Slashing Public Sector Pay

Laminations

gigino wrote: »

an average is an average

In your "silly" example above, 20% of the workforce are on an average salary which is 20 times the average salary of the other 80% of the workforce. Are you suggesting this is the case in the public service too ?

Clearly anyway we can agree on one thing : the wages at the top need to be slashed first + most.

The wages at the top do need to be cut first but not indiscriminately. I dont mind paying weel in exchange for getting a good job done, put we are indeed broke and our ability to pay is reduced. Show me the distribution of wages within the PS (and include semi-states too) and I'll entertain an argument about cutting simply based on an average figure.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

Do you not realise that any tax, PRSI or USC increases hit public servants also. There is no tax that you pay that will not affect me also.

Thats true. Although if taxes are being increased to maintain public expenditure, then those who benefit from such expenditure are somewhat buffered compared to not increasing taxes and reducing public expenditure.

gigino

Laminations wrote: »

. Show me the distribution of wages within the PS (and include semi-states too) and I'll entertain an argument about cutting simply based on an average figure.

Thats been gone in to before on different threads. Average salary figures for various sections of the p.s. are on the cso website. Semi states are even higher. ..was'n the ESB 90 or 95k ? ......it was listed on the front pages of all the main newspapers there a few weeks ago, as well as on this site. Where have you been ?

n.b. In your "silly" example above, 20% of the workforce are on an average salary which is 20 times the average salary of the other 80% of the workforce. Are you suggesting this is the case in the public service too ?

Laminations

I asked pages ago if someone could furnish the mean, median and mode wage in the public sector. This would go some way towards determining wage distribution. Better yet if someone has a histogram of the numbers employed under various wage brackets, that'd be useful

Laminations

gigino wrote: »

Thats been gone in to before on different threads. Average salary figures for various sections of the p.s. are on the cso website. Semi states are even higher. ..was'n the ESB 90 or 95k ? ......it was listed on the front pages of all the main newspapers there a few weeks ago, as well as on this site. Where have you been ?

n.b. In your "silly" example above, 20% of the workforce are on an average salary which is 20 times the average salary of the other 80% of the workforce. Are you suggesting this is the case in the public service too ?

Missing my point. I'm not looking for the wage disparity in the average wage across different sectors of the PS. I'm looking for wage distributions. The number of people at each level of pay, or short of this, the mode figure. The pay grade most PS workers are on. In all your examples above you are still working off averages that can easily paint an inaccurate picture due to skewed distributions

NB my example was a hypothetical demonstration of how averages can be misleading. It wasn't a suggestion on how wages are structured in the PS.

gigino

Laminations wrote: »

I asked pages ago if someone could furnish the mean, median and mode wage in the public sector.

I asked the c.s.o., ...I guess in an ideal world they would have all the statistics, but what with holidays and stress leave and sickies its hard for them to do everything....email them yourself, the more people wake them up the better

donalg1

44% of public service workers earn under €30k per year and this was before the USC and Pension Levy, so cut them by 30% and they will then more than likely default on their mortgage, but they could apply for Mortgage Interest Supplement to make up the difference, they could be entitled to a medical card after a means test, so free medical expenses for them, plus they may be entitled to FIS, all this happens without taking into account the amount of money small business' would lose as a result in the cutting of wages of 200,000 people, local economies would be even more screwed than they are now.

To quote a spokeswoman for small business's "our businesses have suffered so its time the Public Service took a cut too" this was at the time they were facing their third pay cut of five they have had now in two and half years. I wonder how her business is doing now that the majority of Public Service workers have no money to spend in small business in their towns?

OMD

donalg1 wrote: »

44% of public service workers earn under €30k per year

Link please

Brussels Sprout

Out of a matter of interest do any people who aren't public sector workers or are married to public sectors ever come out in support of public sector workers in these kind of threads?

Laminations

donalg1 wrote: »

44% of public service workers earn under €30k per year and this was before the USC and Pension Levy,

Thanks for that figure.
Doing ****e box, back of the napkin, assumptionist mathematics which seem to be acceptable in this debate

I'll round off the 44% to 4 out of 10.
If 4 out of 10 have an average of €30k (then the total for the 4 would be €120k) then the other 6 out of 10 would need an average of €60k (totalling €360k) to get you to an overall average of €48k.

