Im off to do my shopping up North- P***ed off public servant

Welease

/shrug

I suppose the acid test will be... how many Public Sector workers decide to quit and join the Private sector....

musiknonstop

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Does this not apply to the choices made by private sector as well? Works both ways.

It's considerably harder to get a job in the public sector.

LookingFor

Matthew712 wrote: »

don't think you understand communism?

Well it sounds like you want the government to cut everyones pay.

In order to do that we'd have to all be employed by the government.

That's seems like a pretty big step into the ol' communist way of doing things.

OR

did you mean you want the government to hike everyone's taxes instead of cutting PS wages?

ntlbell

Matthew712 wrote: »

the budget imposed an average 6% pay cut on 0.31million public servants and 0% on 1.7million private sector workers. If this was shared it would have been 1% on all.
My family earn €86000 in the public sector - we suffer a €5350 gross loss on income alone today. My brother in law earns €100000+ in a private sector job. His pay was not reduced, he still got his bonus. he bought his car in the UK, he bought all his presents on amazon.co.uk, he did a deal with a builder who did a job for him so they both shared the vat. He suffered no cut today in income. My €5350 pay loss covers his tax evasion.
equity?

do we take it from that you will be leaving your secure job, huge pension, to make it rich in the private sector?

Matthew712

I don't think a 1% "average" tax would have been excessive given the dire state of the nation.

ntlbell

Matthew712 wrote: »

I don't think a 1% "average" tax would have been excessive given the dire state of the nation.

you mean another one?

LookingFor

Matthew712 wrote: »

I don't think a 1% "average" tax would have been excessive given the dire state of the nation.

OK, but why should the government wield the tax stick to protect its own workers from pay cuts?

No other company has that luxury when things are going bad for it. Why should the government abuse that power?

Are PS workers special? Should they not have to deal with the repercussions of poor finances of their employer in the same way everyone else with a financially struggling employer does?

Why should other workers in addition to their taxes and in addition to their exposure to their own employer's financial ups and downs be exposed to the governments aswell? Do we ask Microsoft employees to 'shoulder the burden' when Intel starts cutting pay? No, we don't, because Intel doesn't pay Microsoft employees. No more than the government pays employees of other private employers.

PeakOutput

Matthew712 wrote: »

I don't think a 1% "average" tax would have been excessive given the dire state of the nation.

the pay bill had to be cut either way weather the taxes increase or not the outgoings are too high

Welease

Matthew712 wrote: »

I don't think a 1% "average" tax would have been excessive given the dire state of the nation.

No.. fix the problem within the public sector... Don't keep trying to get everyone else to pay for it.

dvpower

Matthew712 wrote: »

the budget imposed an average 6% pay cut on 0.31million public servants and 0% on 1.7million private sector workers. If this was shared it would have been 1% on all.

I hate this selfish nonsense. The country doesn't revolve around public sector workers.

Would you be in favour of all workers taking a pay cut so that every private sector worker that has suffered a pay cut or redundancy can be compensated?

Koloman

Charisma wrote: »

Thats it for me. Ive been loyal and shopped in Ireland and tried to buy Irish products since this recession hit but now I give up. I am a low paid public servant who was hit by the income levy, then the pension levy and now a 5 % pay cut. I cant afford to shop here anymore. I can save the 5% the government are taking from me by shopping elsewhere and keep my family afloat (just) and thats exactly what Im going to do. I got nothing in the boom so now Im f***ed if Im paying anymore to bail the government and the bankers out.

Why don't you get a job in the NI public service then or would the cut in pay be too much?

Matthew712

A mother with 6 kids (1 fostered) breaks the hard new to her kids that Dad has lost his job because of excessive drinking. So now the household income is lower that the outgoings.
To balance the budget the father in coalition with the mother decide that savings of 1 meal a day must be made. The kids can't agree to share the pain so the 5 kids persuade the parents that the foster kid should be starved. The foster kid questoned why they were still going ahead with cobblelocking the driveway, but this was a capital investment and therefore not part of the current budget. Without agreement the foster kid was starved. Later it was realised that loss of the foster kid resulted in a further drop in the family income (1 less childrens allowance) so another kid would have to be starved to balance the budget. Which kid next? the oldest, the youngest, the weakest, the dumdest?

