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

thebman

gerry28 wrote: »

Its the human angle though, that people would think nothing of asking for that many people to lose their jobs.

Many public sector workers are on here saying just raise taxes which would lead to more job losses in private sector.

Doesn't seem to bother them either. Most peoples on here only argue that they shouldn't take a cut and don't look at the overall picture.

Job cuts/pay cuts/tax increases all have one thing in common, a significant number of people are going to be negatively effected by it either way.

frman

If Public Sector Workers really thought about it, they should be hoping that the Private sector workers get their salaries increased.

Increased salaries in the private sector, means more tax revenue collected, which means that the hit the public sector workers take could be less.

But oh no, because the public sector workers take a reduction in salary, they think what fairness means is that the private sector worker should be cut too.

Rather than an opinion that the private sector should "share the pain", it should be thoughts along the lines of "if they do better then so can we".

K-9

boodlesdoodles wrote:

So you're saying its ok for public servants to be put on the dole? There aren't 10K temp workers surely? Putting someone out of a job is awful but it seems that most people here think its acceptable once they're public servants. Were you saying the same when Dell put over 1K out of work in Limerick? They were just minimum-wagers to hell with them?

No, never said that at all. I'd prefer just pay cuts, even if it doesn't really tackle the waste. Don't think job losses are a runner politically and with Unions.

Sand wrote: »

They should try it. Really, I hope they do so that the unions are utterly broken. Cutbacks are inevitable. Utterly inevitable.

And given the nurses were going to get screwed by their own unions with their regressive 12 days of christmas plan, they should be happy that FG are proposing adjustments where the lowest paid in the public sector would not take a hit whilst the very highest paid take the brunt of the adjustment. Our low paid, frontline nurses, gardai and firefighters ought to be voting FG, as Gillmore was backing the plan that would have seen them all take a 5% regressive cut.

Income % Reduction % Reduction
(After Tax) (Before Tax)

€30,000 0% 0%
€40,000 0.7% 1.3%
€50,000 1.6% 3.0%
€60,000 2.2% 4.2%
€70,000 2.6% 5.0%
€80,000 2.8% 5.6%
€90,000 3.0% 6.1%
€100,000 3.2% 6.5%
€150,000 5.4% 11.0%
€220,000 6.5% 13.9%

Think its the fairest way. I was pointing this out days ago on Public Sector threads. A straight pay cut means people on 30k would lose out disproportionately.

thebman

K-9 wrote: »

No, never said that at all. I'd prefer just pay cuts, even if it doesn't really tackle the waste. Don't think job losses are a runner politically and with Unions.

Personally I'd rather see the people doing nothing let go and leave the people earning their wage on the money they deserve. Automate the jobs that can be automated. The HSE has such inefficiencies as health boards were merged and nobody was let go. Its time they were let go if they aren't required and the money went to services instead. People are in pain and dying to keep those people in jobs because the hospitals can't afford all the services they need when they are paying people to do a job that didn't need to be done. I also have to say that I would never like to be employed to a job that doesn't need to be done. If I was surplus to requirements, I'd find that quite it would leave me feeling unmotivated and depressed about my job.

There will be new jobs and hopefully within the next year for most of the currently unemployed.

Think its the fairest way. I was pointing this out days ago on Public Sector threads. A straight pay cut means people on 30k would lose out disproportionately.

Agree with the FG way being the best way to proceed with pay cuts. Save as many of the lower paid as possible from drastic pay cuts.

namloc1980

PeakOutput wrote: »

leaving aside the absolute bloated nature of the public service for a minute

it is necessary to reduce the size of the public service to save the country. doing whats necessary is always acceptable

That's what Stalin used to say!

K-9

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's what Stalin used to say!

Yeah, getting rid of middle management in the HSE is like sending people to the gulags.

namloc1980

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, getting rid of middle management in the HSE is like sending people to the gulags.

Well done, it's called an analogy....doing what's necessary is not always acceptable.

Is it acceptable to the people who might lose their jobs!?

