Some form of Public protest against the public sector unions

kippy

changes wrote: »

True i don't have much of a grasp of pensions

But i feel 10.5% is a sizable chunk of my wages for my grade. Considering today my grade recieves 18K on retirement. 6.5K p.a above the pension everyone else gets anyway.

I'd love an actuarist to work it out??

You also get a lump sum 1.5 times your FINISHING salary, and that 18k (if it is half your current salary) will be half your finishing salary linked back to that grade of finishing salary till you die. GUARANTEED, well we live in hope.
Actuarists have worked it out and factored in these to the calculations and worked out that the Public service are still a few percentage points (if employer contributions were taken into account) off paying for their pension. Also you need to acknowledge the pension levy is a very recent thing, up till then the public service pension was an even sweeter deal.
As with most things however its quality will be eroded over the next while but like I said earlier, if you're not happy with it, try get a better one elsewhere...

PeakOutput

ok so assuming its 50% of your salary and assuming yous tay on your current grade until you retire and assuming you live for 15 years after retiring and obviously not taking into account interest earned on your contribution over time

you will get 324,000 fron your pension including lump sum

paying 10.5% of your salary into this would mean you need to work 85.7 years to cover that amount

is it safe to assume interest will double your contribution? if so you only have to work 42.5 years to cover it

kippy

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok so assuming its 50% of your salary and assuming yous tay on your current grade until you retire and assuming you live for 15 years after retiring and obviously not taking into account interest earned on your contribution over time

you will get 324,000 fron your pension including lump sum

paying 10.5% of your salary into this would mean you need to work 85.7 years to cover that amount

is it safe to assume interest will double your contribution? if so you only have to work 42.5 years to cover it

You're leaving out some fairly relevant parts....dont have time to work it out right now but I know there are numerous reports on PS pensions out there.

dunsandin

Salary cuts, wether Ps or private sector simply cause the economy to contract further. We need increased output, both from our public sector and our private sector. We need to up our game and increase productivity, not cut wages. Cutting wages benefits nobody. By all means cut numbers, but don't cut salaries, it helps no-one, and breeds further resentment. I'd love to see the protesters-"down with those sort of people"etc. I wonder would the guards clamp down on them !

changes

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok so assuming its 50% of your salary and assuming yous tay on your current grade until you retire and assuming you live for 15 years after retiring and obviously not taking into account interest earned on your contribution over time

you will get 324,000 fron your pension including lump sum

paying 10.5% of your salary into this would mean you need to work 85.7 years to cover that amount

is it safe to assume interest will double your contribution? if so you only have to work 42.5 years to cover it

Thanks for that, i understand thats there are prob a few variables.

Out of interest what do those numbers look like for the 150K PS Worker with 50% final salary @ 75K

PeakOutput

kippy wrote: »

You're leaving out some fairly relevant parts....dont have time to work it out right now but I know there are numerous reports on PS pensions out there.

oh im sure i am but obviously its just meant as a rough rough guide

PeakOutput

changes wrote: »

Thanks for that, i understand thats there are prob a few variables.

Out of interest what do those numbers look like for the 150K PS Worker with 50% final salary @ 75K

well it would be exactly the same time frame because all the percentages are the same the numbers are just bigger

but that dosnt take into account that they are not at that salary for their entire career which is a pretty important factor

also the people at the bottom make up the difference because there is more of them and its assumed the people at the top are the most talented / skilled / usefull ones and therefore should get rewarded more which i dont think is unfair

changes

PeakOutput wrote: »

also the people at the bottom make up the difference because there is more of them and its assumed the people at the top are the most talented / skilled / usefull ones and therefore should get rewarded more which i dont think is unfair

They don't cover it then, but my grade are not a million miles from covering ours.

And in the case of our top brass they are so talented, skilled and useful that they got a bonus every year regardless.

PeakOutput

changes wrote: »

They don't cover it then, but my grade are not a million miles from covering ours.

i would imagine they dont cover it just the same that you dont cover yours

And in the case of our top brass they are so talented, skilled and useful that they got a bonus every year regardless.

hence the need for ruthless reform

rightwingdub

All public sector workers should be put on defined contribution pensions, just like the vast majority of private sector workers who have a pension. Public sector workers really don't have a clue about the real world, sad but true.

Dublin Hibby

Well done everybody, you are doing exactly what the establishment want you to do. Fight amongst ourselves and take the scrutiny of the responsible.

