Time to Reduce Retired Civil Servants Pensions

Rob67

danbohan wrote: »

every military in the world does it

do you know any other military who s union sued it government for deafness , come to think of it do you know any other military with a union ?. like most public servants in this country our army is inefficient , over paid and over unionized .

Eh... just a correction there, the 'union', PDFORRA, is a 'representative body'. The Defence Forces are not allowed to have a union and no, PDFORRA did not sue the Dept of Defence, it was individual soldiers and mainly retired ones from the late 1960's up to the mid - 80's.

BTW ever here of EUROMIL? Probably not...

I take it then you have served? To know so much about them.

Inefficient? You do know the DF was the only organisation to actually reduce it's numbers and reduce it's property portfolio through barrack closures, just as the Celtic Tiger years began, that it put those savings back into itself to improve equipment levels and training standards?

Overpaid, maybe at the top, but not at rank and file level. Many soldiers, now require FIS to survive.

Over-unionised? They don't have a union (see above) however, PDFORRA have managed to improve conditions in many areas where it was sub-standard and which would never have been acceptable in the private sector or the wider public sector.

PKen

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I didn't get past the part where you claimed the public sector hadn't taken a hit. :rolleyes:

As I say to all the foaming mouths on here, if the public service is such a well paid doss, why in the name of thundering jaysis aren't you in it?

In relative terms, you've not taken as big a hit. Haven't you heard of the Croke Park Deal? This agreement basically cushions the Public Sector from the full rigours of the recession. Imagine my boss telling me, "No more pay cuts and guarunteed job security until 2014". It would be irresponsible for any General Manager of a company, to give such a commitment.

I'd have loved to have gained access into the Public Sector. And if I was in it, I'd have appreciated how fortunate I was and would stop bitching about cuts, when outside of it, so many are being crucified. But I wasn't well enough "In" with the Politicians. Most Civil Servants I know, got in, due to political pull. Remember the phrase "Jobs For The Boys"?

Just to turn your question around, if you don't mind. To all the opposing "foaming mouths on here", if the Public Sector is so terrible and badly paid, "why in the name of thundering jaysis aren't you" working in the (wonderful) Private Sector? I suspect, I already know the answer to that one.

NewHillel

PKen wrote: »

In relative terms, you've not taken as big a hit. Haven't you heard of the Croke Park Deal? This agreement basically cushions the Public Sector from the full rigours of the recession. Imagine my boss telling me, "No more pay cuts and guarunteed job security until 2014". It would be irresponsible for any General Manager of a company, to give such a commitment.

Everything is relative. Not everyone in the Public Sector is well paid, and to be fair, they have taken a hit already. Its not reasonable to suggest that all Public Sector workers can afford further pay cuts - some genuinely can't.

The big issue is not those on the lower rates of pay - it is those who, even in retirement, have very substantial pensions. This area is a massive drain on the Exchequer and a big part of our our current difficulties. Part of the reason the cost of paying pensions to former state employees is so high is the deeply flawed benchmarking exercise. Not only did it give unwarranted increases to serving Public Sector workers, increases were given to pensioners, also. This approach appealed to politicians, who benefit personally from it. Ergo, there is no political appetite to row the increases back. (The political establishment have no intention of reducing their own entitlements, as they perceive it, in this area.)

The new early retirement scheme in the HSE compounds the issue. (Though the drastically reduced VR Terms, compared to other staff reduction schemes, indicates that Cathal Magee is starting to make an impact.) Staff are being allowed retire with up to 10 years being added for pension purposes. Even worse, for pension purposes, the pay reductions in the HSE are being rolled back. All this largesse will be paid for from increases in our taxes!

danbohan

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If you are 'sick of funding nonsense' like a soldier with 21 years experience getting a €15,000 pa pension, piss off to Somalia where you can keep all you earn and not have to live in a society that employs public sector workers.

