CSO report on public-private pay gap

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

70.4% of the PS are in a union while it's 19.4% for the private sector.

70% of the PS and 19% of the private sector are likely to be similar enough total figures!!

in fact your post is a good example of the meaninglessness of trying to compare the entire PS and the entire private sector

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

The pension levy skews that.

But you will say we don't cover our pensions. Will you cover your pension if you retire here? Yet you may come back from london and expect the state to provide you with the 230pw pension even though you will have not paid for it. What about all the other private sector workers who don't pay enough into their pensions. Pay nothing other than PRSI into the state coffers and expect a pension.

Between pension contributions and PRSI even low paid public servants will have paid about 17% of their wages towards a pension. Yet they will only get about 80 euro more than the 230 everyone else gets.

Post reported because of the reference to my location.


I'm not foolish enough to expect any pension from the govt when I retire, this I have stated on here many times before. It would be foolish for anyone else too either. Therefore making comparisons on current wage and pension rates now and using them to justify or explain something in the future is absolutely ridiculous as all social payments are paid out of what the current govt can afford "at the time" i.e now


It's not our issue if PS workers have a problem with the T & C they signed up to, they knew at the time that they would have to make make pension contributions and pay PRSI. The very same happens in the private sector, employee's pay PRSI and there is even a special pension levy for private pensions. The only difference really between both is a private pension is put into a fund and can only be touched by the govt (jobbridge levy) whereas the PS pensions are paid out of the current account.

The system PS workers signed up to on day one is unsustainable so the govt are making changes to it. If people don't like it they can go and get a job in the private sector where they can demand better terms and conditions.

Riskymove wrote: »

70% of the PS and 19% of the private sector are likely to be similar enough total figures!!

in fact your post is a good example of the meaninglessness of trying to compare the entire PS and the entire private sector

Ha ha, so you think the fact that 70% of one subset needs to be in a union is the exact same as 19% of another. Yes the actual figures may be the same but that's at a simple level. It's this high union level that makes change and reform so hard to implement and is the reason why there is flat rate pay cuts affecting everybody be they good or bad. PS on the one hand moan about the wasters but on the other hand keep doping nothing about it and supporting it.

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

Ha ha, so you think the fact that 70% of one subset needs to be in a union is the exact same as 19% of another.

err, no, I don't

some sectors are unionised and some are not but comparing the PS to the entire private sector % means little - there are still sectors in private sector with higher rates of union membership

combine the PS and Private sector numbers and you have quite a high number of unionised workers in the economy

...just an aside but...whats the "average membership rate" for the whole workforce?:)

Head The Wall

It's 32.8%, page 16 of the report.

I understand the meaning of averages and how they can be misconstrued but obviously the CSO and other bodies must feel they have some value. Why else do they include them?

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's 32.8%, page 16 of the report.

I understand the meaning of averages and how they can be misconstrued but obviously the CSO and other bodies must feel they have some value. Why else do they include them?

averages and other statistics are used to examine dynamics of a particular grouping. They can be effective and provide insights

Its when statistics of different groupings (particular those in much different size and make-up) are used to try and compare that issues arise, imo

70% in PS tells you something

19% across whole private sector tells you something else

but the only comparison is a generality, nothing can be proven beyond that by the stats

it cannot be proven that certain sectors in the private sector dont also have 70%, or more

likewise it doesn't show if there are areas of PS with much lower rates than 70%

and so on

hyperborean

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1110/1224326409786.html

An independent body is needed to oversee the Croke Park agreement, the chairman of the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (Isme) said yesterday.

Speaking at the Isme national conference in Dublin, chairman John Ryan castigated the second progress report on the Croke Park deal as “a work of fiction and a study in obfuscation and half-truths more suited to Ian Fleming or John LeCarré, rather than a so-called independent body”.

Arguing that the body currently in charge of the agreement lacked independence, Mr Ryan called on the creation of “a truly independent body, preferably from overseas, to examine the implementation of the deal”.

A lack of progress on the agreement was a “significant contributory factor to the ongoing excessive exchequer deficit” which was leading to austerity being foisted on the private sector. He called for an immediate cessation of all pay rises in the public sector.

It seems that its not just the "anti ps" lobby on boards that is concerned about the reporting on PS savings by a PS group? The lack of clarity or [tinfoilcap/] intentional fogging of facts[tinfoilcap] by the PS themselves is a major factor lack of real progress.

