FG Proposals on Public Pay

Riskymove

Fine Gael has proposed a €1.7 billion cut in the public sector pay bill, through a combination of pay cuts and 10,000 redundancies.

In a ‘jobs budget’ document published today, the party said the savings could be achieved in 2010 through a combination of freezing of increments, graduated reductions above earnings of €30,000, local payroll savings of 2 per cent and through the redundancies.

The pay cuts would only affect those earning more than €30,000, and would only apply to income above that amount in the case of those earning more.

Those earning between €30,000 and €40,000 would have their pay reduced by 5 per cent on earnings above €30,000, while those earning between €40,000 and €100,000 would have theirs reduced by 10 per cent. Anyone earning more than €100,000 would have a 20 per cent cut.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1204/breaking43.htm


also includes some plans for welfare

In other measures, Fine Gael said it envisaged a saving of the order of €400 million in the social welfare budget, net of job creation measures.

It said it did not propose any cuts to the old age pension or to the child benefit allowance.

It said, however, that given the reduction in the consumer price index there was scope for a 3 per cent cut to adult working-age payments, excluding those to carers, the disabled and the blind.

In addition, it proposed a weekly €50 cut for under 25s who refuse offers of work or training after six months on the dole. These measures would raise €257 million in one year.

gerry28

Riskymove wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1204/breaking43.htm


also includes some plans for welfare

Does this mean that someone earning 35,000 would have the 5000 portion of their wages cut by an additional 5% or the whole 35,000 cut by 5%?

Riskymove

gerry28 wrote: »

Does this mean that someone earning 35,000 would have the 5000 portion of their wages cut by an additional 5% or the whole 35,000 cut by 5%?

it reads to me as a 5% cut on the €5,000

The_Honeybadger

Riskymove wrote: »

it reads to me as a 5% cut on the €5,000

At last a concrete common sense proposal from a political party, hope FF are watching and stop dithering.

Gumbo

i heard Enda Kenny say this last week, it makes so much sense instead of having to deal with all this unpaid leave etc etc its a mess.

PS Woker.

Cuchulain

Riskymove wrote: »

Those earning between €30,000 and €40,000 would have their pay reduced by 5 per cent on earnings above €30,000, while those earning between €40,000 and €100,000 would have theirs reduced by 10 per cent. Anyone earning more than €100,000 would have a 20 per cent cut.

Not going to happen. FG can talk the talk but thats about it. You cant piss off the trade unions altogether or else strikes will grind this country to a halt. Kenny is a total tool altogether.

oscarBravo

Cuchulain wrote: »

Not going to happen. FG can talk the talk but thats about it. You cant piss off the trade unions altogether or else strikes will grind this country to a halt. Kenny is a total tool altogether.

So, what do you suggest?

The_Honeybadger

Cuchulain wrote: »

Not going to happen. FG can talk the talk but thats about it. You cant piss off the trade unions altogether or else strikes will grind this country to a halt. Kenny is a total tool altogether.

If we set out with that attitude it certainly won't happen. Why not stand up to the trade unions, they are not in the position of strength that they once were and some of their own members are even turning against them. This is the fairest proposal I have seen to date.

murphaph

Cuchulain wrote: »

Not going to happen. FG can talk the talk but thats about it. You cant piss off the trade unions altogether or else strikes will grind this country to a halt. Kenny is a total tool altogether.

If the members of the unions use their brains they'll realise the money isn't there and they'll just go to work on the new terms and conditions. If they don't use their heads they'll strike, lose pay for days on strike, then lose conditions before returning to work.

The members of these unions might be better off withholding their subs. The money goes to overinflated union types on 150k salaries plus perks!

Cuchulain

mickeyk wrote: »

If we set out with that attitude it certainly won't happen. Why not stand up to the trade unions, they are not in the position of strength that they once were and some of their own members are even turning against them. This is the fairest proposal I have seen to date.

Of course they are in a position of strength. They can hold the country to ransom under the treat of strike :rolleyes:

Cuchulain

murphaph wrote: »

If the members of the unions use their brains they'll realise the money isn't there and they'll just go to work on the new terms and conditions. If they don't use their heads they'll strike, lose pay for days on strike, then lose conditions before returning to work.

