We Won!!! 12 day for Xmas Deal is Off!!!!

Liam79

murphaph wrote: »

Surely a flat 10% cut to all PS workers is fair? If you're on 30k you lose 3 grand. If you're on 100k you lose 10 grand-more than three times as much.

Mother of Divine God :rolleyes::mad:
Use your head!!!

Someone making 100,000 CAN afford to lose 10k, u think some one on 30k can afford to lose 3k just as easily......

Seriously........do u.............:mad:

murphaph

Liam79 wrote: »

Mother of Divine God :rolleyes::mad:
Use your head!!!

Someone making 100,000 CAN afford to lose 10k, u think some one on 30k can afford to lose 3k just as easily......

Seriously........do u.............:mad:

Calm down, you'll give yourself a Connery.

If the person on 30k has not over extended themselves with debts then they should be just as able to deal with the 3k cut as a person on 100k dealing with the 10k cut.

There were plenty of idiots in both categories who did over extend themselves and buy houses they shouldn't have. That's their problem. Downsize.

gerry28

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If private sector wages continue to fall (I keep hearing from people who had to take a paycut of at least 10% and/or longer hours in the past 12 months), and the public sector get their way and no pay cut is taken from them, how would this be a fair outcome?

The luas drivers are getting a payrise, so to did the BOI staff and the AIB staff and the ESB (who like to consider themselves like private when it suits them) as have others no doubt.

Maybe up to 70% or private sector workers have not taken paycuts and as i mentioned above some are even getting rises.

People have been banging on about pirvate sector paycuts (supported massively by the media) for so long now that its almost accepted as fact that everyone of them have suffered paycuts and the PS have been let off the hook (remember the pension levy).

murphaph

Would you accept a straight reversal of benchmarking for each grade then?

eg, you received a 5% pay rise last year and a 4% one the year before-reduce by app. 9% your wages?

or you received a 3% increase last year and a 2% one the year before-reduce your wages by app. 5%?

Is THIS not fair? A simple reversal of benchmarking for everyone-exactly reverse the (say) last two years pay rises for each person individually?

thehamo

what about the PS worker on less than 23,000? You honestly think they can take a 10% cut? leaving them on a salary of just over 20,000??

Idiotic to say the least. You dont have to to laden with debt to find your self in economic trouble. Rent alone costs 600 a month, basic food, bills, general living expenses such as transport to and from work. You honestly think 20,000 a year is going to cover that?

shapez

murphaph wrote: »

Surely a flat 10% cut to all PS workers is fair? If you're on 30k you lose 3 grand. If you're on 100k you lose 10 grand-more than three times as much.

I am assuming you are not just referring public sector workers here? :rolleyes: I am taking it that this is something that the ALL tax payers should undertake?

Liam79

shapez wrote: »

I am assuming you are not just referring public sector workers here? :rolleyes: I am taking it that this is something that the ALL tax payers should undertake?

I wouldnt assume that atall when it comes to Murphaph Shapez !!!!:rolleyes:

LoLth

mod note:

Can we please keep the posts civil. This is a discussion not a fight. If you disagree with a post then by all means say why but no more attacking the posters.

thanks

LoLth

Gmol

BlackNinja wrote: »

Well, at least a pay cut is not going to affect services, it will be tiered to match payscales (so ideally higher paid pay more) and people won't hate us as much.

I'm on €28k after 4 years service, husband out of work and work as frontline staff in a busy section. I want people to stop taking it out on me so if a pay cut helps, then wonderful!

That's way too responsible an attitude:D I don't think people should be picking on to people just because they work in the Public service, we all know people who work in this who do great work there
I think the Public sector should however be run more like a business with the end of the 'Job for life' culture but that will not happen while the Unions remain in place

LoLth

murphaph wrote: »

Calm down, you'll give yourself a Connery.

If the person on 30k has not over extended themselves with debts then they should be just as able to deal with the 3k cut as a person on 100k dealing with the 10k cut.

There were plenty of idiots in both categories who did over extend themselves and buy houses they shouldn't have. That's their problem. Downsize.

You are forgetting that there is a basic cost of living. Lets say , for arguments sake that the basic cost of living is 18,000 per year. a person on 30k will have 12k per year disposable income for luxury goods and services.

the person on 100k per year will have 82k per year for luxury goods and services.

A 10% pay cut across the board will reduce their wages to 27k and 90k respectively.

The person's disposable income is now revised to :
9k and 72k

there is a huge difference between 9k and 72k disposable income per year.

Long Onion

LoLth wrote: »

You are forgetting that there is a basic cost of living. Lets say , for arguments sake that the basic cost of living is 18,000 per year. a person on 30k will have 12k per year disposable income for luxury goods and services.

the person on 100k per year will have 82k per year for luxury goods and services.

