A Christmas Present for Senior Civil Servants

sceptre

Arathorn wrote: »

Also people on social welfare lost their Christmas bonus but this isn't taken into account for their cuts.

Well that's definitely a fair point. It should be. Sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. It's slightly a tangent for this thread though.

terenc

sceptre wrote: »

Well that's definitely a fair point. It should be. Sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. It's slightly a tangent for this thread though.

This thread is about people so touches everybody and how we treat people in our society.

sceptre

terenc wrote: »

This thread is about people so touches everybody and how we treat people in our society.

No, this thread is about what the OP regards as a rollback in paycuts for senior civil servants based on the decision to make their bonus part of the reckonable amount. It's not "about people". It's all there in the first post. Hence the inclusion of the issue of whether the abolition of the annual Christmas payment (or bonus as it's officially described) to those that qualify on the basis of their receipt of a long-term social welfare payment is relevant in a goose and gander comparison but not in any other more substantial way.

Then again, there shouldn't be a problem with a thread started discussing double standards with an accompanying demand that the extra percentage points be included when the media report the amount or that the government take that into consideration if and when calculating the decrease on the basis of the rate of deflation. I can at least confirm that the forum moderators wouldn't have a problem with any such separate thread being started. I'd even have a view to contribute in such a thread if you feel like starting one. But what the thread is about can easily be gleaned from the first post, substantive thrust of the discussion since and the thread title. It's not about people. It's about precisely what was quoted in the first post.

Feel free to start a parallel thread about the social welfare decrease if you wish. There's already a long more general one if you feel like contributing to that.

And lest there any doubt (as I left it unclear in my previous post and apologies for that), the entirety of this post is a moderator request.

ninty9er

RGS wrote: »

The term bonus means additional payment for meeting targets, is should not be considered part of the salary.

It's not, but it is part of the payroll, so the savings will add up more or less the same

ZYX

Just to balance things up here. I was talking to a friend of mine who is a hospital consultant. In the last 12 months his take home pay has been cut by 40%. 2 years ago they signed a new contract that would have seen a pay rise. They did not get pay rise. His take home pay is now 50% less than it was supposed to be. He works 60 hours a week and gets paid no overtime. Indeed he worked Christmas day and will receive €70 for the day (before tax and pension levy). Thats 24 hours on call including time in hospital

He is a very careful man and waited and waited to buy a house. When he did (in 2006) he remained careful and refused to get a mortgage of more than 3.5 times salary (€750,000 in Dublin doesn't get a mansion). While his house is nice it is nothing too fancy. His repayments were 35% of takehome pay. As I said all very careful. Now his mortgage is almost 70% of his take home salary and he is in negative equity. He is not bothered by the negative equity but if mortgage interest rates go up a significant amount he will be unable to pay mortgage and will have to sell house.

Flamed Diving

I don't quite follow that last paragraph. Did he take out a mortgage that was 3.5 times his salary? If not, how much less?

ZYX

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I don't quite follow that last paragraph. Did he take out a mortgage that was 3.5 times his salary? If not, how much less?

Approx 3.5 times salary.

Flamed Diving

ZYX wrote: »

Approx 3.5 times salary.

Ok, so he earned around €210,000 gross at the time. Then you say his net pay is now 40% less than the net from this gross salary. And when you factor in the lost potential earnings from the payrise, he loses a potential 50% net from the original net?

ZYX

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, so he earned around €210,000 gross at the time. Then you say his net pay is now 40% less than the net from this gross salary. And when you factor in the lost potential earnings from the payrise, he loses a potential 50% net from the original net?

You are obviously assuming a 100% mortgage. Pay was less than that. but the basics are right. His take home pay is down 40%. Combination of pension levy, pay cut, allowances cut/abolished, PRSI increase, tax levies.

eirmail

ZYX wrote: »

You are obviously assuming a 100% mortgage. Pay was less than that. but the basics are right. His take home pay is down 40%. Combination of pension levy, pay cut, allowances cut/abolished, PRSI increase, tax levies.

