The "live as it happens" Budget comment thread....

Idbatterim

In fairness to the entire PS I think they are being scapegoated, for the ridiculous pay of some sectors of the PS! The same way all of us private sector workers are head of banks, lawyers and property developers! when it came to cutting PS pay some were correctly chopped a hell of alot more than others!

waffleman

Jamie-b wrote: »

Not really hilarious? Where I work loads of jobs are contract workers just in case at some point in the future they don't need the role anymore and can't be left with permanant employees

ok so you're saying it's the second option i gave:

"they are wasting fistfuls of money using outside contracting companies because "they don't want to make more people permanant""

maybe hilarious was too strong a word - what did make me smile was that this is still seen as acceptable by the Public Sector - i work in a large I.T. company and there is not 1 contract worker - if they need someone they are hired permanently - if they cant do the job they are sacked and we get someone else - end of - this is what needs to happen in the public sector - more wage cuts i say and the sooner the better

Idbatterim

Just reading that from next year lump sum payments of over E200k made to Ps workers will be taxed! Atlast there is no some sort of "fairness" coming into the equation after the Private Sector has been decimated for atleast a year!

rebel10

Rb wrote: »

Sorry? Do you know how this thing works at all?

What are you suggesting? That income tax is increased? That would be a double whammy on public sector workers?

Unless you're talking about the Government trying to target private sector workers specifically, whose pay they have no control over with the exception of income taxes which apply to every worker in the country. Then again, I don't believe you've any idea what you're talking about.

FFS! After reading several of your posts now, I keep asking myself, WHAT?WHAT? What is the point of you coming on here, on budget day, suggesting that the public sector have not been hit hard enough? What the other poster was trying to say, was that someone on 25000 in the pub. sec. who was hit today, who is not on a permanent contract, will find it very hard to see those boys in the Private sec. earning well over 100,000, not being touched? Now can you justify that? Please spare me the nonsensical outbursts you have come out with today.

Matthew712

There are 1.7 million in the private sector compared to 0.31 million in the public sector.
If the 6% cut taken by the 0.31 million was evenly shared it would have been about a 1% cut on average shared across the working sector. But this was to painful?

tudlytops

waffleman wrote: »

ok so you're saying it's the second option i gave:

"they are wasting fistfuls of money using outside contracting companies because "they don't want to make more people permanant""

maybe hilarious was too strong a word - what did make me smile was that this is still seen as acceptable by the Public Sector - i work in a large I.T. company and there is not 1 contract worker - if they need someone they are hired permanently - if they cant do the job they are sacked and we get someone else - end of - this is what needs to happen in the public sector - more wage cuts i say and the sooner the better

Not wage cuts, time studies. the company i was working for done a time study every year, if you weren't up to speed, they would talk to you, see if you needed more training in a particular area, etc, given then time to adjust if you weren't up to speed again, you go the sack, simple.

IrishLady

Jamie-b wrote: »

I hope it does, and I hope you have a happy Christmas regardless of the difficulties.

Looking at the comment from efb, I think it gives us all a bit of perspective. I have a public sector job, and I think we have been feeling like we are an easy target, but in all honesty the real victims are families like yours. It's funny (and sad) how we find ourselves getting sticky about a 6% / 7% paycut when we believe it is simply to bailout banks and property developers, but in reality if I was told I had to take a 20% to support carers and people who have fallen on bad times I would be ok.
Even though it's just semantics I think it would have been better to enforce an unemployment levy of 7%ish! instead of the pension levy!!

Thanks jamie b and the same to you !!

waffleman

tudlytops wrote: »

Not wage cuts, time studies. the company i was working for done a time study every year, if you weren't up to speed, they would talk to you, see if you needed more training in a particular area, etc, given then time to adjust if you weren't up to speed again, you go the sack, simple.

interesting - well we are so far in the sh!t at present i would suggest a combination of both

tudlytops

rebel10 wrote: »

FFS! After reading several of your posts now, I keep asking myself, WHAT?WHAT? What is the point of you coming on here, on budget day, suggesting that the public sector have not been hit hard enough? What the other poster was trying to say, was that someone on 25000 in the pub. sec. who was hit today, who is not on a permanent contract, will find it very hard to see those boys in the Private sec. earning well over 100,000, not being touched? Now can you justify that? Please spare me the nonsensical outbursts you have come out with today.

