions" and are you advocating the abolishment of the "state" pension also?

bobblepuzzle

kippy wrote: »

Are you happy to see the whole economy return to 1995 levels, including public service pay, social welfare, cost of living, private sector wages?

What do you mean by "private pensions" and are you advocating the abolishment of the "state" pension also?

No, I'm happy once the public sector pay bill is within its means and us gob****es in the private sector don't pay more taxes because of it....

Pensions that you pay into a bank or other institutions, I take it your a public sector work than? With no clue how to organise a pension... typical public sector stuff, your like the Minister for Finance with no bank account lol

amacachi

kippy wrote: »

I was responding to an earlier post.
BTW, there will be a pay cut, whether it is through unpaid leave or otherwise is the question for this year.

What would you define as normal by the way?
1995 levels?

I'm guessing "normal" is when we're not borrowing to cover nearly half of our spending.

ixoy

miju wrote: »

increments are a VERY tricky one, you would have untold strikes / internal warfare going on and the whole public service would prob come crashing to a halt for a very considerable time. You would have the same grades doing the same work for different pay and while the people on the upper end of the scale would be fine about it someone on the bottom obviously wouldnt.

Surely with the current situation of increments, you have the same people doing the same work for different pay anyway? I understand the notion is that you become more experienced with time but the pay increment isn't backed up generally by assessed skill (I don't think PMDS is worthy of consideration). So an increment freeze could be put in place - it's not a pay cut as such, but it would save some euro while they reform PMDS and make it more accountable. I think we need to remove the notion that you deserve more pay just by length of service rather more demonstrable skill.

kippy

Pringles^IRE wrote: »

No, I'm happy once the public sector pay bill is within its means and us gob****es in the private sector don't pay more taxes because of it....

Pensions that you pay into a bank or other institutions, I take it your a public sector work than? With no clue how to organise a pension... typical public sector stuff, your like the Minister for Finance with no bank account lol

If I were you I would edit that second paragraph.

So,
You are happy to see one sectors pay and conditions go back to 1995 levels but not others.
You do see the problem with this, don't you?

"pensions that you pay into a bank or other institutions" Is that what you call a private pension?

I am a public sector worker.
I dont know from where you are get that I have no clue how to organise a pension or have no bank account......
In a previous life (job) I have worked for two of the biggest private pensions fund managers in the world.

Also,
Are you condoning the scrapping of the state pension?

kippy

amacachi wrote: »

I'm guessing "normal" is when we're not borrowing to cover nearly half of our spending.

That is a fair enough definition of normal, and is something we have to see happen sooner rather than later and something which will involve a large number of measures.

kippy

ixoy wrote: »

Surely with the current situation of increments, you have the same people doing the same work for different pay anyway? I understand the notion is that you become more experienced with time but the pay increment isn't backed up generally by assessed skill (I don't think PMDS is worthy of consideration). So an increment freeze could be put in place - it's not a pay cut as such, but it would save some euro while they reform PMDS and make it more accountable. I think we need to remove the notion that you deserve more pay just by length of service rather more demonstrable skill.

Totally agree 100% with all of that.

bobblepuzzle

kippy wrote: »

If I were you I would edit that second paragraph.

So,
You are happy to see one sectors pay and conditions go back to 1995 levels but not others.
You do see the problem with this, don't you?

"pensions that you pay into a bank or other institutions" Is that what you call a private pension?

I am a public sector worker.
I dont know from where you are get that I have no clue how to organise a pension or have no bank account......
In a previous life (job) I have worked for two of the biggest private pensions fund managers in the world.

Also,
Are you condoning the scrapping of the state pension?

As I said, typical civil servant stuff... not even on the same planet!

jenzz

Im sorry for sounding so blatently thick on this one but ... Is 14-20 whatever days unpaid leave not the same as a pay cut. ie they wont be getting paid for x number of days a year so therefore its a reduction in wage. So why did the unions agree ( if they did) to this when it all boils back to the same thing - a reduction in peoples wages which is what they were protesting against from the start ?? Its not really making much sense to me .
And then are certain departments ie social welfare departments, hospitals etc not under enough pressure without reducing the man power on these said number of days ??? That really makes no sense. And I thought they were striking against the cuts in education ie increased class size & reduction in special needs teachers. But if the teacher is sent off on a compulsory days unpaid leave who teaches the kiddies ? Do they go to the class next door? So then his/her class size has increased.. yes ?? & the special needs teacher that is left ie the one who hasnt already lost their job - so on his/her unpaid leave day there is even less special needs education available than at the start of this. I thought the unions were in talks to agree a deal - by the sounds of this its just made things worse for all concerned - well thats how Im reading it all here. The government are putting their already pushed services under greater pressure with less available man power & the workers are still being hit in their pockets & services..

kippy

Pringles^IRE wrote: »

As I said, typical civil servant stuff... not even on the same planet!

