This country..........

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not really. can €473k a year be justified when the average industrial wage is around €35k? I think not. It is truly a scandal.

Nine thousand Euro a week??!! WTF?

Oh, we're comparing it with the average industrial wage, now, and not with similar jobs in Spain.

Regardless, a higher tax for the wealthy would solve the issue, and you wouldn't even have to switch the goalposts whenever you like.

FFS does it really matter? It is outrageous. Much as you choose to defend it.

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

FFS does it really matter? It is outrageous. Much as you choose to defend it.

I'm not defending it. You've ignored where I've said (twice) that heavier taxing for the rich would sort out his wage perfectly. I was merely calling you on exactly how two wage figures in two separate countries equated, and instead of asking that you compared to the average industrial wage. It's confusing, despite how often you do it.

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I'm not defending it. You've ignored where I've said (twice) that heavier taxing for the rich would sort out his wage perfectly. I was merely calling you on exactly how two wage figures in two separate countries equated, and instead of asking that you compared to the average industrial wage. It's confusing, despite how often you do it.

But who are "the rich"? OK - would you agree that €2k a week is enough for someone to 'live on' in Ireland?

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

But who are "the rich"? OK - would you agree that €2k a week is enough for someone to 'live on' in Ireland?

Yeah, €2k/week would be more than enough to live on. You could have relief programmes installed for those who bought houses at crazy prices during specific time periods, if they can prove they can't afford repayments if included in higher tax brackets.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

I'm surprised at how long this thread has gone on without turning into a Civil Service bashing thread

Toby Take a Bow

deccurley wrote: »

I'm surprised at how long this thread has gone on without turning into a Civil Service bashing thread

I think there's more of a subtle type of bashing here. The subtlety is surprising, considering the OP.

ovak666

Freddie59 wrote: »

It will when the money runs out.

Can someone please tell me who the blonde sinn feinn td is. She always sits beside whoever is speaking. She never says a word, just sits there smirking. Who in the name of god voted for this waste of space, and her on a massive salary

ART6

ovak666 wrote: »

Can someone please tell me who the blonde sinn feinn td is. She always sits beside whoever is speaking. She never says a word, just sits there smirking. Who in the name of god voted for this waste of space, and her on a massive salary

The token blonde? Every party should have one:D

steddyeddy

Freddie59 wrote: »

Becomes more surreal by the day:

SIPTU calls on the government to scrap the household charge and "tax the rich". Obviously, because the "Labour" Party is in power, they won't demand that people boycott it, organise protest marches, etc. And Jack seems to forget that he is one of the "rich" (high earners) with his own salary worth €124k in 2009.


On the same day, Spain slashes the pay of bosses of State companies:

The Spanish Government is to cut pay for heads of state companies by around a quarter, as part of its crisis spending cuts.

Pay is to be limited to €105,000 for the heads of the biggest State firms, €80,000 for medium-sized ones and €55,000 for the smallest.

"Today we are taking a further step in our austerity policy of cost containment," Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria said.

"We are setting limits on pay, slightly lower than those that are being introduced in the private sector [for comparable companies]."

The pay caps represent cuts of "between 25-30%" compared to current levels.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/spanish-government-to-introduce-pay-caps-for-state-company-bosses-540245.html#ixzz1mfzT4LPF

FFS €105k:eek: The Head of Coillte - a forestry company - has a package worth almost €500,000.

Spain population almost 50 million.

Ireland population less than 10% of that.

And look at what we pay to these people.

Honestly. This country is nuts.



Lastly, it has been revealed that opposition leaders salaries are 'topped up' from the Public Purse:

"Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has defended the payment of state funds to top up his salary whilst he was in opposition.

A €13m fund is used by political parties in opposition for day-to-day running costs such as media training and polls, according to a report today.

The Irish Independent report said Taoiseach Enda Kenny received a €50,000 salary boost while he was leader of the opposition, with Labour's Mr Gilmore and Joan Burton receiving a combined total of €22,000 in 2010".

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/tanaiste-defends-use-of-state-funds-to-top-up-opposition-salaries-540202.html#ixzz1mg0VV1oA

The holier-than-thou "Labour" Party. Who'd have though it?

As I said, a complete joke. This house of cards is going to implode on all of us. And very soon.