Farmer Pudsey

hyperborean wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1110/1224326409786.html


It seems that its not just the "anti ps" lobby on boards that is concerned about the reporting on PS savings by a PS group? The lack of clarity or [tinfoilcap/] intentional fogging of facts[tinfoilcap] by the PS themselves is a major factor lack of real progress.

How could we have that an independant body who tell the truth. It Ireland we live in where if you want an independant body somebody knows sombody that will give you the result you need.

Head The Wall

They tried to claim that teachers working an extra hour for free saved the equivalent of 38 million. It's crazy to think they tried to actually use a figure they hadn't spent as a saving in the first progress report. They also left out the increase and cost of the pension and lump sum repayments due to the early retirement scheme in their figures.

I welcome someone impartial coming in and exposing it for what it is. I read yesterday how they were going outsourcing payroll in the HSE (yes, getting rid of that wonderful PPARS system which is just 1 of 8 payroll systems in the HSE) and of course IMPACT were objecting to it and were going meeting to come up with a course of action (or inaction) to object to it.

ardmacha

They also left out the increase and cost of the pension and lump sum repayments due to the early retirement scheme in their figures.

What increase? These pension entitlements had been accrued, the only thing that changed was the timing of the payments.

Head The Wall

Well actually they were not accrued seeing as PS pensions are funded out of current spending. They were supposedly going to be funded from the never ending supply of stamp duty, development levies, VAT etc from the boom.

As we all know that supply has ended and all the PS pay and pension increases revolved around that supply staying the same. They also reduced PS pay but didn't reduce PS pensions until later on.

Furthermore if letting people retire early on a higher pension rather than letting them retire on a lower pension when they should doesn't constitute an increased cost to you well then I can only deduce that your comprehension of maths is basic at the very best.

The early retirement scheme was only a sham of a solution anyway.

Godge

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well actually they were not accrued seeing as PS pensions are funded out of current spending. They were supposedly going to be funded from the never ending supply of stamp duty, development levies, VAT etc from the boom.

As we all know that supply has ended and all the PS pay and pension increases revolved around that supply staying the same. They also reduced PS pay but didn't reduce PS pensions until later on.

Furthermore if letting people retire early on a higher pension rather than letting them retire on a lower pension when they should doesn't constitute an increased cost to you well then I can only deduce that your comprehension of maths is basic at the very best.

The early retirement scheme was only a sham of a solution anyway.

The bit in bold is wrong. Charlie McCreevy, in one of the few good things he did, set up the National Pension Reserve Fund to pay for future public service pensions. Unfortunately, the NPRF is now decimated because the government had to use it to bail out failed private sector entities who are still paying €500,000 pensions. Ironic isn't it?

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

The bit in bold is wrong. Charlie McCreevy, in one of the few good things he did, set up the National Pension Reserve Fund to pay for future public service pensions. Unfortunately, the NPRF is now decimated because the government had to use it to bail out failed private sector entities who are still paying €500,000 pensions. Ironic isn't it?

Wrong, from the NPRF home page.

The National Pensions Reserve Fund was established in April 2001 to meet as much as possible of the costs of Ireland's social welfare and public service pensions from 2025 onwards

2025 is 13 years away and it was a fund for all social payments be they private or public workers. Regardless of whether it is spent now or not it wasn't to be used until 2025. Don't forget that it was the govt that decided to guarantee the banks and use the NPRF but that's another issue altogether.


The govt expected stamp duty and development led revenues to keep rolling in to pay the salary and pension increases. How do they expect to fund it into the future?

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

The bit in bold is wrong. Charlie McCreevy, in one of the few good things he did, set up the National Pension Reserve Fund to pay for future public service pensions. Unfortunately, the NPRF is now decimated because the government had to use it to bail out failed private sector entities

There's a couple of issues you're not mentioning there, making your point more than slightly disingenuous:
1) The government are not legally allowed to tap the NPRF for current spending until 2025, even then they are only allowed to tap if for pensions.
2) The NPRF was used to invest share capital in the banks. The money was not "given" to the banks (implied in bailout), it was invested (whether or not one agrees with the decision is irrelevant). They only make a loss if they sell at under market value.

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, the NPRF is now decimated because the government had to use it to bail out failed private sector entities

That's plain wrong. As of September 30th the fund is valued at €14bn. That includes investments of almost 6bn in various commercial investments.