A 10% pay cut across the board will reduce their wages to 27k and 90k respectively.

The person's disposable income is now revised to :
9k and 72k

there is a huge difference between 9k and 72k disposable income per year.

The problem with the above though, is the issue of relativity - how do we calculate the basic cost of living - the individual on €23,000 may have rent of €600 per month. The individual on €100,000 may have a mortgage payment of €2000 per month, the same goes for car loans, scholl fees, utility cost etc.

The issue isn't black and white, and if were are to take it as read that a pure communism situation is off the table, then the issue bcomes mired in the extreme. We just have to accept that 100% equity across the board is not realistic, we just need to find the fairest balance and take it on the chin.

Liam79

LoLth wrote: »

You are forgetting that there is a basic cost of living. Lets say , for arguments sake that the basic cost of living is 18,000 per year. a person on 30k will have 12k per year disposable income for luxury goods and services.

the person on 100k per year will have 82k per year for luxury goods and services.

A 10% pay cut across the board will reduce their wages to 27k and 90k respectively.



The person's disposable income is now revised to :
9k and 72k

there is a huge difference between 9k and 72k disposable income per year.

+1

bangersandmash

LoLth wrote: »

the person on 100k per year will have 82k per year for luxury goods and services.

A 10% pay cut across the board will reduce their wages to 27k and 90k respectively.

The person's disposable income is now revised to :
9k and 72k

there is a huge difference between 9k and 72k disposable income per year.

To be honest the above figures don't really tell the whole story. A fairer comparison would be based on net income and would take into account any additional entitlements.

Also it's not meaningful to talk about a basic cost of living that is consistent across the country. For instance, higher salaries tend to be concentrated in areas with higher costs of living.

BlackNinja

Can everyone please remember that (and i'm not trying for sympathy or trying to get anyone's back up), the likes out there of me earning a salary of 28k (gross-not take home) with a mortgage and bills to pay and out of work husband to support really cannot afford a 10% pay cut!

I really feel for people on lower than me and struggling.

Now a couple of percent i can work around, but i really cannot survive a whole lot more! I'd end up being better off on Social Welfare and wishing they brought an end to my 'Job For Life'

LoLth

bangersandmash wrote: »

To be honest the above figures don't really tell the whole story. A fairer comparison would be based on net income and would take into account any additional entitlements.

Also it's not meaningful to talk about a basic cost of living that is consistent across the country. For instance, higher salaries tend to be concentrated in areas with higher costs of living.

of course, you're right but my example was just for the sake of clarification and so the numbers are exaggerated.

@Long Onion: its a BASIC cost of living. 600 PM rent = putting a roof over your head, or providing somewhere to live. 2000 PM Mortgage does not equal putting a roof over your head. the person with the 2000 euro mortgage has the option to drop back to 600 per month rent. that is not an option that can be exercised the other way around. its like marietta biscuits... if you have to have biscuits, you can always afford a pack of marietta but most people would much prefer to spend the extra and get a pack of hobnobs. Not everyone has that option => marietta would be the basic biscuit

Both earners travel to work (assumedly) but where the 100k worker can afford to pay for a car, the 30k worker probably relies on public transport. the 100k worker has the option to use public transport if he wishes to save money, the 30k worker does not have the option to buy a car => public transport costs are part of the basic cost of living but car ownership is not.

the numbers I chose were arbitrary and do not take into account taxation (but dont forget, 10k less salary = a lot more tax taken off than 3k less salary especially when all of the 3k is a a lower tax rate). Nor do they take into account tax deductables available to the higher earner that are not available to the lower earner as partaking in them would reduce their disposable income by a much higher percentage without the same payoff.

The_Honeybadger

BlackNinja wrote: »

Can everyone please remember that (and i'm not trying for sympathy or trying to get anyone's back up), the likes out there of me earning a salary of 28k (gross-not take home) with a mortgage and bills to pay and out of work husband to support really cannot afford a 10% pay cut!

I really feel for people on lower than me and struggling.

Now a couple of percent i can work around, but i really cannot survive a whole lot more! I'd end up being better off on Social Welfare and wishing they brought an end to my 'Job For Life'

Thats a tough situation, did you see FG's letest proposal on pay, you would not be touched at all until you hit 30k and it is tiered as the scale goes up. Simple but effective

Liam79

Lolth
Not everyone has that option => marietta would be the basic biscuit

God I dunno man, I would think Rich Tea are the basic biscuit....i mean...mariettas....they have funky designs and everything!!! And they dont dissolve in the tea, break off and sink, thus forcing you to dip ure dirty fingers in to get it out!!!!
Or get a spoon..........:o

murphaph

thehamo wrote: »

what about the PS worker on less than 23,000? You honestly think they can take a 10% cut? leaving them on a salary of just over 20,000??