So one average is double the other. Thats how messed up your figures can get from using averages. We need to see a wage distribution chart

OMD

Laminations wrote: »

Missing my point. I'm not looking for the wage disparity in the average wage across different sectors of the PS. I'm looking for wage distributions. The number of people at each level of pay, or short of this, the mode figure. The pay grade most PS workers are on. In all your examples above you are still working off averages that can easily paint an inaccurate picture due to skewed distributions

NB my example was a hypothetical demonstration of how averages can be misleading. It wasn't a suggestion on how wages are structured in the PS.

Then back up your feeling. What is the Mode or the median PS wage? We know 66% earn over 40K so what do you think the median is. It has to be over 40K. Mode would be a silly figure. Try getting the median

Laminations

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Out of a matter of interest do any people who aren't public sector workers or are married to public sectors ever come out in support of public sector workers in these kind of threads?

I work in both sectors and I'm not in favour of 'no more cuts for PS' but I'm also not a cheerleader for the 'slash em all' brigade'. I would accept more cuts on my PS wages and targeted cuts within the whole PS, starting from the top down. NO cuts so far have started from the top down and instead we continually see the top echilons of our society being protected. Whether this be the plateauing out of the income levies for higher earners or the reversal of the cuts for top CS or now the possibility that high earners pensions will escape the levy.

OMD

Laminations wrote: »

I work in both sectors and I'm not in favour of 'no more cuts for PS' but I'm also not a cheerleader for the 'slash em all' brigade'. I would accept more cuts on my PS wages and targeted cuts within the whole PS, starting from the top down. NO cuts so far have started from the top down and instead we continually see the top echilons of our society being protected. Whether this be the plateauing out of the income levies for higher earners or the reversal of the cuts for top CS or now the possibility that high earners pensions will escape the levy.

That is nonsense. The highest paid public servants have taken cuts of 25% if you combine Pension levy and pay cut. Average PS worker pay (including the highest paid)
is down about 10%.

Laminations

OMD wrote: »

That is nonsense. The highest paid public servants have taken cuts of 25% if you combine Pension levy and pay cut. Average PS worker pay (including the highest paid)
is down about 10%.

I'm not wholly concerned with what people have paid. I'm concerned with what they are paid and what they have left to live on after deductions. The 10% is likely far more damaging to the lower paid individual and the economy then the 25%. The income levy increased at smaller increments for lower wage workers but the increases spaced out the higher up the chain you went - hence it plateaued

OMD

deise blue wrote: »

You should read the notes contained in the link you posted.

These notes state that the statistics do not include the pension levy /pay cut imposed on March 2009 .

Quite the opposite in fact

"The Q1 2010 estimates reflects the
decreases in public sector pay rates announced in the Budget in

December 2009."

But hey, carry on making things up.

20Cent

We are currently seeing what is probably the largest movement of wealth from workers (people who provide a good or service) to investors (who make money from their capital) ever in modern times. The ECB/IMF plan is widely believed to be unworkable and will inevitably end in default. In addition we have the massive inequality in Irish society where one class of people are being put out of their homes and jailed for debt while another is being bailed out.

"Slashing" wages for any group public, private and welfare for the unemployed will inevitably hasten default with the added bonus of deflating the economy even further. Make no mistake once finished with the Public Sector then the private will be in the firing line until we are all working to pay the debts of failed gamblers. Once this fight is given up there will be no cards left except perhaps Rent/Mortgage strikes.

In this situation I don't think anyone should accept any cuts if they fight against them. This is the one card the public have against the loansharks bleeding the country dry. If something is done about the bondholders, Nama, charges brought against wrong doers etc then have a look at cutting wages. Anything before that is just moving deck chairs on the titanic and dividing society further making it even easier for these vultures to pick us off.

Currently anyone who accepts wage cuts without a fight (if they are in the position to put one up) is a fool.

kippy

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Out of a matter of interest do any people who aren't public sector workers or are married to public sectors ever come out in support of public sector workers in these kind of threads?