Currently the investments in the banks is valued at €8.1bn, on the face of it that's a 60% write down of the invested value. However, that paper loss will only be realised (like a lot of negative equity dwellings) if the NPRF tries to sell at current (or lower) prices. Now unless you have a crystal ball handy we can't predict what prices the shareholdings will be sold at, so we cant predict what (if any) losses will be made on the rescues of BOI & AIB.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that NPRF have gotten €2bn return out of its 4.7bn investment in BOI (through preference share dividends, repurchase of warrants and sale of part of the shareholding to private investors) - which has been remitted to the exchequer. They still hold 15% of the company shares.

Godge wrote: »

because the government had to use it to bail out failed private sector entities who are still paying €500,000 pensions. Ironic isn't it?

And golden parachutes don't happen in the PS either.:rolleyes: The difference being that it's the taxpayer who are directly paying for PS pensions, where the bankers pensions are not coming out of the share capital that has been invested, but from operational income raised by the ban, as well as pension schemes

One could use the same logic that would see the bankers pensions reduced or withheld entirely to argue that, since the PS is widely regarded (fairly or not) as being chronically crap, then the same comment could be made about the failed PS institutions - health & education are doing particularly badly, they can be first for the chopping board.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

And golden parachutes don't happen in the PS either.:rolleyes: The difference being that it's the taxpayer who are directly paying for PS pensions, where the bankers pensions are not coming out of the share capital that has been invested, but from operational income raised by the ban, as well as pension schemes

One could use the same logic that would see the bankers pensions reduced or withheld entirely to argue that, since the PS is widely regarded (fairly or not) as being chronically crap, then the same comment could be made about the failed PS institutions - health & education are doing particularly badly, they can be first for the chopping board.

There is nobody in the public sector on a €500,000 pension (or €250,000 not sure which is the correct figure as two have been bouncing around).

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

There is nobody in the public sector on a €500,000 pension (or €250,000 not sure which is the correct figure as two have been bouncing around).

Is that the best you can do - nobody in the PS is on a pension of €500k.

I'd bloody well hope not

A salary that high for anybody in the PS would be absurdly high - about twice final max salaries - even when we consider just how hard it already is for a private sector worker to match a PS pension.

Lets not forget that the AIB & BOI pensions will be based on the salaries of the people that "earned" the pensions, same as the PS pension schemes.

sean200

Head The Wall wrote: »

Wrong, from the NPRF home page.



2025 is 13 years away and it was a fund for all social payments be they private or public workers. Regardless of whether it is spent now or not it wasn't to be used until 2025. Don't forget that it was the govt that decided to guarantee the banks and use the NPRF but that's another issue altogether.


The govt expected stamp duty and development led revenues to keep rolling in to pay the salary and pension increases. How do they expect to fund it into the future?

Every penny of the pension fund was take and used to bail out scumbags in PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS
So not alone did the private sector F**K up the country but also the pension for generations of people and it was all done for GREED

antoobrien

sean200 wrote: »

Every penny of the pension fund was take and used to bail out scumbags in PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS

NO IT HASN'T

Go read the NPRF's latest report (if you can find it, it's been linked earlier in the thread).

Head The Wall

sean200 wrote: »

Every penny of the pension fund was take and used to bail out scumbags in PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS
So not alone did the private sector F**K up the country but also the pension for generations of people and it was all done for GREED

Jeez, someone is having a bad day. Lets not play the blame game here because most people played a part in this be it bankers, developers, govt, politicians and lots and lots of citizens.

Also take the posters advice above and less of the rabble, rabble

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

Jeez, someone is having a bad day. Lets not play the blame game here because most people played a part in this be it bankers, developers, govt, politicians and lots and lots of citizens.

Also take the posters advice above and less of the rabble, rabble

Yet almost every single one of your posts is giving out about the Public sector,blaming them for the economic crises and calling for people to be sacked and wages slashed.


The fact is the hole in the finances was caused exclusevly by the Banks,Developers and "Barons" who borrowed money in order to feather thier own nests leaving taxpayers to pick up the pieces while they retire to foreign climes.

They have people like you trying to defelect the blame form them by trying to blame to embattled public sector workers who are now left to administer the country while 400k waste away on the dole contributing exactly nothing.

Head The Wall

Take your head out of the sand. You do know that not one bank made anybody take out a loan or mortgage, I'm not saying they didn't make mistakes but they were not the only ones.

Plenty of people overextended themselves and got greedy, if you can't see that fact you're just another one of those people that wants to blame everyone but themselves.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

Take your head out of the sand. You do know that not one bank made anybody take out a loan or mortgage, I'm not saying they didn't make mistakes but they were not the only ones.

Plenty of people overextended themselves and got greedy, if you can't see that fact you're just another one of those people that wants to blame everyone but themselves.

