Croke Park Agreement beyond 2014

murphaph

Head The Wall wrote: »

I will agree with you that it is never going to be a straightforward flat comparison but the % difference still seems to be to large in my eyes.

Indeed. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for the marked difference in % difference between Public and Private sectors between the UK and Ireland. We're talking about a premium that is almost 6 times greater in Ireland than the UK (40% in Ireland -v- 7% in the UK). This has nothing to do with cost of living differences as the cost of living affects both sectors in both countries equally.

I think that whilst public servants in Ireland may not wish to accept it, the much greater % premium they get over their private sector counterparts when compared to the UK premium is clearly unacceptable to the private sector taxpayers who fund the system.

Services yes, but not services at any cost.

RobbieTheRobber

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for the marked difference in % difference between Public and Private sectors between the UK and Ireland. We're talking about a premium that is almost 6 times greater in Ireland than the UK (40% in Ireland -v- 7% in the UK). This has nothing to do with cost of living differences as the cost of living affects both sectors in both countries equally.

I think that whilst public servants in Ireland may not wish to accept it, the much greater % premium they get over their private sector counterparts when compared to the UK premium is clearly unacceptable to the private sector taxpayers who fund the system.

Services yes, but not services at any cost.

Can you show me some evidence of this 40% pay premium, I had a search of the thread but cant seem to find your evidence to suport this.

kippy

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for the marked difference in % difference between Public and Private sectors between the UK and Ireland. We're talking about a premium that is almost 6 times greater in Ireland than the UK (40% in Ireland -v- 7% in the UK). This has nothing to do with cost of living differences as the cost of living affects both sectors in both countries equally.

I think that whilst public servants in Ireland may not wish to accept it, the much greater % premium they get over their private sector counterparts when compared to the UK premium is clearly unacceptable to the private sector taxpayers who fund the system.

Services yes, but not services at any cost.

As I said, apples and oranges.

Gumbo

Also the stats dont show what is happening across the private sector, for example, My previous job, staff were reduced to 3 days work. One of the other guys in my team (same position as me) now only gets €289 per week from my old boss for 3 days work which is significantly lower than the average PS wage, BUT and heres the big BUT, he also gets €193 from various social welfare benefits which brings his wages up to a couple of euro less than me for working 3 days.

srsly78

kceire wrote: »

Speeking of which, my mate in AIB still gets his Gym membership paid for and a 1500e per year well being payment.

Do you not know what "benefit in kind" means? It means those perks gets taxed the same as any other bonus.

donalg1

Head The Wall wrote: »

What has the cost of living got to do with it, the costs in the UK are the same for people whether they are private or public. I am not highlighting the costs but the fact that public in the UK can seemingly get paid 7% more than private but in Ireland for some reason they are worth over 40% more. I can also point to a report where they acknowledge the extra qualified and professionals staff members in public over private.

I still don't have any other reason than they are overpaid and no one else can rebut it.

I too would like to see some evidence for the difference of 40% as the last thing I read on the subject actually showed the average Weekly Net pay in the Private Sector was €498 and in the Public Sector was €577, which is hardly 40%. These figures are based on the Private Sector not paying anything towards a pension, however if you apply the fact the private sector worker makes a contribution of 7.5% towards their pension then the figures are €461 against €577 which again is nowhere near the 40% mark.

ncdadam

CSO figures here.
Use them how you like.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q22012.pdf

Gumbo

srsly78 wrote: »

Do you not know what "benefit in kind" means? It means those perks gets taxed the same as any other bonus.

Ohh i sure do

i asked him about this, he says he pays 5% tax on the BIK for his mortgage discount rate only and he pays nothing on the others as they are provided to him in a non cash format.

donalg1

ncdadam wrote: »

CSO figures here.
Use them how you like.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q22012.pdf

I prefer to use these though they seem to paint a more accurate reflection and are acutally somewhat based on CSO figures but basically clarify the actual net income for employees, although there is still a 25% difference between the two sectors.