I am a public sector worker.
I think you'll find that I dont "support" public sector workers. I have, I believe, a relatively balanced view. I can see where reform is needed, I can see there are overstaffing and efficiency issues at some gradea and I can understand that the country is in a bad way financially.

OMD

Laminations wrote: »

I'm not wholly concerned with what people have paid. I'm concerned with what they are paid and what they have left to live on after deductions. The 10% is likely far more damaging to the lower paid individual and the economy then the 25%. The income levy increased at smaller increments for lower wage workers but the increases spaced out the higher up the chain you went - hence it plateaued

You said pay cuts should be targeted from the top down. They have. Add to this the highest paid do not get increments as many of those earning under 50K get thus cushioning the effects of pay cuts. On top of this the highest paid have the greatest % increase in taxes as so many PS workers seem to think a tax rise is the same as a pay cut. The top PS workers are reasonably looking at a 40% cut in take home pay. Also these are the people who are older and for the most part have proven themselves enough to get promotions.

Laminations

OMD wrote: »

You said pay cuts should be targeted from the top down. They have. Add to this the highest paid do not get increments as many of those earning under 50K get thus cushioning the effects of pay cuts. On top of this the highest paid have the greatest % increase in taxes as so many PS workers seem to think a tax rise is the same as a pay cut. The top PS workers are reasonably looking at a 40% cut in take home pay. Also these are the people who are older and for the most part have proven themselves enough to get promotions.

And still the average pay is €47k? I'm not understanding your argument. Are you saying the average pay is too high and that PS pay needs slashing but not at the top? Are you perchance a higher paid PS employee? It seems that everyone in the PS is saying 'I've paid enough, I've had enough cuts' where in reality none of us have. I would like some source for that '40% cut in take home pay' figure.

Welease

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Out of a matter of interest do any people who aren't public sector workers or are married to public sectors ever come out in support of public sector workers in these kind of threads?

Define support...

I am not a PS worker, and I don't want to see any sector hammered unnecessarily, however every organization should be held directly accountable for it's success's and failures within its current operating boundaries..

I support PS organizations being given a chance to make meaningful reforms, but also support the need for further enforced cuts if those organizations fail to make sufficient reforms (either though changes, cost savings, efficiencies or reductions in staff).

OMD

Laminations wrote: »

And still the average pay is €47k? I'm not understanding your argument. Are you saying the average pay is too high and that PS pay needs slashing but not at the top? Are you perchance a higher paid PS employee? It seems that everyone in the PS is saying 'I've paid enough, I've had enough cuts' where in reality none of us have. I would like some source for that '40% cut in take home pay' figure.

I am not a public sector worker at all (or related to one) but I hate this attitude "I don't mind pay cuts but it must start at the top". It has started at the top much more than for those on lower pay.

By the way (not that it refers to you) I also hate the way PS workers insist the Pension Levy cut their pay by 7.5% yet this rate only applies to those earning about 50K yet the same people deny they earn anywhere near 50K. You cannot have it both ways guys

sarumite

20Cent wrote: »

Make no mistake once finished with the Public Sector then the private will be in the firing line

I think you have the other way around....the private sector has gone through the firing line with over 14% unemployment lagerly made up of private sector workers and pay cuts and pensions cuts to boot.. (I am aware that some contracters within the PS are also part of this 14.7%) unemployed.

20Cent

sarumite wrote: »

I think you have the other way around....the private sector has gone through the firing line with over 14% unemployment lagerly made up of private sector workers and pay cuts and pensions cuts to boot.. (I am aware that some contracters within the PS are also part of this 14.7%) unemployed.

You are partially right but if the PS unions give in then there will be no opposition to further decimation of peoples wages and rights in order to service the debts of these gamblers.

kippy

OMD wrote: »

I am not a public sector worker at all (or related to one) but I hate this attitude "I don't mind pay cuts but it must start at the top". It has started at the top much more than for those on lower pay.