Idiotic to say the least. You dont have to to laden with debt to find your self in economic trouble. Rent alone costs 600 a month, basic food, bills, general living expenses such as transport to and from work. You honestly think 20,000 a year is going to cover that?

A worker on 23k who takes a 10% gross pay cut does not end up on "just over 20k" you end up, if anything, on just under 21k (20,700 to be precise!). That's your rent and bills for a month, seeing as it's all so expensive

Once they start slashing welfare it'll be the more attractive option than the dole.

Rent for a single person costs 600 quid? Where? You can rent an entire 3 bed semi in Dublin for under a grand-that's less than 333 per room. If you choose to live in a more expensive place than you can really afford, when cheaper, perfectly acceptable alternatives are available, that's your fault. If people won't move out of OTT rental accommodation then don't blame the landlords for not reducing the rent-you need to vote with your wallet.

BlackNinja

mickeyk wrote: »

Thats a tough situation, did you see FG's letest proposal on pay, you would not be touched at all until you hit 30k and it is tiered as the scale goes up. Simple but effective

Well i for one would gladly welcome that as if i get to 30k at least i will know to anticipate it. Its a very fair initiative
With all this bull of unpaid leave and crap i wont know from one month to the next how much i am going to be missing.
The unions seem to have their heads up their *sses and i for one am pulling out of the union. Why on earth should i be paying them to do this idiocy!! Ludacrist!

Euro_Kraut

LoLth wrote: »

You are forgetting that there is a basic cost of living. Lets say , for arguments sake that the basic cost of living is 18,000 per year. a person on 30k will have 12k per year disposable income for luxury goods and services.

the person on 100k per year will have 82k per year for luxury goods and services.

A 10% pay cut across the board will reduce their wages to 27k and 90k respectively.

The person's disposable income is now revised to :
9k and 72k

there is a huge difference between 9k and 72k disposable income per year.

Absolutly. There is a diminishing marginal ulitity from money. A 10% is less to a 100k own in terms of utility than a 10% cut to a 30k worker. Those who fail to grasp the concept need to go back to Mircoeconomics 101.

A 10% cut across the boards is certainly the simplest solution, but not the fairest.

LoLth

i sincerely apologise for the discriminating remarks against marietta biscuits and I humbly request forgiveness from the manufacturers of said biscuits for any perceived disparagement......

Liam79

LoLth wrote: »

i sincerely apologise for the discriminating remarks against marietta biscuits and I humbly request forgiveness from the manufacturers of said biscuits for any perceived disparagement......

only right!!!!!:D

kippy

BlackNinja wrote: »

Well, at least a pay cut is not going to affect services, it will be tiered to match payscales (so ideally higher paid pay more) and people won't hate us as much.

I'm on €28k after 4 years service, husband out of work and work as frontline staff in a busy section. I want people to stop taking it out on me so if a pay cut helps, then wonderful!

Fair enough.
Would you not see the two weeks unpaid leave as an opportunity to better yourself in some way? Put it towards a part time course/college or otherwise, try move up that payscale, try get skills which you could us in other jobs/diversify, then when things improve in a few years you may be able get further up the pay scales in the public service or better still manage to get a well paid/bonused job in the private sector?

Paycuts will effect services based on what I have read from a few people here. "I am not working the same amount for less pay" - a pretty common theme in a few posts I have read
Totally the wrong attitude.

We have a lot of commonality in these threads.
Private sector portraying public sector jobs as being the holy grail. Public sector workers saying private creamed it "in the good times".
Why not change sectors depending on what you deem to be the "best" for you?
I am a very selfish person, and thats how I live my life in relation to work.

Euro_Kraut

BlackNinja wrote: »

With all this bull of unpaid leave and crap i wont know from one month to the next how much i am going to be missing.

Wait until the actual details emerge. My feeling its that there will be a 5% cut off your wage throughout the year. In return you will be entitled to an extra 12 days leave.

I would be very surprised if th reduction was not stagged throughout the year.

BlackNinja

kippy wrote: »

Fair enough.
Would you not see the two weeks unpaid leave as an opportunity to better yourself in some way? Put it towards a part time course/college or otherwise, try move up that payscale, try get skills which you could us in other jobs/diversify, then when things improve in a few years you may be able get further up the pay scales in the public service or better still manage to get a well paid/bonused job in the private sector?

