How much more nonsense do we have to take from the Unions?

Hotblack Desiato

CDfm wrote: »

I do think that a lot of public sector workers do take their priveleges for granted and that it is overdue massive reform and the provision of public services are in need of radical reform in lots of areas to satisfy a value for money tests.

Oddly enough a lot of public sector workers would agree with you.

The Health Service is obvious cos it is an area where every extra euro spent has not delivered.Increaed budgets of 250% should have bought a National Health service. There are others as well.

But in the Bertie years it was seen as a good thing to have 'invested X billion in our health services', it wasn't recognised that pumping extra resources into a broken system leads to most of it being wasted.

Then again on the other hand, every time any reform is attempted you get the usual 'save our hospital' crowd opposing any and every change.

Why the Motor Tax Offices -you should be able to tax your car at a post office.

Being able to do it online is better than having to go down the poxy post office (another area for reform - but another sacred cow of the rural lobby.)

RTE ?

Not part of the public sector.

Public services need to be their but the public service is not always the most economic way to provide them.

Not always, but the experiences of our nearest neighbour with privatisation and outsourcing is that it often leads to more expensive, worse quality services.

An example would be the second terminal at Dublin Airport.

OK but that is a very unrepresentative example - and it's funded by landing fees etc. not directly by taxpayers' money. What most people mean by public services is government departments, local authorities, HSE etc.

Public sector pensions are a fantastic perk and for most people their value would be the equivalent of winning the lotto.

This sort of exaggerated claim ('lotto') is far too common on these forums imho.
Most public sector pensioners will never get anything like the fantastic figures the Indo likes to quote. The basic OAP has gone up far more in real terms but it's the public sector pensioners (who don't get the OAP) who continually get bashed.

My gripe is that they use militant tactics as they are powerful in an area where they are representing very priveleged people.

They're nothing like as powerful as you think. During the Bertie years they were pushing at an open door.
But since then we've had pay cuts, pension levy etc. (fair enough IMHO given the state of the economy, deflation, etc.) and although the unions huff and puff they can do nothing about it.

The public services are very much like a military junta in a developing nation.

More exaggerated to the point of utter silliness claims. Nobody is getting thrown out of planes into the Shannon estuary.

I dont think the public service needs a better standard of education than a person in the private sector

Whether it needs it or not is a matter for debate but the average standard of qualifications in the public sector is higher. There are not that many unskilled jobs in the public sector.

or that service delivery ismore difficult or complicated than a supermarket chain or an airline - I just dont. The public service should be as adaptable to change as Dunnes Stores or Lidl is.

So - yellow pack staff, zero hour contracts, moving jobs further up the supply chain outside the country...?

What I mean is that the entry requirements are middle class.

This again.
I don't know what on earth this is supposed to mean, unless you view the 'working class' as some sort of uneducated lumpen proletariat, and getting a half-decent Leaving suddenly elevates you to the ranks of the middle classes?

As I said before, it seems to me the most patronising attitudes towards 'the workers' often come from the leftist groups who claim to represent 'the workers'

I think there is a huge lack of understanding about rural poverty and urban poverty.

What's that got to do with public sector reform though?

There is a huge need to get rid of the "welfare state" civil service from those areas and a bit of proper democratisation would not go amiss.

I'm not sure what any of that is supposed to mean, can you explain?

The Labour Party and the Unions are no more working class or representative of the poor than the man in the moon is.

This is a common cry from the more leftist groups but it's not at all clear what they really want. If Labour stole the SWP's clothes it would make the far left groups redundant, but also make itself unelectable.

Class mobility for the win and we are too small a country to have defined classes.

Odd that you keep mentioning 'class' all the time. I think it's an outdated British concept of little relevance to our society today.

We have high notions about various rights like pregnant womens discrimination rights and single mothers welfare payments but cannot rethink it and childcare to get rid of that underclass. Shamefull.

The generational cycle of welfare dependency needs to be broken - for the benefit of all concerned - but in Ireland we prefer the soft soap approach to everything. It's unbelieveable that e.g. there is little or no requirement for JSA claimants to prove they are seeking work, or that lone parents recipients are not expected to seek work after a few years. When it was proposed that they might, y'know, think about looking for a job when their youngest child was 13 (should be more like 5) there was uproar.

