A call to all Lower Paid PS Workers

randylonghorn

DeVore wrote: »

The over paid public sector upper levels are basically using the lower paid ones as a human shield now as far as I can see.

I agree. But a step back from that, the government / developers / bankers unholy trinity are also using the entire public sector as a human shield.

DeVore wrote: »

There are 800 high level management people in the HSE and I know from people *who work there* that many of them are sitting on their arses.

Oh so true!!

The County Health Boards or whatever they were called were amalgamated into the regional Health Boards ... it was supposed to produce "efficiencies" and reduce duplication in staffing. No jobs were lost at management levels certainly.

The regional Health Boards were amalgamated into the HSE ... it was supposed to produce "efficiencies" and reduce duplication in staffing. No jobs were lost at management levels certainly.

There are so many senior and senior middle management types hanging around the HSE now that for many of them their main task is to create work for one another! ... and to create additional and unnecessary paperwork for frontline staff, and by doing so to actually reduce THEIR efficiency!

Half of them should be put out to pasture to play with their pencils!

But of course when "reform" or cuts are implemented these people are untouchable, because the political will is not there. It will always be the easy option ... blanket cuts of X % in staff, and the job of implementing these cuts is given to the very people who should be first out the door!! So hospitals lose nurses rather than penpushers who spend their days dreaming up new and creative ways of compiling statistics about the frequency with which statistics are compiled ...

There is ofc need for reform in areas of the public sector ... but no-one, least of all the government, has any appetitie for it. It's far easier to say "Cut X % of the budget. Oops, there was no hospital bed available for your father, and he died in the corridor of A&E? Sorry about that, we'll send the local FF councillor to press the flesh at his funeral!"

Drumpot wrote: »

(Im only referring to your unions, DONT ATTACK ME THE UNIONS SAID PUBLIC SERVANTS CAN TAKE 12 DAYS OFF WITHOUT AFFECTING SERVICES).

Actually, they never said it wouldn't affect services. Of course it would. Well (see above) some "managers" could take the year off, and it wouldn't affect services, at least not negatively! ... but when you come to frontline staff, of course services would be affected.

That said, I share your disdain for the union bureaucrats tbh. I think many public servants do, at least the majority rank and file workers.

Long Onion

deemark wrote: »

Seriously, how many times does it have to be posted before people believe it- all public sector workers ARE NOT in secure or permanent employment. This myth that all teachers, nurses, library assistants etc walk straight into permanent employment is so prevalent that people believe it is true:rolleyes:

I fully realise that not everyone has a secure conract - my own brother is a teacher on a temporary contract. However, as said before, it is impossible to carry on any coherent debate on this issue without resorting to some kind of generalisation. I would be perfectly happy for those on temporary contracts to take a reduced paycut in comparison to their colleagues on secure contracts.

I do believe that your reaction above highlights some of the problem to be honest. In the post you replied to, I stated that the issue should not be Public Sector versus Private Sector as this is unhelpful. I suggested that the issue should be Secure Sector versus Non Secure Sector as it is the 'guaranteed job' issue that many feel is a priceless benefit. I purposely made the secure v's non secure distinction to take account of the fact that a percentage do not enjoy security of tenure.

You immediately read this post as being an ill-imformed attack on all workers in the Public Sector - the reason for your defensive post is, no doubt, the fact that you feel you have to defend yourself because we have all been reduced to squabbling amongst each other like children and I really think that this is a sad indictment of the current state of our own society - as soon as we face a little difficulty we crumble.

Just to put my view on the record, m own preference is for Tiered pay cuts from the top level down with a cut off point at circa €28,000. Those at higher levels including Cowen et al, should be hit the hardest. The reduction in pay should be a recognition of the fact that posts are secure, those on temporary contracts should have a lowere level of salary reduction to allow for this.

Given the fact that some people would be genuinely in financial difficulty if their pay was cut (whether as a result of their own folly or not) I would recommend a system whereby staff can choose to forgo a percentage of their pension in lieu of taking the full reduction in takehome. This would have the advantage of allowing people the flexibility to cut their cloths whilst still delivering savings for the government.