We are all angry, but taking it out on teachers, nurses and soldiers from behind your keyboard is bedwetting behaviour.

we all want live in a society that has public sector workers , but we dont want live in a society where public sector workers earn 30-40% than in private sector, in a normal society its usually 10-15% less than private sector which considering the benefits they receive ie cant be sacked pensions etc would be about right . so keep throwing your rattler out of your pram .whether you like it or not our public sector will have to be reformed / rebuilt to a sustainable level which will involve major pay cuts and up to 80000 redundancy, now i know that you live in a very nice little bubble in your public sector maintained life but take a look outside start making the changes , we cant have you wetting the bed now can we ?

danbohan

Rob67 wrote: »

Eh... just a correction there, the 'union', PDFORRA, is a 'representative body'. The Defence Forces are not allowed to have a union and no, PDFORRA did not sue the Dept of Defence, it was individual soldiers and mainly retired ones from the late 1960's up to the mid - 80's.

BTW ever here of EUROMIL? Probably not...

I take it then you have served? To know so much about them.

Inefficient? You do know the DF was the only organisation to actually reduce it's numbers and reduce it's property portfolio through barrack closures, just as the Celtic Tiger years began, that it put those savings back into itself to improve equipment levels and training standards?

Overpaid, maybe at the top, but not at rank and file level. Many soldiers, now require FIS to survive.

Over-unionised? They don't have a union (see above) however, PDFORRA have managed to improve conditions in many areas where it was sub-standard and which would never have been acceptable in the private sector or the wider public sector.

thanks for your information , funny how you could confuse pdforra for a union is it not , still have not got an answer to what other armys have sued for deafness ? , why does this bankrupt country need an army in first place i mean their primary role seems to be delivery boys for the banks , perhaps they should have been guarding the money in the banks not the money been delivered to them ?

OhNoYouDidn't

PKen wrote: »

In relative terms, you've not taken as big a hit. Haven't you heard of the Croke Park Deal? This agreement basically cushions the Public Sector from the full rigours of the recession. Imagine my boss telling me, "No more pay cuts and guarunteed job security until 2014". It would be irresponsible for any General Manager of a company, to give such a commitment.

I'd have loved to have gained access into the Public Sector. And if I was in it, I'd have appreciated how fortunate I was and would stop bitching about cuts, when outside of it, so many are being crucified. But I wasn't well enough "In" with the Politicians. Most Civil Servants I know, got in, due to political pull. Remember the phrase "Jobs For The Boys"?

Just to turn your question around, if you don't mind. To all the opposing "foaming mouths on here", if the Public Sector is so terrible and badly paid, "why in the name of thundering jaysis aren't you" working in the (wonderful) Private Sector? I suspect, I already know the answer to that one.

I left the public sector for a far better paid equivalent job in the private sector years ago. And got one of those pensions you call 'illegal'...

OhNoYouDidn't

danbohan wrote: »

we all want live in a society that has public sector workers , but we dont want live in a society where public sector workers earn 30-40% than in private sector, in a normal society its usually 10-15% less than private sector which considering the benefits they receive ie cant be sacked pensions etc would be about right . so keep throwing your rattler out of your pram .whether you like it or not our public sector will have to be reformed / rebuilt to a sustainable level which will involve major pay cuts and up to 80000 redundancy, now i know that you live in a very nice little bubble in your public sector maintained life but take a look outside start making the changes , we cant have you wetting the bed now can we ?

I work in the private sector. You make the fundamental assumption that the political right always make that people only object to something if it directly effects them

Laminations

I work in both the public and private sectors. I'm paid almost a 33% premium for the work I do in the private sector, that kinda ruins the broad brush strokes that are trying to paint all public sector workers as overpaid

ISAW

NewHillel wrote: »

The big issue is not those on the lower rates of pay - it is those who, even in retirement, have very substantial pensions. This area is a massive drain on the Exchequer and a big part of our our current difficulties.

He said getting the thread back on track.