I havent even read this thread but the thimg about a lot of Irish is they will attack you for pointing this out rather than face the reality of this country. If I was outside of this country looking in I wouldnt beleive for a second ireland needed to make cuts judging by those wages.

steddyeddy

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Why do people expect political leaders to work for peanuts compared to the vast riches private companies pay their bosses. Who would have the harder job, Barack Obama on €300,000 a year or Michael O'Leary on €1m plus? Very hard to find figures for Irish bosses but plenty of them are on more than a million a year.

You realise Irelands broke dont you?

Old Tom

KeithAFC wrote: »

The sort of reason why your country is in such a mess. No one seems to care if that response is anything to go by.

I think that the real reason is that this thread is in After Hours instead of Politics, etc :rolleyes:

Freddie59

steddyeddy wrote: »

I havent even read this thread but the thimg about a lot of Irish is they will attack you for pointing this out rather than face the reality of this country. If I was outside of this country looking in I wouldnt beleive for a second ireland needed to make cuts judging by those wages.

Yep. But then again, weren't the people who pointed out the property bubble aslo ridiculed? Remember - that 400m we're borrowing every week is to keep a golden circle of CS/PS workers in the style they are accustomed to. But it will stop one day. And soon.

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I think there's more of a subtle type of bashing here. The subtlety is surprising, considering the OP.

Subtle?:rolleyes: Far from it, as you can see across any other thread. Yes, I'm pointing out the bloated, ineffective and grossly overpaid beast that is the CS/PS. And will continue to do so at every opportunity.

benway

Freddie59 wrote: »

Subtle?:rolleyes: Far from it, as you can see across any other thread.

No sh!t.

I suppose you'll be happy when the whole state is sold off for a f*cking pittance and unaccountable executives are awarding themselves seven figure bonuses based on extracting the last cent of profit, and service levels go down the pan?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0222/state_assets.html

I understand your anger and frustration, but you're really aiming it in the wrong direction. Let me spell it out for you:

The public service is not the problem. Our economic woes are all down to private sector misfeasance. Do you honestly think we'd be better off if we were to privatise the whole lot?

And I like that this is all Labour's fault, not word for the blueshirts in all of this?

Fact is, Labour's greatest betrayal is failing to protect the public sector you're so dead set against, an absolute betrayal. At least Michael D. gets it.

Michael D. Higgins wrote:

I believe that to walk away from the State would be a tragic error on the part of those who seek an emancipatory transformation in our societies.

http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=1068&lang=eng

steddyeddy

benway wrote: »

Freddie59 wrote: »

Subtle?:rolleyes: Far from it, as you can see across any other thread.

No sh!t.

I suppose you'll be happy when the whole state is sold off for a f*cking pittance and unaccountable executives are awarding themselves seven figure bonuses based on extracting the last cent of profit, and service levels go down the pan?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0222/state_assets.html

I understand your anger and frustration, but you're really aiming it in the wrong direction. Let me spell it out for you:

The public service is not the problem. Our economic woes are all down to private sector misfeasance. Do you honestly think we'd be better off if we were to privatise the whole lot?

And I like that this is all Labour's fault, not word for the blueshirts in all of this?

Fact is, Labour's greatest betrayal is failing to protect the public sector you're so dead set against, an absolute betrayal. At least Michael D. gets it.

"Michael D. Higgins&#34 wrote:

I believe that to walk away from the State would be a tragic error on the part of those who seek an emancipatory transformation in our societies.

http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=1068〈=eng

Theres a way to protect the public sector without giving out stupid salaries in a broke country.

benway

steddyeddy wrote: »

Theres a way to protect the public sector without giving out stupid salaries in a broke country.

The salaries aren't beyond the bounds of what's reasonable.

And. They. Are. Not. The. Problem.

Can you imagine what kind of money the CEO's likely to be on after the 3 billion not-a-fire-sale-by-any-stretch-of-the-imagination fire sale?

I am getting pretty f*cking sick of this one-track ideological bludgeoning.

steddyeddy

benway wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

Theres a way to protect the public sector without giving out stupid salaries in a broke country.

The salaries aren't beyond the bounds of what's reasonable.

And. They. Are. Not. The. Problem.

Can you imagine what kind of money the CEO's likely to be on after the 3 billion not-a-fire-sale-by-any-stretch-of-the-imagination fire sale?

I am getting pretty f*cking sick of this one-track ideological bludgeoning.

Paying someone salaries like this while telling others who cant afford electricity to fork out money is a problem.

benway

steddyeddy wrote: »

Paying someone salaries like this while telling others who cant afford electricity to fork out money is a problem.

