Social Welfare cut but Public Service Pay not ?

ntlbell

microbio wrote: »

I am unclear as to what you are implying here; are you suggesting that I do not fund my own pension? Or that my employer should not make a contribution towards my pension like private sector employers do (in my experience)?
As the pension is funded by taxpayers, I actually fund my pension twice!

A lot of employers do not fund pensions and ones that do certinaly don't do it to the extent of the PS as I said in posts above you can't compare the two, the security etc.

nonsense, the PS combined throw a few coffers into the tax take then take it back in billions to fund thier wages and pensions.

microbio

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm happy for them not to join the dole queue as long as they take a large cut in salary. been in the PS or on the dole they're still costing the tax payer.

I've lost 29% of my salary since the emergency budget in 2009. For my level of income that is massive (actually it's massive by most people's standards).
I'm sure most PS/CS staff of my age group (early 30's) would agree with you- salaries of senior staff need to be cut. For those of us starting out on the ladder, the cuts, pension levy, lack of promotion, no credit for qualifications/experience etc has made things difficult enough.

Honestly, at the moment I'd prefer an average pension and more money in my wages each month. I'm sure I'll change my tune as I near retirement, but cold hard cash in my bank account means more to me now

kippy

ntlbell wrote: »

where a private sector worker will in most cases fund their pension. there is a huge risk with the pensions funds as you have seen over the last few years some pension funds nearrly wiped out, where a PS pension was linked to thier last job and increased as the salary increased. there not even closley comparable.



Great but doesn't affect the current ones.



Even basing it on average earnings is a very solid pension compared to private sector. Where if you're very lucky, you get back what you put in.



It's not lost on people at all, I think everyone would like to see the pension reservce fund being used for job creation etc rather than go to the banks.

Look,
I have pointed out to you the massive changes that have happened with public sector pensions for current public sector workers in the past four budgets, the massive changes that are happening for pensions for public sector workers who join in future and the minor changes that have happened for current public sector pensions all of which redress the balance.

I also LOVE the way that you are using this period in our history as an example of how poor private sector pensions are. To do so, is to display a complete misunderstanding of how pensions work.

What you should be trying to worry about is trying to get all pensions on an even keel, not try to drag them all down to the lowest common denominator.
Even that safe public sector pension fund you speak of is now getting thrown at the banks, safe? me hole.

Im not sure what you are looking for, a reduction of everyone to the worst possible pension scheme?
If pensions werent so all over the place in this country private and public alike COULD work of the same schemes but no one seems to care.

kippy

ntlbell wrote: »

nonsense, the PS combined throw a few coffers into the tax take then take it back in billions to fund thier wages and pensions.

Thats a ridiculous statement to make.

microbio

ntlbell wrote: »

A lot of employers do not fund pensions and ones that do certinaly don't do it to the extent of the PS as I said in posts above you can't compare the two, the security etc.

nonsense, the PS combined throw a few coffers into the tax take then take it back in billions to fund thier wages and pensions.

My experience of private sector is slightly different to yours then. I know that some small companies do not have pension schemes but larger ones certainly do.
I take your point that CS/PS workers should be over the moon with this fabulous pension scheme that we are contractually obliged to join (given my choice, I'd keep the money for the time being). My private sector pension scheme was voluntary.

I know that the PS pension scheme is secure (for the moment) but no one can say how long that will last, especially now that they are dipping into it for the banks.

Stark

A 5% employer pension contribution is in no way comparable to a scheme that guarantees you 50% of your final salary on retirement.

microbio

microbio wrote: »

My experience of private sector is slightly different to yours then. I know that some small companies do not have pension schemes but larger ones certainly do.
I take your point that CS/PS workers should be over the moon with this fabulous pension scheme that we are contractually obliged to join (given my choice, I'd keep the money for the time being). My private sector pension scheme was voluntary.

I know that the PS pension scheme is secure (for the moment) but no one can say how long that will last, especially now that they are dipping into it for the banks.