I really think we should stop squabbling and try to resolve the issue, the Boards is a great forum for reasoned debate if we can all make an effort. If w can't manage to do this, the very least we should do is recognise the difficult job of having to do the negotiation for real - should we ctually come to realise this, we may be more accepting of the outcome on Wednesday.

efb

Also what I don't get is the whinging about 'lower paid' Clerical Officers only on €24K... That's a starting salary! In the Private Sector it's about €21K, and you could get it for €19K... I know I work in HR! And that's a 39 hr week vs a 35 hr week too. Even the lower paid PS are overpaid!

Drumpot

efb wrote: »

Also what I don't get is the whinging about 'lower paid' Clerical Officers only on €24K... That's a starting salary! In the Private Sector it's about €21K, and you could get it for €19K... I know I work in HR! And that's a 39 hr week vs a 35 hr week too. Even the lower paid PS are overpaid!

I started on 18k in 2002 . .

I had applied for a public service job that started on 28k and 350 people had applied for 10 positions . Did the aptitude test in Croker so I saw the mass amount of people who had applied .

Of course none of them wanted the pissy public service job in the peak of the celtic tiger. . . :rolleyes:

gerry28

baaaa wrote: »

Like look at the first answer in this particular post,la la land-yes,if you tell us to make the savings off the 150k+ brigade instead of the public sector then it would be preferable if you could move beyond rhetoric when asked and actually clarify whether or not there are enough of them to do so

You can miss my point if thats what suits you Baaa you must have read irish bobs question and assumed i was making that point. I never said make the savings.

I am talking about percieved fairness... this 'do my bit for the country', 'share the pain' nonsense is trotted out daily yet its not being applied evenly.

Why should I be asked to pay a second paycut when someone, anyone on 150K in the private sector is not asked to share the same so called pain.

I'm not talking about the number of people earning over that amount and the x billions that might save... thats for bigger and brighter brains than mine to work out (dept of finance, government etc).

And don't come back with the usual 'private sector workers have lost their jobs', 'private sector workers have suffered paycuts'... i know all that i'm talking about THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SUFFERED THIS FATE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

If we don't percieve it to be fair we are not going to give it up on a plate.

frman

gerry28 wrote: »

Why should I be asked to pay a second paycut when someone, anyone on 150K in the private sector is not asked to share the same so called pain.

Because the Government dont have the money to pay you.

Also, they are telling you , not asking.

gerry28

frman wrote: »

Also, they are telling you , not asking.

Agreement would have been much better all round.

DeVore

Share the pain?! SHARE THE PAIN?????

Fnck, I'm about to get reamed because other people, public and private sector, couldnt so much as balance their cheque books let alone manage their personal finances!!

If we're all "sharing the pain" when do I get a chunk of your over priced house I'm now going to have to pay for???


DeV.

irish_bob

gerry28 wrote: »

You can miss my point if thats what suits you Baaa you must have read irish bobs question and assumed i was making that point. I never said make the savings.

I am talking about percieved fairness... this 'do my bit for the country', 'share the pain' nonsense is trotted out daily yet its not being applied evenly.

Why should I be asked to pay a second paycut when someone, anyone on 150K in the private sector is not asked to share the same so called pain.

I'm not talking about the number of people earning over that amount and the x billions that might save... thats for bigger and brighter brains than mine to work out (dept of finance, government etc).