The members of these unions might be better off withholding their subs. The money goes to overinflated union types on 150k salaries plus perks!

Do you have any concept on how a union works? Power in numbers and one for all etc etc. At the end of the day all the unions want is higher pay and better conditions for their members.

So for a PS worker its better that unions are there than if they werent. Otherwise the government would just tell the PS what they are going to be cut.....there wouldnt be any discussions.

murphaph

Cuchulain wrote: »

At the end of the day all the unions want is higher pay and better conditions for their members

...and fcuk the rest of ye. Exactly. Totally agree with you.

marco_polo

Cuchulain wrote: »

Of course they are in a position of strength. They can hold the country to ransom under the treat of strike :rolleyes:

I think the majority of people would be put up with a full on strike, on the back of sensible and fair PS pay cuts, for the sake of the future health of the economy.

The_Honeybadger

Cuchulain wrote: »

Of course they are in a position of strength. They can hold the country to ransom under the treat of strike :rolleyes:

Public opinion is a very powerful force and it is steadily turning against the unions as they make jackasses out of themselves in various interviews and debates. Wheeling out the "poor" nurses and guards no longer works as people now realise how well paid their members are, during the boom most people couldn't tell you what a guard or teacher earns. Add to that the fact that we are in an absolutely perilous financial state and the unions have very little room for maneuvre. Many PS workers have stated they are willing to take a cut and the unions will have to concede ground to the government IMO

frman

marco_polo wrote: »

I think the majority of people would be put up with a full on strike, on the pack of PS pay cuts, for the sake of the future health of the economy.

Also, how long do you think members can stay out on strike for before they miss their pay-packets. It wouldn't take long before pickets are crossed when bills are mounting up.


The threat of strike is not as powerful as they might think.

gandalf

If the figures are correct this FG option looks like its fair and would work. It wouldn't effect the extremely low paid members of the PS and it would ensure those who are doing well pay a decent amount of the burden.

It will be interesting to see if the Government actually show some cop on and take some or all of these ideas on board. Based on the farce of talks so far this week I sincerely doubt it.

Riskymove

gandalf wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if the Government actually show some cop on and take some or all of these ideas on board. Based on the farce of talks so far this week I sincerely doubt it.

In fairness, its pretty much the same structure as the pension levy

Mr. Presentable

What would 10,000 redundancies cost in pay-offs?

Does Kenny include himself in the high paid PS for the purposes of cuts?

Riskymove

nipplenuts wrote: »

What would 10,000 redundancies cost in pay-offs?

it depends on who you make redundant and what they earn


or it can be free if you just do the usual and dont fill vacancies

gandalf

Riskymove wrote: »

In fairness, its pretty much the same structure as the pension levy

Yes but this is a pay cut not a levy. Do you have a better idea? Better structure?

I think if there are cuts in PS Salary those with the higher amounts should take the bigger cuts including all the TD's, Ministers, Taoiseach, President, Senators (who should take the higest of all cuts to lead by example).

Riskymove

gandalf wrote: »

Yes but this is a pay cut not a levy. Do you have a better idea? Better structure?

I was just popinting out that the Govt have implemented something similar already so its not really a case of taking lessons

I think if there are cuts in PS Salary those with the higher amounts should take the bigger cuts including all the TD's, Ministers, Taoiseach, President, Senators (who should take the higest of all cuts to lead by example).

the report on remuneration on higher level pay uis due out and I'd imagine will hit these

Ministers and others have already taken a 10% voluntary pay cut

Cuchulain

Riskymove wrote: »

Fine Gael has proposed a €1.7 billion cut in the public sector pay bill, through a combination of pay cuts and 10,000 redundancies.

Nice one, another 10,000 people on social welfare. :rolleyes:

ssaye

nipplenuts wrote: »

What would 10,000 redundancies cost in pay-offs?

Does Kenny include himself in the high paid PS for the purposes of cuts?