Farmer Pudsey

In the next budget the government must if we are to recieve trioka money cut the budget by 3.5 Billion. When in 2008 the austerity started the economists were predicting that growth would do some of the heavy lifting from 2012 on. This is the reality.The CPA was entered into on this basis.

However Growth has failed to materlise and so we are still left with budgets where we have to make cits so that we will still recieve trioka money to pay public sector costs. It is not possible by increasing taxes to make the adjustment. If we do it by just making cuts in services then we affect the public and buisness. The reality is that two area's have been insulated to a large extent from the austerity. Public and semi-state pay and Social welfare. Since Austerity came in one section of society working families have been more affected that any other sectio through cuts to CA, increases in cost of 3rd level, increase in cost of helth Insurance, no reduction in creshe fees etc.

These families that work in the private sector are under enormous pressure where for many it woul make more since to go on welfare. This would cripple the Economy. I myself belive we are near a tipping point regarding this.The burden has not been shared equally. I do not believe that people paid below 50K in the public sector should recieve pay cuts however I di believe that those on over 50K should take a some pain. The other reality is that numbers in the public sector need to be further reduced. A 25% pay cut in the Public sector budget made up of pay cuts and further job cuts would relise a savings of between 3.5-4 billion.

We also need a cut in Welfare to raise savings of 2+ billion. And we also will need to raise taxes to the tune of about 2 billion. This cannot be done in one year however it needs to be done over 3 years or so. Waste in the Public service through badly managed contracts, managers/politicians using it as there personnel kitty's need to be addressed. As well we need to reduce the number of local authority's and get rid of the Senead.

If we do this our Children may have a future in this country but not otherwise.Some of the bull of trying to justify 40% high pay and gold plated pensions on top in the public service as being due to extra quilification's etc is complete dillusion. The pay at the top is obsene and is not replicated anywhere else in the world to the extent it happens in Ireland.

donalg1

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In the next budget the government must if we are to recieve trioka money cut the budget by 3.5 Billion. When in 2008 the austerity started the economists were predicting that growth would do some of the heavy lifting from 2012 on. This is the reality.The CPA was entered into on this basis.

However Growth has failed to materlise and so we are still left with budgets where we have to make cits so that we will still recieve trioka money to pay public sector costs. It is not possible by increasing taxes to make the adjustment. If we do it by just making cuts in services then we affect the public and buisness. The reality is that two area's have been insulated to a large extent from the austerity. Public and semi-state pay and Social welfare. Since Austerity came in one section of society working families have been more affected that any other sectio through cuts to CA, increases in cost of 3rd level, increase in cost of helth Insurance, no reduction in creshe fees etc.

These families that work in the private sector are under enormous pressure where for many it woul make more since to go on welfare. This would cripple the Economy. I myself belive we are near a tipping point regarding this.The burden has not been shared equally. I do not believe that people paid below 50K in the public sector should recieve pay cuts however I di believe that those on over 50K should take a some pain. The other reality is that numbers in the public sector need to be further reduced. A 25% pay cut in the Public sector budget made up of pay cuts and further job cuts would relise a savings of between 3.5-4 billion.

We also need a cut in Welfare to raise savings of 2+ billion. And we also will need to raise taxes to the tune of about 2 billion. This cannot be done in one year however it needs to be done over 3 years or so. Waste in the Public service through badly managed contracts, managers/politicians using it as there personnel kitty's need to be addressed. As well we need to reduce the number of local authority's and get rid of the Senead.

If we do this our Children may have a future in this country but not otherwise.Some of the bull of trying to justify 40% high pay and gold plated pensions on top in the public service as being due to extra quilification's etc is complete dillusion. The pay at the top is obsene and is not replicated anywhere else in the world to the extent it happens in Ireland.

I agree with the above completely and have to say the pay at the higher levels is a bit ridiculous and some of those on that money live in another world altogether. I would say anyone on 45k or higher should be looking at taking a pay cut, with it staggered correctly.