Why is how much Public Sector employees get paid relevant to the discussion?



I dont recall seeing any PS staff defaulting on 500 million euro loans to AIB.

Head The Wall

frankosw wrote: »

Why is how much Public Sector employees get paid relevant to the discussion?

Have a look at the thread title? It's called "CSO report on Public-Private pay gap", so it's 100% relevant to the thread.

It's also because of the financial regulator and politicians that the banks were allowed to become what they did. Of course the banks could only lend to people willing to take out their loans and developers could only sell to people willing to buy the properties.

sean200

Head The Wall wrote: »

Take your head out of the sand. You do know that not one bank made anybody take out a loan or mortgage, I'm not saying they didn't make mistakes but they were not the only ones.

Plenty of people overextended themselves and got greedy, if you can't see that fact you're just another one of those people that wants to blame everyone but themselves.

Have we a Banker here?????

Farmer Pudsey

sean200 wrote: »

Have we a Banker here?????

You are not allowed to question a poster bono fida's he should not have to declare if he should not wish to. And I agree with him, the PS complaining and castigating bankers and builders over the boom/bust is like a kettle calling the pot black

frankosw

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

You are not allowed to question a poster bono fida's he should not have to declare if he should not wish to. And I agree with him, the PS complaining and castigating bankers and builders over the boom/bust is like a kettle calling the pot black

Of course it is :rolleyes:...the bankers and builders in thier mutual arrogance want to take zero responsibility for the mess they caused..they find it far easier to blame on benchmarking or the unions.

The same sort of shiite being spouted by certain sections of the media..the ones a few years back were encouraging people to get on the "property ladder","release equity" and "invest in property right now!".

Traitors to the country the lot of them.

Head The Wall

sean200 wrote: »

Have we a Banker here?????

No, not that it's anyway relevant

frankosw wrote: »

Of course it is :rolleyes:...the bankers and builders in thier mutual arrogance want to take zero responsibility for the mess they caused..they find it far easier to blame on benchmarking or the unions.

The same sort of shiite being spouted by certain sections of the media..the ones a few years back were encouraging people to get on the "property ladder","release equity" and "invest in property right now!".

Traitors to the country the lot of them.

Yes lets absolve the people that actually decided to get on the "property ladder","release equity" and "invest in property right now!".

You go on as if no one else was at fault bar the bankers so I will put you in the camp that foolishly got sucked into the game and is bearing the brunt of your reckless decisions now.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

No, not that it's anyway relevant



Yes lets absolve the people that actually decided to get on the "property ladder","release equity" and "invest in property right now!".

You go on as if no one else was at fault bar the bankers so I will put you in the camp that foolishly got sucked into the game and is bearing the brunt of your reckless decisions now.

Not a bit of it..i wasnt born in a bucket with a hole in it you see...i remember years ago when i needed a personal loan my bank manager tried to make me "release equity" in my house..essentially to borrow the money over a 20 year period with huge rates of interest by the maturation of the loan.

I declined and took the money as a short term personal loan against his advice.

A friend of mine was offered over 300k to purchase a 3 bed house in marino because the bank manager figured he could "flip it in two years and double his money"..if that wasnt dangerous bloody advice i dont know what was.
His income wasnt stress-tested and the possibility of a change in circumstances apparantly didnt enter the bank manager's mind.

And dont get me started on the developers pushing shabbily built overpriced apartments in Cavan with help from the Irish Indo and that fat slob Brendan O'connor...people behaved like idiots admittedly but they will tend to buy the lie more readily when its being spouted by the national media.

Personally i thank my lucky stars i never fell for any of it..from Eircom to Bulgaria investments the media have given the people a bum-steer and this vilification of PS pay is just another example of it.

K-9

Thread is about the public-private pay gap, let's not have another rant about bankers and how not everybody is responsible. There already has been a few mod warnings and loads of deleted posts and cards handed out on this thread. Keep it on topic or you will get cards.

sean200

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

You are not allowed to question a poster bono fida's he should not have to declare if he should not wish to. And I agree with him, the PS complaining and castigating bankers and builders over the boom/bust is like a kettle calling the pot black

Another banker in the house??

Farmer Pudsey

sean200 wrote: »

Another banker in the house??

Not a banker and have little enough time for them, however I have done buisness with them, I borrowed money from them. I farm which you will see from the farming threads. As well I have a PAYE job.