Stark wrote: »

A 5% employer pension contribution is in no way comparable to a scheme that guarantees you 50% of your final salary on retirement.

I didn't say that they were comparable. I did not negotiate the terms of the PS pension scheme nor did any other employee here. I am just contractually obliged to join it. I cannot opt out. And as I said, I would prefer a lesser scheme if it meant having more money now when I really need it.

Before I started to read boards and AAM I was completely unaware of the PS pension and how good it was. Although it doesn't mean much to me now other than money I'd rather not pay, it does seem to be the only 'perk' to the job (apart from being lucky to have a secure job of course).

Euroland

Stark wrote: »

A 5% employer pension contribution is in no way comparable to a scheme that guarantees you 50% of your final salary on retirement.

+1, agree.

johnnyskeleton

I've only read the first two pages of this thread so not sure if it has been pointed out or not, but the Public Sector have taken a cut in that taxes have been increased.

Even without a specific reduction in PS payscales (which there is for new entrants and for the top end), I'd wager many PS workers are down in the region of 3%, perhaps more. The same goes for all workers.

I fail to see why workers should take the hit but the unemployed should not. Don't forget too that while workers are being asked to pay more (as in pay more tax), the unemployed are not being asked to pay anything, they are being asked to accept less than they are.

The problem is that social welfare is seen by many people as an entitlement, but it is nothing more than state imposed charity from the workers to those who, for whatever reason, don't work.

redto

There is a lot of talk on this thread and others about how I took a 20% or 3% or whatever cut in pay, in the last year etc etc.


Bull shi ** If your gross pay (salary) or your hourly rate were reduced then you took a pay cut .
If your basic pay goes up because you have been in a job for an extra year you got a pay raise.
I have never ever seen a job advertised where pay after tax is quoted, your personal situation may dictate a change in pay due to taxes but your gross pay is the same.

Why would anyone think they should be paid more because they got extra qualifications? If the job requires the qualifications you get paid for them because you meet the requirements of the job. If you are overqualified for the job tough, why should you get paid more?
If you were working overtime and you are not getting any now thats not a pay cut, the overtime was extra pay for extra hours (is 39 not the max)

Bonus a bonus is paid because of exceptional performance or sales or some other situation above the expected. it is simply that and should only be paid for if targets are met or exceeded.(I have a very hard time understanding how a bonus can be paid in the public/civil service, what is it based on? I dont agree with a dole 'bonus' at christmas either, and I'm on the dole at the moment) I have got a bonus one year and not the next. If you do nothing extra and expect a bonus you are a fool.
Why would anyone count a bonus or overtime for that matter as part of their normal pay?

Thats a bit like including child benefit in your take home pay. If thats your way of thinking then subtract your child benefit from your tax bill to get your net contribution to the state in tax.

And on the tax moan, I paid taxes all my life with the exception of 6 months about 10 years ago 6 months about a year ago and 4 months and counting now. I have no major problem paying tax I do have a problem paying tax and not getting value for my tax euro. I dont think too many people could argue that our tax euro is efficently managed.

On the subject of tax increases, do most people realise that when they bought a new car or house or tv or whatever and they financed it, they borrowed money, at up to 19% in the case of credit cards, to pay the government vat or vrt or stamp duty. That is how the government got its tax bubble, now that aint there an they got to get the tax elsewhere.


Rant over for now bed time

wonderfulname

redto wrote: »

There is a lot of talk on this thread and others about how I took a 20% or 3% or whatever cut in pay, in the last year etc etc.


Bull shi ** If your gross pay (salary) or your hourly rate were reduced then you took a pay cut .
If your basic pay goes up because you have been in a job for an extra year you got a pay raise.
I have never ever seen a job advertised where pay after tax is quoted, your personal situation may dictate a change in pay due to taxes but your gross pay is the same.

Bull shi **, don't make assumptions, they lost out.