In short the argument is htis:
1. We don't employ to many public servants
2. We pay some of them to much or give them to many porks

Part of the reason the cost of paying pensions to former state employees is so high is the deeply flawed benchmarking exercise. Not only did it give unwarranted increases to serving Public Sector workers, increases were given to pensioners, also. This approach appealed to politicians, who benefit personally from it. Ergo, there is no political appetite to row the increases back. (The political establishment have no intention of reducing their own entitlements, as they perceive it, in this area.)

Case in point. TK Whitticker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._K._Whitaker
I love the guy . He is 95. i would not have a bad word to say about him. But why is he getting a state pension of say 70k a year if he does not need it?

Why should someone over the ESB which is not in compitition with anyone get 750k a year and be able to dump millions into a personal pension?

What should their staff who are not in competition with anyone also get relatively high pay and allowances?
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/pension-deficit-balloons-at-esb-1716722.html

The pension is a defined benefit scheme where those retiring are entitled to half their final salary, a tax-free lump sum of one-and-a-half times their salary and pension increases in line with pay rises for the grade they reached when retiring.

Workers in the company are among the best paid in the State, with an average wage of €70,000. However, fitters at big power plants in Moneypoint and Poolbeg earn up to €140,000.

Why should the tax payer have to pay this 2 billion and pay all subsequent increases? and that is only for people who have already retired!

danbohan

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I work in the private sector. You make the fundamental assumption that the political right always make that people only object to something if it directly effects them

and your family are all private sector too , ?????????. you aint kidding me pet

OhNoYouDidn't

danbohan wrote: »

and your family are all private sector too , ?????????. you aint kidding me pet

I don't have to justify myself to you, but as it happens, all private.

Look back on my posts, I am massively critical of the public sector elites. But Rob67 is not one of them and its pure nasty to have a go at him for having a small pension after being poorly paid for 21 years of an exceptionally physically and psychologically demanding job in service of the state.

OhNoYouDidn't

ISAW wrote: »

He said getting the thread back on track.

In short the argument is htis:
1. We don't employ to many public servants
2. We pay some of them to much or give them to many porks



Case in point. TK Whitticker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._K._Whitaker
I love the guy . He is 95. i would not have a bad word to say about him. But why is he getting a state pension of say 70k a year if he does not need it?

Why should someone over the ESB which is not in compitition with anyone get 750k a year and be able to dump millions into a personal pension?

What should their staff who are not in competition with anyone also get relatively high pay and allowances?
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/pension-deficit-balloons-at-esb-1716722.html



Why should the tax payer have to pay this 2 billion and pay all subsequent increases? and that is only for people who have already retired!

This is getting surreal. What would you have Rob67 'competing with' in the private sector to 'earn' his pension?

murphaph

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I work in the private sector. You make the fundamental assumption that the political right always make that people only object to something if it directly effects them

But you said you got a public sector pension, so surely this does affect you directly?

ISAW

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is getting surreal. What would you have Rob67 'competing with' in the private sector to 'earn' his pension?

did you read what I wrote?

2. We pay some of them to much or give them to many porks

Emphasis added. By the way for "porks" read "perks" but the pig around a trough analogy fits.

And Rob67 in message 92:

Overpaid, maybe at the top, but not at rank and file level.

I dont mean ALL civil and public servants. Many do a good job and are conscientious workers. But I am particularly keen to point at high earners. People say TDs earn too much but for every TD there are more then ten unsackable civil servants on the same whack who have a job for life and probably another five who have a job as long as the TD remains elected. NO GOVERNMENT has suggested we start at the top and start proportionately cutting top earners by MORE than lower earners. That is a true socialist move! But governments are influenced by Humphery Appelbies who mitigate against this. I remember about 20 years ago M Gaeoghan Quinn was over Transport and Aer Lingus siad they needed to cut jobs. Say something like 2000 of 4000 jobs. she said fine start at the top you have 20 people on the Board get rid of ten then you have say 100 senior managers get rid of 50 and work your way down to the shop floor. The plan was abandoned!

the is a deal of waste and overspending at lower levels but I think maybe we need to start at the top. to do that does require a change. I just am not convinced anyone who wants to get into government is articulating such a change.