Paycuts will effect services based on what I have read from a few people here. "I am not working the same amount for less pay" - a pretty common theme in a few posts I have read
Totally the wrong attitude.

We have a lot of commonality in these threads.
Private sector portraying public sector jobs as being the holy grail. Public sector workers saying private creamed it "in the good times".
Why not change sectors depending on what you deem to be the "best" for you?
I am a very selfish person, and thats how I live my life in relation to work.

Well i can see your point alright(and i'm not being smart) but courses cost money and if i really wanted to do one, with my mortgage and bills i would have to have money coming in.

I would love to work in my dream but for now i'll sit tight, shut my mouth and hope that i can still afford to live without debt next year.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Wait until the actual details emerge. My feeling its that there will be a 5% cut off your wage throughout the year. In return you will be entitled to an extra 12 days leave.

I would be very surprised if th reduction was not stagged throughout the year.

But the 12 days would be unpaid, along with 5%?? Id prefer to work those days rather than sitting at home cleaning the house as i cant afford to do anything else

kippy

BlackNinja wrote: »

Well i can see your point alright(and i'm not being smart) but courses cost money and if i really wanted to do one, with my mortgage and bills i would have to have money coming in.

I would love to work in my dream but for now i'll sit tight, shut my mouth and hope that i can still afford to live without debt next year.

But the 12 days would be unpaid, along with 5%?? Id prefer to work those days rather than sitting at home cleaning the house as i cant afford to do anything else

The right course is an investment, education is key in every sector, and public sector bodies will pay for their staffs education, I see you are not permanent so this is obviously an issue.

I do wish you the best, but my previous private sector job paid about the same as you are on now. Worked about 40 hours a week, no pension, had approximately 5 years experience in the field, a couple of professional certs and a college cert. All the time I was improving my educational background (still am). I found about three years ago that the public sector worked out better for me. Got a bout 8k more, with a bit more responsibility, still getting my education and hoping to either move up the ladder here or if things really go pear shaped get back into the private sector again and get in in a better job.
Thats just me, have mortage and same expenses as every one else.

Villain

Deal has been rejected by the Government, talks have collapsed

PeakOutput

according to newstalk the talks just collapsed completely

i dontthink there are any winners here but hopefully this means the necessary cuts are going to happen in a big way and **** em if they want to strike

personally i think 10-20% of them should be let go aswell but ill be hapy with pay cuts

Riskymove

The Government has rejected proposals put forward by unions for public sector workers to take 12-days unpaid leave as an alternative to pay cuts.

Blair Horan, general secretary of the Civil Public and Services Union (CPSU), confirmed that talks have broken down this afternoon.

Union leaders had earlier confirmed they had reached a draft transformation agreement with Government officials for the health services following marathon talks overnight.

The agreement is subject to an overall deal for reducing the public sector pay bill being approved by the Government.

According to sources close to the talks, the Government had earlier said it would consider an agreement if savings of €1billion could be agreed between the two sides. Previously the Government had stated that savings of €1.3 billion from the public sector pay bill were required.

Under the unpaid leave plan put forward by unions, public sector workers would have agree dto take 12-days unpaid leave next year and would then later come up with a separate proposal to cover fiscal 2011.

According to estimates. the unpaid leave deal would have entail public service staff earning €50,000 having 4.6 per cent of their income deducted next year. For workers earning more than this amount the cut would ahve beenequivalent of up to 7 per cent of income.

Yesterday Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan gave strong assurances that the Government would achieve €4 billion in savings, would cut public sector pay by €1.3 billion, and that the cuts would be permanent in nature.

irish times

BlackNinja

kippy wrote: »

The right course is an investment, education is key in every sector, and public sector bodies will pay for their staffs education, I see you are not permanent so this is obviously an issue.

I do wish you the best, but my previous private sector job paid about the same as you are on now. Worked about 40 hours a week, no pension, had approximately 5 years experience in the field, a couple of professional certs and a college cert. All the time I was improving my educational background (still am). I found about three years ago that the public sector worked out better for me. Got a bout 8k more, with a bit more responsibility, still getting my education and hoping to either move up the ladder here or if things really go pear shaped get back into the private sector again and get in in a better job.
Thats just me, have mortage and same expenses as every one else.

I already have a degree which, due to the collapse, has no job relevance now. I thought i would only be in the public sector a few years until by chosen career came back up, but now no such luck. Also my chosen career is just as affected by all these cuts so i wonder would it be worth the input of money for college fees now? Best wait and see when Ireland will come out of this and then if it does go back to college
If i wished to use my degree to get a good job, i would have to spend another 2 years min in college and i have no choice but to work unless a miracle occurs and my husband finds a job.