ParkRunner

frman wrote: »

If Public Sector Workers really thought about it, they should be hoping that the Private sector workers get their salaries increased.

Increased salaries in the private sector, means more tax revenue collected, which means that the hit the public sector workers take could be less.

But oh no, because the public sector workers take a reduction in salary, they think what fairness means is that the private sector worker should be cut too.

Rather than an opinion that the private sector should "share the pain", it should be thoughts along the lines of "if they do better then so can we".

I think you will find the vast majority of the public sector would love to see a thriving, wealthy, productive private sector and as has been said on many occasions it is not any of a public sector workers business what someone in the private sector earns.
The public sector pay cuts wont create a single job in the economy and will in fact result in more job losses, so until we get large investment in jobs and a proper functioning banking system back working there will be no recovery in sight

Salmon

Not to rain on the private sectors parade, but the second leg of the govt plan to lower pay for everyone is complete.

Step one was to create a them vs. us rift between public and private sector
Step two Hit the public service with massive pay cuts (twice)
Step three Hit the private sector with massive pay cuts.

Once the plan has been completed we will have a lower cost economy alright. The problem will be when the interest rates begin to rise and nobody private or public will be able to afford their mortgages.

Then we will all be up the creek whether we are public or private sector.

Things are looking pretty bad!

oscarBravo

Salmon wrote: »

Step three Hit the private sector with massive pay cuts.

How?

thebman

EF wrote: »

I think you will find the vast majority of the public sector would love to see a thriving, wealthy, productive private sector and as has been said on many occasions it is not any of a public sector workers business what someone in the private sector earns.
The public sector pay cuts wont create a single job in the economy and will in fact result in more job losses, so until we get large investment in jobs and a proper functioning banking system back working there will be no recovery in sight

The public sector paycuts have to happen because our economy for the past few years was falsely built on a temporary boom in housing.

This isn't going to happen and public expenditure must return to pre-boom times back to levels that would support where are our actual economy is at the moment.

Of course that isn't going to create jobs but it is necessary to have a state that still exists. That is the whole point. Anyone that doesn't see that doesn't see just how up the crapper we are.

We'd all love to magically create jobs but you can't do that. How are you going to do that? You can't just say you, here is money, create jobs. It doesn't quite work like that although you may have limited success with such a mechanism but the jobs will likely disappear once the government stops subsidising them.

We need new businesses to start up to replace the dead ones that do things that are productive and useful to our economy and hire people. This takes time. Realistically the best thing the state can do is remove red tape. We need banks lending to startups so they can actually get on their feet. The government doesn't have the money to subsidise new businesses and neither do the banks ATM. There is no way for us to get the banks lending as we can't give them money as we don't have any so we are borrowing crap loads of money to try to get everything moving again.

We can't get that money to just pay wages for public sector though, we still need to sort our deficit while we try to get everything else sorted out too. Nothing done, crap loads to do should be FF's motto ATM.

Salmon wrote: »

Not to rain on the private sectors parade, but the second leg of the govt plan to lower pay for everyone is complete.

Step three Hit the private sector with massive pay cuts.

That's not even possible for a government to do. Employers will pay what the market demands for the people they need and what they can afford to pay. Many people will receive pay cuts and have already as private sector employers don't wait around until the dail resumes to take action. Everyone won't as not even everyone needs to. Some people have skills that there is still a market for. People that don't will need to undergo training to get skills the market needs as nobody is going to be building anything for a long time.

irish_bob

foxymm wrote: »

Just to mention that about 15 or 20 years ago in Australia, there was a huge dispute between the Government there and Nurses. The Govt. want to reduce their pay, conditions etc. Their first couple of strikes didn't even get their grievances across to the government and so what did they do ? They walked off the job en masse... The dispute was resolved within an hour!!! Now am I not advocating that but certainly Nurses and other publin sector workers can hold this country to ransom, if they wanted

strikes are only effective if the general public support the purpose of those strikes , bar nurses who are the most sacred of sacred cows , the general public will not support strikes so the goverment can hang tough with the unions regardless of how intensive any campaigns of industrial action are

irish_bob

Sand wrote: »

They should try it. Really, I hope they do so that the unions are utterly broken. Cutbacks are inevitable. Utterly inevitable.