Welease

Matthew712 wrote: »

A mother with 6 kids (1 fostered) breaks the hard new to her kids that Dad has lost his job because of excessive drinking. So now the household income is lower that the outgoings.
To balance the budget the father in coalition with the mother decide that savings of 1 meal a day must be made. The kids can't agree to share the pain so the 5 kids persuade the parents that the foster kid should be starved. The foster kid questoned why they were still going ahead with cobblelocking the driveway, but this was a capital investment and therefore not part of the current budget. Without agreement the foster kid was starved. Later it was realised that loss of the foster kid resulted in a further drop in the family income (1 less childrens allowance) so another kid would have to be starved to balance the budget. Which kid next? the oldest, the youngest, the weakest, the dumdest?

Kids taken into care and decisions taken out of their hands because they have proven incapable of running the family unit..

omahaid

Watching Brian Lenihan and Richard Bruton on RTE1. Even Richard Bruton didn't say the PS paycut was wrong, he said the budget should have tackled uncertified sick leave

Mad_Max

Matthew712 wrote: »

A mother with 6 kids (1 fostered) breaks the hard new to her kids that Dad has lost his job because of excessive drinking. So now the household income is lower that the outgoings.
To balance the budget the father in coalition with the mother decide that savings of 1 meal a day must be made. The kids can't agree to share the pain so the 5 kids persuade the parents that the foster kid should be starved. The foster kid questoned why they were still going ahead with cobblelocking the driveway, but this was a capital investment and therefore not part of the current budget. Without agreement the foster kid was starved. Later it was realised that loss of the foster kid resulted in a further drop in the family income (1 less childrens allowance) so another kid would have to be starved to balance the budget. Which kid next? the oldest, the youngest, the weakest, the dumdest?

Im sure you could have made your point without killing a foster kid :rolleyes:

lmimmfn

Matthew712 wrote: »

A mother with 6 kids (1 fostered) breaks the hard new to her kids that Dad has lost his job because of excessive drinking. So now the household income is lower that the outgoings.
To balance the budget the father in coalition with the mother decide that savings of 1 meal a day must be made. The kids can't agree to share the pain so the 5 kids persuade the parents that the foster kid should be starved. The foster kid questoned why they were still going ahead with cobblelocking the driveway, but this was a capital investment and therefore not part of the current budget. Without agreement the foster kid was starved. Later it was realised that loss of the foster kid resulted in a further drop in the family income (1 less childrens allowance) so another kid would have to be starved to balance the budget. Which kid next? the oldest, the youngest, the weakest, the dumdest?

<- cuba
North Korea ->

and crap analogy, were not a big happy family, what about the other two sons who've been starving anyway? the foster kid is probably 20 stone.

PeakOutput

ye you see there is the problem right there mathew

you are using an emotional argument to make a point on something there should be no emotion involved in.

hard actions need to be taken for the greater good end of discussion

Count Dooku

Matthew712 wrote: »

the budget imposed an average 6% pay cut on 0.31million public servants and 0% on 1.7million private sector workers. If this was shared it would have been 1% on all.

You forgot to mention that most of PS workers will be partially compensated by 'automatic' salary increases as it was in May 2009
€250m pay bonanza for 340,000 in civil service

Dannyboy83

Matthew712 wrote: »

A mother with 6 kids (1 fostered) breaks the hard new to her kids that Dad has lost his job because of excessive drinking. So now the household income is lower that the outgoings.
To balance the budget the father in coalition with the mother decide that savings of 1 meal a day must be made. The kids can't agree to share the pain so the 5 kids persuade the parents that the foster kid should be starved. The foster kid questoned why they were still going ahead with cobblelocking the driveway, but this was a capital investment and therefore not part of the current budget. Without agreement the foster kid was starved. Later it was realised that loss of the foster kid resulted in a further drop in the family income (1 less childrens allowance) so another kid would have to be starved to balance the budget. Which kid next? the oldest, the youngest, the weakest, the dumdest?

In this analogy, you are suggesting the government bring in the earnings, this in incorrect.

In order to balance your analogy, you must introduce the family next door, Family B, who go out to work in the field to pay for this family A.
Unfortunately, there is a famine throughout the country, so there is only really work for one person in family B on the farm where there used to be work for 2, and they are already dangerously low on food for themselves and their kids, since their food is shared with the family A , under a contract agreed when yields were plentiful.

