Social Welfare cut but Public Service Pay not ?

ParkRunner

ntlbell wrote: »

If a company is profitable, well managed with a hard working work force and can afford to pay current levels of pay there's no point crying out for them to be cut. The PS employer can't afford the current levels of wages so they need to be cut.

Are you happy to make any contribution to the recovery of the Irish economy?

NewHillel

Absurdum wrote: »

you answered your own question - it was a bonus

Well benchmarking for Public Servants was a bonus, also - and one that was entirely undeserved. About time that that bonus was removed.

caseyann

ntlbell wrote: »

Yes.

No.

Then with all due respect you can not understand how to live on 200 euro a week with kids and bills(unless you are in anyway in a low pay bracket then i would say sorry because you are been hit also.Also since they government brought in the rule of you have to be a trained child minder which shot up the price of child care in recent years,pushing lone parents back into the no jobs area.Do you think any mother barr the bad ones which is few and far between like not been able to buy their kids new shoes amd clothes and do things with their kids to make it happier for them and having to depend on hand outs when their kids go back to school? Or not been able to work and bring home a decent wage and see brighter future for themselves and their kids?




MABS can advise people if they're badly managing their finances.

If not, there's plenty of good books on budgeting you can get in the librabry for free.

I'm sure the SVP are stretched. but they also manage to pull something out for people who really need it.

They are over stretched this year and last by way over their means.And because of that they have had to say no to people.

ntlbell

EF wrote: »

Are you happy to make any contribution to the recovery of the Irish economy?

I'm happy to pay a lot more tax as I think income tax in general is too low here.

If my employer cannot afford my wages I'm happy to take a large pay cut, work hours unpaid etc.

More than most.

Pretty pointless question tho.

caseyann

NewHillel wrote: »

Well benchmarking for Public Servants was a bonus, also - and one that was entirely undeserved. About time that that bonus was removed.

You can be sure that fianna fail will get their Christmas bonus.

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

They are over stretched this year and last by way over their means.And because of that they have had to say no to people.

I got as far as with all due respect, the bold got to my eyes.

I know for example a famliy of 3 get the equivilent of an employed person's take home on 40k as more than enough to live.

I know a single person doesn't need in excess of 800e disposable income a month.

throwing out things like "are you even on the dole" is not conduvice to the conversation. if you have to be on the dole to discuss we wouldn't have much of a discussion.

You're not on the dole from previous posts, so with all due respect, how would you know?

see? it's irrelvant.

NewHillel

Musicmental85 wrote: »

As a fully qualified teacher with experience in the classroom with the latest curriculum and having lectured it too (to teachers twice my age) to try and get my CV as good as I can I really resent the 10% pay cut to incoming people.

This means that every part time teacher (and there are a lot of them in 2nd level at least) will be taking at least a 10% paycut next September when our contracts are renewed while there are teachers above us on salaries that we will never see in our lifetime who will not take this cut. In addition this budget has stated that all incoming staff will start at level 1 on the payscale. If this applies to teachers this means despite experience and post graduate qualifications we will never get a pay rise for the foreseeable future while once again those on huge public service pensions (I'm talking 70k plus) and those who managed to get the elusive permanent job before the jobs freeze are immeasurably better off than us. The average 2nd level teacher spends 7 years before they get any sniff of a permanent contract. That means 7 years with no pay increase at all.

Just as a comparison. 2 years ago when starting a one year contract I received 39077. Next September the same work and qualifications will get me: 33352. This is a full 15% cut before any of the extra taxes etc get applied to it.

Now I know that the country is in recession and I know that many people think we dont work hard enough (for another thread but I wouldn't mind working more in the summer) but my BEEF with all of this is the fact that its only us young public servants being hit with this extra 10%? It is so unfair and its because of the croke park agreement. If everyone had been hit (particularly higher earners e.g. consultants etc) then it could have been spread better. This is aimed at the under 30s and is rotten.

I agree with you 100%. The whole exercise is designed to target the younger workers and protect the political class and their protégées in the Public Service. (Remember that a large percentage of older Public Servants got their jobs through political influence. One day I might write a book about some of the more outrageous strokes that I saw pulled...)

Its now abundently clear why FF hung on to power, despite the public humiliation. They simply wanted to wrap up the retirement packages and pensions for themselves and their friends. If the incoming politicians have any food for monkeys they'll unwind this disgraceful farce, once they get into power. They could then move on to the semi-states where staff got bonuses and pay increases, long after the crisis was underway.

