Should the next public sector increment be delayed by two months?

Tim Robbins

On Frontline last night someone made the decision that if the public sector held off on their next increment ( I didn't even know they were getting one) by 2 months it would save the state 30 million meaning there would be no need for a cut respite care.

All seems reasonable.

A Labour councilor in the audience started moaning that people in the public sector were hanging on by the finger nails and really needed this increase.

But, hold on a sec. On average these people get paid more than the private sector and most of the private sector are on pay freezes.
In addition people without a job are on even less and are also not getting any increments.

But here's the crux of the matter. What this Labour person was saying was making sure the public sector were not delayed by two months on a pay increment when we are in the middle of a bailout program was more important than people who need respite care.

Incredible really.

This just turns people off the Unions / Labour when these organisations claim to represent them.

What do you think?

View

That stupidity is evenly represented throughout our society and political parties...

Man007

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On Frontline last night someone made the decision that if the public sector held off on their next increment ( I didn't even know they were getting one) by 2 months it would save the state 30 million meaning there would be no need for a cut respite care.

All seems reasonable.

A Labour councilor in the audience started moaning that people in the public sector were hanging on by the finger nails and really needed this increase.

But, hold on a sec. On average these people get paid more than the private sector and most of the private sector are on pay freezes.
In addition people without a job are on even less and are also not getting any increments.

But here's the crux of the matter. What this Labour person was saying was making sure the public sector were not delayed by two months on a pay increment when we are in the middle of a bailout program was more important than people who need respite care.

Incredible really.

This just turns people off the Unions / Labour when these organisations claim to represent them.

What do you think?

Couldn't agree more what diff would it realistically make to hold off 2 months on an increment if the proposal was put to me I would gladly wait.

The fact they are getting increments and still complaining that they've taken a paycut shows how removed from reality the unions are

Celticfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On Frontline last night someone made the decision that if the public sector held off on their next increment ( I didn't even know they were getting one) by 2 months it would save the state 30 million meaning there would be no need for a cut respite care.

All seems reasonable.

A Labour councilor in the audience started moaning that people in the public sector were hanging on by the finger nails and really needed this increase.

But, hold on a sec. On average these people get paid more than the private sector and most of the private sector are on pay freezes.
In addition people without a job are on even less and are also not getting any increments.

But here's the crux of the matter. What this Labour person was saying was making sure the public sector were not delayed by two months on a pay increment when we are in the middle of a bailout program was more important than people who need respite care.

Incredible really.

This just turns people off the Unions / Labour when these organisations claim to represent them.

What do you think?

Why don't we all pay 1% more tax and then we can all contribute to respite care.. simples

Manach

If we all paid 100% tax, then the Government could talk care of us always. Simplest.

HellFireClub

It never fails to amaze me how what is clearly the "right thing to do", gets set aside again and again and again in this country, on the basis that it is politically unsavory to do "the right thing".

Surely the "right thing to do", is to balance our books without any further delay, which means departing from the Croke Park Agreement. Surely in this recession, people still expecting to get a yearly annual increment is some sort of a joke, when there are nearly half a million people in the country out of work? Surely tax could have been extracted somehow or another, from those on over 100K, to protect respite care grants?

It seems to me that we have all these "untouchables" that we have allowed to emerge everywhere we look in our economy, so all that is left is those who are not "untouchable" either because they are not organised in terms of trade unionism or even socially organised, or are not in a position to put a gun to the head of the government.

It just irks the shít out of me at this stage that we seem to have developed a near allergy in this country, to doing the "right thing". If we have to balance our books pronto, it seems to me that it is flying in the face of accomplishing that objective, to have so much of the expenditure, locked down by the Croke Park Deal. If we could deal with salaries in the local authorities and the likes and bring them down, then maybe we wouldn't need a Household Charge at all!

But yet the threatening letters get sent out to households who are not paying up and the man who signs the bottom of the letter is on a salary of 130K a year plus expenses?!? It's like an advertisement telling you why you should not pay the Household Charge!

But as long as we have a Labour government, we will have these sacred cows all over the place that have to be protected, no matter how many respite care grants have to be cut, you couldn't make it up I think...

Riskymove

I am fully against the respite grant cut and would happily agree to a number of measures if it was directly related to reversing this action.

Now that's that out of the way I'll make a few points

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On Frontline last night someone made the decision that if the public sector held off on their next increment ( I didn't even know they were getting one) by 2 months it would save the state 30 million meaning there would be no need for a cut respite care.

I have no idea how they can work this out as increments are spread out throughout the year. it is not like they are all paid on the one date

But, hold on a sec. On average these people get paid more than the private sector and most of the private sector are on pay freezes.