You mentioned about private sector families struggling but there are those in the public sector struggling too, many on much less than the averages thrown around here, and this is why I believe their pay needs to be left alone for now and those higher earners need to face the reality that they are paid too much.

As for reducing numbers I dont know how this could be done as if it was to be done through compulsory redundancies those at the bottom end of the pay scale €20k - €30k per year would be the ones first to go which when you consider the social welfare payments and other benefits they would receive in the way of FIS, Medical Cards, and Mortgage Interest Relief and whatever else, there wouldnt be massive savings from the Government purse. In fact these people would probably only be down a couple of grand which would now be taken from the local economy thereby not doing anyone any good.

murphaph

The reality is that the "high earners" in the PS are likely not as overpaid (proportionally) as the "low earners" in the PS.

This has been done to death. The admin staff on 30k are grossly overpaid and should be on more like 25k max. the sheer numbers mean we stand to save much more than if we take from the "higher earners" (though the higher earners who do actually earn more than they would in the private sector should also see reductions of course).

deise blue

kceire wrote: »

Ohh i sure do

i asked him about this, he says he pays 5% tax on the BIK for his mortgage discount rate only and he pays nothing on the others as they are provided to him in a non cash format.

I think your mate is exaggerating.

He cannot claim a refund of club subs incurred after the 1st July last - the date AIB terminated such refunds

AIB's well being scheme from which you stated previously he received euro 1500 is a scheme to promote health awareness among staff - it is not a bonus scheme.

Bank staff , contrary to public perception , do not receive more favourable mortgages - they certainly did decades ago but no longer.

Whether or not AIB pay bonuses in cash or in a non cash manner is beside the point - tax is payable in either event.

donalg1

murphaph wrote: »

The reality is that the "high earners" in the PS are likely not as overpaid (proportionally) as the "low earners" in the PS.

This has been done to death. The admin staff on 30k are grossly overpaid and should be on more like 25k max. the sheer numbers mean we stand to save much more than if we take from the "higher earners" (though the higher earners who do actually earn more than they would in the private sector should also see reductions of course).

Maybe they arent as overpaid but they still are and chances are there are too many of them. Cutting someones salary by 5k would be a bit drastic especially when it is probably those on 30k that are struggling, why not cut the ones on 60k and above by 10k and leave the lower paid alone. I would imagine someone on 30k with a couple of kids and a mortgage is pretty much struggling as is, so a pay cut of 5k would see them better off on the dole, or they would at least qualify for FIS or a Medical Card.

Gumbo

deise blue wrote: »

Bank staff , contrary to public perception , do not receive more favourable mortgages - they certainly did decades ago but no longer.

I have 3 friends and one family member working for AIB at present. They all receive a discounted rate on their mortgae rate.

PS staff , contrary to public perception , do not all receive more favourable salaries - they certainly did decades ago but no longer.

donalg1 wrote: »

Maybe they arent as overpaid but they still are and chances are there are too many of them. Cutting someones salary by 5k would be a bit drastic especially when it is probably those on 30k that are struggling, why not cut the ones on 60k and above by 10k and leave the lower paid alone. I would imagine someone on 30k with a couple of kids and a mortgage is pretty much struggling as is, so a pay cut of 5k would see them better off on the dole, or they would at least qualify for FIS or a Medical Card.

Just to back up this, after the last round of cuts, my house then qualified for FIS and some family allowance.

RobbieTheRobber

ncdadam wrote: »

CSO figures here.
Use them how you like.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q22012.pdf

Thats a 25 page document can you tell me where in that document it says the public sector earns 40% more

Theboinkmaster

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Please provide evidence of this?

You don't seem to contribute much to this thread - all you do is request evidence from anyone who dares question PS pay. You don't offer any positions yourself nor provide your own evidence.