NewHillel

caseyann wrote: »

You can be sure that fianna fail will get their Christmas bonus.

Not only that, but a large (undeserved) termination bonus and a huge pension.

So, heads they win, tails we all lose. Unpatriotic doesn't even come close.

caseyann

ntlbell wrote: »

I got as far as with all due respect, the bold got to my eyes.

I know for example a famliy of 3 get the equivilent of an employed person's take home on 40k as more than enough to live.

I know a single person doesn't need in excess of 800e disposable income a month.

throwing out things like "are you even on the dole" is not conduvice to the conversation. if you have to be on the dole to discuss we wouldn't have much of a discussion.

You're not on the dole from previous posts, so with all due respect, how would you know?

see? it's irrelvant.

I work with people on the dole and on single parents every day.So yes it is relevant.
I dont think a single person with no kids needs 800e a month either.They have rent on top and medical care, and should be out working in a chipper a pub a shop or bin men or any job they can,if on long term dole if they can find a job.
I am talking about lone parents who are on their own and people who are genuinely sick and can not work.
I walk past men in their 20's standing around street corners in the night drinking and smoking hash.Then you see them in the post office collecting their social welfare.
These people should be brought in one by one and interviewed and sent letters to come in with proof of job searches.
In order to get women back out in the work areas who are alone, childminding needs to be targeted or after school care for smaller kids provided.
In Norway such things are in place and in England among other countries.

Remember the days when they gave people jobs without skills and trained them in with nothing more than and intermediate exam if even.

and i took away the bolded for you Then with all due respect you can not understand how to live on 200 euro a week with kids and bills(unless you are in anyway in a low pay bracket then i would say sorry because you are been hit also.Also since they government brought in the rule of you have to be a trained child minder which shot up the price of child care in recent years,pushing lone parents back into the no jobs area.Do you think any mother barr the bad ones which is few and far between like not been able to buy their kids new shoes and clothes,to do things with their kids to make it happier for them?
And enjoy having to depend on hand outs when their kids go back to school? Or not been able to work and bring home a decent wage and see brighter future for themselves and their kids?

caseyann

NewHillel wrote: »

Not only that, but a large (undeserved) termination bonus and a huge pension.

So, heads they win, tails we all lose. Unpatriotic doesn't even come close.

I was watching Doherty and was thinking i would give my right arm to be in his seat

And yet people are sitting around giving out about all the people on social welfare.
Salem witch trials anyone?

NewHillel

caseyann wrote: »

And yet people are sitting around giving out about all the people on social welfare.
Salem witch trials anyone?

Any of us could find ourselves on that same Social Welfare before this is over - and that includes Public Servants who consider themselves safe!

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

I work with people on the dole and on single parents every day.So yes it is relevant.

I know people on the dole who live perfectly resonable lives, no excess but are comfortable. Do i have to work with them?

caseyann wrote: »

I dont think a single person with no kids needs 800e a month either.They have rent on top and medical care, and should be out working in a chipper a pub a shop or bin men or any job they can,if on long term dole if they can find a job.

The majority on on the 196 would be entitled to free medical card, a lot have rent allowance etc.

caseyann wrote: »

I am talking about lone parents who are on their own and people who are genuinely sick and can not work.

Why should people who are sick need more money than someone else if thir medical is cared for? doesn't make any sense, if anything, they probably need less.

caseyann wrote: »

I walk past men in their 20's standing around street corners in the night drinking and smoking hash.Then you see them in the post office collecting their social welfare.

These people should be brought in one by one and interviewed and sent letters to come in with proof of job searches.

No one would argue but I'm not sure of the relvance. you're suggesting epople spend their SW on nonsense? this is not news.

caseyann wrote: »

In order to get women back out in the work areas who are alone, childminding needs to be targeted or after school care for smaller kids provided.
In Norway such things are in place and in England among other countries.

Remember the days when they gave people jobs without skills and trained them in with nothing more than and intermediate exam if even.

Well my personal opinion is you shouldn't have kids to send them off to be minded by a stranger a few months out of the womb.

So you don't really mind about people on SW you're just rallying the flag for single parents?

caseyann

ntlbell wrote: »

I know people on the dole who live perfectly resonable lives, no excess but are comfortable. Do i have to work with them?