And don't come back with the usual 'private sector workers have lost their jobs', 'private sector workers have suffered paycuts'... i know all that i'm talking about THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SUFFERED THIS FATE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

If we don't percieve it to be fair we are not going to give it up on a plate.

if someone on a 150 k salary works for a firm which is profitable , thier is no reason why they should see a pay cut , the goverment is in the red so it is entirely reasonable that thier employees on either 100 k or 25 k should take a pay cut , while you have something in common with a consultant in the HSE and have the right to insist that they face a pay cut at least equitable with any cut you face , you have nothing in common with a partner in a top law firm , this isnt a socilist country yet so your arguement about fairness doesnt hold water , its about math , not morality , if you want it to be about morality , vote for joe higgins , he wants everyone to earn the exact same , the beards in the unions like to ****e on about equality but they insist on a pay differential of 25% between public and private

Nightwish

I'm a public sector worker on €26k and I refused to join Impact on the basis that they talked utter rubbish. I saw the false promises they made to staff when the embargo came in in 2007, when the payroll department was so short staffed, it came to a point the staff were staying behind until the early hours of the morning just to ensure that the nurses, doctors, physios all got paid.
I totally disagree with their standpoint on the current crisis in the public sector pay bill. I disagreed with their strike and I was one of many who couldnt attend work that day and had to take unpaid leave. If I could find a union that could represent me fairly I would join one. So any takers for a "low paid workers" union?

thebman

randylonghorn wrote: »

I agree. But a step back from that, the government / developers / bankers unholy trinity are also using the entire public sector as a human shield.

Where is the evidence that this is happening? I don't see it. we are 20 billion in debt this year before NAMA or anything happens and they are off our books and not part of the public finances until after NAMA goes tits up in a few years time. The government aren't trying to put private and public against each other, they are trying to balance the books somewhat. It is foolish to suggest they want to be a position where they have to decide which sector to piss off and lose the votes in. It is a simple reality that the money is not there. Its not what they want, it is the situation they are in. Its more like the unions are trying to turn the public sector against the private by demanding the private sector share the pain which ignores the reality of the catastrophic heart attack the private sector has had and the nature of the private sector too that some areas will be unaffected because they provide valuable services that are still in demand.

Its not using them as a shield, its real world logic that 20 billion in borrows is unsustainable and cuts must be made where ever possible. Of course they'll cut their own (politicians and friends which includes union leaders in some cases as they sit on some boards of public bodies) last but eventually they'll be the big white elephant in the room. At the moment the public sector pay is the biggest part of expenditure and most savings can be made in that area along with social welfare.

There is ofc need for reform in areas of the public sector ... but no-one, least of all the government, has any appetitie for it. It's far easier to say "Cut X % of the budget. Oops, there was no hospital bed available for your father, and he died in the corridor of A&E? Sorry about that, we'll send the local FF councillor to press the flesh at his funeral!"

Actually, they never said it wouldn't affect services. Of course it would. Well (see above) some "managers" could take the year off, and it wouldn't affect services, at least not negatively! ... but when you come to frontline staff, of course services would be affected.

That said, I share your disdain for the union bureaucrats tbh. I think many public servants do, at least the majority rank and file workers.

This part is probably true although nobody knows the extent of waste in the HSE but reform must happen. There isn't a better time, the government has its arse to the wall and must act, its time to tidy up years of waste and I'd be happy to see productive workers left untouched if possible.

FG's proposals actually look pretty good at first looking at them. I think the lowest paid should be protected and overall, everyone would rather a clean up than a flat pay cut to everyone but this will have to be forced past unions hell bent on demanding no cuts whatsoever and no efficiencies or changes to work practice which is just nonsense and this is why they have lost all credibility to most sensible people.

gerry28

irish_bob wrote: »

if someone on a 150 k salary works for a firm which is profitable , thier is no reason why they should see a pay cut , the goverment is in the red so it is entirely reasonable that thier employees on either 100 k or 25 k should take a pay cut , while you have something in common with a consultant in the HSE and have the right to insist that they face a pay cut at least equitable with any cut you face , you have nothing in common with a partner in a top law firm , this isnt a socilist country yet so your arguement about fairness doesnt hold water , its about math , not morality , if you want it to be about morality , vote for joe higgins , he wants everyone to earn the exact same , the beards in the unions like to ****e on about equality but they insist on a pay differential of 25% between public and private

Irish bob, i'm not talking about paycuts for them - 3rd rate of tax is how they should pay. A paycut for private worker is only benefiting their employer.... it would mean less tax for the government if they had their pay cut.

cson

gerry28 wrote: »

Irish bob, i'm not talking about paycuts for them - 3rd rate of tax is how they should pay. A paycut for private worker is only benefiting their employer.... it would mean less tax for the government if they had their pay cut.