Look, a 10% pay cut in whatever way to want to make it is going to effect a guy on 30K a lot more than a guy on 300K in relative terms. Obviously the guy on 300K loses and extra 30K of his income but he still has a lot more left than the guy on 30K with which to survive.
Health, Motor, Home insurance as well as grocery, electricity, gas, fuel bills are or can be almost the same for everyone - whether you are on 27K or 270K
The low paid feel these cuts a lot more.
And lets be honest - these cuts at the top are no where near enough.
Lets remember a lot of these people at the top have been directly responsible for the mess the country is in, and a lot more have managed to walk away with their CRAZY pensions intact, the authorities saying they cannot touch them - my b0llox they cant - they've just touched the pension funds of how many hundred thousand private sector workers without as much as a by your leave.
Then you've got far too many people on higher salaries who can hardly justify them (you've got a lot on lower salaries that the same could be said about) but essentially these guys getting the big bucks make or should be making the big and important decisions and for the money they get paid, they should be getting them right EVERY time or else be told to move on. Instead we've ended up with friends and supporters of political parties in the big jobs who really have no qualifications to be there. Guys sitting on endless quangos and boards, nothing more than an expenses wrangling fest.

Yep, there are those who do good as well, the problem is there arent enough of them, and there isnt a way to get rid of the idiots and those who dont perform. A bit like the issues that are effecting the whole public sector, just that the guys who get the best paid have the potential to cause far more damage........
Things are changing - but we are still nowhere near there.

OMD

kippy wrote: »

Look, a 10% pay cut in whatever way to want to make it is going to effect a guy on 30K a lot more than a guy on 300K in relative terms..

I take your point but the guy on 30K has not had a 10% cut it was about 6% and in many cases offset by pay increments. The guy on 300K is really a guy on 200K has had a €50,000 cut and a much greater % reduction in take home pay with higher taxes & levies. I am not trying to defend the really high paid but to say they haven't paid is ridiculous.

sarumite

20Cent wrote: »

You are partially right but if the PS unions give in then there will be no opposition to further decimation of peoples wages and rights in order to service the debts of these gamblers.

Nonsense. Unions are as self serving as the bankers, property developers and politicians. Together they make the four horsemen of the Irish apocolypse.

WalterMitty

if we cut public servants to the EU average pay for their position plus a little extra for cost of living here above average(15% according to marc coleman) we would save billions a year that could be used to stimulate other more productive sectors of economy. How can public servant here expect to earn so much more than EU average when Eu average cost of living is only 15% less and we are begging from the French and Germans who pay their public servants a lot less?

kippy

OMD wrote: »

I take your point but the guy on 30K has not had a 10% cut it was about 6% and in many cases offset by pay increments. The guy on 300K is really a guy on 200K has had a €50,000 cut and a much greater % reduction in take home pay with higher taxes & levies. I am not trying to defend the really high paid but to say they haven't paid is ridiculous.

Sorry, I wasnt using actual accurate percentages - I am aware that the lower paid took less of a percentage of a cut ( in general) than the higher paid.

Why is the guy on 300K really a guy on 200K? (I was actually only using these figures to highlight the obvious point that the well paid guy still has a lot of dosh left over to "survive" on and I realise a lot of them have had reductions in their take home pay, some very large but the point I make also is that these guys generally should be making the big decisions and getting them right all the time to justify those kinds of salaries - theres no way of moving a lot of them on and in my opinion, a lot of them dont come close to justifying their massive salaries.

Yes, they've taken their pay cuts (well most of them) but those cuts havent had as much of an impact on the individual as they would have on a guy on less money - I would have thought that were obvious.

Ultimately what really really grinds my gears at the moment is that, in my own role I am trying to cut costs where I can, improve efficiencies yet still see other areas absolutely p155 away money, money that will ultimately end up coming out of my salary this time next year when the required efficiencies havent been reached.
And you know why this is? The guys on the big big bucks, who make the big calls and decisions, ultimately haven't got a monkies.