The majority on on the 196 would be entitled to free medical card, a lot have rent allowance etc.




Why should people who are sick need more money than someone else if thir medical is cared for? doesn't make any sense, if anything, they probably need less.




No one would argue but I'm not sure of the relvance. you're suggesting epople spend their SW on nonsense? this is not news.




Well my personal opinion is you shouldn't have kids to send them off to be minded by a stranger a few months out of the womb.

So you don't really mind about people on SW you're just rallying the flag for single parents?

And you think people are on single parents when their baby enters the womb? Do you think all of the women in this country are on it when it happens? And not by means of bad luck or abandonment,which again the men are protected by the crappy laws in this country.
And no i am also for the people who are out stuck in rented accommodation because it is disgraceful prices.
The property market still gets its money and the banks and the tds :rolleyes:

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

And you think people are on single parents when their baby enters the womb? Do you think all of the women in this country are on it when it happens? And not by means of bad luck or abandonment,which again the men are protected by the crappy laws in this country.
And no i am also for the people who are out stuck in rented accommodation because it is disgraceful prices.
The property market still gets its money and the banks and the tds :rolleyes:

I'm not really sure what any of the above means. can you explain it to me?

I'm suggesting that I don't think parents should be handing over their kids to creche's etc a few months after a child is born to go back to work. i'm of the opinion if you don't want to break from your career for a few years to rare your kids then don't have any untill you are.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything you said above.

caseyann

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not really sure what any of the above means. can you explain it to me?

I'm suggesting that I don't think parents should be handing over their kids to creche's etc a few months after a child is born to go back to work. i'm of the opinion if you don't want to break from your career for a few years to rare your kids then don't have any untill you are.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything you said above.

Nice for you to be able to make that choice isnt it
Life doesnt hand you things on a plate,sometimes women do take time off work t o be with their kids,and guess what get sacked :eek:: Or guees what because they have kids no one wants to employ them :eek:: oh wait they deserve that as husband should be earning 100 grand a year before you even consider having kids.Or he should stay with her for life.Guess what those fairytales dont happen anymore
The above means that there is women who were working and with their kids in school and lost their jobs,wow that doesnt happen.And then there is other women who are with someone and he works and guess what leaves them,oh wait no that doesnt happen either.

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

Nice for you to be able to make that choice isnt it
Life doesnt hand you things on a plate,sometimes women do take time off work t o be with their kids,and guess what get sacked :eek:

Well I'm suggesting one parent stays off untill school going age. so expecting an employer to keep a job open for 3/4 years is not reasonable. so you look for a new job when the child starts school? if child care is an issue, start part time?

caseyann wrote: »

oh wait they deserve that as husband should be earning 100 grand a year before you even consider having kids.Or he should stay with her for life.Guess what those fairytales done happen anymore

why would you need 100k to raise a child? You're posts are not making a lot of sense.

caseyann wrote: »

The above means that there is women who were working and with their kids in school and lost their jobs,wow that doesnt happen.And then there is other women who are with someone and he works and guess what leaves them,oh wait no that doesnt happen either.

and people without kids lose their job? so you try find another one? what has it got to do with been single or a single parent or married? and as for a husband leaving, again. not really seeing the relvenace of this?

Godge

Musicmental85 wrote: »

As a fully qualified teacher with experience in the classroom with the latest curriculum and having lectured it too (to teachers twice my age) to try and get my CV as good as I can I really resent the 10% pay cut to incoming people.

This means that every part time teacher (and there are a lot of them in 2nd level at least) will be taking at least a 10% paycut next September when our contracts are renewed while there are teachers above us on salaries that we will never see in our lifetime who will not take this cut. In addition this budget has stated that all incoming staff will start at level 1 on the payscale. If this applies to teachers this means despite experience and post graduate qualifications we will never get a pay rise for the foreseeable future while once again those on huge public service pensions (I'm talking 70k plus) and those who managed to get the elusive permanent job before the jobs freeze are immeasurably better off than us. The average 2nd level teacher spends 7 years before they get any sniff of a permanent contract. That means 7 years with no pay increase at all.

Just as a comparison. 2 years ago when starting a one year contract I received 39077. Next September the same work and qualifications will get me: 33352. This is a full 15% cut before any of the extra taxes etc get applied to it.