"on average" the key. While it may be accurate, averages mean little to actual families and the situations they are in. I am sure there are people who could afford it and those who would be under pressure

the same statistics will show average pay going up in a number of private sector areas and private sector workers have posted about pay rises and increments in their work area. again some can handle extra costs and some cannot

Incredible really.

tbh this is just spin. You can take any emotive issue like this cut and play it off against anything. In this case the Frontline tries to get PS workers to put increments ahead of this cut


"oh you people on €100,000 plus, could you not pay 1% more and save this grant"

"oh you people on welfare could you not take a couple of euro less a week and save this cut"

"oh sure TDs could stay in cheaper hotels"

and so on


the main reason this grant is cut is because Social Welfare spend is way over budget. They chose to cut this instead of many other things they could have done.

tbh cutting PS costs simply to increase SW spending leaves us in the same situation - it is no solution to our problems

both need to be reduced, imo

frankosw

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On Frontline last night someone made the decision that if the public sector held off on their next increment ( I didn't even know they were getting one) by 2 months it would save the state 30 million meaning there would be no need for a cut respite care.

Who was this "somebody" that "made a decision"?

Were they a prefssional economist or an audience member with an axe to grind?

Is this "decison" available to view in the public domain or what?

frankosw

HellFireClub wrote: »

But yet the threatening letters get sent out to households who are not paying up and the man who signs the bottom of the letter is on a salary of 130K a year plus expenses?!? ...

Who is this man and what's his job description?

HellFireClub

frankosw wrote: »

Who is this man and what's his job description?

Leitrim Council Council County Manager, Mr. Jackie Maguire, quoted yesterday as having signed letters demanding that people pay the Household Charge, (as is the norm, these letters are being "signed" by county managers across the country). In this case, Mr. Maguire is apparently on 132,511 Euro a year before expenses and whatever other allowances & entitlements he is no doubt claiming.

Source: http://politico.ie/irish-politics/8784-county-manager-salary-unchanged-for-two-years.html

What have you got to say to that, I imagine you will be of the view that the man is underpaid and overworked.

frankosw

HellFireClub wrote: »

Leitrim Council Council County Manager, Mr. Jackie Maguire, quoted yesterday as having signed letters demanding that people pay the Household Charge, (as is the norm, these letters are being "signed" by county managers across the country). In this case, Mr. Maguire is apparently on 132,511 Euro a year before expenses and whatever other allowances & entitlements he is no doubt claiming.

Source: http://politico.ie/irish-politics/8784-county-manager-salary-unchanged-for-two-years.html

What have you got to say to that, I imagine you will be of the view that the man is underpaid and overworked.

And how much do YOU think he should be paid?

Some people working in Pennies get paid more than that..do they work harder?

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

What have you got to say to that, I imagine you will be of the view that the man is underpaid and overworked.

funnily enough I think most of us would be honest enough to say we dont know

can you somehow divine a persons workload, working hours and effort based on very minimal information?

have you some insight into this guy's work?

frankosw

Riskymove wrote: »

funnily enough I think most of us would be honest enough to say we dont know

can you somehow divine a persons workload, working hours and effort based on very minimal information?

have you some insight into this guy's work?

It would be interesting to see how many people answer to the county manager and how many different sections of the county council there are to administer.

In addition he probably didnt start on that mooney but was promoted through the ranks on merit....dont see anything wrong with that myself.

HellFireClub

Riskymove wrote: »

funnily enough I think most of us would be honest enough to say we dont know

can you somehow divine a persons workload, working hours and effort based on very minimal information?

have you some insight into this guy's work?

I don't need an insight into what he does, all I need to see is that we are borrowing 12 billion Euro a year to pay this guy and others like him who managed to collectively negotiate a salary for himself back in the Celtic Tiger that was based on unsustainable state revenues, on the back of an unsustainable economic boom, the boom wasn't sustainable, so therefore his salary isn't sustainable.

This is the very simple principle that dictates why his pay should be cut very substantially. It is the simple yet ruthless doctrine that has nearly half a million people in the private sector, having already taken a 100% pay cut when they lost their job, and that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of people who are still in jobs who have had their pay cut, or who have closed businesses, or moved onto 3 day weeks, etc.

But because the downright bizarre blend of "social partnership" that we subscribe to in this state, actually excludes the vast majority of workers in the state, and we end up with "partnership" that really means, "partnership only for public sector and semi state workers", we are likely to get a corrupt agreement that protects what is really a small contingency of workers in the grander scale of things, while absolutely crucifying those who are excluded from the "partnership process", who get handed the bill for this insanity, as I said, you just couldn't make it up.

RobbieTheRobber

HellFireClub wrote: »

I don't need an insight into what he does, all I need to see is that we are borrowing 12 billion Euro a year to pay this guy and others like him

Your right I cant believe we are borrowing 12 billion to pay Michael O'leary and people like him Childrens allowance!

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

I don't need an insight into what he does,.

well, exactly, pretty much sums up your postings on PS workers. I really dont see how you expect anyone to discuss these issues with you

you seem intent on just posting the same couple of opinions and not really being interested in anything else

frankosw

HellFireClub wrote: »

It is the simple yet ruthless doctrine that has nearly half a million people in the private sector, having already taken a 100% pay cut when they lost their job.

A) Where is your proof that 500,000 people actually lost thier jobs?

a "100% paycut" implies they are not in receipt of any payment at all when clearly the social welfare bill is far larger than the PS wages bill.