And given the nurses were going to get screwed by their own unions with their regressive 12 days of christmas plan, they should be happy that FG are proposing adjustments where the lowest paid in the public sector would not take a hit whilst the very highest paid take the brunt of the adjustment. Our low paid, frontline nurses, gardai and firefighters ought to be voting FG, as Gillmore was backing the plan that would have seen them all take a 5% regressive cut.

Income % Reduction % Reduction
(After Tax) (Before Tax)

€30,000 0% 0%
€40,000 0.7% 1.3%
€50,000 1.6% 3.0%
€60,000 2.2% 4.2%
€70,000 2.6% 5.0%
€80,000 2.8% 5.6%
€90,000 3.0% 6.1%
€100,000 3.2% 6.5%
€150,000 5.4% 11.0%
€220,000 6.5% 13.9%

nurses average 50 k per year
guards 60 k per year and firefighters somewhere in between , if your consider those to be low paid workers , you have very different definitions when it comes to wage levels than i do

Paulzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

How?

Minimum wage will be lowered. IBEC and ISME have been constantly lobbying for this to happen. The people on the big bucks of 8euro an hour will soon be hit. The arguement of a 6% drop in cost of living will be used to justify this along with pointing at the public sector and saying we've already cut them

Paulzx

irish_bob wrote: »

, you have very different definitions when it comes to wage levels than i do

What are your definitions when it comes to wage levels?

irish_bob

EF wrote: »

I think you will find the vast majority of the public sector would love to see a thriving, wealthy, productive private sector and as has been said on many occasions it is not any of a public sector workers business what someone in the private sector earns.
The public sector pay cuts wont create a single job in the economy and will in fact result in more job losses, so until we get large investment in jobs and a proper functioning banking system back working there will be no recovery in sight

wrong , cutting public sector pay means not having to further raise taxes which means business and employers can use money ( they might have had to set aside for the tax man ) to employ new people , people that are on the dole right now , raising taxes means reduced growth which means reduced job creation

oscarBravo

Paulzx wrote: »

Minimum wage will be lowered.

What percentage of the workforce is on minimum wage?

irish_bob

Paulzx wrote: »

Minimum wage will be lowered. IBEC and ISME have been constantly lobbying for this to happen. The people on the big bucks of 8euro an hour will soon be hit. The arguement of a 6% drop in cost of living will be used to justify this along with pointing at the public sector and saying we've already cut them

all theese things need to happen , wages are too high in ireland and this is making us uncompetitive , now that our property boom ( which employed such a disproportionate number of people ) is gone , we need to again focus on manufacturing and exports to both rebuild our economy and get people working again , we cannot do either if our costs and wages are too high

irish_bob

Paulzx wrote: »

What are your definitions when it comes to wage levels?

reasonabley comparable to countries in europe which are equal to us in terms of wealth , our nurses and guards are over paid by about 20 - 25% and before you mention the cost of living , the cost of living is high because wages and wellfare are high , the cost of living is falling and will fall further but it never makes the 1st move

irish_bob

oscarBravo wrote: »

What percentage of the workforce is on minimum wage?

hard to gauge but ive heard around 15% of the private sector , 0% of the public sector are on minimum wage

Paulzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

What percentage of the workforce is on minimum wage?

Haven't a clue.

ParkRunner

irish_bob wrote: »

wrong , cutting public sector pay means not having to further raise taxes which means business and employers can use money ( they might have had to set aside for the tax man ) to employ new people , people that are on the dole right now , raising taxes means reduced growth which means reduced job creation

Lenihan has said several times that taxes are not going to be raised. Im not saying public sector pay should not be cut to help to achieve the result of regaining control of the budget deficit, my point was that it will not result in job creation. What is to stop businesses taking on staff now?