Family B cannot be sacrificed because they bring in the food.
Family A cannot be sacrificed because they coordinate the work of all families on the farm.

So what you should be asking is:
Should you take more from the family B, who are already starving to prevent the family A losing a higher quality of life?

Or is equality the better pursuit? Should Family A agree to take a reduction in their food requirements stipulated in the contract, now that there is famine, so that Family B can also live, and eventually someone will discover how to cure plague and the high yields will return, for the benefit of both families.

irish_bob

Ashanti wrote: »

i also live here and what is happening is affecting us all. however, i believe that this government will only get the message that they need to recover this deficit from those who can afford it, through action. Why are you not up in arms over the fact that the big guys in banking, construction, business have made a huge amount of money, i mean billions, and yet have to got away without repaying the damage they caused to this country. The banking management are still there, still earning their big salaries. Those who borrowed those hundreds of millions seem to be able to stop paying even the interest on their loans and there's a lot more of this type of corruption around but no-one seems to be particularly angry about that.

you seem convinced that the sole reason public sector wages are being cut is due to developers having broke a few banks , this is not the reason public sector wages have to be cut

the banking crisis has only compounded our problems , the reason public sector wages have to be cut is because the property bubble ( which funded the public sector wage bill to the level its at ) burst , this bubble bursting also resulted in a massive number of workers who were involved in construction in some shape or form , loosing thier jobs , all this has meant tax revenue from stamp duty and capital gains and other property transaction taxes combined with conventional income tax paid by workers in this industry has plummetted and it is simply not possible to fund public sector wage levels ( or social wellfare levels i might add ) to the degree they were reached at peak by simply increasing income tax , you have to understand that our economy was not normal from about 2003 - 2007 , it was more or less a one trick pony , completley unsustainable and that pony is now lieing dead in a ditch and isnt coming back , therefore we need to revert to pre bubble wage levels as we are heading for pre bubble revenue raising levels but thier is light at the end of the tunnel , if the correct measures are taken , thier is no reason this country cannot become a very decent performing economy and a quality place to live , because the property boom is over , we have to refocus on jump starting manufacturing and exporting in order to get our economy properly functioning again but in order for that to happen , we have to reduce wage levels across the board in both sectors in order to regain competitveness , we are not special , we have done nothing to deserve such a wage differential with other european countries ( many which are incidentally wealthier than us ) and simply have to get our costs back in line , we are tottally out of whack , the property boom and the wage inflation which grew from it was pure fantasy , its time we got back to reality

Sarn

Tackling uncertified sick leave would have been a good idea.

I have to say I was surprised at the budget today. In my mind it should have been a lot tougher. I remember thinking the same thing last year and we ended up with an emergency budget, hopefully that won't happen again. Of course I'm not happy with the cut to my salary, but something had to be done, I'll just cut back further. The one benefit is that it should ease the public v private bashing.

One interesting point that I heard from different commentators was the idea that the PS cuts will be used to justify further cuts in private sector pay. It's probable that the disparity in pay between the sectors will be just as large this time next year.

efb

Count Dooku wrote: »

You forgot to mention that most of PS workers will be partially compensated by 'automatic' salary increases as it was in May 2009
€250m pay bonanza for 340,000 in civil service

They arent pay increases apparently...:rolleyes:

Count Dooku

Matthew712 wrote: »

A mother with 6 kids (1 fostered) breaks the hard new to her kids that Dad has lost his job because of excessive drinking. So now the household income is lower that the outgoings.
To balance the budget the father in coalition with the mother decide that savings of 1 meal a day must be made. The kids can't agree to share the pain so the 5 kids persuade the parents that the foster kid should be starved. The foster kid questoned why they were still going ahead with cobblelocking the driveway, but this was a capital investment and therefore not part of the current budget. Without agreement the foster kid was starved. Later it was realised that loss of the foster kid resulted in a further drop in the family income (1 less childrens allowance) so another kid would have to be starved to balance the budget. Which kid next? the oldest, the youngest, the weakest, the dumdest?