They pay more to pay you in essence then? :pac:

gerry28

cson wrote: »

They pay more to pay you in essence then? :pac:

No, to ease the 500million borrowings every week.

A paycut would be more palatable if a 3rd rate of tax was brought in for high earners and if the super rich were asked to give more or maybe even pay their tax here for a few years.

In other words if everybody was truely and fairly paying their share.

cson

gerry28 wrote: »

No, to ease the 500million borrowings every week.

Part of which pays your wages.

gerry28 wrote: »

A paycut would be more palatable if a 3rd rate of tax was brought in for high earners and if the super rich were asked to give more or maybe even pay their tax here for a few years.

In other words if everybody was truely and fairly paying their share.

Ah, it's very easy to single out the mystical high earners for plucking. It's also very easy for said high earners to take off and pay their tax in a more palatable tax regieme. Why would you work hard all your life in order to get to a level where you are classed a high earner when it'll just be taxed to the hilt at the behest of people like yourself?

And just a question; do you honestly think at the current pay rates and conditions that Public Sector workers are paying their fair share? Note, this is before the budget - currently as we stand.

gerry28

cson wrote: »

And just a question; do you honestly think at the current pay rates and conditions that Public Sector workers are paying their fair share? Note, this is before the budget - currently as we stand.

I believe I am. I won't speak for anyone else.

thebman

gerry28 wrote: »

No, to ease the 500million borrowings every week.

A paycut would be more palatable if a 3rd rate of tax was brought in for high earners and if the super rich were asked to give more or maybe even pay their tax here for a few years.

In other words if everybody was truely and fairly paying their share.

There are feck all tax exiles in fairness.

Everyone seems to like to talk about them but must businesses are small and the owners are working in the company like any other employee.

There is no evil man stroking his beard at the thoughts of getting more money for his evil empire. That's a myth, the world is much more normal than that in general.

cson

Ah, see here we reach the crux of the matter; you are willing to call for the private sector as a whole to "share the pain" as you so eloquently put it yet when a simple question is put to you about the public sector paying their share you can only answer for yourself. Very convienent.

Unless you can answer simple questions about the sector you work in, then you cannot make demands of the other sector.

cson

thebman wrote: »

There are feck all tax exiles in fairness.

Everyone seems to like to talk about them but must businesses are small and the owners are working in the company like any other employee.

There is no evil man stroking his beard at the thoughts of getting more money for his evil empire. That's a myth, the world is much more normal than that in general.

I'd like to add that a lot of successful Irish businessmen are patriotic enough for want of a better expression when it comes to taxation - I'm sure it'd be a lot easier for someone like JP McManus to pay his taxes in Portugal but he doesn't.

It's the likes of Michael Fingletons €1 million pay off that induces the thoughts of the evil stroking his beard at the thoughts of getting more money for his evil empire.

Diarmuid

thebman wrote: »

There are feck all tax exiles in fairness.

Q.And what is a tax "exile"?
A. Someone who lives in another country and pays tax there. Why should they pay tax in Ireland. FFS.

By the same logic, people should be encouraging the US government to hit Google, Intel and Microsoft in Ireland with a nice tax bill because they are tax exiles in Ireland!

gerry28

cson wrote: »

Ah, see here we reach the crux of the matter; you are willing to call for the private sector as a whole to "share the pain" as you so eloquently put it yet when a simple question is put to you about the public sector paying their share you can only answer for yourself. Very convienent.

Unless you can answer simple questions about the sector you work in, then you cannot make demands of the other sector.

My reference was for any high earners to pay the 3rd rate of tax.

boodlesdoodles

cson wrote: »

I'd like to add that a lot of successful Irish businessmen are patriotic enough for want of a better expression when it comes to taxation - I'm sure it'd be a lot easier for someone like JP McManus to pay his taxes in Portugal but he doesn't.