Why would anyone think they should be paid more because they got extra qualifications? If the job requires the qualifications you get paid for them because you meet the requirements of the job. If you are overqualified for the job tough, why should you get paid more?

Maybe because we want the best for the job? Do you like the idea that some moron who fell out of an IT is teaching your kids because it was the best salary they could get? How about the idea that once we are out of recession f*ck all well educated people will go into teaching because the initial pay is a joke compared to what they will get elsewhere? How exactly are students meant to do well if they don't have a good teacher?

If you were working overtime and you are not getting any now thats not a pay cut, the overtime was extra pay for extra hours (is 39 not the max)

You don't seem to understand what overtime is, it is not extra pay for extra hours, it is the standard pay for extra hours. An employees contract will state they get Xeuro per hour for the first 40hrs and X+Yeuro per hour thereafter.

Bonus a bonus is paid because of exceptional performance or sales or some other situation above the expected. it is simply that and should only be paid for if targets are met or exceeded.(I have a very hard time understanding how a bonus can be paid in the public/civil service, what is it based on? I dont agree with a dole 'bonus' at christmas either, and I'm on the dole at the moment) I have got a bonus one year and not the next. If you do nothing extra and expect a bonus you are a fool.

That's what the word bonus means, the term "Annual Bonus" is a bit different - the hints in the annual, I disagree with them too but they weren't based on performance, they were viewed as part of the pay and budgeted for as such. They were a loss to people in both public and private sectors.

Why would anyone count a bonus or overtime for that matter as part of their normal pay?

Thats a bit like including child benefit in your take home pay. If thats your way of thinking then subtract your child benefit from your tax bill to get your net contribution to the state in tax.

See above: no its not, by the way the more I read that the less sense it makes.

redto

Quote:'Bull shi **, don't make assumptions, they lost out'Quote:

So you consider a change in tax an increase or decrease in pay. For example does the birth of a child change their salary? No. it may change take home pay but not the salary. How many people said they got a pay raise when tax bands/credits were eased?
Reducing the minimum wage was a true pay cut as this reduced pay before tax

Quote:'Maybe because we want the best for the job? Do you like the idea that some moron who fell out of an IT is teaching your kids because it was the best salary they could get? How about the idea that once we are out of recession f*ck all well educated people will go into teaching because the initial pay is a joke compared to what they will get elsewhere? How exactly are students meant to do well if they don't have a good teacher?''Quote:

Best for the job? by this reasoning someone with a degree or phd should get paid more to sweep the street because they have a better qualification. If the requirements for the position are x, then the pay is set based on that requirement. Why should someone with x + 1 get more pay ? Just because someone is well educated does not make them a good teacher. And I would be careful calling people who attend IT's morons

'Quote:'You don't seem to understand what overtime is, it is not extra pay for extra hours, it is the standard pay for extra hours. An employees contract will state they get Xeuro per hour for the first 40hrs and X+Yeuro per hour thereafter''Quote:

?? Overtime is time worked above the standard weekly hours, it is usually paid at standard rate or standard + depending on the circumstances. (overnight, sundays etc.)
However this is OVERTIME If someone gets overtime for a month and then reverts back to a standard week , they did not get a pay cut. Overtime is just that.


Quote:That's what the word bonus means, the term "Annual Bonus" is a bit different - the hints in the annual, I disagree with them too but they weren't based on performance, they were viewed as part of the pay and budgeted for as such. They were a loss to people in both public and private sectors.Quote:

Quote:That's what the word bonus means, the term "Annual Bonus" is a bit different - the hints in the annual, I disagree with them too but they weren't based on performance, they were viewed as part of the pay and budgeted for as such. They were a loss to people in both public and private sectors.

Then they should not have been called bonuses (annual or not) they should be called pay raises, because if they are budgeted for and expected to be paid then they are a pay raise , and bonuses should remain just that, a bonus paid for exceptional profits performance etc.