Instead of attacking the most vulnerable in society (OAPs, disabled, children etc) PS pay needs to be cut drastically, as well as social welfare. The croke park agreement is a complete sham and everyone knows it. All it's done is kicked the can down the road.

They could get the billions in savings in this years budget simply cutting PS pay and social welfare, minister could give a 5min budget speech and that's it job done.

Unions in this country are as culpable as policians/banks/developers. Scum IMO.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In the next budget the government must if we are to recieve trioka money cut the budget by 3.5 Billion.......
............. I do not believe that people paid below 50K in the public sector should recieve pay cuts however I di believe that those on over 50K should take a some pain. The other reality is that numbers in the public sector need to be further reduced. A 25% pay cut in the Public sector budget made up of pay cuts and further job cuts would relise a savings of between 3.5-4 billion.

This is impossible. To achieve a saving of 3.5 to 4 billion, you would have to cut all public service pay by 50% (including those earning over 50k) and numbers by 10%.

Why? Because what the government hands out in pay, it gets back in income tax, PRSI, USC, pension levy and pension contribution. If it cuts any more numbers, you are looking at people who are still active in the workforce rather than those retiring or about to retire so you have large extra social welfare cuts. So the first one billion headline cut only realises a net saving of around €300m. Obviously, as you cut deeper and deeper the way you want, there is nobody left paying the higher rates of tax and pension levy so by about the fifth one billion, you are probably saving about €500m net (but family income supplement comes into play then).

You are also certain to shut public services down but hey who cares about that. The shock to the economy would also be brutal.

It really amazes me that no matter how many times the above is explained that people still keep coming out with this idea that just will not work. Then, to suggest that people below 50k would be exempted, that means you have no chance of reaching the target as the majority of public servants would be earning less than that. To reach your target, you would probably have to cut the pay of those earning over 50k right down to about 30k, meaning that managers would be earning 20k less than their staff.

murphaph

donalg1 wrote: »

Maybe they arent as overpaid but they still are and chances are there are too many of them. Cutting someones salary by 5k would be a bit drastic especially when it is probably those on 30k that are struggling, why not cut the ones on 60k and above by 10k and leave the lower paid alone. I would imagine someone on 30k with a couple of kids and a mortgage is pretty much struggling as is, so a pay cut of 5k would see them better off on the dole, or they would at least qualify for FIS or a Medical Card.

That's the other side of the equation: Welfare is unsustainably high in Ireland. Rates must sink to come somewhat into line with reality (ie, our fellow EU 12 states, not even EU 27!)

5k in one go might be a bit much alright, but a 10% cut (so 3k) would do wonders for the fiscal stability of the country. I'm prepared to pay my property taxes and whatever else comes, but not so long as the public sector pay premium remains at least 3.5 times that of the UK's (taking your reduced but accepted 25% premium as the figure to be fair to you).

Some people sho overstretched will have to lose their homes as part of this process if we are to learn a single thing from it all.

kippy

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You don't seem to contribute much to this thread - all you do is request evidence from anyone who dares question PS pay. You don't offer any positions yourself nor provide your own evidence.

Instead of attacking the most vulnerable in society (OAPs, disabled, children etc) PS pay needs to be cut drastically, as well as social welfare. The croke park agreement is a complete sham and everyone knows it. All it's done is kicked the can down the road.

They could get the billions in savings in this years budget simply cutting PS pay and social welfare, minister could give a 5min budget speech and that's it job done.

Unions in this country are as culpable as policians/banks/developers. Scum IMO.

What figures do you want to see off the paybill and what percentage do you want to see of salaries in general?

Cutting 5 billion of the public service pay bill would probably only lead to a net saving of less than 3 billion, and the added issues of public service strikes, some public servants who are about managing at the moment ending up in positions that the state may have to support further.

Head The Wall

donalg1 wrote: »

I prefer to use these though they seem to paint a more accurate reflection and are acutally somewhat based on CSO figures but basically clarify the actual net income for employees, although there is still a 25% difference between the two sectors.