While I am on the topic, another major issue in my opinion is the absolute brass neck of certain people who happened to be exceptionally well paid in the false boom years who havent really been touched at all - either financially or indeed criminally where appropriate. Thats just wrong.

dissed doc

beeno67 wrote: »

As a doctor yes I do realise. I have of course done it. It just bugs me when very well paid doctors who can expect to earn Over €55,000 a year basic pay before the age of 30 come on here and pretend they are low paid. Why don't you tell everyone, how much will a reg, working 80 hours a week earn?

They will earn two salaries worth of income, because they are doing two jobs. 80hr weeks cut years off your life.

deise blue

OMD wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact

"The Q1 2010 estimates reflects the
decreases in public sector pay rates announced in the Budget in

December 2009."

But hey, carry on making things up.

In the link you posted it unequivocally states under the heading - Hourly earnings down by 1.9% at bullet point 2 that " it should be noted that earnings in the Public Sector are calculated before the deduction of the pension levy that was introduced in March 2009.

I agree that the December 2009 cut is included but then again I never argued that it wasn't, for further proof click on the link posted by gigino in which the cso states that the dec 2009 cut is included but not the cut in march 2009.

But hey , carry on making things up !

Drumpot

sollar wrote: »

Do you not realise that any tax, PRSI or USC increases hit public servants also. There is no tax that you pay that will not affect me also.

Which means what exactly ?

Any salary I get, will be from the company I work for or the business I can generate. While the Governments budget is in arrears like it is, any salary above what they can afford through taxing everybody will either have to be made up by reducing their overheads or taxing us even more as we dont really have the option to continue working with such a wide defecit (and nobody will give us the money to subsidise it).

The big differance is that if the government raises taxes, my job is not being subsidised, its that of the public servants. This isnt about who deserves what, its about plain old maths and no matter how unfair some people subjectively feel about the topic of paycuts, it will happen because we cannot afford to maintain the costs.

What is funny is that most of the cuts in public spenditure could be made if it was run more efficiently. The reason a blunt knife of salary cuts is used, is because the government and incapable and those in privaleged positions are unwilling to make the sacrifices and changes that are required to make true reform a reality. Put simply, people down the lower end of the foodchain have to share the burden of the inadequacies and inneficient performance of those managing our purse strings. Accountability and being able to be sacked for not performing would be a decent start, might actually get some leaders into top management positions and introduce responsibility to middle and upper managers of the public service!

If anything, those on the lower scale salaries within the public service should be angry with those at the upper levels who are preventing true change and their governments (none of them have the stones to properly attack the wastage) that allow the lower paid workers to pay for the inadequacy and wastage of those above them.

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

Again the notes to this link state that the calculations do not include the pension levy/pay cut imposed in March 2009.

And why should they? the same figures for the private sector workers don't include pension contributions. That makes the comparison valid.

Drumpot

Head The Wall wrote: »

And why should they? the same figures for the private sector workers don't include pension contributions. That makes the comparison valid.

FFS.

Seriously, can people who do not understand Pensions please stop using it when trying to defend the "cost" to public servants. Its so annoying.


If they were really contributing proportionately to what most will be entitled to, their levy would be more then vastly more then the paltry sum that they contribute.

For a private sector employee to have a guaranteed 11,500 (to go with their state pension) at retirement. They will need a pot of €700,000 in 30 years time. If they chose not to take any risk in investment, they would have to contribute €23,333 per annum to their pension. The equivilant in the public service is 14% of €47,000 I am told (by a public servant on this thread). Do the maths and see if a levy here or there can make up the balance of what is actually being contributed!.

I have already shown in previous posts how ludicrously under valued the public service pension is to their members and yet they still harp on about how much they have to pay (when in truth they are paying peanuts in comparison to the pension it can provide).

Guarantee . . Guarantee . .

Guaranteed Job Security
Guaranteed Pension

But sure, when everybody was making millions during the celtic tiger, sure the poor old public service was barely surviving. Ah yes, the justification of Benchmarking. Like the landlords of Grafton street, we all know benchmarking can only be upward reviewable!

Most people in the private sector didnt make millions during the boom. Most people in the private sector arent bankers. Most people in the private sector are not in jobs that can fall back on the state to maintain their living standards. Most people in the private sector (like the public sector) did not cause this mess directly. And finally, most people in the private sector are scared of the way things are going and they are angry that they are the ones been left to fend for themselves while they perceive the "pampered", protected public service cry foul of the depression.