Agree with you on last bit, second part not making sense in this context at all.

But I cant understand why people would consider a bonus or overtime as part of their normal pay.

wonderfulname

redto wrote: »

Best for the job? by this reasoning someone with a degree or phd should get paid more to sweep the street because they have a better qualification. If the requirements for the position are x, then the pay is set based on that requirement. Why should someone with x + 1 get more pay ? Just because someone is well educated does not make them a good teacher. And I would be careful calling people who attend IT's morons

No, someone with a 1:1 honours degree in maths is obviously more qualified to teach the subject than someone who passed a level 7 in business or science. They should be introduced at a higher rate of pay because we need to entice highly qualified people to pass on their knowledge. I would say that if someone had done poorly in a low level degree that raises serious questions as to either their ability or drive, don't mix up having done a crap degree and having done crap in one.

The street sweeper argument is bull, also it has been statistically proven students with teachers with strong qualifications in their teaching field do better than those without. link

redto wrote: »

But I cant understand why people would consider a bonus or overtime as part of their normal pay.

Because it was effectively part of it, if you, your father, and your grandfather had al worked for the same employer and for as long as you could remember the christmas pay packet was a little bit fatter than the others would you not take it as the normal as well? Would your budget not take it into account?

I'm sorry you might have had more points but your post is impossible to read.

Master and commander

0O7 wrote: »

would you not take a job that requires no qualification??? I saw a topaz looking for people 2 weeks ago!

just edited.... sorry i dont mean to be offensive

people don't go through 6 years university and get a masters in something just to go working in a fecking petrol station. jesus. I don't get it why, if they are qualified, dont they just go to a different state like the UK or whatever for work instead of hanging around ireland moaping and whinging and feeling sorry for themselves.

Godge

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, someone with a 1:1 honours degree in maths is obviously more qualified to teach the subject than someone who passed a level 7 in business or science. They should be introduced at a higher rate of pay because we need to entice highly qualified people to pass on their knowledge. I would say that if someone had done poorly in a low level degree that raises serious questions as to either their ability or drive, don't mix up having done a crap degree and having done crap in one.

The street sweeper argument is bull, also it has been statistically proven students with teachers with strong qualifications in their teaching field do better than those without. linkBecause it was effectively part of it, if you, your father, and your grandfather had al worked for the same employer and for as long as you could remember the christmas pay packet was a little bit fatter than the others would you not take it as the normal as well? Would your budget not take it into account?

I'm sorry you might have had more points but your post is impossible to read.

There is a lot of snobbery out there as to the worth of university degrees.

Do you really think that 3 years drinking in Maynooth, attending classes for 6-8 hours a week to get an Arts degree qualifies you to stand up let alone stand up in front of a class? There is a lot of low quality in our third level system, but some of the worst quality is in the undergraduate part of our universities as they have spent the last ten years chasing billions of SFI money to spend on research while delivering about 15 jobs to the economy.

Master and commander

Godge wrote: »

There is a lot of snobbery out there as to the worth of university degrees.

Do you really think that 3 years drinking in Maynooth, attending classes for 6-8 hours a week to get an Arts degree qualifies you to stand up let alone stand up in front of a class? There is a lot of low quality in our third level system, but some of the worst quality is in the undergraduate part of our universities as they have spent the last ten years chasing billions of SFI money to spend on research while delivering about 15 jobs to the economy.

well i exclude arts degrees which are more or less pointless in the real world, but I certainly did a worthwhile one. I did a masters in engineering and i am working in a good consultancy and i hope to start my business when i have etter experience, so don't limp us all in th same boat. I don't drink, haven't since first yr, spent most of the day at college and the library in eves, got a 1:1 and i am good at my job. I never got a penny in grants or anything and very little from my folks, only first yr.