I'll stick to the CSO figures because in the real world nobody uses net figures when comparing their salary.

From the CSO QNHS average private wage is €611 and average public wage is €918, it seems we have been to generous a the difference is actually 50%.

kippy

Head The Wall wrote: »

I'll stick to the CSO figures because in the real world nobody uses net figures when comparing their salary.

From the CSO QNHS average private wage is €611 and average public wage is €918, it seems we have been to generous a the difference is actually 50%.

The net figures are the actual cost to the state of public sector wages, not the gross.
Perhaps in this instance when you want to compare the cost to the state of employing staff the net is what should be looked at, as people here seem to think that a cut of 5 billion from the pay bill is five billion off the deficit.

RobbieTheRobber

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You don't seem to contribute much to this thread - all you do is request evidence from anyone who dares question PS pay. You don't offer any positions yourself nor provide your own evidence.

Instead of attacking the most vulnerable in society (OAPs, disabled, children etc) PS pay needs to be cut drastically, as well as social welfare. The croke park agreement is a complete sham and everyone knows it. All it's done is kicked the can down the road.

They could get the billions in savings in this years budget simply cutting PS pay and social welfare, minister could give a 5min budget speech and that's it job done.

Unions in this country are as culpable as policians/banks/developers. Scum IMO.

This is not true I have provided my supporting evidence to a claim i made, so you are in fact incorrect in your assesment!

Are you trying to suggest that I am not allowed question other posters clearly questionable statements?
For your information I have already been informed by a mod that you are allowed to questions peoples sources on this forum, when I questioned another poster for doing the same to me.

Head The Wall

kippy wrote: »

The net figures are the actual cost to the state of public sector wages, not the gross.
Perhaps in this instance when you want to compare the cost to the state of employing staff the net is what should be looked at, as people here seem to think that a cut of 5 billion from the pay bill is five billion off the deficit.

What was used for benchmarking, gross or net?

Private sector don't work of net so when they compare wage levels I guarantee they use gross. Stop trying to fudge the comparisons

Head The Wall

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This is not true I have provided my supporting evidence to a claim i made, so you are in fact incorrect in your assesment!

Are you trying to suggest that I am not allowed question other posters clearly questionable statements?
For your information I have already been informed by a mod that you are allowed to questions peoples sources on this forum, when I questioned another poster for doing the same to me.

Its on page six, sounds like you are not bothered to look at info that will tell you something you don't want to hear

deise blue

kceire wrote: »

I have 3 friends and one family member working for AIB at present. They all receive a discounted rate on their mortgae rate.

PS staff , contrary to public perception , do not all receive more favourable salaries - they certainly did decades ago but no longer.



Just to back up this, after the last round of cuts, my house then qualified for FIS and some family allowance.

I presume that your friends can confirm the following

1. The refund for club subs scheme was terminated on the 1st July 2012
2. The well being scheme is a health awareness scheme & not a vehicle for paying bonuses.
3. All bonuses whether monetary or otherwise are taxable , such tax to be deducted by payroll & accounted for to the Revenue .

Staff do not get discounted mortgage products - they are treated exactly the same as all other customers , what is undoubtedly true however is that staff have found it far easier to access mortgages than others - indeed it appears that they found it easy to obtain mortgages that were not justified by their pay scales.

The day of discounted staff mortgages was effectively ended by the introduction of BIK.

Theboinkmaster

kippy wrote: »

What figures do you want to see off the paybill and what percentage do you want to see of salaries in general?

Cutting 5 billion of the public service pay bill would probably only lead to a net saving of less than 3 billion, and the added issues of public service strikes, some public servants who are about managing at the moment ending up in positions that the state may have to support further.

€35k-45k 5%
€45k-60k 7.5%
€60k-80k 10%
€80k-100k 15%
€100k+ 20%

Something like that - leave anyone under €35k alone. If they strike don't pay them - see how long the strike will last. Government needs to take on the unions and actually start governing.