What planet do you think I am on?
Whats so "out there" about my statements?

kippy

jenzz wrote: »

Im sorry for sounding so blatently thick on this one but ... Is 14-20 whatever days unpaid leave not the same as a pay cut. ie they wont be getting paid for x number of days a year so therefore its a reduction in wage. So why did the unions agree ( if they did) to this when it all boils back to the same thing - a reduction in peoples wages which is what they were protesting against from the start ?? Its not really making much sense to me .
And then are certain departments ie social welfare departments, hospitals etc not under enough pressure without reducing the man power on these said number of days ??? That really makes no sense. And I thought they were striking against the cuts in education ie increased class size & reduction in special needs teachers. But if the teacher is sent off on a compulsory days unpaid leave who teaches the kiddies ? Do they go to the class next door? So then his/her class size has increased.. yes ?? & the special needs teacher that is left ie the one who hasnt already lost their job - so on his/her unpaid leave day there is even less special needs education available than at the start of this. I thought the unions were in talks to agree a deal - by the sounds of this its just made things worse for all concerned - well thats how Im reading it all here. The government are putting their already pushed services under greater pressure with less available man power & the workers are still being hit in their pockets & services..

Yeah, its a pay cut.
Yeah, theres certain sectors where its hard to see how it will be implemented.
Yeah, people will have to work harder or smarter or both. No harm there tbh.

Sleepy

Why can't this just be handled on a department by department case?

'O Keefe - your budgets cut by 20%. Find a way to make it work'

'Harney - yours is cut by 15% - do your thing'

'Coughlan - Fás is your brief. We need to get a handle on this, will you ring those... '

etc. etc. until Cowen puts his feet firmly up on the table safe in the knowledge that, for once, he's actually done his job as a leader.

ghost_ie

jenzz wrote: »

Im sorry for sounding so blatently thick on this one but ... Is 14-20 whatever days unpaid leave not the same as a pay cut. ie they wont be getting paid for x number of days a year so therefore its a reduction in wage. So why did the unions agree ( if they did) to this when it all boils back to the same thing - a reduction in peoples wages which is what they were protesting against from the start ?? Its not really making much sense to me .
And then are certain departments ie social welfare departments, hospitals etc not under enough pressure without reducing the man power on these said number of days ??? That really makes no sense. And I thought they were striking against the cuts in education ie increased class size & reduction in special needs teachers. But if the teacher is sent off on a compulsory days unpaid leave who teaches the kiddies ? Do they go to the class next door? So then his/her class size has increased.. yes ?? & the special needs teacher that is left ie the one who hasnt already lost their job - so on his/her unpaid leave day there is even less special needs education available than at the start of this. I thought the unions were in talks to agree a deal - by the sounds of this its just made things worse for all concerned - well thats how Im reading it all here. The government are putting their already pushed services under greater pressure with less available man power & the workers are still being hit in their pockets & services..

I think the reasoning may be that while in real terms it's a pay cut the salary itself remains the same on paper. This means that pensions won't be affected as your pension is based on your salary. Teachers could take the unpaid leave as part of their summer holidays, and nurses could take one day a week off for 14 weeks

Barname

kippy wrote: »

Are you happy to see the whole economy return to 1995 levels, including public service pay, social welfare, cost of living, private sector wages?

What do you mean by "private pensions" and are you advocating the abolishment of the "state" pension also?

I do.

amacachi

Sleepy wrote: »

Why can't this just be handled on a department by department case?

'O Keefe - your budgets cut by 20%. Find a way to make it work'

'Harney - yours is cut by 15% - do your thing'

'Coughlan - Fás is your brief. We need to get a handle on this, will you ring those... '

etc. etc. until Cowen puts his feet firmly up on the table safe in the knowledge that, for once, he's actually done his job as a leader.

Because unions will demand that any changes affect "everyone" or "no-one", so someone doing the donkey work in a dole office gets treated the same as someone doing SFA somewhere else. Glorious isn't it?

kippy

Barname wrote: »

I do.

How do your propose to do this?

Darragh29

ghost_ie wrote: »

I think the reasoning may be that while in real terms it's a pay cut the salary itself remains the same on paper. This means that pensions won't be affected as your pension is based on your salary. Teachers could take the unpaid leave as part of their summer holidays, and nurses could take one day a week off for 14 weeks

The key reasoning behind on the unions side is that it is of course a temporary plaster to put a longer term problem. The government will have to come back next year fighting for another 14 days of unpaid leave and that's before they start looking at what we are told will be the same amount of savings in the public sector pay bill next year as was required this year!!!