Pain is subjective , but in most cases, the thought of a paycut (certainly the ones seen so far) is trumped by the thought of losing your job. With the future so uncertain in Ireland (again a point seemed to be totally lost on posters here), if getting a pay reduction of anywhere below 20% is the most you will ever worry about during what will be known as Irelands great depression, then thank your lucky stars that is all you have to worry about.

Drumpot

Drumpot wrote: »

FFS.

Seriously, can people who do not understand Pensions please stop using it when trying to defend the "cost" to public servants. Its so annoying.

Hallelujah I am not alone

Your 23k is a tad on the conservative side allowing for no return over 30 years though!!

ardmacha

For a private sector employee to have a guaranteed 11,500 (to go with their state pension) at retirement. They will need a pot of €700,000 in 30 years time. If they chose not to take any risk in investment, they would have to contribute €23,333 per annum to their pension. The equivilant in the public service is 14% of €47,000 I am told (by a public servant on this thread). Do the maths and see if a levy here or there can make up the balance of what is actually being contributed!

The PS pension contributions should be related to the cost of the PS pension, not some mumbo-jumbo calculations about pension pots.

Salary while working 47,000 x 40 = 1,880,000
Pension payments 11,500 x 15 = 172,500
Cost of pension payments as proportion of salary = 9%

we all know benchmarking can only be upward reviewable!

Benchmarking was justified because aggregate salary levels were higher in the economy generally. Salaries have come down and so have public sector salaries. Salaries are no longer generally coming down and public salaries are likewise.

These rants about the pampered protected public service do not help. If you work in the construction firm then your job depends on the construction cycle, if you work in a school your job depends on there being children and if you work in a hospital then your job depends on people continuing to get sick. It is pointless to rant about the latter continuing to have jobs while the former lose them.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS pension contributions should be related to the cost of the PS pension, not some mumbo-jumbo calculations about pension pots.

Salary while working 47,000 x 40 = 1,880,000
Pension payments 11,500 x 15 = 172,500
Cost of pension payments as proportion of salary = 9%

Another pointless discussion, but fyi your figures are way off..

2 points jump out immediately..

1) Final salary is not reached until closer to the 40 years of service.. Pension payout is based on that, but your 9% assumption is linear and falls way short of funding for the vast majority of the working life of the participant when their salary is considerably lower.
2) Inflation.. The money saved in a pension 40 years previously is worth a fraction of the sum paid out on final salary..

The Pension Insecurity report put the figure required for fund a PS pension at closer to 30%..
http://www.ssisi.ie/Moloney&Whelan2009.pdf

Drumpot

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS pension contributions should be related to the cost of the PS pension, not some mumbo-jumbo calculations about pension pots.

Salary while working 47,000 x 40 = 1,880,000
Pension payments 11,500 x 15 = 172,500
Cost of pension payments as proportion of salary = 9%



Benchmarking was justified because aggregate salary levels were higher in the economy generally. Salaries have come down and so have public sector salaries. Salaries are no longer generally coming down and public salaries are likewise.

These rants about the pampered protected public service do not help. If you work in the construction firm then your job depends on the construction cycle, if you work in a school your job depends on there being children and if you work in a hospital then your job depends on people continuing to get sick. It is pointless to rant about the latter continuing to have jobs while the former lose them.

As I stated, please do not discuss pensions if you have no clue about what you are talking about! Mumbo Jumbo calculations ?!!! :rolleyes:

deise blue

Drumpot wrote: »

FFS.

Seriously, can people who do not understand Pensions please stop using it when trying to defend the "cost" to public servants. Its so annoying.


If they were really contributing proportionately to what most will be entitled to, their levy would be more then vastly more then the paltry sum that they contribute.

For a private sector employee to have a guaranteed 11,500 (to go with their state pension) at retirement. They will need a pot of €700,000 in 30 years time. If they chose not to take any risk in investment, they would have to contribute €23,333 per annum to their pension. The equivilant in the public service is 14% of €47,000 I am told (by a public servant on this thread). Do the maths and see if a levy here or there can make up the balance of what is actually being contributed!.