And obviously freeze all increments. People start rabbling on about who deserves what but at the end of the day the government doesn't have the money so it is necessary and that's it.

I'd much rather see this than severly disabled people camping overnight outside the dail to protect their services.

Cutting social welfare too will get more people working and save 1Bn no problem.

donalg1

murphaph wrote: »

That's the other side of the equation: Welfare is unsustainably high in Ireland. Rates must sink to come somewhat into line with reality (ie, our fellow EU 12 states, not even EU 27!)

5k in one go might be a bit much alright, but a 10% cut (so 3k) would do wonders for the fiscal stability of the country. I'm prepared to pay my property taxes and whatever else comes, but not so long as the public sector pay premium remains at least 3.5 times that of the UK's (taking your reduced but accepted 25% premium as the figure to be fair to you).

Some people sho overstretched will have to lose their homes as part of this process if we are to learn a single thing from it all.

I fail to see what benefit can be gained from cutting someones wages so much that they end up losing their home, especially when the state has to pick up this tab and every tax payer in the country. Surely it makes mores sense to have people pay their mortgages off in full whilst paying all their taxes in full.

Granted if there is someone on 30k a year with a 500k mortgage well that was always unsustainable, however if the same person has a 120k mortgage well they obviously borrowed within their means and therefore shouldnt be cut until they lose their house.

RobbieTheRobber

Head The Wall wrote: »

Its on page six, sounds like you are not bothered to look at info that will tell you something you don't want to hear

Sounds like i dont want to read a 25 page document to find a source a poster was claiming.

I will now look at page 6.

Sounds like you think your a mind reader, which is all the more impressive by the fact your doing it over the internet! :rolleyes:

RobbieTheRobber

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

€35k-45k 5%
€45k-60k 7.5%
€60k-80k 10%
€80k-100k 15%
€100k+ 20%

Something like that - leave anyone under €35k alone. If they strike don't pay them - see how long the strike will last. Government needs to take on the unions and actually start governing.

And obviously freeze all increments. People start rabbling on about who deserves what but at the end of the day the government doesn't have the money so it is necessary and that's it.

I'd much rather see this than severly disabled people camping overnight outside the dail to protect their services.

Cutting social welfare too will get more people working and save 1Bn no problem.

So someone on 45,005 gets a 7.5% reduction and someone on 49,995 would get a 5% reduction?

Theboinkmaster

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sounds like i dont want to read a 25 page document to find a source a poster was claiming.

I will now look at page 6.

Sounds like you think your a mind reader, which is all the more impressive by the fact your doing it over the internet! :rolleyes:

Heaven forbid now that the poster has pointed out their evidence you should address their original point :cool:

Theboinkmaster

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So someone on 45,005 gets a 7.5% reduction and someone on 49,995 would get a 5% reduction?

It's an illustrative example - you get my point. Graduated pay cuts, whilst protecting the low paid.

donalg1

Head The Wall wrote: »

I'll stick to the CSO figures because in the real world nobody uses net figures when comparing their salary.

From the CSO QNHS average private wage is €611 and average public wage is €918, it seems we have been to generous a the difference is actually 50%.

So stick to the gross figures then and never mind the actual figures, well ok then. Not to mention those figures include semi-state companies whose employees arent actually paid by the government. Plus you also have to consider the fact the averages in the private sector would contain the likes of summer students and those without any qualifications working minimum wage jobs which would clearly drag the private sector figures way down in comparison to the public sector, where the higher paid drag their figures way up.

RobbieTheRobber

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

It's an illustrative example - you get my point. Graduated pay cuts, whilst protecting the low paid.

Its not very well illustrated as my example proves!

Theboinkmaster

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Its not very well illustrated as my example proves!

How is it not well illustrated, what don't you understand? Whats you point - do you not agree with graduated pay cuts?

RobbieTheRobber

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

How is it not well illustrated, what don't you understand? Whats you point - do you not agree with graduated pay cuts?