Are you including the pay cut that was recently announced in budget 2010?
This is due to take effect from January as far as I know.

ZYX

eirmail wrote: »

Are you including the pay cut that was recently announced in budget 2010?
This is due to take effect from January as far as I know.

Yes

Flamed Diving

ZYX wrote: »

You are obviously assuming a 100% mortgage. Pay was less than that. but the basics are right. His take home pay is down 40%. Combination of pension levy, pay cut, allowances cut/abolished, PRSI increase, tax levies.

I obviously didn't mention a mortgage once.

ZYX

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I obviously didn't mention a mortgage once.

Eh I know. I never said you mentioned mortgage.

Flamed Diving

ZYX wrote: »

Eh I know. I never said you mentioned mortgage.

So how was I obviously assuming one? I reckon there was only one person doing the assuming.

ZYX

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So how was I obviously assuming one? I reckon there was only one person doing the assuming.

Oh for God's sake. Of course I was assuming. You quoted an incorrect figure. I asssumed you had gotten the figure from the mortgage amnount I quoted. You are right I am wrong. Now was all that worth it? Have I now made your day? You obviously have nothing to say about my initial post.

Flamed Diving

ZYX wrote: »

Oh for God's sake. Of course I was assuming. You quoted an incorrect figure. I asssumed you had gotten the figure from the mortgage amnount I quoted. You are right I am wrong. Now was all that worth it? Have I now made your day? You obviously have nothing to say about my initial post.

You are assuming again, unfortunately. I only ever referred to the first paragraph of your initial post.

Puzzling...

ZYX

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You are assuming again, unfortunately. I only ever referred to the first paragraph of your initial post.

Puzzling...

Then you are very easily puzzled

Flamed Diving

ZYX wrote: »

Then you are very easily puzzled

Perhaps. Enlighten me, then. Could you show me how I was assuming a 100% mortgage, when I neither mentioned mortgages, nor alluded to them?

ZYX

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Perhaps. Enlighten me, then. Could you show me how I was assuming a 100% mortgage, when I neither mentioned mortgages, nor alluded to them?

As I said at 11.27am

"Oh for God's sake. Of course I was assuming. You quoted an incorrect figure. I asssumed you had gotten the figure from the mortgage amnount I quoted. You are right I am wrong. Now was all that worth it? Have I now made your day?"

picpress

ZYX wrote: »

As I said at 11.27am

"Oh for God's sake. Of course I was assuming. You quoted an incorrect figure. I asssumed you had gotten the figure from the mortgage amnount I quoted. You are right I am wrong. Now was all that worth it? Have I now made your day?"

Guys could you please keep this on thread which is about Senior Public Servants having their pay cuts rolled back as per budget!

Just listened to a very interesting interview from last year with Economist Colm Mc Carthy by Eamon Keane on newstalk where Eamon rightly pointed out that the powerfull classes will always look after their own. This is exactly what has happened here where everybody is equal just some are more equal than others.

ZYX

picpress wrote: »

Guys could you please keep this on thread which is about Senior Public Servants having their pay cuts rolled back as per budget!

Just listened to a very interesting interview from last year with Economist Colm Mc Carthy by Eamon Keane on newstalk where Eamon rightly pointed out that the powerfull classes will always look after their own. This is exactly what has happened here where everybody is equal just some are more equal than others.