Ireland has never been a wealthy country, but, we have a lot of idealistic notions that we are.

This is what led to the 'we are wurf it' massive increases in all areas of spending in the Bertie years. If a 10 year old is given 100 euro for his birthday he might think he's rich, but once he spends it it's gone and he's back to his fiver a week pocket money. Likewise we thought we were rich when we were in reality getting a once-off windfall from boom related taxes. Now we're back to a more normal level of state income we need to get our expenditure into line, there is no possible alternative to large cuts, and yes it will hurt, but there is no other realistic alternative - we're already borrowing far more than we can afford to continue doing.

CDfm

ninja900 wrote: »

Oddly enough a lot of public sector workers would agree with you.

They do not agree enough to change. Businesses change cos if they dont they wont survive.

But in the Bertie years it was seen as a good thing to have 'invested X billion in our health services', it wasn't recognised that pumping extra resources into a broken system leads to most of it being wasted.

Then again on the other hand, every time any reform is attempted you get the usual 'save our hospital' crowd opposing any and every change.

Who thought it was a good thing -but more importantly what did the increased money get spent on.

Filipino nurses I seem to remember were in vogue for a while and were very efficient and competant.

Being able to do it online is better than having to go down the poxy post office (another area for reform - but another sacred cow of the rural lobby.)



Not part of the public sector.

I agree that on-line is more efficient but with 25% of our population functionally illiterate - it is probably something that is part of a wider malaise.

Rural post offices -privately owned or in the corner of a shop do help lots of people with the form filling etc.

Not always, but the experiences of our nearest neighbour with privatisation and outsourcing is that it often leads to more expensive, worse quality services.

Our hospital consultants earn more than the UK - and with the cost of our health service we should have a national health service like the UK i.e. free medical care for all.

OK but that is a very unrepresentative example - and it's funded by landing fees etc. not directly by taxpayers' money. What most people mean by public services is government departments, local authorities, HSE etc.

This sort of exaggerated claim ('lotto') is far too common on these forums imho.
Most public sector pensioners will never get anything like the fantastic figures the Indo likes to quote. The basic OAP has gone up far more in real terms but it's the public sector pensioners (who don't get the OAP) who continually get bashed.

Of course, but lots of people have no pensions because funding a pension privately is a luxury they cannot afford.

Public Service pensioners are state funded so not getting the OAP is a bit of spin.

Here is an online calculator if anyone wants to calculate its worth http://www.irishlife.ie/Pensions/calculator.html?gclid=CP_FzLa90qUCFY9O4Qodpznmig

They're nothing like as powerful as you think. During the Bertie years they were pushing at an open door.
But since then we've had pay cuts, pension levy etc. (fair enough IMHO given the state of the economy, deflation, etc.) and although the unions huff and puff they can do nothing about it.



More exaggerated to the point of utter silliness claims. Nobody is getting thrown out of planes into the Shannon estuary.

I disagree - during the boom years the nurses unions as part of their spin released daily press releases of patients on trollies figures.

They also went on strike.

Whether it needs it or not is a matter for debate but the average standard of qualifications in the public sector is higher. There are not that many unskilled jobs in the public sector.

Lots of clerical jobs do not need qualifications - we have seen far to often that civil servants with responsibility have not acted. The industrial schools sex abuse compensation scheme costing 2 billion was a result of not acting.

Now I am not getting into that debate -but - make the connection with the current crisis and bank regulation/lack of it and,the Health Service and FAS it seems to me that at a senior level they aint up to the job.

So - yellow pack staff, zero hour contracts, moving jobs further up the supply chain outside the country...?

I am not proposing that but if our Civil Service are more than we can afford -then maybe it is time that we do say "c'mon lads the game is up"

This again.
I don't know what on earth this is supposed to mean, unless you view the 'working class' as some sort of uneducated lumpen proletariat, and getting a half-decent Leaving suddenly elevates you to the ranks of the middle classes?

As I said before, it seems to me the most patronising attitudes towards 'the workers' often come from the leftist groups who claim to represent 'the workers'

I am saying that the public service unions use the language of Larkin & Connolly to support their middle class members who are the majority of their members.

The unions are no more representative of the workers or deprived than Terry Wogan is of Irish 1960's emigrants to the UK.




What's that got to do with public sector reform though?

I'm not sure what any of that is supposed to mean, can you explain?