My good God, do you think that the boss of a hypothetically privatised ESB would be on less? No, he/she would more than likely be on a significantly higher salary. Do you think they wouldn't tell people who can't afford it to fork out money? Get a grip.

Do I need to spell this out for you again?

It's. The. Banks.

Not white van dole scrounging single mother civil servants. Public sector salaries are small beans by comparison. If you want to rant about something, rant about the fact that public money is being thrown away needlessly on a private sector f*ck up.

Freddie59 wrote:

Michael O'Leary (whom I cannot stand) has made it in the private sector by sheer hard work. What, precisely, for example, does the boss of any State company do in comparison?

This is such ideological horsesh!t. They do pretty much exactly the same thing, they run a large corporation, geared towards doing a particular type of work. Only real difference I see is that PS bosses don't go whoring themselves about in the newspapers every other day of the week.

O'Leary deserves it for his "sheer hard work"? Me ballix. Like it doesn't take sheer hard work to get to the top of the public service? Blow it out your a$$, buddy.

Doc Ruby

benway wrote: »

It's. The. Banks.

Not white van dole scrounging single mother civil servants. Public sector salaries are small beans by comparison. If you want to rant about something, rant about the fact that public money is being thrown away needlessly on a private sector f*ck up.

Eh the banks would not have been able to do what they did without complete regulatory collapse, ie the public sector failed utterly in its duty to protect the citizens from predatory lending.

And with the other hand, public sector workers not only reaped tremendous benefits in terms of pay and conditions during the boom (oh yes, nurses going on strike for a reduction in working hours from what was it, 38 to 36 or something? the rest being overtime of course, nice little de facto pay rise) but also wallowed deeply in the trough themselves, splurging on "investment" properties and fine, fine vehicles. Who could ever forget the garda on the radio telling us tearfully he couldn't keep up the mortgage on his third house.

And its the majority being asked to pay for this minority, yet again.

Bottom line is the deficit is as big a problem as the banks, and that's all down to public spending.

token101

benway wrote: »

My good God, do you think that the boss of a hypothetically privatised ESB would be on less? No, he/she would more than likely be on a significantly higher salary. Do you think they wouldn't tell people who can't afford it to fork out money? Get a grip.

Do I need to spell this out for you again?

It's. The. Banks.

Not white van dole scrounging single mother civil servants. Public sector salaries are small beans by comparison. If you want to rant about something, rant about the fact that public money is being thrown away needlessly on a private sector f*ck up.


This is such ideological horsesh!t. They do pretty much exactly the same thing, they run a large corporation, geared towards doing a particular type of work. Only real difference I see is that PS bosses don't go whoring themselves about in the newspapers every other day of the week.

O'Leary deserves it for his "sheer hard work"? Me ballix. Like it doesn't take sheer hard work to get to the top of the public service? Blow it out your a$$, buddy.

The reason we're on a hole is down to the banks, no doubt. But that doesn't mean the PS isn't a mess. The private sector knows if it ****s up, people get fired/resign or the company goes bust. Public service is different. Budgets are based on what's available to be spent as opposed to what's needed. People rarely leave unless it's to such an extent that there's a national scandal. It's classed as a job for life. How many principals get fired for seriously underperforming schools? Has it ever happened? How many of the HSE management have been left go over the last few years? There's very little accountability. You only need look at the Kevin Cardiff situation for that. Whereas in the private sector, you don't meet targets, you're out. I've gotten warnings in a job where I didn't meet the targets.

benway

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Eh the banks would not have been able to do what they did without complete regulatory collapse, ie the public sector failed utterly in its duty to protect the citizens from predatory lending.

And because of this we need a weaker public sector - this is the line I'm seeing consistently from OP here, and it's really starting to get on my t!ts.

Without the bank debt being lumped in, the deficit was manageable. With it, it's catastrophic.

token101 wrote:

Whereas in the private sector, you don't meet targets, you're out. I've gotten warnings in a job where I didn't meet the targets.

If only that were the case in every job - never seen anything like that anywhere I've worked. They've got targets in the PS, too. They're monitored for productivity just the same as in the private sector. And, of course, it's not like anyone ever got positively rewarded for gross negligence/incompetence in the private sector:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/1m-bonus-banker-michael-fingleton-claims-he-ran-irish-nationwide-in-best-manner-2961048.html

:rolleyes:

Christ, the kind of incompetence, waste and buffoonery I've seen in the private sector myself, and continue to see. It's every bit as bad - I work closely with the PS, but just across the line, if anyone should be b!tching about them, it would should be me. But I don't see it being all that bad by comparison.