However what annoys me is the way some people blame bankers, politicians and builders for all the problems we have. How some poster fail to see that public service wages climbed 60% in the boom. No blame is attached to the insatible desire for pay rises during the boom by PS. No blame is attached to the Unions that were in bed with FF during the boom. No blame is attached to the failure of the public service to regulate banks and finiancial services in Ireland during that period.

http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS

woodoo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Not a banker and have little enough time for them, however I have done buisness with them, I borrowed money from them. I farm which you will see from the farming threads. As well I have a PAYE job.

However what annoys me is the way some people blame bankers, politicians and builders for all the problems we have. How some poster fail to see that public service wages climbed 60% in the boom. No blame is attached to the insatible desire for pay rises during the boom by PS. No blame is attached to the Unions that were in bed with FF during the boom. No blame is attached to the failure of the public service to regulate banks and finiancial services in Ireland during that period.

http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS

How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.

ardmacha

However what annoys me is the way some people blame bankers, politicians and builders for all the problems we have.

Perhaps that is because they are responsible, along with those who borrowed money they cannot pay back? The PS are basically bystanders in this process.

Godge

woodoo wrote: »

How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.

Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.

tayto lover

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Not a banker and have little enough time for them, however I have done buisness with them, I borrowed money from them. I farm which you will see from the farming threads. As well I have a PAYE job.

However what annoys me is the way some people blame bankers, politicians and builders for all the problems we have. How some poster fail to see that public service wages climbed 60% in the boom. No blame is attached to the insatible desire for pay rises during the boom by PS. No blame is attached to the Unions that were in bed with FF during the boom. No blame is attached to the failure of the public service to regulate banks and finiancial services in Ireland during that period.

http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS

What about all the grants that were thrown at the farmers in that time and the very little in taxation they paid towards the running of the country? Were these not too generous and contributing to the problem too?

Stheno

Seriously the last four or five posts are a prime example of what is wrong with this forum.

"As long as it's not me, I'll have a swipe at another party"

sock puppet

Godge wrote: »

Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.

What on earth is wrong with having a 2nd income?

antoobrien

woodoo wrote: »

How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.

Here's some slightly older figures (edited for table format):

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Average Industrial wage - up to 2006
Year | amt € | % change
2000 | 423.24 |
2001 | 456.97 | +8
2002 | 483.02 | +5.7
2003 | 511.78 | +6
2004 | 534.24 | +4.4
2005 | 557.57 | +4.4
2006 | 575.21 | +3.2


The CSO changed the statistics regarding the average wage in 2007, no figures available
Year | amt € | % change
2008 | 720.57 |
2009 | 717.81 | -0.4
2010 | 701.93 | -2.2
2011 | 697.65 | -0.6
2012 | 687.84 | 1.4

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.

I used to get maths grinds from a local teacher....its not just farmers who are double jobbing.

Farmer Pudsey

woodoo wrote: »

How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.

Like I have posted elsewhere it is part of the problem.

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps that is because they are responsible, along with those who borrowed money they cannot pay back? The PS are basically bystanders in this process.

Let me see the Centeral Bank in charge of banking regulation, the County Councils in charge of planning and planning enforcement, The Dept of Finance in charge of the economy, the finiancial regulator in charge of make sure pension funds, fiancial products and bank lending was done correctly.The Unions with there snouts in the benchmadking trough.

Godge wrote: »

Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.

As I work in the private sector and am unsure of my pension I chose to fund my pension by farming ( I did not get left it ). Neither can i be gauranteed that the state will provide me with 50% of my salary on retiring

tayto lover wrote: »

What about all the grants that were thrown at the farmers in that time and the very little in taxation they paid towards the running of the country? Were these not too generous and contributing to the problem too?

A lot of the reson is thta costs added to the economy dyring the boom nearly caused us the loss of farming to the economy just as it did tourism

frankosw

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Neither can i be gauranteed that the state will provide me with 50% of my salary on retiring

But the state *will* povide you with the standard old age pension when you retire whether you've contributed to it or not.

The PS contribute 15% of thier salary to thier pension..do you?

You make it sound like you're going to be living in penury despite enjoying some of the highest state-funded subsidies in the world..there is NO such thing a poor farmer.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The Unions with there snouts in the benchmadking trough.

Ah c'mon didn't the farmers get a priviledged position in the 'Partnership' process and could have derailed any deals done if they felt so emotive about it. Truth was the farmers did fairly well out of the process themselves, hence the tacit agreement with all things Partnership. Eaten bread ........