I have no problem with public sector reform. However, the establishment assured us that the boom would continue, we spent accordingly. They encouraged us to purchase grossly overvalued homes, we duly obliged. This leaves a huge percentage of ordinary people staring down the barrel of a cocked fiscal shotgun. The biggest fear for most people in all this, is losing their homes. Not how much disposable income do they have, but losing the place they worked hard to spend the rest of their lives in.

Now the establishment is advising us to get well lubricated for the shaffting that is on its way. Goverment wants more, banks want more at some point the population needs to wake up and realise, these people and this system fecked in the first place, they dont know what to do to put it right.

PeakOutput

Dublin Hibby wrote: »

Well done everybody, you are doing exactly what the establishment want you to do. Fight amongst ourselves and take the scrutiny of the responsible.

I have no problem with public sector reform. However, the establishment assured us that the boom would continue, we spent accordingly. They encouraged us to purchase grossly overvalued homes, we duly obliged. This leaves a huge percentage of ordinary people staring down the barrel of a cocked fiscal shotgun. The biggest fear for most people in all this, is losing their homes. Not how much disposable income do they have, but losing the place they worked hard to spend the rest of their lives in.

Now the establishment is advising us to get well lubricated for the shaffting that is on its way. Goverment wants more, banks want more at some point the population needs to wake up and realise, these people and this system fecked in the first place, they dont know what to do to put it right.

the 'establishment' is going to get voted out in the next election and the new 'establishment' is going to have to face down the same public sector unions

Head The Wall

changes wrote: »

True i don't have much of a grasp of pensions

But i feel 10.5% is a sizable chunk of my wages for my grade. Considering today my grade recieves 18K on retirement. 6.5K p.a above the pension everyone else gets anyway.

I'd love an actuarist to work it out??

Don't forget the increments you get every year so you still wouldn't finish on 36k

dunsandin wrote: »

Salary cuts, wether Ps or private sector simply cause the economy to contract further. We need increased output, both from our public sector and our private sector. We need to up our game and increase productivity, not cut wages. Cutting wages benefits nobody. By all means cut numbers, but don't cut salaries, it helps no-one, and breeds further resentment. I'd love to see the protesters-"down with those sort of people"etc. I wonder would the guards clamp down on them !

This is where things are gone arseways. Public sector don't want to increase their productivity even though there is more demand for their services (recruitment embargo) Private sector are increasing their productivity but their isn't the demand for their product. Staff are being laid off and they have to take up the slack along with taking pay cuts in a lot of cases.

Both sectors have the same issues - less staff and wages to go around. The PS is the one bitchin, complaining and acting like a child though. They wonder why Lenihan is threatening to hit their wages again!!

Dublin Hibby wrote: »

Well done everybody, you are doing exactly what the establishment want you to do. Fight amongst ourselves and take the scrutiny of the responsible.

I have no problem with public sector reform. However, the establishment assured us that the boom would continue, we spent accordingly. They encouraged us to purchase grossly overvalued homes, we duly obliged. This leaves a huge percentage of ordinary people staring down the barrel of a cocked fiscal shotgun. The biggest fear for most people in all this, is losing their homes. Not how much disposable income do they have, but losing the place they worked hard to spend the rest of their lives in.

Now the establishment is advising us to get well lubricated for the shaffting that is on its way. Goverment wants more, banks want more at some point the population needs to wake up and realise, these people and this system fecked in the first place, they dont know what to do to put it right.

Make your own decisions, don't let someone else tell you whats what. I don't know anybody when they bought a house or apartment in the last few years thought that they were buying a brilliantly built structure. Everyone knew buildings were being thrown up at a ridiculous speed, we all knew about all the lads leaving school early to become a tradesman. These so called apprentices were a huge number of staff on building sites because they were cheap. So houses were being thrown together by people with feck all experience and see how that formula has turned out. People were aware about how things were and chose to ignore it

deise blue

PeakOutput wrote: »

the 'establishment' is going to get voted out in the next election and the new 'establishment' is going to have to face down the same public sector unions

But if the next Government contains a sizeable Labour representation then we are likely to see a far more conciliatory approach.
Mind you I don't see that as a bad thing.

Flex

Dublin Hibby wrote: »

Well done everybody, you are doing exactly what the establishment want you to do. Fight amongst ourselves and take the scrutiny of the responsible.