Not saying they're perfect by any means, but the fact is that there's a coherent agenda of running down the civil service so as to soften up public opinion ahead of mass privitisation - say Dicky Bruton is licking his lips at the prospect. We'd be fools to buy into it.

Doc Ruby

benway wrote: »

And because of this we need a weaker public sector - this is the line I'm seeing consistently from OP here, and it's really starting to get on my t!ts.

Clearly being overpaid doesn't make the public sector do its job any better, as evidenced by the regulatory failure with the banks, so I'm having a hard time seeing a pay cut having much to do with worsening performance.

benway wrote: »

Without the bank debt being lumped in, the deficit was manageable. With it, it's catastrophic.

We would have neither the bank debt nor the deficit if the public sector was doing what it was paid to do. The deficit is there because the government took the once off fools gold of the boom and put it into ongoing salaries and wages and related costs.

Now its time to bring things back into line with reality.

benway wrote: »

Christ, the kind of incompetence, waste and buffoonery I've seen in the private sector myself, and continue to see. It's every bit as bad

Who cares? We aren't paying for them.

And sooner or later a less wasteful competitor will come along and eat their lunch.

benway

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Who cares? We aren't paying for them.

And sooner or later a less wasteful competitor will come along and eat their lunch.

Nice theory. And we may soon be relying on them to provide basic public services, while skimming off a tidy profit ... and no doubt paying their executives maybe a little over minimum wage? Will make you long for the days of your imaginary fat-cat civil servants. Cheek of those nurses looking for decent pay and conditions. What have they ever done for us?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Clearly being overpaid doesn't make the public sector do its job any better, as evidenced by the regulatory failure with the banks, so I'm having a hard time seeing a pay cut having much to do with worsening performance.

We would have neither the bank debt nor the deficit if the public sector was doing what it was paid to do. The deficit is there because the government took the once off fools gold of the boom and put it into ongoing salaries and wages and related costs.

Now its time to bring things back into line with reality.

It was all the public service's fault, yeah? Sure. :rolleyes:

The deficit is what it is because we took on the bank debt. This is what it boils down to. Try all you like, but you can't attribute the blame elsewhere.

The regulatory failure was a function of the same ideology that would do away with the public service altogether given half a chance - neoliberal light (soft) touch regulation, small government, blah, blah, bullsh!t. It's not that the regulator wasn't capable of making a difference, it's that he was restrained on ideological grounds from getting involved ... and of course gombeen political grounds.

The fact that the regulator who lacked the will to put a dampner on the party was nominally part of the public service does not make this a public sector failure.

It's a failure of the very ideology you and OP appear to be pushing, knowingly or not - let's gut the public sector, maybe divvy it up for a few political cronies to milk and everything will be much better.

Maedbhish

I'd still never leave tbh.

Doc Ruby

benway wrote: »

And we may soon be relying on them to provide basic public services, while skimming off a tidy profit ... and no doubt paying their executives maybe a little over minimum wage? Will make you long for the days of your imaginary fat-cat civil servants. Cheek of those nurses looking for decent pay and conditions. What have they ever done for us?

They already had decent pay and conditions, a lot better than most, during the dispute the HSE released figures showing a €55000 premium per nurse. This was the nurses union trying to bums rush more money through the back door.

As for the rest, what you're trying to say is that everyone everywhere is corrupt fat and greedy so nobody should work at all?

benway wrote: »

It was all the public service's fault, yeah? Sure. :rolleyes:

No, but it sure played a bigger role than it's trying to portray.

benway wrote: »

The deficit is what it is because we took on the bank debt. This is what it boils down to. Try all you like, but you can't attribute the blame elsewhere.

We had a mother of a deficit before we took on the bank debt.

benway wrote: »

The fact that the regulator who lacked the will to put a dampner on the party was nominally part of the public service does not make this a public sector failure.

Hold on, a minute ago you were trumpeting the hard work, cooperation and virtues it takes to reach the top in the public sector. How is it you're pulling a u-turn now that the egg is in your own face?

Sorry laddie, the party is over. Its time for you lot to catch up with the rest of us.

benway

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Hold on, a minute ago you were trumpeting the hard work, cooperation and virtues it takes to reach the top in the public sector. How is it you're pulling a u-turn now that the egg is in your own face?

Sorry laddie, the party is over. Its time for you lot to catch up with the rest of us.

Thank you for putting those nice words in my mouth. You're too kind. Point is that the weakness of one office of the public sector, owing to particular circumstances, won't let you get away with pinning the whole catastrophe on the state. It was private malfeasance wot done it, whether you admit it or not.