It's the likes of Michael Fingletons €1 million pay off that induces the thoughts of the evil stroking his beard at the thoughts of getting more money for his evil empire.

JP McManus does not pay tax in this country, he is registered non-resident this is pretty common knowledge. Whilst he donates millions each year to various charities etc, he is not an Irish taxpayer.

Scarab

gerry28 wrote: »

No, to ease the 500million borrowings every week.

A paycut would be more palatable if a 3rd rate of tax was brought in for high earners and if the super rich were asked to give more or maybe even pay their tax here for a few years.

In other words if everybody was truely and fairly paying their share.

Ok well let's talk figures. Earners on 150K or more represent 2% of taxpayers and contribute 29% of the total income tax take. They have an effective tax rate 3.5 times higher than someone earning between 30K and 35K.

Well they can still afford to pay more i hear you say, that may be so, but a punative tax on the wealthy will not work because

(i) these are the individuals with the ability to reorganise their affairs and will move to low tax economies should the cost of living in Ireland become prohibative creating a brain drain

(ii) these taxes act as a disincentive to entreprenuerial activity, which is exactly what is needed to get out of this mess

(iii) it is essentially a tax on well paid jobs which is in opposition to our attempts to build a 'smart' economy.

In relation to tax exiles there is not much that you can do there, if people don't live in ireland they don't have to pay tax here depending on how their income arises.

meathstevie

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

JP McManus does not pay tax in this country, he is registered non-resident this is pretty common knowledge. Whilst he donates millions each year to various charities etc, he is not an Irish taxpayer.

Ever wondered what his motivations to do this are ? That man probably contributes more voluntarily than what he would ever owe in taxes. Does he not trust the government to spend his tax money wisely ?

randylonghorn

DeVore wrote: »

Share the pain?! SHARE THE PAIN?????

Fnck, I'm about to get reamed because other people, public and private sector, couldnt so much as balance their cheque books let alone manage their personal finances!!

If we're all "sharing the pain" when do I get a chunk of your over priced house I'm now going to have to pay for???

DeV.

+1000

Though in fairness, I'm willing enough to share the pain, if it's divvied out with some attempt at fairness.

Why?

Because I'm a citizen of this country, and we're all in this sinking ship together.

But the truth is that just as the bankers and the developers and their union, Fianna Fail, lost the run of themselves during the Celtic Fiasco, so did many many private citizens ... people who work in both the private and the public sector! They believed the politicians (which is a bit like believing in pixies!) and cheerfully acted as the chorus to the tragicomedy which was the real Bertie Bowl.

Jesus, my father left school after primary, and he could see the ending of the play from early in the first act.

How the hell could the economists, the bankers, the politicians, the teachers, the doctors, the best and the brightest in both the private and public sector not see the likely ending?

I'll admit, I didn't expect it to bounce so far to the other extreme and so quickly, but apart from that it was like waiting for the night to follow the day.

As a result, I don't have a mortgage or an over-priced house on my hands. Neither do a few of my friends who I begged and bullied in the latter years not to go for that "bigger, better" house just down the road at twice the price. That's one thing that gives me the odd twinge of satisfaction in the middle of all of this.

irish_bob wrote: »

if someone on a 150 k salary works for a firm which is profitable , thier is no reason why they should see a pay cut

You're right, they shouldn't take a paycut.

They should however pay an extra bit of tax, just like everyone else in a decent job, private or public sector.

Why?

Because we're all citizens of this country, and we are all in the same sinking ship.

thebman wrote: »

Where is the evidence that this is happening? I don't see it. we are 20 billion in debt this year before NAMA or anything happens and they are off our books and not part of the public finances until after NAMA goes tits up in a few years time. The government aren't trying to put private and public against each other, they are trying to balance the books somewhat. It is foolish to suggest they want to be a position where they have to decide which sector to piss off and lose the votes in. It is a simple reality that the money is not there. Its not what they want, it is the situation they are in. Its more like the unions are trying to turn the public sector against the private by demanding the private sector share the pain which ignores the reality of the catastrophic heart attack the private sector has had and the nature of the private sector too that some areas will be unaffected because they provide valuable services that are still in demand.