Now I know that the country is in recession and I know that many people think we dont work hard enough (for another thread but I wouldn't mind working more in the summer) but my BEEF with all of this is the fact that its only us young public servants being hit with this extra 10%? It is so unfair and its because of the croke park agreement. If everyone had been hit (particularly higher earners e.g. consultants etc) then it could have been spread better. This is aimed at the under 30s and is rotten.

Where did you get your information from?

I have read the LRC document on the new pension scheme and those already in the system (e.g. part-time teachers) are not new entrants. Presumably similar rules will apply to the 10% pay cut. You need a six month break to be a new entrant - that also applied in the 2004 change in relation to retirement age. No teacher currently with a contract whose contract is renewed in September will be a new entrant.

Similarly, how can you say that you will never get a pay rise for the foreseeable future. Even if a new teacher (which you are not) starts on the first point of the scale, they will automatically move to the second point after one year (no performance measurement for teachers unlike civil servants).

Am I missing something?

caseyann

ntlbell wrote: »

Well I'm suggesting one parent stays off untill school going age. so expecting an employer to keep a job open for 3/4 years is not reasonable. so you look for a new job when the child starts school? if child care is an issue, start part time?



why would you need 100k to raise a child? You're posts are not making a lot of sense.



and people without kids lose their job? so you try find another one? what has it got to do with been single or a single parent or married? and as for a husband leaving, again. not really seeing the relvenace of this?

Most employers will not hire mothers now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 100 k was sarcasam.
Part time will not cover bills food clothes and life :rolleyes: Unless you are earning whopping money.And then when off school child care costs and working for nothing.
You have no idea sure you dont. lol

Godge

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not really sure what any of the above means. can you explain it to me?

I'm suggesting that I don't think parents should be handing over their kids to creche's etc a few months after a child is born to go back to work. i'm of the opinion if you don't want to break from your career for a few years to rare your kids then don't have any untill you are.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything you said above.

You seem to have had a very privileged upbringing (as a kid) or a very good job (as a parent) if that is your experience of parenting. If only the rich could have kids, the world would be full of spoiled brats.

Some people have no choice.

In Ireland our social welfare rates are twice what they should be. However, our supports to enable mothers to work are a quarter of what they should be.

We have a completely messed up system that favours sitting on the dole rather than getting a job. Imagine if we took 20 euro off the dole and used that money to subsidise child care for working parents. The effect would be to encourage people to work.

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

Most employers will not hire mothers now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't take that, what are you basing this on?

caseyann wrote: »

The 100 k was sarcasam.
Part time will not cover bills food clothes and life :rolleyes: Unless you are earning whopping money.And then when off school child care costs and working for nothing.
You have no idea sure you dont. lol

On part time depending on wage you can still claim FIS keep medical cards etc. you're stating it like no one does it plenty of single mothers are in employment and survive perfectly fine?

If you need child care during the summer months in primary that would be two months. you could get a live in au pair relativley cheap compared to a creche and you have reduced the child care from 12 months to 2.

Again as usuall with these conversations people always find the way not to do something than to do.

I've had this conversation with you a few times now and it never goes anywhere.

caseyann

Godge wrote: »

You seem to have had a very privileged upbringing (as a kid) or a very good job (as a parent) if that is your experience of parenting. If only the rich could have kids, the world would be full of spoiled brats.

Some people have no choice.

In Ireland our social welfare rates are twice what they should be. However, our supports to enable mothers to work are a quarter of what they should be.

We have a completely messed up system that favours sitting on the dole rather than getting a job. Imagine if we took 20 euro off the dole and used that money to subsidise child care for working parents. The effect would be to encourage people to work.

If you look at Norway,the children have after school care for free so the mother may work or father who ever is the legal parent.

ntlbell

Godge wrote: »

You seem to have had a very privileged upbringing (as a kid) or a very good job (as a parent) if that is your experience of parenting. If only the rich could have kids, the world would be full of spoiled brats.

Some people have no choice.

I'm not suggesting that they don't claim what they'r entitled to while they're out of work for those years. why would you need to be rich?

Godge wrote: »

In Ireland our social welfare rates are twice what they should be. However, our supports to enable mothers to work are a quarter of what they should be.

We have a completely messed up system that favours sitting on the dole rather than getting a job. Imagine if we took 20 euro off the dole and used that money to subsidise child care for working parents. The effect would be to encourage people to work.