I have already shown in previous posts how ludicrously under valued the public service pension is to their members and yet they still harp on about how much they have to pay (when in truth they are paying peanuts in comparison to the pension it can provide).

Guarantee . . Guarantee . .

Guaranteed Job Security
Guaranteed Pension

But sure, when everybody was making millions during the celtic tiger, sure the poor old public service was barely surviving. Ah yes, the justification of Benchmarking. Like the landlords of Grafton street, we all know benchmarking can only be upward reviewable!

Most people in the private sector didnt make millions during the boom. Most people in the private sector arent bankers. Most people in the private sector are not in jobs that can fall back on the state to maintain their living standards. Most people in the private sector (like the public sector) did not cause this mess directly. And finally, most people in the private sector are scared of the way things are going and they are angry that they are the ones been left to fend for themselves while they perceive the "pampered", protected public service cry foul of the depression.

Pain is subjective , but in most cases, the thought of a paycut (certainly the ones seen so far) is trumped by the thought of losing your job. With the future so uncertain in Ireland (again a point seemed to be totally lost on posters here), if getting a pay reduction of anywhere below 20% is the most you will ever worry about during what will be known as Irelands great depression, then thank your lucky stars that is all you have to worry about.

Of course the public sector employees and their unions are going to use the fact that two pay cuts were imposed on the sector in 2009 in any argument on a further reduction in pay.

Thankfully that argument has swayed the only party that matter - the employers , hence the Croke Park Agreement.

Of course the fact that the Government are anxious to avoid industrial chaos allied to a disenchanted workforce who will resist any element of reform should the CPA fail are hugely relevant contributory factors to the Governments seemingly unswerving attitude that the agreement be given every chance.

ardmacha

1) Final salary is not reached until closer to the 40 years of service.. Pension payout is based on that, but your 9% assumption is linear and falls way short of funding for the vast majority of the working life of the participant when their salary is considerably lower.

Fair point. The final salary difference certainly increases the figure, but for a lot of people on a scale it is not so different from the average. None of this hold true for the big shots who get big jobs for a few years at the end.

2) Inflation.. The money saved in a pension 40 years previously is worth a fraction of the sum paid out on final salary..

The PS pensions are not saved, so this is neither here nor there.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

Fair point. The final salary difference certainly increases the figure, but for a lot of people on a scale it is not so different from the average. None of this hold true for the big shots who get big jobs for a few years at the end.

Going from the bottom of a scale to the top would still be a considerable increase.. and that doesn't factor in any rises, promotions or other increases which would happen over the course of 40 years.

ardmacha wrote: »

The PS pensions are not saved, so this is neither here nor there.

On the contrary, it make it even more important.. As no funds have been invested there have been no gains to offset the inflationary and other increases over 40 years (assuming a full term). The average PS workers was not being paid ~47K in 1970.. therefore a linear 9% in your calculation would be worth considerable less in real terms today upon retirement..
To put it into perspective the average hourly wage rate in Ireland in 1970 was 9 shillings per hour (45p)... 9% is a pension contribution of about 35p a day or under £2 a week, about 100 quid a year give or take.. If we take the 12K DB portion of a "average" PS salary of 47K.. that 1 year of pension payments in 1970 (£100) covered less than a week of their final pension payment. (rough calcs)

It is also worth noting that the pension levy is a very recent addition, and only applies to a small fraction of the earned benefit years that people have clocked up under the scheme.

Either way.. there are numerous studies and reports which demonstrate a funding level required for DB is considerably more than the 9% you suggested.

sarumite

Welease wrote: »

It is also worth noting that the pension levy is a very recent addition, and only applies to a small fraction of the earned benefit years that people have clocked up under the scheme.

If the pension levy is being included as a contribution to a defined benefit how can it also be a pay cut?

Welease

sarumite wrote: »

If the pension levy is being included as a contribution to a defined benefit how can it also be a pay cut?