If you will look on averages, you will find that PS workers are far starvation
If your brother in law earns 100K+, it doesn’t mean that he alone can represent whole private sector. Average pay in whole private sector is 32K, while average in public sector is 50% higher
When average in public sector will reach levels in private sector and minimum salary for permanent worker will just above minimum wage, then we can start discussion about starvation

But, I agree that cuts were imposed wrong way
It should be 30% cut for everything above 40K, it wouldn’t touch low income workers and would mostly affect overpaid “fat cats”
Lets hope that next cuts will be introduced with more fairness to low income workers

rebel10

omahaid wrote: »

Watching Brian Lenihan and Richard Bruton on RTE1. Even Richard Bruton didn't say the PS paycut was wrong, he said the budget should have tackled uncertified sick leave

Think you weren't listening, yes he said uncertified sick leave should have been tackled first rather than hitting the lower paid public sector worker the way he has. Presume you also saw the comparisons made with the private sector workers?

UrbanSea

musiknonstop wrote: »

It's considerably harder to get a job in the public sector.

Of course if something is incredibly overstaffed and wasting resources,then it would be difficult to obtain a job.

imme

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you really that close to the breadline that you have already removed luxury items from your shopping bills?

It seems to me that most of the people complaining are totally unaware of how good they actually have it.
"oh my god, its a recession and now I can only afford to spend €250 every weekend..."

You have no idea what true hardship is.

do you know the posters personal situation/circumstances moderator?

irish_bob

LookingFor wrote: »

I don't often wade into these debates, but it seems to be that many PS workers are awfully spoilt.

I don't mean spoiled by their employers, financially, but I mean spoilt in terms of attention given to them by the rest of us and by the media and in terms of the sense of importance they have about themselves vs the rest of us. Yes, the government is the single biggest employer in the state, but this doesn't make its employees special.

Every week for the past 18 months or so company after company have left their employees holding the baby, so to speak, due to financial underperformance.

When the PS is asked to do the same by its employer when its employer is facing financial difficulties, you get wailing and threats, and demands that employees of OTHER entities share the burden of the government's financial problems beyond their tax obligations.

I'll tell you what - they'll start doing that when the government starts paying them for their work instead of a private entity.

Here's a little exercise for anyone engaged in this debate: every time you write or hear 'public sector' or 'government' replace it with the name of some given company. Let's say...Apple. And when you hear the word 'private sector' replace it with another company's name...like I dunno, Ford.

Do this, and you quickly realise how ridiculous much of the logic employed in these debates is.

excellent post , when you think of it , most likely , more than a thousand people each week lost their jobs in the private sector this past six months yet for the most part , it only got a brief mention on page 8 of the newspapers , contrast this with the thousands of hours of discussion in the media that was given to merley enforcing pension levys and modest pay cuts in the public sector , i think it suggests that the public sector command a higher degree of regard and attention from the goverment than those who toil in the free market down and dirty private sector

happyasaclam

I cannot believe the arrogance of some people regarding today's budget. As many posters have pointed out this pay cut was unavoidable - you are working for a company that is not making a profit ergo you will suffer a loss (at least it's not your job).

I am a private sector worker who has so far managed to avoid a pay cut and keep my job. The majority of my friends have not been so lucky and i am very grateful for the fact that i work for a good and so far profitable company. Having said that, this time last year things were much more uncertain and i approached my boss to say that i would take a pay cut provided i can keep my job.
This is the reality of the private sector. I have no union to hide behind and i have no influence on everyone else's day to day lives by going on strike.
The PS do and by striking or continuing to rail against these necessary changes are causing us all grief. Its difficult to have sympathy when important services are being with held.

Its awful to have to take a pay cut, the country is a mess but as others have said, suck it up and move on. Harsh but reality none the less.

irish_bob

PeakOutput wrote: »

ye you see there is the problem right there mathew

you are using an emotional argument to make a point on something there should be no emotion involved in.

hard actions need to be taken for the greater good end of discussion

hard cases make bad policy

omahaid

rebel10 wrote: »

Think you weren't listening, yes he said uncertified sick leave should have been tackled first rather than hitting the lower paid public sector worker the way he has. Presume you also saw the comparisons made with the private sector workers?

Yep, the guy from KPMG said that private sector workers could have had paycuts already. Nobody compared the private sector worker who recently lost his job to the public sector job who still has theirs. Did they?