If you take deprived areas and the huge numbers of social workers etc - it has not worked.

You need to ditch those and replace with local initiatives.

This is a common cry from the more leftist groups but it's not at all clear what they really want. If Labour stole the SWP's clothes it would make the far left groups redundant, but also make itself unelectable.

This is the common cry too - its not about what is right and what is needed -its what makes us electable.

The IMF do not care about elections and that is where we are at.

So the sooner we get out of this mess the better but it needs decisive action.

Odd that you keep mentioning 'class' all the time. I think it's an outdated British concept of little relevance to our society today.

Ah but it does.

The generational cycle of welfare dependency needs to be broken - for the benefit of all concerned - but in Ireland we prefer the soft soap approach to everything. It's unbelieveable that e.g. there is little or no requirement for JSA claimants to prove they are seeking work, or that lone parents recipients are not expected to seek work after a few years. When it was proposed that they might, y'know, think about looking for a job when their youngest child was 13 (should be more like 5) there was uproar.

The Corporate State - leaders lead and governments are supposed to govern.

This is what led to the 'we are wurf it' massive increases in all areas of spending in the Bertie years. If a 10 year old is given 100 euro for his birthday he might think he's rich, but once he spends it it's gone and he's back to his fiver a week pocket money. Likewise we thought we were rich when we were in reality getting a once-off windfall from boom related taxes. Now we're back to a more normal level of state income we need to get our expenditure into line, there is no possible alternative to large cuts, and yes it will hurt, but there is no other realistic alternative - we're already borrowing far more than we can afford to continue doing.

The politicians told us we were rich and spent money.

Look at the last elections manifesto's and you will see the competition to spend.

Listen to Labour and Fine Gael on the radio on spending and the bailout.

This is not the language of people who are going to effectively deal with the problem.

shinners75

:mad:

Elessar

tails_naf wrote: »

Unions have their place, but they can and have gone too far.

A friend of mine in Italy told me how very strong unions there have ruined Italy for a whole generation to the point where virtually no one now is made a permanent employee, because once made permanent its impossible to let someone go.

For example - apparently layoffs are an all or nothing thing - the labour laws became so distorted that it was made almost impossible to do lay-offs in bad times, so companies ended up going bust with no alternatives, when money got short.

So to avoid this situation, all young people are now hired on temp contracts, and no one is permanent. The young hate the system, but the 'older' ones love it, as they are as secure as can be. Union votes keep the system in place, but I guess margins will dwindle over time as the young become more numerous.

So in Italy, the young people are waiting for the older ones to retire, so they can 'take their labour laws back'.

It's just a small example, but things can go to far. One poster here said he did not want to be in the union, but it's so powerful in his work-place hes pressured into staying a member. Talk about bully-boy tactics.

Unions here have talked themselves out of jobs, we've lost manufacturing as an industry, FDI into unionised sectors is hurt (remember Lufthansa a year or two ago).

Begg et all are definitely more part of the problem then part of the solution.

This seems to be the way Ireland is heading. New Gardai are now only being offered 5 year contracts...which could spread to other areas of the public service. Making a life on contracts like that is impossible, no one will give you a mortgage etc.

CDfm

Elessar wrote: »

This seems to be the way Ireland is heading. New Gardai are now only being offered 5 year contracts...which could spread to other areas of the public service. Making a life on contracts like that is impossible, no one will give you a mortgage etc.

Thats a benefit I had not thought of preferential treatment from mortgage lenders etc , preferential terms on VHI , there are a lot of benefits to be had being a civil servant.

There is no mechanism for getting rid of non performing teachers.

When my daughter was doing the JC she had no Irish Teacher for 3 months and the school did not know the sub wasnt turning up til I phoned.

There are a lot of areas where people whinge about services and which could benefit from a more realistic approach.

The bailout could be an opportunity for a new begining.

Paulzx

CDfm wrote: »

Public Service pensioners are state funded so not getting the OAP is a bit of spin.






.

Please clarify how that is spin........

channelsurfer2

another form of stupidy is the circular from tom geraghty of the pseu yesterday expressing outrage that they are loosing their privilige days and maybe getting them converted to annual leave depending on the grade. he vowed to fight tooth and nail to protect his members.... come on get real his members already have 26 days annual leave at heo level and 21 at eo level. whatever about eo grade maybe keeping one day how can he justify people wth 26days leave trying to keep those 2 days....its like we dont like what the cpsu has agreed to so will be spoilt kids and st9omp our feet and protect our members `2 days but what will really happen(and should) is he should be told to get lost or loose 20% of salary for his members because of it.....