I have no problem with public sector reform. However, the establishment assured us that the boom would continue, we spent accordingly. They encouraged us to purchase grossly overvalued homes, we duly obliged. This leaves a huge percentage of ordinary people staring down the barrel of a cocked fiscal shotgun. The biggest fear for most people in all this, is losing their homes. Not how much disposable income do they have, but losing the place they worked hard to spend the rest of their lives in.

Now the establishment is advising us to get well lubricated for the shaffting that is on its way. Goverment wants more, banks want more at some point the population needs to wake up and realise, these people and this system fecked in the first place, they dont know what to do to put it right.

Fianna Fail are a complete populist party, to be honest im surprised theyre actually taking the actions that they are taking. They could have taken the Greek approach and set the country on a collision course with bankruptcy as the unions are fighting tooth and nail to have done now, left a huge deficit and got out of government to let FG take over and have to make the cuts. Then they couldve sat back in opposition harping on about how the new government is targetting the vulnerable, not making the fat-cats pay and saying to the electorate "See? Sure we didnt cut your wages or welfare, it was that other lot".

As it is, theyre alienating the numerate PS workers annoyed at the paycuts and infuriating the innumerate PS workers who are threathening to strike. On top of this theyre being accused by interest groups of 'catapulting' the most vulnerable into society by cutting back on social welfare benefits (albeit at a rate lower than deflation in most cases).

I also recall hearing over and over and over and over..... again that the boom was unsustainable and a bubble built on property and construction. And really, the reason things became so expensive throughout the entire economy was because consumers were willing to spend that much. Similarly, now that spending has dropped and people have become more careful about how they spend their money, prices are dropping throughout the whole economy (except government areas like health, education and transport).

There is no 'establishment' thats manipulating everyone and pulling everyones strings. Its like the unions 'fat-cats' line, its good at developing a militant attitude against the government, but doesnt stand up to any scrutiny. The vast majority of people have made up their own mind on this issue.

The government needs to cut its spending because as a country we dont deserve the welfare benefits and public services we have now because we simply cant afford it. Its like a person who had a job where he got €55k a year, went around shopping, eating, etc. based on spending that €55k. But now his income has been brought down to a more realistic €30k. He can keep going around spending €55k trying to keep his old lifestyle and borrowing the difference, hoping he'll never have to face reality, but sooner or later he'll have to. And when the that time comes, not only will he have to reduce his spending, he'll have a whooping debt to pay off too

PeakOutput

deise blue wrote: »

But if the next Government contains a sizeable Labour representation then we are likely to see a far more conciliatory approach.
Mind you I don't see that as a bad thing.

well there is zero chance of me voting labour so thats all i can do really that and try and explain to people why a far left party would be a disaster right now

deise blue

PeakOutput wrote: »

well there is zero chance of me voting labour so thats all i can do really that and try and explain to people why a far left party would be a disaster right now

" Far left " is overstating it a bit , don't you think ?
Labour have certainly said that changes are needed and savings must be made in the public sector but by agreement and not the unilateral changes which have currently mired us in industrial conflict with much worse to come.
Unless the political landscape alters dramatically FG are going to need a coalition with Labour to form a Government,indeed FG themselves have been calling on the Government to state that there will be no further pay cuts to public sector pay.

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

Don't forget the increments you get every year so you still wouldn't finish on 36k

he says his grade gets 18K on retirement (not that he currently earns 36k), which i took to mean 36k the max salary for that grade

increments are not endless

Peakoutput wrote:

well there is zero chance of me voting labour so thats all i can do really that and try and explain to people why a far left party would be a disaster right now

Labour? a far left party? oh come on now

Stark

deise blue wrote: »

FG themselves have been calling on the Government to state that there will be no further pay cuts to public sector pay.

FG will turn on all their promises as soon as they get into power. When the Government didn't cut public sector pay in the December 2008 budget, Enda Kenny was all "You have to cut spending, you can't tax your way out of a recession". George Lee said after he resigned that behind closed doors, FG's economic policies were idential to FF's.