Sorry i appear to have had a typo.

I meant two people using your cuts are on pay of 44,995 and 45,005

Person 1 at 44,995 get a 5% pay cut leaving pay at 42745.25
Person 2 who earns more at 45,005 now gets a 7.5% cut leaving their new pay at 41,629.62.

so before the cuts someones salary was €10 more and is now after cuts 1,115.63 less.

Amazingly fair I would say :eek:

ardmacha

Whats you point - do you not agree with graduated pay cuts?

These "graduated" pay cuts are nonsense, as they are not based on any useful principle. The only possible principle to justify this structure is that better off people should be asked to help out the disabled etc, which is a valid basis for a tax system not a contract of employment. Rather than taking a contribution only from well off PS a contribution should be sought from all well off citizens, less call it a tax.

Theboinkmaster

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sorry i appear to have had a typo.

I meant two people using your cuts are on pay of 44,995 and 45,005

Person 1 at 44,995 get a 5% pay cut leaving pay at 42745.25
Person 2 who earns more at 45,005 now gets a 7.5% cut leaving their new pay at 41,629.62.

so before the cuts someones salary was €10 more and is now after cuts 1,115.63 less.

Amazingly fair I would say :eek:

How would you implement PS pay cuts then?

Theboinkmaster

ardmacha wrote: »

These "graduated" pay cuts are nonsense, as they are not based on any useful principle. The only possible principle to justify this structure is that better off people should be asked to help out the disabled etc, which is a valid basis for a tax system not a contract of employment. Rather than taking a contribution only from well off PS a contribution should be sought from all well off citizens, less call it a tax.

It's been well documented we're at the max rate of marginal income tax, therefore the government cannot increase it otherwise there will be diminishing returns. Their only options are widening the tax base (property tax - good) and cutting expenditure.

Why are graduated pay cuts "nonsense"? How would you cut PS pay? My example would protect the lowly paid and those who can afford more are cut more.

ncdadam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Thats a 25 page document can you tell me where in that document it says the public sector earns 40% more

You've plenty of time to be on here so have a read yourself.

But if you even look at the first set of tables it's clear to see, if you want to see.

leonidas83

The Croke park agreement is completely unsustainable imo. Just look at countries across europe which have a much higher GDP than us & what they pay their public sector on average. Usually half, sometimes more than this. People bang on about the cost of living here being much higher than in those countries & maybe it is slightly but not anywhere near enough to justify to kind of pay many of our public & civil servants are on.

The whole principle of benchmarking in this country was to keep public sector wages in line with the private sector, now that the table has turned, the public sector dont want to play ball. This is both ridiculous & hypocritical. Cuts are being enforced on front line services instead, class room sizes are growing & its all down to a government too spineless to stand up to public sector unions & their members. All their concerned about is votes & know they would risk losing their seats if they stood up to the them due to the power these unions hold.

We will never get anywhere with public sector pay while we have a labour party in government, im not a fan of Fianna Fail or Fianna Geal but I think some progress could be made on this issue with either of those parties. Labour's manifesto was so in line with what the unions were saying that it was actually difficult to tell the difference between the two at the last election.

So this is the situation were in, a pure me feiner mentality as a country, a public sector more concerned about their pay than doing what they were initially hired to do which was to help & protect the general public. A government so spineless that its laughable, only concerned with lining their own pockets & keeping their seats at the expense of whats actually good for the country.

Unless the general populace wakes up to these facts we are going nowhere as a country except further & further into the debt.

sarumite

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

How would you implement PS pay cuts then?

I had assumed the graduated cuts would have been implemented in the same manner as income tax. The 5% cut up to a certain value, the 7.5% cut on any income after that value and up to a certain amount and so on?

Gumbo

deise blue wrote: »

I presume that your friends can confirm the following

1. The refund for club subs scheme was terminated on the 1st July 2012
2. The well being scheme is a health awareness scheme & not a vehicle for paying bonuses.
3. All bonuses whether monetary or otherwise are taxable , such tax to be deducted by payroll & accounted for to the Revenue .