10000 people laid off, 10000 * at least 20000 redundancy each = 200 M
10000 on dole tomorrow or 3 months waiting whatever = 2M per week extra 100M p/a

10000 not spending as much <VAT Take <Income Tax take 10000 * 5000 = 50M

so in a year firing 10000 whether skilled or not would probably impact services/waiting lists and cost 350M to the govt. Keeping these 10000 employed costs the 200M in wage, you decide?

tunney

ssaye wrote: »

10000 people laid off, 10000 * at least 20000 redundancy each = 200 M
10000 on dole tomorrow or 3 months waiting whatever = 2M per week extra 100M p/a

10000 not spending as much <VAT Take <Income Tax take 10000 * 5000 = 50M

so in a year firing 10000 whether skilled or not would probably impact services/waiting lists and cost 350M to the govt. Keeping these 10000 employed costs the 200M in wage, you decide?

Change the redundancy to statutory.
Reduce dole.

gandalf

Hang on where do you get 200m in Wages. If the average PS wage is 35k then that would equate to 350 million. If they target those like the 800 Middle Managers in the HSE who have nothing to do then you can bet your bottom dollar that they are on a far higher wage, the saving is higher.

marco_polo

ssaye wrote: »

10000 people laid off, 10000 * at least 20000 redundancy each = 200 M
10000 on dole tomorrow or 3 months waiting whatever = 2M per week extra 100M p/a

10000 not spending as much <VAT Take <Income Tax take 10000 * 5000 = 50M

so in a year firing 10000 whether skilled or not would probably impact services/waiting lists and cost 350M to the govt. Keeping these 10000 employed costs the 200M in wage, you decide?

Much of it will probably be (regretably)non permanent workers, also non replacement of staff etc. Your average redundancy payment of 20,000 looks very high, and average wage of 20,000 very low

CityCentreMan

This seems like a reasonably sensible proposal in that it protects the low paid whilst achieving the objective of achieving an overall cost reduction.

In my view we still need to start with the cuts at the very very top and I will be interested to see how FG address this. The cuts have to start at cabinet level and make no apologies for repeating from another post of mine

"If we are to see reform in the Public Service, I would like the reform and the cuts to start with Brian Cowan & Brian Lenihan themselves and work it down. They should :

a) Cut the salaries at ministerial level by at least 30%;
(Maybe benchmark themselves against the pay levels applied in the Scottish Parliament!)
b) Limit the number of pensions to 1 per politician;
c) Outlaw all "unvouched" expenses
d) Place limits on the levels of expenses that can be claimed"

In addition to this, I was interested to hear from Liam Doran on the radio this afternoon outline his "Once in a lifetime opportunity". Basically this is a proposal to introducing the measures that we thought we were due to get from Benchmarking when the benchmarking increases were paid a few years ago.

From his statement it is clear that these improvements in service / productivity are very possible. Even tho it would have been preferable to get these when they were originally paid for thru the benchmarking - it would be better now, better later than never!

Obviously, Cuckoolan could be right and we could end up in a strike situation with proposals not accepted. If that is the case, I think the mood of the general public at the moment is that they would support the government and put up with the inconvenience of a strike.

nesf

Seems fairly reasonable, 1.7 billion is probably on the high side though. Now the question is whether Labour would ever agree to vote for such a proposal given Gilmore's welcoming of the unpaid leave idea.

ardmacha

Also are these real cuts and not jiggery pokery levy type cuts where a person working on €x gets cut and the pensioner on €x doesn't.

Rev. BlueJeans

Gilmore hasn't a clue, and is torn between his Labour credentials and the mood of the people.

I had held him in some esteem after the JOD debacle, but between this, and his pronouncement that dole was sacrosanct and shouldn't be touched, he's lost my support tbh.

Dickerty

Those earning between €30,000 and €40,000 would have their pay reduced by 5 per cent on earnings above €30,000, while those earning between €40,000 and €100,000 would have theirs reduced by 10 per cent. Anyone earning more than €100,000 would have a 20 per cent cut.

So you are an experienced, dedicated and hard working civil servant, and you are on 100K, and suddenly you are down to maybe 90K? Is the idea to try and scare these people out to the private sector?