As per previous posts that comes down to what people define as a "pay cut". Some are looking at gross salary (not a pay cut) and some looking at net salary (pay cut).. Some listen to Lenihan (pay cut), and some look at the pension plan (being based on final salary with the pre-levy amount paid out) (not a pay cut).. and in their own minds they are all correct..

Get agreement on the definition of "pay cut" then the discussion might advance

20Cent

Welease wrote: »

As per previous posts that comes down to what people define as a "pay cut". Some are looking at gross salary (not a pay cut) and some looking at net salary (pay cut).. Some listen to Lenihan (pay cut), and some look at the pension plan (being based on final salary with the pre-levy amount paid out) (not a pay cut).. and in their own minds they are all correct..

Get agreement on the definition of "pay cut" then the discussion might advance

If your pay check is less then its a pay cut. Simples.

Welease

20Cent wrote: »

If your pay check is less then its a pay cut. Simples.

Personally.. I couldn't care less what people call it :eek:

Additionally, if that is the definition, then how come some PS posters believe an increment is NOT a pay rise.. Surely, following the same simple logic an increase in pay check is a pay rise?

sollar wrote: »

Increments are part of the agreed pay structure and are not pay rises. .

Maybe its not so simples?

Head The Wall

20Cent wrote: »

If your pay check is less then its a pay cut. Simples.

That's a ridiculous statement, I have a deduction for a sports and social club but you would call that a paycut.

Idiotic thinking

ascanbe

Interesting to see many who champion the 'private sector' lobbying for 'public-sector' pay to be slashed and reveling in the thought of it.
If we continue along the insane route we are following then this, of course, will happen.
Do people here really think that any savings made by doing this will benifit Ireland's economy in any way, though?
The money that is saved from this will be poured into the black-hole that is our banks, i.e. used to pay off the foreign bankers and gamblers that are, ultimately, culpable for these bad loans. Does anyone really think this has anything to do with 'recapitalising' our banks and getting them lending to small businesses?
If public sector pay is 'slashed', huge amounts of money will be flowing out of an economy already on the brink of collapse; this will finish off many of the small businesses in this country currently just barely hanging on.
Ironically, given the situation we find ourselves in, those who wish to see public-sector pay 'slashed' are inadvertantly cheering for a death-blow to what remains of our private sector.
Our economy is in a death spiral. Of course the public sector needs stream-lining but this has gone way beyond pitting public v private.
Our problems start and end with the banks, NAMA and the preposterous debt that has been foisted upon us by crooks who purport to be giving us a 'bail-out.

gigino

ascanbe wrote: »

Our problems start and end with the banks, NAMA and the preposterous debt that has been foisted upon us by crooks who purport to be giving us a 'bail-out.

The interest on the bank loan is less than what public service pay has increased by in the past ten years.

gigino

20Cent wrote: »

If your pay check is less then its a pay cut. .

Most of the people in the private sector would love a pay cut if it guaranteed them a golden pension. Hell, almost 500,000 would love a job / income, never mind a golden pension to look forward to.
Re public service pensions, What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would the average retiring public servant - in addition to their annual pension - a cash tax free amount equivalent to the guts of a couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip ? http://www.daft.ie/searchnew_development.daft?id=12590

waster81

jesus the private sector banks caused the crisis,

we had real growth and then the banks started taking stupid risks, wiping out share holder value

the decisions the banks made influenced where people were employed

now due to their decisions thousands lost their jobs which dramatically increased the public expenditure and reduced the tax take

So the reason for a lot of the government deficit is down to the banks

You gotta love the way private sector banks have passed all their debt straight onto the shoulders of every single person in the country, daylight robbery

waster81

gigino wrote: »

Most of the people in the private sector would love a pay cut if it guaranteed them a golden pension. Hell, almost 500,000 would love a job / income, never mind a golden pension to look forward to.
Re public service pensions, What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would the average retiring public servant - in addition to their annual pension - a cash tax free amount equivalent to the guts of a couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip ? http://www.daft.ie/searchnew_development.daft?id=12590

Please stop 500000 are not looking for work, a lot of these were unemployed when we had full employment

The tax free sum is due to years of public service to society, something a private sector worker is incapable of doing