Riskymove

Stark wrote: »

FG will turn on all their promises as soon as they get into power.

well they have been watching FF for some time now, perhaps they have finally learned how to get into power again

PeakOutput

Riskymove wrote: »

Labour? a far left party? oh come on now

relative to what we need to happen they are far left indeed

they wont stand up to the unions

they wont allow corporation tax cuts or incentives and inf act will probably try and increase tax on these

they wont allow social welfare cuts

they are for more state control

and

in a large part i predict they will be voted for by the very people whos actions are destroying the country at the moment(the public service)

PeakOutput

Stark wrote: »

FG will turn on all their promises as soon as they get into power. When the Government didn't cut public sector pay in the December 2008 budget, Enda Kenny was all "You have to cut spending, you can't tax your way out of a recession". George Lee said after he resigned that behind closed doors, FG's economic policies were idential to FF's.

thats pretty reassuring to be honest ff have been pretty sensible for the last year or so that shouldnt get them off the hook for the previous lunacy they oversaw

Flex

PeakOutput wrote: »

well there is zero chance of me voting labour so thats all i can do really that and try and explain to people why a far left party would be a disaster right now

To be honest, things cant be explained much simpler

REVENUE ~€30B
EXPENSES ~€55B
GUBBERMENT NO HAS ENUFF OF DHE MONEYZ

Riskymove

PeakOutput wrote: »

relative to what we need to happen they are far left indeed

they wont stand up to the unions

perhaps, but then again, perhaps more could be achieved through agreement?

Is anyone really standing up to Unions?

they wont allow corporation tax cuts or incentives and inf act will probably try and increase tax on these

i doubt that, they are not that silly really for all their lefty posturing

indeed their manifesto at the last election included cutting PAYE rates!

they wont allow social welfare cuts

FF are only cutting things that are politically acceptable anyway, I doubt Labour will revers them

they are for more state control

thats not much of an issue in present circumstances

in a large part i predict they will be voted for by the very people whos actions are destroying the country at the moment(the public service)

funny I thought the PS were all FF voters according to boards...guess this can change to suit your argument

anyway if you look back over their previous alliances there is not really anything particularly disastrous that was done due to any left leaning policies.

Riskymove

Flex wrote: »

GUBBERMENT NO HAS ENUFF OF DHE MONEYZ[/SIZE][/B]

But Thez Wud ave if thez not mades the bags of it

PeakOutput

Riskymove wrote: »

perhaps, but then again, perhaps more could be achieved through agreement?

the unions wont agree to pay cuts increased productivity and redundancies so there is really no point

Is anyone really standing up to Unions?

the pay cuts have gone threw so far the go slow hasnt caused too much hassle so there has been no need to when they excalate their actions i would hope they will be stood up to completely

i doubt that, they are not that silly really for all their lefty posturing

i doubt it would go threw because the majority goverment wouldnt allow it but i still believe they would try and debate it and that for me is a complete waste of time

thats not much of an issue in present circumstances

eh its a pretty big effin issue imo more goverment = more costs = less economic freedom amongst other freedoms. the main problem with it right now is more cost

funny I thought the PS were all FF voters according to boards...guess this can change to suit your argument

im sure they were because they were being handed everything they asked for on a platter, but they wont be now they will swing to the party that is perceived to be for their issues ie pro union etc etc

Riskymove

PeakOutput wrote: »

im sure they were because they were being handed everything they asked for on a platter, but they wont be now they will swing to the party that is perceived to be for their issues ie pro union etc etc

lol, and of course the private sector person votes for parties regardless of if they are dealing with their interests!!

PeakOutput

Riskymove wrote: »

lol, and of course the private sector person votes for parties regardless of if they are dealing with their interests!!

oh no not at all they have a full right to vote for the people they think will further their issues if they want im just saying that will lead to ruin for the country

if they cant see past their own front doors then they deserve everything thats coming to them

im on minimum wage i support a reduction in minimum wage

my mother is in the public service her and my father support pay cuts and reform

seeing the bigger picture is what is important and what should lead to a party getting into goverment

the ps swinging to labour is akin to jackie healy ray being constantly voted in and ****ing the goverment over and over again for his own smal constituency accept it has the potential to completely bankrupt the country

edit; oh and the reason the private sector have a better grasp of this is because they have a very real fear of losing their jobs overnight if the economy tanks properly the public sector seem to carry on in blind faith that what have been jobs for life will continue to be

BluePlanet

Dublin Hibby wrote: »

I have no problem with public sector reform. However, the establishment assured us that the boom would continue, we spent accordingly. They encouraged us to purchase grossly overvalued homes, we duly obliged.

No we all didn't.
Only SOME people did, but we are ALL feeling the pain now.