Japer

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

another form of stupidy is the circular from tom geraghty of the pseu yesterday expressing outrage that they are loosing their privilige days and maybe getting them converted to annual leave depending on the grade. he vowed to fight tooth and nail to protect his members.... come on get real his members already have 26 days annual leave at heo level and 21 at eo level. whatever about eo grade maybe keeping one day how can he justify people wth 26days leave trying to keep those 2 days....its like we dont like what the cpsu has agreed to so will be spoilt kids and st9omp our feet and protect our members `2 days but what will really happen(and should) is he should be told to get lost or loose 20% of salary for his members because of it.....

The government is bust, the IMF is lending us money to keep going, the public sector here is better paid than the public sector in the G8 countries which are lending us the money....and to cap it all the unions are trying to keep privilidge days ....I dunno, something is wrong. I woder what the multinational companies / yanks who invest here think of it all, seeing as they get far less holidays than the public sector take here....and in America I think they do not ask for a half day paid shopping day at xmas either, in addition to their holidays.

CDfm

Paulzx wrote: »

Please clarify how that is spin........

My understanding is that public service pensioners are paid from the Public Purse.

If as part of the Public Service Pension Scheme they are not entitled to the Old Age Pension then that is because they are covered by a different pension arrangement paid for by the state.

It is not that they are being deprived of the Old Age Pension but that they have special arrangements.

The Employer/Employee PRSI contributions of 16 % approx of payroll were intended to cover dole and unemployment benefit for workers.

PRSI -was pay related social insurance and originally was intended to pay out a percentage of wages when unemployed. That was nabbed for the public purse - civil public servants do not suffer that indignity.

Paulzx

CDfm wrote: »

My understanding is that public service pensioners are paid from the Public Purse.

If as part of the Public Service Pension Scheme they are not entitled to the Old Age Pension then that is because they are covered by a different pension arrangement paid for by the state.

It is not that they are being deprived of the Old Age Pension but that they have special arrangements.

The Employer/Employee PRSI contributions of 16 % approx of payroll were intended to cover dole and unemployment benefit for workers.

PRSI -was pay related social insurance and originally was intended to pay out a percentage of wages when unemployed. That was nabbed for the public purse - civil public servants do not suffer that indignity.

Both the PS pension and the Old age pension are paid from the public purse.

I don't think you have a full grasp of how the PS pension schem works.

All paye workers now pay full A prsi contributions. There is no difference between public pr private.

There is adifference however on payment of the State old age pension between the 2 sectors.

A private sector worker will pay his/her A prsi contribution and upon retiremnent will receive their full state pension. This will not take account of any private pension or will not be means tested.

A public sector worker is slightly different. He still pays his full prsi contribution(since 1995) . Seperatley for his pension he pays 6.5% superannuation and approx 7% pension levy(depends on salary).

If he has 40 years servcie on retirement he will receive a pension of 50% of final salary. This is the part that seems to incense the ps bashers here. The fact that he gets 50% pf final salary.

My point is that he doesn't actually get 50%. He gets 50% minus the old age pension. If his final salary is 700 euro per week he will get a pension of 350 per week.....but 200 euro of this is made up of the state old age and the final 150 comes from his public service pension.

You can look at this 2 ways. Either he doesn't get the Old age pension or he doesn't actually get 50 % of his final salary.


My arguement is not about the acturial value of his pension vis a vie the contributions put in. Tghis varies hugely and lower paid ps workers can easily lose out here compared to higher paid workers who defintely benifet.

My point is, to say that not getting the Old age pension is just spin is not actually an accurate statement

CDfm

Paulzx wrote: »

Both the PS pension and the Old age pension are paid from the public purse.

I don't think you have a full grasp of how the PS pension schem works.

All paye workers now pay full A prsi contributions. There is no difference between public pr private. ........................

My arguement is not about the acturial value of his pension vis a vie the contributions put in. Tghis varies hugely and lower paid ps workers can easily lose out here compared to higher paid workers who defintely benifet.