First the government can't cut private wages, but even if they could that would make no sense as then they would pay less tax.

tudlytops

waffleman wrote: »

interesting - well we are so far in the sh!t at present i would suggest a combination of both

But in all fairness they just had their wage cuts, now lets see how many people does it take to do the job of one

Jamie-b

maybe hilarious was too strong a word - what did make me smile was that this is still seen as acceptable by the Public Sector - i work in a large I.T. company and there is not 1 contract worker - if they need someone they are hired permanently - if they cant do the job they are sacked and we get someone else - end of - this is what needs to happen in the public sector - more wage cuts i say and the sooner the better

It is not acceptable really. I am a public sector worker and am on a fixed term contract and will lose my job soon when permanant people who do no work keep theirs. It is not right, and not fair. All I am saying is that sometimes when the public sector hire in contractors simply because they are not willing to hire people with certain skills permanantly because once you are permanant you pretty much cannot be fired.
I am not saying this is the right way to do things. The problem is the fear that they will end up with a permanant employee in a role they no longer require. I am all for pubic sector performance evalutions and the ability t get rid of people who do not work well. I know people who do no work with various excuses and other do their job with no complaints and no extra pay. I would prefer if there was more emphasis on performance as I would keep my job, and those I have encountered who are only there because they cannot be fired would be let go. There is serious need for reform, I don't doubt this at all. All I'm saying there are public sector workers who are highly qualified, work hard and are being tarnished with the same brush as the (usually higher paid!) ones who are there so long they can't be gotten rid of

P. Breathnach

Idbatterim wrote: »

Qs, do you understand that the top 4% of earners pay 50% of the entire tax take for the country! They are the ones getting screwed! 50% of workers pay no tax! ...

Get your facts right if you want to make such a case. That claim is true only for income tax. In other words, it is not even true for all taxes on income, and it does not take any account of expenditure taxes like VAT and excise duties, nor does it account for things like local authority charges

mercedeslimos

anybody tell me, i applied for jobseekers allowance and supplementary welfare allowance last wkke and my claim was approved on monday.

how am i affected? i'm 20

opinion guy

waffleman wrote: »

ok so you're saying it's the second option i gave:

"they are wasting fistfuls of money using outside contracting companies because "they don't want to make more people permanant""

maybe hilarious was too strong a word - what did make me smile was that this is still seen as acceptable by the Public Sector - i work in a large I.T. company and there is not 1 contract worker - if they need someone they are hired permanently - if they cant do the job they are sacked and we get someone else - end of - this is what needs to happen in the public sector - more wage cuts i say and the sooner the better

How do public sector paycuts relate to contract workers? Contractors are by definition private sector, be they nurses, IT folk, bricklayer or whatever. These paycuts only affect the permanent public sector workers, not the contractors who are earning alot more to begin with.

tudlytops

Jamie-b wrote: »

It is not acceptable really. I am a public sector worker and am on a fixed term contract and will lose my job soon when permanant people who do no work keep theirs. It is not right, and not fair. All I am saying is that sometimes when the public sector hire in contractors simply because they are not willing to hire people with certain skills permanantly because once you are permanant you pretty much cannot be fired.
I am not saying this is the right way to do things. The problem is the fear that they will end up with a permanant employee in a role they no longer require. I am all for pubic sector performance evalutions and the ability t get rid of people who do not work well. I know people who do no work with various excuses and other do their job with no complaints and no extra pay. I would prefer if there was more emphasis on performance as I would keep my job, and those I have encountered who are only there because they cannot be fired would be let go. There is serious need for reform, I don't doubt this at all. All I'm saying there are public sector workers who are highly qualified, work hard and are being tarnished with the same brush as the (usually higher paid!) ones who are there so long they can't be gotten rid of

Of course you can be sacked, permanent or not if you not doing the work you being paid to do, you can get sacked, problem is that they don't in the Public sector, at the best they moved then from one department to another in the hope to find something they can do.