But you see that is not true, at least for Hospital Consultants. They have had a 40% cut in take home pay in last 13months. No one else in public sector is taking a cut anything like that. On top of that the higher paid, both public and private are paying much more in tax and have had their tax rates increased more than anyone else.

picpress

Sorry I've no sympathy for hospital consultants many of whom have lucrative private work and clean up with the national treatment purchase fund. Sounds like your "friend" is just doing his time before he too will join the gravy train. As for doing 60 hour shifts I thought this was a thing of the past under the EU working time directive limiting workers to 48 hours work per week. If the pay is so bad let him try and survive on the pay the administrators who type his letters and get his charts for him have especially after they get the extra 5% pay cut in January from the minister for hardship. Looks like those in the higher paid catagories may yet get to experience what it is like in low paid areas if the unions announce the work to rule on the 4th January

ZYX

picpress wrote: »

Sorry I've no sympathy for hospital consultants many of whom have lucrative private work and clean up with the national treatment purchase fund. Sounds like your "friend" is just doing his time before he too will join the gravy train. As for doing 60 hour shifts I thought this was a thing of the past under the EU working time directive limiting workers to 48 hours work per week. If the pay is so bad let him try and survive on the pay the administrators who type his letters and get his charts for him have especially after they get the extra 5% pay cut in January from the minister for hardship. Looks like those in the higher paid catagories may yet get to experience what it is like in low paid areas if the unions announce the work to rule on the 4th January

This thread is spouting rubbish that senior civil servants are not taking a big enough hit. Despite the fact that all senior civil servants and hospital consultants will have seen their take home pay decrease by at least 30%. The real problem is that retired civil servants have not had their pensions reduced. Senior civil servants are paid bonuses as this does not form part of the pension entitlements. It is in effect part of the pay and not really a bonus as we think of it. Reducing the bonuses is identicle to reducing pay except it does not effect the pension they receive.

Many hospital consultants do 0 private work and are stopped from doing so by the terms of their contract. I love the idea you have that people do not work more than 48 hours a week. It is so naiive.

You somehow think consultants should be paid a comparable salary to secretaries. Why? To have become a consultant in this country you need

1. A leaving cert result in the top 1% of all canidates
2. Done 6 years in College and in most cases received honours
3. Have 15-20 years experience working 70-80 hours a week.
4. Passed numerous post graduate exams which you study for in your spare time including in most cases a PHd.
5. Done extensive published research
6. Applied for and gotten every promotion available to you.

After all that in most cases you will not get a consultant job in Ireland and have to emmigrate. How is that comparable to a secretary? If you want to compare consultants to another job then at least use a job where you need 20 years experience and where you work 60 hours a week and where you have received every promotion going.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm in disbelief here. The article was quite clear. There are still cuts, but now the scrapping of "bonuses" will be considered part of them. I'd consider it a cut if I wasn't getting a bonus, the same as those who got one for years for sitting on their arse did.

How can you not see the differance between a pay cut and a removal of a bonus? They are completely differante... Jesus christ, it's not that fcuking difficult to understand.

picpress

Jaelyn High Painting wrote: »

How can you not see the differance between a pay cut and a removal of a bonus? They are completely differante... Jesus christ, it's not that fcuking difficult to understand.

I think the problem here is that that senior civil servants and the government allowed this bonus and salary to merge into one in that they expected a bonus every year. So I would call all this income /take home pay if you like.

picpress

ZYX wrote: »

I love the idea you have that people do not work more than 48 hours a week. It is so naiive.



You somehow think consultants should be paid a comparable salary to secretaries. Why?

48 hours is the Law

Never said they should be paid the same as administrators read my post again please.

I just said that the cuts at lower wages would be hit harder as it would push them closer to the breadline to spell it out for you.

gandalf

Ah the Irish Government they have a backbone that Chivers would be proud of !!!

Pathetic u-turn vbut given the current fudgers in power not surprising. I expect the unions to be given new life because of this show of weakness by the so-called powers that be.

terenc

I wonder do this government and senior civil servants indulge themselves in group therapy,after all they have been in bed long enough.
Oh the pain of having secure employment.:D:D;)

Meirleach

Frankly, I'm disgusted. Every time I think the Government can't possibly disappoint me anymore, they sink to a new low. :mad:

gerry28

I really hope, that not a single union in this state accepts the pay cuts when the people primarily responsible for our current woes, senior politicians and civil servants, are refusing to take their fair share. And acting so slyly about it.

I think this quote imported from another thread sums it up nicely.