My point is, to say that not getting the Old age pension is just spin is not actually an accurate statement

That the Government pays employers PRSI contributions is just a spin. Out of what ? It is nominal. No money changes hands - it might get shuffled about like moving money from your wallet to your pocket.

PS workers may pay prsi but pensions are unfunded and paid out of current exchequer revenue.

This is a bit dated but you get the drift -when you deal with public service pensions it really is an an unfunded promise.

http://www.actuaries.org/EVENTS/Seminars/Brighton/presentations/lewis.pdf

If the pensions were saved for out of a seperate fund I may say you have a point but in reality it comes from the PRSI pot of money for Non PS workers.

What if the public service pensioners were treated like private sector workers many of whom do not have any pension provision and had theirs cut by the budget .

If I was a public service worker I would want the IMF/EU bailout to work because if the IMF come in those pensions are on the line -big time.

So the sooner public service workers join the dots on savings and their unfunded pensions the better.

I am amazed that a bunch of educated intelligent people do not see it this way and that the arrangement has been stretched to breaking point.

Paulzx

I don't believe that at any stage i mentioned the governemnt paying employer prsi contibutions. I have no idea why you have introduced that.

I also stated that i was in no way trying to justify any actuarial values of the pensions.


What i did state was the factual position as pertains to the relationship between the PS an OLD age pensions in order to counter your statement that ps workers saying they don't get the old age pension was spin.

If anything i have wrote is untrue or not actually factual well then i am open to correction.

If you do not see my point well fair enough thats your perogative

CDfm

Paulzx wrote: »

I don't believe that at any stage i mentioned the governemnt paying employer prsi contibutions. I have no idea why you have introduced that.

I also stated that i was in no way trying to justify any actuarial values of the pensions.


What i did state was the factual position as pertains to the relationship between the PS an OLD age pensions in order to counter your statement that ps workers saying they don't get the old age pension was spin.

If anything i have wrote is untrue or not actually factual well then i am open to correction.

If you do not see my point well fair enough thats your perogative

I see your point but it is very abstract - PS pensions are largely funded from current tax revenue- whatever pot it comes out of.

What I do think is that the ability to pay those or any government payments are based on revenue and spending cuts.

The public service and the public service unions seem oblivious to the fact that it could get a whole lot worse.

The bailout is contingent on a correction in our economy and growth and it will be painful - it will be less painful for public service workers than emigrants.

So yes PS workers have to deal with reality in a way they never have before.

Managers have to make cuts and manage change which is a new experience for them.

Hotblack Desiato

Yet another thread that's descended into general anti-PS sentiment, it was supposed to be about the role of the unions. A lot of union members are very angry with the likes of Begg and O'Connor (the latter seems to think he is entitled to speak on behalf of non-SIPTU members as well as his own members) guys we never got the chance to elect or remove.

Increasing numbers of PS are leaving the unions and many more are staying in only for the income protection plan (especially pre-1995 staff with no entitlement to illness benefit.)

Hotblack Desiato

CDfm wrote: »

If I was a public service worker I would want the IMF/EU bailout to work

Doesn't everyone want it to work? It'll be a lot worse all round if it doesn't, for everyone in Ireland (and for other EU states as well.)

Maybe a few hard-left nutters want it to fail as part of the 'worse is better' philosophy to bring about the final collapse of the evil capitalist system and establish the workers' paradise, etc. but nobody else does.

We're all in this together, that is too often lost sight of here in favour of the usual PS bashing.

You've got 14%, how much more until you say enough? The focus for the next couple of years needs to be on structural reforms. Cutting pay is easy and quick but reform is needed to ensure more effective, not just cheaper, public services in future.
As I've alluded to in my previous posts, the managerial problems in the PS come from the very top (and ultimately are political decisions, or indecisions) and many PS workers on the ground are as frustrated by "that's the way it is" as the people trying to access services are, but are powerless to change it. That's the job of the guys on the big bucks, and they're not delivering.

PS have families too, have mortgages too, an allegedly good pension 25 years from now does not pay today's bills, and there is no statutory basis for these pensions so future governments can cut them any time they wish.

Some PS posters on boards have stated they want to, and would be better off, and perhaps more secure, taking their contributions and putting them into their own private pension fund. For middle to lower paid post-1995 staff that could be a good option.