i know this is not the case with every worker, but how many times have people here been in a que waiting to be served and they are on the phone talking about how good the weekend was, etc.

tudlytops

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Get your facts right if you want to make such a case. That claim is true only for income tax. In other words, it is not even true for all taxes on income, and it does not take any account of expenditure taxes like VAT and excise duties, nor does it account for things like local authority charges

Rb wrote: »

tudlytops in fairness, I can't imagine why they'd make those figures up unless they were interested in attacking those who don't pay tax, which they haven't done.

even then they are just manipulating the figures, because they are trying to say that they have been fair and taxed the rich, witch they done so but only to a certain extent, but they are still protecting the real high earners, that not only have really high salaries they have bonus to go with it.

And I have nothing against people getting big wages, by why does a job in the public sector is better paid then the same job in the private sector.

What exactly do they do for their bonus, did the guy in Fas get a bonus because more people then expected got jobs with FAS help, or just because its expected that they get bonus.

tudlytops

mercedeslimos wrote: »

anybody tell me, i applied for jobseekers allowance and supplementary welfare allowance last wkke and my claim was approved on monday.

how am i affected? i'm 20

Don't think so its for new claims only and you've already been accepted, but if you refuse a job then you will be affect, or so they say will see.

waffleman

opinion guy wrote: »

How do public sector paycuts relate to contract workers? Contractors are by definition private sector, be they nurses, IT folk, bricklayer or whatever. These paycuts only affect the permanent public sector workers, not the contractors who are earning alot more to begin with.

I was referring to the case of a previous poster who was hired in by the public sector as a contractor to do a job incurring extra expense for the tax payer (the fee going to the contracting company) as opposed to someone in a permanent position in the public sector on a lower wage. I would like to see this type of practice cut out. Maybe I should have been clearer on that. I would also like to see public sector wages cut more in the budget particularly for higher earners.

Jamie-b

Of course you can be sacked, permanent or not if you not doing the work you being paid to do, you can get sacked, problem is that they don't in the Public sector, at the best they moved then from one department to another in the hope to find something they can do.

This is not the case. I know public sector employees who cannot be fired simply because they have permanant status. In reality, they make up a role for them, while the actual job they were hired to do is divided out between other workers who do not get overtime/flexitime etc, but simply do the work because it has to be done

How do public sector paycuts relate to contract workers? Contractors are by definition private sector, be they nurses, IT folk, bricklayer or whatever. These paycuts only affect the permanent public sector workers, not the contractors who are earning alot more to begin with.

I don't mean "contractors" in the sense that they are private sector workers hired in for a specific job. There are loads of contract workers where are I am, including myself, on fixed term contracts who are classified as public sector workers although they have no permanant job and are all subject to the levies and pay cuts. We are all "classified" as contract workers although we are hired by the institution

tudlytops

Jamie-b wrote: »

This is not the case. I know public sector employees who cannot be fired simply because they have permanant status. In reality, they make up a role for them, while the actual job they were hired to do is divided out between other workers who do not get overtime/flexitime etc, but simply do the work because it has to be done

Are you for real, they can't be sacked? even if they're no good and can't or wont do what they are being paid for

no wonder it is in such a mess

westtip

In reality its not just about cutting pay it is about a total overhaul of the service and reducing headcount in the administrative sections of CS by about 50%

segaBOY

tudlytops wrote: »

Of course you can be sacked, permanent or not if you not doing the work you being paid to do, you can get sacked, problem is that they don't in the Public sector, at the best they moved then from one department to another in the hope to find something they can do.

i know this is not the case with every worker, but how many times have people here been in a que waiting to be served and they are on the phone talking about how good the weekend was, etc.

Sometimes their poor performance can work in your favour. I had to get documents photocopied in the planning office which normally costs a few euro.

So I walked in there 3.50pm which is ten minutes before closing time, que worker dressed in sports clothes (they all wear what they want in county hall).
I ask to copy some documents relating to maps, five minutes later he returns and hands me the copies. I ask him "how much do I owe you?" as I reach for my wallet he cuts across "€4.50...actually it's not worth my time charging you for €4.50"

As I walk out he switches off the lights and shuts the door behind him at 3.57pm by my watch.