So before they even try to make more cuts next year, that apparently are necessary if we want bondholders to continuing lending half a billion a fortnight to us so we can run the country, the government will have to kick another 14 days out of the unions this time next year before any discussion takes place on what has to be saved next year.

diverdriver

For those of you slow on the uptake Cowen said today:

'The government doesn't have the money to meet the public service pay bill'

Argue away that's the simple truth.

Rookster

My view is that if they are able to do the same work in 12 less days, does this mean that they have been underworked in the past. And where does 12 days come from. If they are underworked maybe it is more than 12 days. Does anyone know.

Bruce2008

Rookster wrote: »

My view is that if they are able to do the same work in 12 less days, does this mean that they have been underworked in the past. And where does 12 days come from. If they are underworked maybe it is more than 12 days. Does anyone know.

Well that is bloody typical...
People in the private sector on short time are praised no end for doing the same amount of work in less time...
If the Public sector manage to do this then they are overstaffed...
This just shows the stupidity of some of the arguments put up here!

seclachi

The government is spineless, they caved after one strike. They estimated a €1.3b cut, now its down to €1b. I can only imagine it plummeting even more when they take into account the massive drop in efficiency this plan will cause.

97i9y3941

should had left them strike again,saving the taxpayer a fortune while they are at it..

irish_bob

be it with business , a game of football or life in general , when in trouble , people usually dig deep and work harder in order to get back on track , cowen has decided the state sector will work less as a means of solving our immediete problems

bizarre

Flex

irish_bob wrote: »

be it with business , a game of football or life in general , when in trouble , people usually dig deep and work harder in order to get back on track , cowen has decided the state sector will work less as a means of solving our immediete problems

bizarre

Its genuinely baffling if he does end up caving in given the overwhelming support for paycuts from the majority of people outside the public sector along with a significant number of people inside the public sector who are numerate (ie. knowing that 57,000,000,000 is greater than 32,000,000,000) as well as the plain and obvious fact that government expenditure needs serious cuts.

He could have so easily spun this to make out that he was making a tough decision that weighed heavy on his heart for the good of the country and blah blah blah to try win some popularity, but hes made his party even more unpopular (if that was possible :rolleyes: )

irish_bob

Flex wrote: »

Its genuinely baffling if he does end up caving in given the overwhelming support for paycuts from the majority of people outside the public sector along with a significant number of people inside the public sector who are numerate (ie. knowing that 57,000,000,000 is greater than 32,000,000,000) as well as the plain and obvious fact that government expenditure needs serious cuts.

He could have so easily spun this to make out that he was making a tough decision that weighed heavy on his heart for the good of the country and blah blah blah to try win some popularity, but hes made his party even more unpopular.

indeed , even a coward can make hard descisions when he has the backing of the majority , cowen is worse than a coward , he is a LOSER

Bruce2008

Correct me if I'm worng... I know you won't cause I'm not... but alot of offices and factories have implemented short time working and reduced weekly hours to cut the cost of wages...

Is that not what this is... reduced hours.... not extra days off, which sounds like extra holidays... call it as it is... reduced working hours/ short time working...

lmimmfn

Bruce2008 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm worng... I know you won't cause I'm not... but alot of offices and factories have implemented short time working and reduced weekly hours to cut the cost of wages...

Is that not what this is... reduced hours.... not extra days off, which sounds like extra holidays... call it as it is... reduced working hours/ short time working...

yes its similar only:
1. its only for 1 year, its just delaying the problem by 12 months when we will need that + 4 more billion of savings
2. private sector still have to maintain the same production but with reduced hours in your example
3. Not enough will be saved, so they will tax the private sector to make up the difference, of course the PS will be taxed too but thats a completely different ball game from us in the private sector being taxed more because they will never give in and enjoy holding the country to ransom to get their way, their large salaries in general, great job security and huge pensions.
4. It doesnt solve the problem of them holding the country to ransom and continuing to do so, therefore we'll have the same strikes again next year when it has to be reduced again along with huge tax increases for everyone.

They should just cop on, take the hit, then next year we can all cry together in fairness when we have to pay huge tax increases.

Bruce2008

lmimmfn wrote: »

yes its similar only:

2. private sector still have to maintain the same production but with reduced hours in your example.

I'm sure this is part of the agreement...anyway it is not necessarily true about maintaining the same production in private sector... phyically and mechanically impossible in alot of cases..

lmimmfn wrote: »

3. Not enough will be saved, so they will tax the private sector to make up the difference, of course the PS will be taxed too but thats a completely different ball game from us in the private sector being taxed more because they will never give in and enjoy holding the country to ransom to get their way, their large salaries in general, great job security and huge pensions.

How is the taxation different???? and ehh not all on large salaries and huge pensions!!! Dont paint them all with the same brush or they'll paint you with the same brush used on bank managers, lawyers, solicitors etc... with all their wages and benefits!!!