A lot of the reson is thta costs added to the economy dyring the boom nearly caused us the loss of farming to the economy just as it did tourism

What costs? Bottom line is that without government supports, farming would not be competitive in Ireland. I'm not advocating the removal of supports as I think its right to support farming (especially small full time farmers who make a living from the land as against the factory farmers like O'Leary and many others who treat it like a hobby which the taxpayer very hansomely supports) which is an indigenous industry and supports many jobs in the country. However, I always find it a little hard to swallow when I hear farmers complaining about their lot and blaming other sectors for their plight. I know plenty of farmers who are doing very nicely thank you very much and visiting a mart will give you a quick insight into the vibrancy of the farming spending power. On a bright sunny day you would need shades for protection from the sun reflecting off those lovely shiny trailers and 4wds.

frankosw

creedp wrote: »

Ah c'mon didn't the farmers get a priviledged position in the 'Partnership' process and could have derailed any deals done if they felt so emotive about it. Truth was the farmers did fairly well out of the process themselves, hence the tacit agreement with all things Partnership. Eaten bread ........




What costs? Bottom line is that without government supports, farming would not be competitive in Ireland. I'm not advocating the removal of supports as I think its right to support farming (especially small full time farmers who make a living from the land as against the factory farmers like O'Leary and many others who treat it like a hobby which the taxpayer very hansomely supports) which is an indigenous industry and supports many jobs in the country. However, I always find it a little hard to swallow when I hear farmers complaining about their lot and blaming other sectors for their plight. I know plenty of farmers who are doing very nicely thank you very much and visiting a mart will give you a quick insight into the vibrancy of the farming spending power. On a bright sunny day you would need shades for protection from the sun reflecting off those lovely shiny trailers and 4wds.

Another "industry" where there's plenty of scope for creative book keeping..

gerryo777

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps that is because they are responsible, along with those who borrowed money they cannot pay back? The PS are basically bystanders in this process.

Along with your precious PS unions who always ensured that PS pay and pensions rose a lot faster that the rate of inflation should have allowed, all thanks to a spineless government who would have done anything to stay in power.
Where's your precious benchmarking now?
Oh, I forgot, PS workers 5 years into a recession are still getting pay rises.
Bystanders my arse, cheerleaders more like!

gerryo777

frankosw wrote: »

But the state *will* povide you with the standard old age pension when you retire whether you've contributed to it or not.

The PS contribute 15% of thier salary to thier pension..do you?

You make it sound like you're going to be living in penury despite enjoying some of the highest state-funded subsidies in the world..there is NO such thing a poor farmer.

Not state funded, EU funded. Another clueless post.

frankosw

gerryo777 wrote: »

Oh, I forgot, PS workers 5 years into a recession are still getting pay rises.

No they are not...they are getting increments which form part of thier pay.

The private sector are the ones treating themselves to actual pay increases.

gerryo777

frankosw wrote: »

No they are not...they are getting increments which form part of thier pay.

The private sector are the ones treating themselves to actual pay increases.

Here we go, an increment is not a pay rise.
Who are you people trying to kid, call a spade a spade and stop trying to muddy the waters.
And then you show an article about bankers?, bankers? are you serious? Bankers/PS/PS unions, they're all the one to me, they all expect the state to keep paying up.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

No they are not...they are getting increments which form part of thier pay.

The private sector are the ones treating themselves to actual pay increases.

So if an increment is not a pay rise and forms part of a public sector workers pay then why do they have to achieve a certain performance score to get this increase?

Are you saying that the performance is not a factor and these pay rises are given regardless of how well a public sector work performs?

OMD

frankosw wrote: »

But the state *will* povide you with the standard old age pension when you retire whether you've contributed to it or not.

The PS contribute 15% of thier salary to thier pension..do you?

You make it sound like you're going to be living in penury despite enjoying some of the highest state-funded subsidies in the world..there is NO such thing a poor farmer.

How do you make it 15%?
Are you talking those earning over €100k or everyone?

frankosw

Jaysoose wrote: »

So if an increment is not a pay rise and forms part of a public sector workers pay then why do they have to achieve a certain performance score to get this increase?

Are you saying that the performance is not a factor and these pay rises are given regardless of how well a public sector work performs?

Within the worker's initial salary scale increments are awarded automatically every year and are NOT subject to performance reveiw.

Over and above the maximum point of the salary an increment is not awarded and any further rise must be part of a promotion.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

OMD

frankosw wrote: »

Over and above the maximum point of the salary an increment is not awarded and any further rise must be part of a promotion.

When you may be eligible to another round of increments.

frankosw wrote: »

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Increments not subject to performance review?