Dublin Hibby wrote: »

This leaves a huge percentage of ordinary people staring down the barrel of a cocked fiscal shotgun. The biggest fear for most people in all this, is losing their homes. Not how much disposable income do they have, but losing the place they worked hard to spend the rest of their lives in.

Nope, that's not the way the property boom worked at all. People bought "starter homes", in order to "trade up" and "get on the property ladder".

kippy

rightwingdub wrote: »

All public sector workers should be put on defined contribution pensions, just like the vast majority of private sector workers who have a pension. Public sector workers really don't have a clue about the real world, sad but true.

Again, thats an absolutely daft statement to make.
Nevermind the tarring of all with one brush but why bring all standards down - why not aim to bring allworkers onto a defined benefit pension......

ixoy

kippy wrote: »

Again, thats an absolutely daft statement to make.
Nevermind the tarring of all with one brush but why bring all standards down - why not aim to bring allworkers onto a defined benefit pension......

Well if it's financially feasible then yes, it makes perfect sense. What we can't do (and which the government finally realise) is to make them linked to the current salary of a position - even index-linking is probably costly in its own way. We'd need an actuary again to flesh out the figures.

[EDIT]Well I'll be damned - my 10,000th post![/EDIT]

kippy

ixoy wrote: »

Well if it's financially feasible then yes, it makes perfect sense. What we can't do (and which the government finally realise) is to make them linked to the current salary of a position - even index-linking is probably costly in its own way. We'd need an actuary again to flesh out the figures.

Totally agree, just making the point that instead of calling for the lowering of standards for all, why not call for the highering for standards for all.......

Theres obviously real world figures and calculations that need to be investigated but its what should be called for.

One thing that grinds my gears is how the pensions industry in itself sucks so much money from pension funds.
If they government are to have a pension fund which is larger than it is now it SHOULD be pumped into infrastructure projects - instead of getting private companies operate tolls for the next 30 years, get the pension fund operate them instead or work them out on that basis.....Same with rail and broadband infrastructure.....
Theres just not enough lateral thinking in this country and far too many vested interests/high powered lobby groups for such things to be fairly and well thought out.

Stark

There was something in the pensions framework about aiming to give a "defined benefit" option. It might involve the participant having to make variable contributions, but in the end, the aim would be to give them something close to what they expected.

The big issue with PS pensions at the moment I think is linking them to the finishing salary of the person who holds the job you used to hold, instead of increasing your pension in line with inflation. I think it's unfair to current PS workers more than anything, as the pensioner is benefiting from productivity improvements delivered after they retired. It's also grossly unfair that the PS pensioners have gotten pension increases based on salary increases in their old grade, but haven't received pension cuts now that their old grades have had their salaries cut.

offaly1

dromdrom wrote: »

Was just looking at the 'escalation of public sector industrial action' reports this morning and to be honest was disgusted. Remember looking at the pictures of the Public Sector marches and thinking that there is a good chance that the voice of the silent hard working majority is going to be lost in all this. Surely there must be some other way for the average person (Public and Private sector because surely there must be people in the public sector who see how discgaceful this is) to let themselves be heard and stop these charlatans from hijacking our weak political system and sending this country back to the 80's.

Im a public sector worker,and ill tell ya here and now,ive no intention on going on strike!! Its a load of manure!its certainly not going to achieve anything only give the public sector a worse name than it all ready has.
I was at a union meeting there just before christmas and was told by some sorta higher up in the union that there be no more one day all out action...hmmm.lies i tell ya!

SeanW

largepants wrote: »

That might sound selfish and greedy but no more so than you private sector workers who work for private sector employers who continue to screw us over.

Well then if you're looking out for number one why don't you get a job in the private sector and get rich "screwing the public sector over" ...

After all, you're only looking out for Number 1, and - as the old saying goes - if you can't beat em, join em

largepants

SeanW wrote: »

Well then if you're looking out for number one why don't you get a job in the private sector and get rich "screwing the public sector over" ...

After all, you're only looking out for Number 1, and - as the old saying goes - if you can't beat em, join em

I don't want to turn into a bitter and twisted person.:P

dunsandin

PeakOutput wrote: »

its assumed the people at the top are the most talented / skilled / usefull ones and therefore should get rewarded more which i dont think is unfair

Not too sure about this, the theory of rising to your level of incompetency has to be borne in mind. As does the theory of "who you know" mattering more than "what you know".