No mention of fathers...hmm.

Our SW payments are far too high correct.

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

If you look at Norway,the children have after school care for free so the mother may work or father who ever is the legal parent.

I wonder if 40% of norways borrowing goes out in SW payments?

caseyann

ntlbell wrote: »

I can't take that, what are you basing this on?



On part time depending on wage you can still claim FIS keep medical cards etc. you're stating it like no one does it plenty of single mothers are in employment and survive perfectly fine?

If you need child care during the summer months in primary that would be two months. you could get a live in au pair relativley cheap compared to a creche and you have reduced the child care from 12 months to 2.

Again as usuall with these conversations people always find the way not to do something than to do.

I've had this conversation with you a few times now and it never goes anywhere.

Dream world ntlbell,while your motives are not in a mean way they are far from realistic altogether.

the_syco

_michelle_ wrote: »

Really what about the christmas bonus that was abolished :rolleyes:??

Ah, you mean the bonus for doing nothing. Never quite got that. Esp when I don't get a xmas bonus, and I F**KING WORK :pac:

_michelle_ wrote: »

Would you like me to have told my children that when Santa couldnt get a few essential for Christmas?

I do hope, with that sort of line, you cannot afford alcohol, smokes, or any holidays...

Godge

mixednuts wrote: »

I really do not want to start off the Private 'v' Public employee argument again , but this to me is one of the most unfair aspects of the 2011 Budget .

The Croke Park agreement done great to protect existing jobs in the Public Service (fair play) but it should not stop the tide going out for public service employee's when everyone else is going down .

If Wages/Welfare are been lowered it should be across the Public service aswell.

The Croke Park agreement is just another failed contract by the same people that have been agreeing contracts for the future of our country for decades to come ...This does not inspire confidence .:(

This is a very strange post. I do not want to defend the budget or public servants but there are a lot of facts missing here.

Social welfare rates were cut in this budget.
Income taxation was increased in this budget.
Any public servant is by definition in employment (not going to discuss if they are working:))
The extra taxation paid by a public servant is greater than the cut in social welfare. So public servants are paying more as a result of this budget than social welfare recipients.

Which part of that do you have a problem with?

caseyann

ntlbell wrote: »

I wonder if 40% of norways borrowing goes out in SW payments?

Government kindergarten initiative has paid off. From 2009, it introduced a statutory right to day care. In the state budget for 2011, the Government proposes to increase funding to kindergartens with a total of almost 1.9 billion nominal balanced budget by 2010. Parenting Payment for day care is reduced in real terms at the maximum price continued nominally unchanged from 2010 to 2011.

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/view/pressrelease/et-budsjett-for-arbeid-og-velferd-491568

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

Dream world ntlbell,while your motives are not in a mean way they are far from realistic altogether.

No it's a very realistic world for people who do it currently.

maybe they just have a bit of get up and go in them and find creative ways to get things done instead of putting thier hand out for more and more from the tax payer.

so what are you basing employers not hiring mothers on?

Godge

ntlbell wrote: »

No mention of fathers...hmm.

Look again at my post below. Three references to parenting/parent which includes both parents and one reference to mothers. Selective quoting indeed.

Godge wrote: »

You seem to have had a very privileged upbringing (as a kid) or a very good job (as a parent) if that is your experience of parenting. If only the rich could have kids, the world would be full of spoiled brats.

Some people have no choice.

In Ireland our social welfare rates are twice what they should be. However, our supports to enable mothers to work are a quarter of what they should be.

We have a completely messed up system that favours sitting on the dole rather than getting a job. Imagine if we took 20 euro off the dole and used that money to subsidise child care for working parents. The effect would be to encourage people to work.

ntlbell

caseyann wrote: »

Government kindergarten initiative has paid off. From 2009, it introduced a statutory right to day care. In the state budget for 2011, the Government proposes to increase funding to kindergartens with a total of almost 1.9 billion nominal balanced budget by 2010. Parenting Payment for day care is reduced in real terms at the maximum price continued nominally unchanged from 2010 to 2011.

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/view/pressrelease/et-budsjett-for-arbeid-og-velferd-491568

Again, not sure what that has to do with the question?

people often cite how great things are. when they state the uk for child care it's fine when you explain the SW in the UK is 1/3 it is here they state "ah but its cheaper to live"

The grass is not always so green.