Now, what if you walked into your local shop ten minutes before closing and photocopy some documents-do you think they wouldn't charge you?

Good ol Public Service, worth every penny.

dunny1975

Why don't all public servants stop paying their mortgages. Our money is going to pay off developers mortgages to bail out the zombie banks that caused the problems and we are picking up the tab. If this cripples all the rest of the banks so be it, they can evict all 300,000 of us and then the government would be in a bigger mess. Love the way the public service has been made to pay for this, know when I get another whinging phone call in the morning i'll tell them so shove it.

tudlytops

segaBOY wrote: »

Sometimes their poor performance can work in your favour. I had to get documents photocopied in the planning office which normally costs a few euro.

So I walked in there 3.50pm which is ten minutes before closing time, que worker dressed in sports clothes (they all wear what they want in county hall).
I ask to copy some documents relating to maps, five minutes later he returns and hands me the copies. I ask him "how much do I owe you?" as I reach for my wallet he cuts across "€4.50...actually it's not worth my time charging you for €4.50"

As I walk out he switches off the lights and shuts the door behind him at 3.57pm by my watch.

Now, what if you walked into your local shop ten minutes before closing and photocopy some documents-do you think they wouldn't charge you?

Good ol Public Service, worth every penny.

lol, That's one way to look at it.

segaBOY

tudlytops wrote: »

Are you for real, they can't be sacked? even if they're no good and can't or wont do what they are being paid for

no wonder it is in such a mess

Friend's father is very high up in one of the Departments, that's exactly what he said-if you have been made permanent and it transpires you are a liability they simply give you a job that doesn't need doing and farm out the work to others.

Great system eh?

And who can forget this:

Civil Servant paid €80k to read paper

segaBOY

dunny1975 wrote: »

Why don't all public servants stop paying their mortgages. Our money is going to pay off developers mortgages to bail out the zombie banks that caused the problems and we are picking up the tab. If this cripples all the rest of the banks so be it, they can evict all 300,000 of us and then the government would be in a bigger mess. Love the way the public service has been made to pay for this, know when I get another whinging phone call in the morning i'll tell them so shove it.

PLEASE DO THIS, what a GREAT idea. I could really do with a lot more houses being reposessed and dumped on the housing market, really want to get a nice one for a cheap price tag.

tudlytops

dunny1975 wrote: »

Why don't all public servants stop paying their mortgages. Our money is going to pay off developers mortgages to bail out the zombie banks that caused the problems

No one forced people to take out mortgages they couldn't afford, to take out car loans, holiday loans, furniture loans, etc, etc.

love the way people blame others for their own stupidity and greed.

We not happy with what we can afford, we want it all and we want it now and when all goes belly up, find someone to blame.

yeah banks had a lot to do with it, but so did the people.

RodgerTheDoger

Jamie-b wrote: »

No offence, but you shouldnt flatter yourself that you are better than the public sector workers. The only reason they don't hire people to do the jobs is because they don't want to make more people permanant

I am fully aware of the reasons why they do this. They pay more than 3 times the average public sector salary wage just to keep me like this, and I am fully aware this makes me expendable. But it is endless even after I am gone someone else will be needed then after them it will be someone else. Let's just cut out the middle man, give a full-time government contract to a private sector company and stop the waste I watch day in day out!!

Jamie-b

Are you for real, they can't be sacked? even if they're no good and can't or wont do what they are being paid for

no wonder it is in such a mess

Yup as far as I can see. I have seen made up titles and roles for 1 or 2 workers. and, And a public sector worker with no permanancy, I am as against it as most.

Thanks jamie b and the same to you !!

No thanks, you are the people our government should be making provisions for and in my opinion have failed. I think I am too ethical to be a politican but seeing posts like yours it should make us all realise its not a public v private sector worker issue. It should be all workers working to help and pay for our neighbours who have fallen on hard times. I know bailing out our banks makes economic sense but I find it had to comprehend how such institutions can be bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer when they made bad decisions and joe soap can suffer so much, and then have his/her benefits slashed

dunny1975

Wasn't forced to take mortgage, my kids objected to living in the outside and thought that was fair enough, now i expected tp pay my mortgage and the developers??