CDfm

ninja -people know that public servants are intelligient people and I am not against the public service.

Where are the public sector representatives out there saying we can make things better and deliver savings, service delivery etc.

They aren't coming forward and are not proposing reform.

Begg & O'Connor are dictating terms - could you imagine a manager in Microsoft or the Kerry Group both global leaders at what they do not having the freedom to manage and deliver services and save costs.

It is a major cultural challenge for PS workers to get on board for reform.

Todate -the public service havent shown that they want to reform. If you take the most high profile -the health service with its protracted industrial relations issues because so many believe they dont want change.

dvpower

ninja900 wrote: »

Some PS posters on boards have stated they want to, and would be better off, and perhaps more secure, taking their contributions and putting them into their own private pension fund. For middle to lower paid post-1995 staff that could be a good option.

While I agree that PS pensions aren't that great at the lower grades, it should be noted:
A)PS pensions are based on FINAL salary (I think with some end of career smoothing), so PS workers should have an eye on where they will be as they retire, not where they are now.
PS pensions are Defined Benefit, not Defined Contribution pensions. Anyone with a DC pension scheme these days will understand the benefit of DB pensions.
C) PS pensions come with added benefits, like the tax free lump sum and the spouse benefits. These benefits are also available to people with private pension schemes but they are very expensive.

Tim Robbins

thebullkf wrote: »

i live in the real world.... "rhetoric"...?

i'm sure they feel the same as I do, cheated,Burgled.
to say its the union's fault is a fallacy.

i'm unemployed,never worked for the CS,PS et al.
i don't blame the unions...so not "eveyone" is sick of them.
Doesn't matter what government is in,in what country,corruption is everywhere,always has been,always will be,its a vicious circle.
The definition of a democratic state in my eyes is judged on how they treat their weakest... Ireland doesn't seem so democratic,hasn't for a long time...
hold a referendum , vote no?.....well we'll vote until we get a yes.

I don't blame the Unions to the same extent others here do,i can't understand the vitriol.

times were bad,everyone wanted a PS job..."safe" job...boom came,nobody wanted to work for such low wages (comparitively speaking)
bust again....everyone wants a PS job.... those who do't,can't/unable slate them...
the majority of people swooned during the boom.
a vicious circle.

Sorry. I like everyone else occasionally come up with poorly thought out points. All I can do is apologise.

Hotblack Desiato

dvpower wrote: »

While I agree that PS pensions aren't that great at the lower grades, it should be noted:
A)PS pensions are based on FINAL salary (I think with some end of career smoothing), so PS workers should have an eye on where they will be as they retire, not where they are now.
PS pensions are Defined Benefit, not Defined Contribution pensions. Anyone with a DC pension scheme these days will understand the benefit of DB pensions.
C) PS pensions come with added benefits, like the tax free lump sum and the spouse benefits. These benefits are also available to people with private pension schemes but they are very expensive.

Yeah but you're ignoring the fact that post-1995 entrants to the public service pay Class A PRSI same as all other employees, and their pensions will be integrated with the social welfare system.

So, Joe working in the private sector gets his full contributory OAP when he retires, and whatever he gets from his pension contributions on top of that.

Paddy who worked in the public sector gets the contributory OAP, but the occupational pension has the OAP deducted from it. If he's low paid he will get very little or nothing at all on top of the OAP, which makes the pension contributions he paid all his working life a waste of money, but he's no choice in the matter.

CDfm

I think the real issue and we are loosing sight of it here is that our public service is the highest paid in Europe and our Taoiseach earns more than the US President and the British Prime Minister and our Civil Servants have a similar differential with their european equivalents.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it , they are more than we can afford. If you had a Rolls Royce and could not afford to tax, insure it and put petrol in it , more than likely you would sell it and buy a Punto ,if thats what you could afford.

There is no use in blaming banks, builders or developers because this is where we are at now.

The government, no matter who is in government, need to slash the costs of public services and essential put it into administration.

The Corporate State, that has been running since Lemass was in power is changing because there is no money to fund it.

RobbieTheRobber

CDfm wrote: »

I think the real issue and we are loosing sight of it here is that our public service is the highest paid in Europe and our Taoiseach earns more than the US President and the British Prime Minister and our Civil Servants have a similar differential with their european equivalents.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it , they are more than we can afford. If you had a Rolls Royce and could not afford to tax, insure it and put petrol in it , more than likely you would sell it and buy a Punto ,if thats what you could afford.