OhNoYouDidn't

murphaph wrote: »

But you said you got a public sector pension, so surely this does affect you directly?

When did I say that?

listermint

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

When did I say that?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I left the public sector for a far better paid equivalent job in the private sector years ago. And got one of those pensions you call 'illegal'...

right here

OhNoYouDidn't

listermint wrote: »

right here

To clarify, one of the conditions of my move I negotiated was to match my PS pension.

listermint

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

To clarify, one of the conditions of my move I negotiated was to match my PS pension.

To Clarify, You asked where did you say that. I gave you the answer. Your additionional pension payment on top of your existing salary is none of my concern.

The fact that you have vested interest in disagreement stands from the original poster though....

OhNoYouDidn't

listermint wrote: »

To Clarify, You asked where did you say that. I gave you the answer. Your additionional pension payment on top of your existing salary is none of my concern.

The fact that you have vested interest in disagreement stands from the original poster though....

I have no vested interest whatsoever. I negotiated a PS style pension. A poster on here has declared this 'illegal'.

My point is that certain posters on here are downright lying to stick the boot in.

Riskymove

listermint you have mis-read his post

he said he moved to a private sector job which included a 'PS style' pension...presumably a defined benefit pension

ISAW

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I have no vested interest whatsoever. I negotiated a PS style pension. A poster on here has declared this 'illegal'.

My point is that certain posters on here are downright lying to stick the boot in.

AS I read it the point is you stated:

I work in the private sector. You make the fundamental assumption that the political right always make that people only object to something if it directly effects them

Another poster made the point that you get ( or got) public money from a public pension and that does directly affect you.

Does it not?

Or are yo saying that you did get paid in the public service but left it for the private servace and got nothing more on leaving ? If so with whom and about what money was the "negotiation" for the pension with? was it entirely you own money and nothing to do with public money at any stage ? If so the poster is misled but I don't seriously can say they were lying. although to be honest I didn't read what they stated before this thread.

OhNoYouDidn't

ISAW wrote: »

AS I read it the point is you stated:


Another poster made the point that you get ( or got) public money from a public pension and that does directly affect you.

Does it not?

Or are yo saying that you did get paid in the public service but left it for the private servace and got nothing more on leaving ? If so with whom and about what money was the "negotiation" for the pension with? was it entirely you own money and nothing to do with public money at any stage ? If so the poster is misled but I don't seriously can say they were lying. although to be honest I didn't read what they stated before this thread.

The dishonesty is saying that PS style defined benefit pensions are 'illegal' in the public sphere.

I worked in the PS, bit not for long enough to get a full pension. I think what I am left with is very marginally more than the state pension I had to replace it with. As part of my negotions on being head hunted into the private sphere, I asked for, and got, a defined benefit pension from my new employers, along with a sizeable payrise. That was the Celtic Tiger for you.

That proves to me that a lot of this 'anger' against low paid public servants is nothing more than race to the bottom jealouosy from people who didn't (or couldn't) strike a good pension deal with their employers.

Its very simple. Public sector conditions, including pensions, are better. Private sector money is better. You make your choice etc.

murphaph

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its very simple. Public sector conditions, including pensions, are better. Private sector money is better. You make your choice etc.

It's not that simple at all.

Public sector pay is, on average (though I accept not in your case), better. Public sector pensions are better.

OhNoYouDidn't

murphaph wrote: »

It's not that simple at all.

Public sector pay is, on average (though I accept not in your case), better. Public sector pensions are better.

Public sector earnings are NOT better than private sector ones. Its been debunked to death on here.