So nobody, not SW noone, ever gave me a penny, Everything i have now i had to work damn hard for it. Even my job, i did not get work in ireland, but did i mope and complain and whinge? no, i came to the UK and found work because it is there for those who try and know where to look. so you tell me why I should be penalised to provide for those too lazy to be bothered and spend their life on the scratch? tell me? No- is entitled to anything, you must earn what you want to have. In this life you get what you pay for and you earn what your worth. and if someone is too lazy and lacks motivation to get ahead in life, then thats their problem not mine. they can stay in the gutter.

murphaph

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, someone with a 1:1 honours degree in maths is obviously more qualified to teach the subject than someone who passed a level 7 in business or science. They should be introduced at a higher rate of pay because we need to entice highly qualified people to pass on their knowledge. I would say that if someone had done poorly in a low level degree that raises serious questions as to either their ability or drive, don't mix up having done a crap degree and having done crap in one.

The street sweeper argument is bull, also it has been statistically proven students with teachers with strong qualifications in their teaching field do better than those without. linkBecause it was effectively part of it, if you, your father, and your grandfather had al worked for the same employer and for as long as you could remember the christmas pay packet was a little bit fatter than the others would you not take it as the normal as well? Would your budget not take it into account?

I'm sorry you might have had more points but your post is impossible to read.

But hardly any of our maths teachers actually have maths degrees, you do know that, right?

Paying teachers very handsomely has simply not delivered the great results you think it ought to, We're falling further and further down the PISA rankings each year.

wonderfulname

wonderfulname wrote: »

They should be introduced at a higher rate of pay because we need to entice highly qualified people to pass on their knowledge..

One might expect that if they don't pass on their knowledge sufficiently, their pay be cut. Which doesn't tend to happen with our highly paid teachers and poor results. How about getting some highly qualified good teachers on a standard rate and working up from there if they do well.

wonderfulname

Bloody heck guys that was posted in december, but sure lets respond;

Godge wrote: »

There is a lot of snobbery out there as to the worth of university degrees.

Do you really think that 3 years drinking in Maynooth, attending classes for 6-8 hours a week to get an Arts degree qualifies you to stand up let alone stand up in front of a class? There is a lot of low quality in our third level system, but some of the worst quality is in the undergraduate part of our universities as they have spent the last ten years chasing billions of SFI money to spend on research while delivering about 15 jobs to the economy.

You evidently have zero understanding of the post you quoted, or the situation with teachers pay, or what training is required to become a teacher, in fact I recommend you read that post again because your reply is completely off base.

murphaph wrote: »

But hardly any of our maths teachers actually have maths degrees, you do know that, right?

Yes, I do, again, what relevance does this have to enticing those with better levels of education to go into teaching?

murphaph wrote: »

Paying teachers very handsomely has simply not delivered the great results you think it ought to, We're falling further and further down the PISA rankings each year.

You fail to recognise that what I was talking about was different starting salaries for differently qualified teachers, not the overall pay of teachers in general.

bluewolf wrote: »

One might expect that if they don't pass on their knowledge sufficiently, their pay be cut. Which doesn't tend to happen with our highly paid teachers and poor results. How about getting some highly qualified good teachers on a standard rate and working up from there if they do well.

Screw pay cuts, teaching should not be a 'job for life', if you do crap you should be fired, just like with any private sector job, but that doesn't change the need to draw qualified people into the profession.

cyclopath2001

wonderfulname wrote: »

if you do crap you should be fired, just like with any private sector job,

Such as working in a bank?

Count Dooku

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Such as working in a bank?

Do we have any private owned Irish banks left in this country?

doc_17

murphaph wrote: »

But hardly any of our maths teachers actually have maths degrees, you do know that, right?

Paying teachers very handsomely has simply not delivered the great results you think it ought to, We're falling further and further down the PISA rankings each year.

Last estimate was half maths teachers are qualified to teach the subject.

murphaph

doc_17 wrote: »

Last estimate was half maths teachers are qualified to teach the subject.

A pretty dire indictment of our education system I'm sure you'll agree.