There is no use in blaming banks, builders or developers because this is where we are at now.

The government, no matter who is in government, need to slash the costs of public services and essential put it into administration.

The Corporate State, that has been running since Lemass was in power is changing because there is no money to fund it.

Comparing just wages alone doesn give a true cost to the President of the USA and the Pm of Britain.

How much does the state pay for the running of the white house, no10 downing street etc, those costs have to be directly attributed to the top positions in each country and should surely be evaluated when we consider the cost of the taoiseach in terms of wages.

I still think he is paid too much but I think they associated costs should be considered, its not all just wages.

gizmo555

Paulzx wrote: »

All paye workers now pay full A prsi contributions. There is no difference between public pr private.

Not true. Just like the recently announced reduction in pay that will only apply to new recruits to the public sector, the application of full class A contributions only applied to people employed after the date of the change, April 1995. This is standard operating procedure for the p.s. unions - sell out future members for the benefit of current members. Actually, a pretty good metaphor for how the state as a whole works.

People who have been in the civil or public service from before that date - and there are no doubt a great many - are still on the class B contributions which are significantly lower than class A.

For example, the employee contribution from someone on a gross €1,000 per week at the B1 rate is €48.77. For someone on the A1 rate it's €74.92. That's an annual difference in take home pay of €1,359.80.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/SW14/Pages/SW14Index.aspx

CDfm

gizmo555 wrote: »

Not true. Just like the recently announced reduction in pay that will only apply to new recruits to the public sector, the application of full class A contributions only applied to people employed after the date of the change, April 1995. This is standard operating procedure for the p.s. unions - sell out future members for the benefit of current members. Actually, a pretty good metaphor for how the state as a whole works.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/SW14/Pages/SW14Index.aspx

That does explain part of the confusion.

So what you are saying is that it is different and in some way new recruits are subsidising the longer serving and higher grade members.

Why can't the system just be abolished by the Government?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Comparing just wages alone doesn give a true cost to the President of the USA and the Pm of Britain.

How much does the state pay for the running of the white house, no10 downing street etc, those costs have to be directly attributed to the top positions in each country and should surely be evaluated when we consider the cost of the taoiseach in terms of wages.

I still think he is paid too much but I think they associated costs should be considered, its not all just wages.

The whitehouse generates revenue through the tours and the visitors centre so the cost is offset somewhat, all the while being a working office.

Why dont we look at GDP and population in terms of leaders wages then and compare? it paints a very different picture which shows up our polictical elite for the overpaid leeches they are.

beeno67

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Comparing just wages alone doesn give a true cost to the President of the USA and the Pm of Britain.

How much does the state pay for the running of the white house, no10 downing street etc, those costs have to be directly attributed to the top positions in each country and should surely be evaluated when we consider the cost of the taoiseach in terms of wages.

I still think he is paid too much but I think they associated costs should be considered, its not all just wages.

Brian Cowen also gets a free house in the Phoenix Park.

gizmo555

CDfm wrote: »

That does explain part of the confusion.

So what you are saying is that it is different and in some way new recruits are subsidising the longer serving and higher grade members.

New recruits and private sector workers in the same contribution classes.

CDfm wrote: »

Why can't the system just be abolished by the Government?

Why indeed . . .

CDfm

gizmo555 wrote: »

New recruits and private sector workers in the same contribution classes.



Why indeed . . .

does the public sector pension levy in any way approximate to employers prsi ?

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

The whitehouse generates revenue through the tours and the visitors centre so the cost is offset somewhat, all the while being a working office.

Why dont we look at GDP and population in terms of leaders wages then and compare? it paints a very different picture which shows up our polictical elite for the overpaid leeches they are.

I never said i didnt feel theyw ere overpaid i pointed out that wages are not the be all and end all.
In tersm of the USA president we could add much greater costs but Im not here to enumerate his perks.

George Orwell 1982

I though Jack O'Connor's letter was perfectly reasonable and correct.

RobbieTheRobber

beeno67 wrote: »

Brian Cowen also gets a free house in the Phoenix Park.

i dont think so.

I believe Farmleigh house is for state functions not the taoiseachs official residence, which makes it different i figure.