PKen

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I left the public sector for a far better paid equivalent job in the private sector years ago. And got one of those pensions you call 'illegal'...

You're not working in a Bank or other Financial Institution, by any chance, are you? If so, that would explain everything. If not, then good for you. At least your pension is not being paid for, by the taxpayer. You see, this is my point. The pensions in the Public Sector are heavily subsidised by the State. If you've gotten similar in the Private Sector, the taxpayer isn't footing the bill. The profits of the company are.

To clarify the "Illegal" bit, I mentioned in an earlier Post. Such a pension would be illegal in the Private Sector, if the funds were to be backed up by the State (taxpayer), as is the case with Public Sector pensions. If you're privileged enough, to get a Defined Benefit pension in the Private Sector, it just means that the Company are fluid enough, to back up the Fund. If anybody receives such an arrangement, more luck to them. Their (private) employers are going to pay for their pension - It won't be the taxpayer.

jmayo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So what people are arguing is a renaging on contracts, in this case contributary pensions.

Funny how we can't even cosdier renaging on the Anglo Bondholder contracts or the Corrib gas one, isn't it....

Well if there is no money in the kitty then contracts are going to have to be renegotiated.

As someone who now works in private sector you shoudl know that you can't stick someone to a contract if they have NO MONEY.

NewHillel wrote: »

It's been well established that the "contribution" made by state workers, doesn't cover their cost. However, the area that really stands out, and should be rolled back without delay, relates to the pension increases relating to the benchmarking exercise. Even if the benchmarking exercise had been a sucess, and it patently wasn't. there was never any justification for applyingthe productivity increases to pensioners who were making no contribution whatsoever to productivity gains.

Ah but shure don't you know public sector workers are not meant to fully contribute to their pension, since afterall they are paid much less than private sector workers and thus the pension is seen as deferred salary.
Oh wait a minute aren't they not on average earning more than compatitble jobs in the private sector, oh dear there goes that argument.

Ah yes the little matter of benchmarking and how public sector pensioners benefitted.
It led to a case where retirees could end up making more on their pension than they had as their final salary.
How many other places offer a pension which is linked to the salary of the person currently holding your old job ?
Ehh what productivity gains ?????

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The dishonesty is saying that PS style defined benefit pensions are 'illegal' in the public sphere.

I worked in the PS, bit not for long enough to get a full pension. I think what I am left with is very marginally more than the state pension I had to replace it with. As part of my negotions on being head hunted into the private sphere, I asked for, and got, a defined benefit pension from my new employers, along with a sizeable payrise. That was the Celtic Tiger for you.

That proves to me that a lot of this 'anger' against low paid public servants is nothing more than race to the bottom jealouosy from people who didn't (or couldn't) strike a good pension deal with their employers.

Its very simple. Public sector conditions, including pensions, are better. Private sector money is better. You make your choice etc.

You landed on your feet there but most people are not that lucky either through cirumstance or design.
Most people do not have the option of defined benefit pensions.

Riskymove

jmayo wrote: »

Ah yes the little matter of benchmarking and how public sector pensioners benefitted.
It led to a case where retirees could end up making more on their pension than they had as their final salary.

the benchmarking awards were not applied to pensions

Riskymove

jmayo wrote: »

Well if there is no money in the kitty then contracts are going to have to be renegotiated.

As someone who now works in private sector you shoudl know that you can't stick someone to a contract if they have NO MONEY.

pension contributions from existing PS cover the cost of pensions

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

pension contributions from existing PS cover the cost of pensions

Where do the current PS workers get their money to pay in as a pension contribution? From the taxpayer!

The taxpayer funds ALL PS pay and pensions without exception.

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

Where do the current PS workers get their money to pay in as a pension contribution? From the taxpayer!

The taxpayer funds ALL PS pay and pensions without exception.

ah sure taxpayers pays their mortgage, buys their food and so on

ah sure just dont give them any salary so!! let them die penniless in the gutter in old age!!