Paulzx

irish_bob wrote: »

reasonabley comparable to countries in europe which are equal to us in terms of wealth , our nurses and guards are over paid by about 20 - 25% and before you mention the cost of living , the cost of living is high because wages and wellfare are high , the cost of living is falling and will fall further but it never makes the 1st move

You still havent given me your definition of wage levels. You're a great man for sweeping statements but continue to speak the same mantra over and over without putting any substance in it.

I ask again. You made reference to your defintion of good wages. What are they?

Paulzx

irish_bob wrote: »

hard to gauge but ive heard around 15% of the private sector , 0% of the public sector are on minimum wage

He didnt ask what percentage of the public sector was on minimum wage.
Yet again you show your predjudice and outright hostlility to anyone drawing a publiv service wage.

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

hard to gauge but ive heard around 15% of the private sector , 0% of the public sector are on minimum wage

It would have been easier to say that you don't know.

irish_bob

Paulzx wrote: »

You still havent given me your definition of wage levels. You're a great man for sweeping statements but continue to speak the same mantra over and over without putting any substance in it.

I ask again. You made reference to your defintion of good wages. What are they?

so you want a detailed job by job wage breakdown , thats more p breathnachs kind of thing , being a former civil servant , hes a stickler on detail

as i said in my previous post , wages in the public sector should be comparable to european countries with similar levels of wealth to ourselves , for example , finland , overall , its a wealthier country than us but its teachers only earn 45% of what teachers in ireland earn , interestingly , finland comes in at number 3 in a rundown of countries with the best education system , ireland doesnt make the top 20

PeakOutput

foxymm wrote: »

Just to mention that about 15 or 20 years ago in Australia, there was a huge dispute between the Government there and Nurses. The Govt. want to reduce their pay, conditions etc. Their first couple of strikes didn't even get their grievances across to the government and so what did they do ? They walked off the job en masse... The dispute was resolved within an hour!!! Now am I not advocating that but certainly Nurses and other publin sector workers can hold this country to ransom, if they wanted

they are the ones that will be held to ransom when their cheques start bouncing

Dr Galen

irish_bob wrote: »

so you want a detailed job by job wage breakdown , thats more p breathnachs kind of thing , being a former civil servant , hes a stickler on detail

while I don't always agree with his thoughts, I'd imagine its less to do with his former job and more to do with him wanting to look at facts and figures, that are based in reality rather than hearsay and hyperbole

as i said in my previous post , wages in the public sector should be comparable to european countries with similar levels of wealth to ourselves , for example , finland , overall , its a wealthier country than us but its teachers only earn 45% of what teachers in ireland earn , interestingly , finland comes in at number 3 in a rundown of countries with the best education system , ireland doesnt make the top 20

is a teachers job in Finland the same as in Ireland?
what are the average class sizes in Finland?
are there extras in Finland not counted in base salary levels?
is the better education rating the fault of the individual teachers or a curriculum issue?

I'm not trying to defend teachers here, but rather ask you to look at a bigger picture. One that includes more than just base salary levels.

I'd be surprised if we couldn't reduce our overall spend on education and not get better results, but constantly bleating on about how much one group gets paid over another in a different country is not a solution. At best, its whining and moaning, without offering anything beneficial to the end-user, which in this case are pupils.

PeakOutput

gerry28 wrote: »

It shows the level of anamosity towards the public service when people think nothing of calling for 10,000 people to be put on the dole. Similarly there have been calls for 20, 30 even 40% paycuts regardless of what this would do to those peoples lives.

what part of 'there will be no jobs for anyone if the tough choices are not made now' do you not understand?

PeakOutput

namloc1980 wrote: »

Well done, it's called an analogy....doing what's necessary is not always acceptable.

Is it acceptable to the people who might lose their jobs!?

clearly i was not refering to murder or genocide or anything even close and you know it. for what we are talking about doing whats necessary is always acceptable