Riskymove

gizmo555 wrote: »

People who have been in the civil or public service from before that date - and there are no doubt a great many - are still on the class B contributions which are significantly lower than class A.

a. the post-1995 people have higher gross wages to compensate

b. class A payers had, up until this year, benefits like cheaper dental and optical work etc

c. Higher PS (over c. €75k) now have an extra 4% PRSI, effectively bringing them up to the same as post-95 while still earning less gross salary


does this sound like selling out future members to the advantage of existing?

beeno67

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

i dont think so.

I believe Farmleigh house is for state functions not the taoiseachs official residence, which makes it different i figure.

Farmleigh House is for official functions.

Cowens house is seperate (a former lodge on Farmleighs grounds) and is funded entirely by the taxpayer. It is for his sole use. It was refurbished especially for him at a cost of €600,000

RobbieTheRobber

beeno67 wrote: »

Farmleigh House is for official functions.

Cowens house is seperate (a former lodge on Farmleighs grounds) and is funded entirely by the taxpayer. It is for his sole use. It was refurbished especially for him at a cost of €600,000

Do you have a link for that, i dont know anything about this. so could be wrong but would like some proof please.

CDfm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I never said i didnt feel theyw ere overpaid i pointed out that wages are not the be all and end all.
In tersm of the USA president we could add much greater costs but Im not here to enumerate his perks.

I put it in as a comment because senior civil service pay & politicians pay is linked.

I imagine that our senior Civil Servants also earn more than the British Prime Minister and US President.

If we were Qatar or an oil rich state that would not matter.

There are 2 seperate issue
- The pay levels
- That we cannot afford the wage bill.

So irrespective of what the arguments are the only really significant argument is that we cannot afford to pay them at their current levels. That is the only important point.

Riskymove

beeno67 wrote: »

Cowens house is seperate (a former lodge on Farmleighs grounds) and is funded entirely by the taxpayer. It is for his sole use. It was refurbished especially for him at a cost of €600,000

AFAIK

The idea was that it was going to be launched as the Taoiseach's residence but they dropped the idea (after renovation of course) after the economic changes...it is pretty much just part of Farmleigh now

Cowen does not live there although he may stay there occassionaly if working hours require it apparantly

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I never said i didnt feel theyw ere overpaid i pointed out that wages are not the be all and end all.
In tersm of the USA president we could add much greater costs but Im not here to enumerate his perks.

You are trying to quantify the pay rate for cowen by talking about the residences of the premiers of the Uk and the USA..this is a nonsensical argument when we look at the size of the countries and economies they govern in relation to our TINY island. If this is the yardstick by which we are working from then Obama should have his own private island to live on.

Cowen is paid a fortune for a job he is clearly incapable of doing to any reasonable level along with numerous expenses, a private Merc/driver (for the rest of his days after he leaves office) the use of his own residence in the pheonix park. Its a disgrace but then "obama has the whitehouse" :rolleyes:

CDfm

I think on the Phoenix Park residence he does use it and whether or not he uses it occasionally or not it is still maintained and his use is incidental

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/opulent-phoenix-park-lodge-is--set-to-become-fortress-cowen-1378987.html

Joe 90

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Comparing just wages alone doesn give a true cost to the President of the USA and the Pm of Britain.

How much does the state pay for the running of the white house, no10 downing street etc, those costs have to be directly attributed to the top positions in each country and should surely be evaluated when we consider the cost of the taoiseach in terms of wages.

I still think he is paid too much but I think they associated costs should be considered, its not all just wages.

This is the thing about politicians in general. They tend to have a salary somewhat comparable to a person at the top end of a profession but they get a billionaire lifestyle thrown in.

gizmo555

Riskymove wrote: »

a. the post-1995 people have higher gross wages to compensate

Can you back this up with a source please? If you look for example at the salary scales of teachers and lecturers here on the TUI website, there's no mention of different gross salaries for pre and post-1995 staff.

EDIT: OK, I see on the CPSU website this difference exists for civil servants. The information on the TUI website seems to indicate it's not universal for public servants though.

Riskymove wrote: »

does this sound like selling out future members to the advantage of existing?

Without a doubt. The new 10% reduction in pay which only applies to new recruits, even more so.

CDfm

How do the pay rates compare to the UK & Europe for comparable jobs ?