Its not using them as a shield, its real world logic that 20 billion in borrows is unsustainable and cuts must be made where ever possible.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at, I probably should have elaborated further.

By "the government / developers / bankers unholy trinity ... using the entire public sector as a human shield" I was referring to the fact that the public service has been shoved out into the limelight by this triumvirate and their friends (and gulls!) in the media as the chief villain of the piece.

Now I think I've made it clear that I am not a blind apologist for the public sector; that I'm all in favour of real as opposed to cosmetic reform where it's needed; that I certainly don't believe that the public sector should be exempt from the "pain" everyone talks about, especially those within it (the majority, but certainly not all) who do at least have secure jobs.

However, it irritates me that so many gullible people are falling for the hype they're being fed, and joining in the feeding frenzy around the public servants, most of whom (there are lazy, useless gits in every sector) are doing their job as best they can, and, I genuinely believe, the majority of whom are quite resigned to "sharing the pain" provided they see it being divvied out with some attempt at fairness, starting with their political masters who are so loath to apply the "cut" mentality to their own cushy perks.

That said, I fully accept that the union leadership is not doing either their members or the image of the sector any favours ... too many of them are part of the cosy cartel that lives in it's own sweet world within half a mile of the Spire!

Red Sleeping Beauty

baaaa wrote: »

This post is dumb and selfish in equal measures.
It's simple,countrys nearly broke,paycuts are happening.
I bet my life that this poster does not know the simple economics of the state.

The country's not going broke. The state's finances are trouble because the tax take is down. No fear of the country going broke.

mawk wrote: »

taking an eighth off 35k put you pretty much bang on the national average industrial wage. Earning exactly what everyone else earns sounds pretty fair to me

Who is on 35grand a year? Nearly half of the public sector are earning about 30grand or less.

Diarmuid wrote: »

Q.And what is a tax "exile"?
A. Someone who lives in another country and pays tax there. Why should they pay tax in Ireland. FFS.

By the same logic, people should be encouraging the US government to hit Google, Intel and Microsoft in Ireland with a nice tax bill because they are tax exiles in Ireland!

These people will live outside of the state for a period of time so as to avoid paying their full tax commitments.

Your definition of a tax exile is a person. Google doesn't have arms, legs or a beating heart so your logic doesn't really hold up there.

RMDrive

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The country's not going broke. The state's finances are trouble because the tax take is down. No fear of the country going broke.



Who is on 35grand a year? Nearly half of the public sector are earning about 30grand or less.



These people will live outside of the state for a period of time so as to avoid paying their full tax commitments.

Your definition of a tax exile is a person. Google doesn't have arms, legs or a beating heart so your logic doesn't really hold up there.

You won't get away with lies around here mate!!
http://www.7stepstotransform.ie/myths.php

randylonghorn

RMDrive wrote: »

You won't get away with lies around here mate!!
http://www.7stepstotransform.ie/myths.php

Interesting site to quote.

Have you read the rest of that section? Really read and understood it?

While they're bound to be partisan, even biased in their interpretation and view, there are some interesting stats quoted from the OECD, etc.

And before you start shouting at me, YOU chose the weblink!!

RMDrive

randylonghorn wrote: »

Interesting site to quote.

Have you read the rest of that section? Really read and understood it?

While they're bound to be partisan, even biased in their interpretation and view, there are some interesting stats quoted from the OECD, etc.

And before you start shouting at me, YOU chose the weblink!!

I never shout. Yeah I've (really) read it and there's definitely some interesting stuff there. Don't know if I understand it but then that's probably just me!
Why did you think I would shout?

RasTa

ryaner77 wrote: »

If there have to be cuts (which there does) it should be across the board, private and public sector.

Why should it just be you who foots the bill for this governments failures ?

You have my sympathies and my full support.

wat?