Staff do not get discounted mortgage products - they are treated exactly the same as all other customers , what is undoubtedly true however is that staff have found it far easier to access mortgages than others - indeed it appears that they found it easy to obtain mortgages that were not justified by their pay scales.

The day of discounted staff mortgages was effectively ended by the introduction of BIK.

he says he never gets a refund. the gym was paid directly buy AIB in Jan 2012. He still has a membership until the end of 2013 as he took up a 2 year subscription.

He says he he still gets his discount from his mortage rate and pays 5% BIK on the discounted portion of the mortgage rate. Just because current/new staff dont get these allownaces and extra perks doesnt mean that the older staff dont get them. Similer to the mege pensions that a tiny portion of PS staff get and indeed bankers. New entrant will of course not get these, but those currently on them, still remain to get them.

He still gets his DB pension paid into by AIB and he tops it up also, although the DB scheme is gone to new entrants, the DC scheme similar to ESB new entrants is available to them now. he is there since 2001 and has enjoyed these extras since then. He used his well being allowance to go on group day outs, paint balling (group bonding :rolleyes:) and for treatments in hotels overnight during the years. One year he joined Holystown Golf Club using the scheme!
But he also used it some years for courses and part time study so all was not wasted

HellFireClub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sorry i appear to have had a typo.

I meant two people using your cuts are on pay of 44,995 and 45,005

Person 1 at 44,995 get a 5% pay cut leaving pay at 42745.25
Person 2 who earns more at 45,005 now gets a 7.5% cut leaving their new pay at 41,629.62.

so before the cuts someones salary was €10 more and is now after cuts 1,115.63 less.

Amazingly fair I would say :eek:

If you were in the private sector, you'd find that a cut from 40K a year gross, to 9,776 Euro a year NET (which is your 188 Euro a week dole * 52 weeks of the year), is a lot harder of an adjustment to have to get used to.

Whatever way it gets done, we need to drive a coach and four through this group think that is going on within the PS that unless you are on 100K. you can't be touched because you are basically poorly paid.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

These "graduated" pay cuts are nonsense, as they are not based on any useful principle. The only possible principle to justify this structure is that better off people should be asked to help out the disabled etc, which is a valid basis for a tax system not a contract of employment. Rather than taking a contribution only from well off PS a contribution should be sought from all well off citizens, less call it a tax.

Personally I agree that arbitrary pay cuts are not the best approach. As I have said many times before, a third round of benchmarking to replace the CPA is a workable and sensible approach.

golden lane

the celtic tiger is dead......

but the golden goose lives on......

Gumbo

golden lane wrote: »

the celtic tiger is dead......

but the golden goose lives on......

but what can we do about these bankers and property developers?

Scofflaw

Try to keep the discussion free from these little personal snipes and jibes. Boinkmaster, I'm looking at you particularly.

Also, if you're going to express an opinion, try to make it a less obvious and well-worn one than "scum IMO", which gets used for everything from the top layer of dishwater to child murderers.

moderately,
Scofflaw

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Here we go, apples and oranges again.

How much does it cost to visit a doctor/dentist there?
What does the average solicitor earn?

That argument is redundant...as I said before the PS have not yet seen the cuts faced by the private sector in ireland...and yet those costs have to be borne by all, even those 300k odd that have taken 100% pay cut to join the dole queue over the last 3/4 years...I do agree that the gov need to introduce more competition in order to start getting prices lower for the average joe

ardmacha

as I said before the PS have not yet seen the cuts faced by the private sector in ireland

The PS have had greater cuts in pay than the average for the private sector in Ireland. Some parts of the private sector have experienced job losses, as demand for their services have disappeared. Demand for public services has not disappeared and any attempt to reduce these services leads to widespread objections. People want these services but want someone else to pay for them.