What I'm really hearing here is:

Private sector goooooooooood, public sector baaaaaaaaaaaad.

Especially those nurses, what have they ever done to deserve decent pay and conditions?

woodoo

benway wrote: »

I am getting pretty f*cking sick of this one-track ideological bludgeoning.

I've been lurking around this forum for 2 years now. I used to respond and try and come up with arguments but they just wore me down with the relentess hatred. Some genuinely believe its our fault :rolleyes:. You won't get a fair hearing from some of the regulars here. So if you are a public servant just be happy with your fair pay for a fair days work and don't worry too much about what you read here.

The public service are not the problem or the solution. Unemployment going from 14% to 4% would virtually solve all our problems. But the people need someone to hate .

benway

I'm never one to back down from a good row

But it's also a thing that I don't like letting people spout the "private sector good, public sector bad" mantra unopposed, in light of the kinds of measures that are likely to be pushed in the coming months and years. We can't answer the O'Reilly media back, but we can at least put the countervailing argument across when internet warriors are in the saddle.

I have always worked in the private sector, by the way, but my job means that I have a lot of dealings with the public service.

woodoo

benway wrote: »

We can't answer the O'Reilly media back.

You are dead right about that lot. They are selling a lot of papers these days on the back of putting the boot into the Public Sector. It would be nice to see O'Reilly pay a bit more tax here. But you'll never read about that in the Sunday Independent.

I hope public servants have long memories about that paper.

highcream

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yep. But then again, weren't the people who pointed out the property bubble aslo ridiculed? Remember - that 400m we're borrowing every week is to keep a golden circle of CS/PS workers in the style they are accustomed to. But it will stop one day. And soon.

Cant wait for that day.The croke park deal proves the government are afraid of or in cahoots with the likes of Jack o'connor

Robdude

It won't stop any time soon.

On a big, popular, internet forum; you get a handful of people who biatch about corruption and abuse, from the comfort of their home.

In real life, in my day-to-day interactions, nobody is willing to do a bit of anything about it. The vast majority of people are too welcoming of it. They even defend it.

'He's stealing money? Well, that's none of MY business...even if it's not right'
'He's cheating the system? Well, fair play to him....even if it's not right'

Freddie59

benway wrote: »

I understand your anger and frustration, but you're really aiming it in the wrong direction. Let me spell it out for you:

The public service is not the problem. Our economic woes are all down to private sector misfeasance. Do you honestly think we'd be better off if we were to privatise the whole lot?

And I like that this is all Labour's fault, not word for the blueshirts in all of this?

Fact is, Labour's greatest betrayal is failing to protect the public sector you're so dead set against, an absolute betrayal. At least Michael D. gets it.


http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=1068&lang=eng

Let me spell some things out for YOU:

1. The Public Sector wage/pension bill in 2010 was a staggering €18.2 Bn. An it's not the problem? It is a HUGE part of it.

2. The "Labour" Party is propping up the Government and its austerity measures. Right-wing, capitalist austerity at its worst. A tad hypocrital?

3. That damn private sector, looking after itself without a penny from the State (with, of course, the exception of the Banksters). Paying its own pensions. Operating in the real world. Yeah, it's probably responsible for everything.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

benway wrote: »

The salaries aren't beyond the bounds of what's reasonable.

Education: salaries account for 80% of the budget.

HSE: salaries account for 70% of the budget.

Yeah. The. Salaries. Don't. Appear. To. Be. The. Problem.:rolleyes:

nice_very

Freddie59 wrote: »

Education: salaries account for 80% of the budget.

HSE: salaries account for 70% of the budget.

Yeah. The. Salaries. Don't. Appear. To. Be. The. Problem.:rolleyes:

well said Fred (fcuk Im a poet, whuda thunk)

the salaries should be around 30% (or less) like any business that wants to stay in business has..

does no-one get that a country is like a company?? the ministers/TD's like directors, and WE are the shareholders?

Freddie59

nice_very wrote: »

well said Fred (fcuk Im a poet, whuda thunk)

the salaries should be around 30% (or less) like any business that wants to stay in business has..

does no-one get that a country is like a company?? the ministers/TD's like directors, and WE are the shareholders?

Well said yourself! Especially that last bit. The PS defenders on here will tell you, well, you can't treat it like a company. Ergo the reason we're borrowing €400m a week. But, as I said, it is only a matter of time. Simple economics.