Can you explain how this is?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Based on the OP, the issue for this thread seems to be, should the next public sector pay increment be delayed in order to preserve funding for respite care. So let's not get sidetracked this early in the thread.

Perardua

What increment? How much is it supposed to be? To whom is this mythical sum being paid?

I work in semi-state and, like my co-workers, have had no increase of any kind for more than 6 years. In that time I have had a wage cut of 8% and a pension levy applied (the levy is a tax on my gross wage and does not contribute in any way to my pension). If you add in the USC and other deductions that everyone faces, my salary has been reduced by 22%. Nobody gets bonuses, I have never received one in my life.

Yes, I know I am lucky to be employed.

I think this government, like the last one, is working hard to drive a bitter division between the Irish people; they have divided and conquered because we are so busy taking each other to task for perceived advantages that we do not rebel against the people who got us into this mess with their reckless gambling and their protection of the rich to the detriment of the ordinary worker. This is supposed to be a republic with equal rights and opportunities for all, not a plutocracy run for the benefit of the very rich.

I also think this article is just another of those intended to foster maximum ill feeling between the sectors and to deflect criticism from the latest financial burden that we all have had to shoulder.

HellFireClub

frankosw wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how many people answer to the county manager and how many different sections of the county council there are to administer.

In addition he probably didnt start on that mooney but was promoted through the ranks on merit....dont see anything wrong with that myself.

Of course you don't, because value for money, and the ability of the state to pay these insane salaries, doesn't seem to be something that you take take cognisance of. You really need a spell in a private sector workplace, where someone actually has to deal with the situation when an economy that is shuddering to a near stop, means your sales are falling every year and where you have to very rapidly cut your cloth to suit your measure.

You genuinely sound about a far away as a person could possibly be, from that kind of a situation or reality. You clearly don't care where the money comes from, you clearly don't care that we don't have the money for this, it's someone else's money that we are now using to pay for what we can no longer afford, and when I use the word "this" I am referring to Celtic Tiger salaries that simply cannot be sustained outside of the failed Celtic Tiger economic model.

You don't seem to care that we are now cutting respite grants so that what you managed to secure for yourself back in the Celtic Tiger, which we can no longer afford, you seem indifferent to all of this, the only thing you seem to to able to understand is that you have a contract and you have an utterly rotten Croke Park Deal that strengthens that contract, while people earning very considerably less than you are thrown to the wolves in the financial sense, to pay for your contract and your Croke Park Deal.

Tim Robbins

What I was trying to say was that there should be no doubt whatsoever that Labour is the party of the public sector. They have caved in on everything, but at the same time ensured that the Public Sector get increments.

It is unlikely that FG want these increments.

If their 100K thing is a load of cr*p. Someone in public sector on 65K, with a whopping pension and great terms on conditions is on well over 100K when you factor in all their benefits. So should they pay their proposed wealth tax - of course not. They'll do everything they can to deflect attention away from fairness.

Labour can tell us that they are left all they want - it is bull sh*t. As much as Bertie being a socialist was. The two most important thing in any job are the

1. The likelihood you'll get the sack.
2. The number of hours per week you work.

In this regard the public sector are way ahead. Then when you consider wages and pensions it becomes a complete p*ss take.

All propped by a large political party.

It turns a lot of people away from Unions which is awful because they are supposed to represent people not alienate them.

HellFireClub

frankosw wrote: »

A) Where is your proof that 500,000 people actually lost thier jobs?

a "100% paycut" implies they are not in receipt of any payment at all when clearly the social welfare bill is far larger than the PS wages bill.

Can you explain how this is?

Social Welfare/dole is not a salary, it is a state support for someone who has lost their job, and obviously their income from that job. That is a 100% pay cut. On the basis of having undergone that pay cut, people can apply to the Dept. of Social Protection for a benefit, but it still does not in any way negate the fact that they lost their job and their wage, based upon that employment, ceased to be paid forthwith.

frankosw

Where are the figures to support the idea that not paying "The next Public Sector Increment"(there is no such thing by the way,increment are paid at different times in different departments and can vary substantially)
will pay for Respite care?

So far there are no facts merely something somebody said on The Frontline.

HellFireClub

Riskymove wrote: »

well, exactly, pretty much sums up your postings on PS workers. I really dont see how you expect anyone to discuss these issues with you

you seem intent on just posting the same couple of opinions and not really being interested in anything else

This is how it works in the real world! If you have a business and sales (and therefore income based on sales), collapse, you have to cut costs to stay at the races. It doesn't matter if you think you are worth 150K a year, if that money is not there to pay you, if the business cannot survive by paying you and others salaries that were agreed 5-6 years ago when times were very very different!!! It becomes completely irrelevant!!!

Tim Robbins

frankosw wrote: »

Where are the figures to support the idea that not paying increments can pay for respite care??


So far there are no facts merely something somebody said on The Frontline.

It is a good point. However, the Labour Councillor made her point on the basis that these figures were correct. Thereby telling us where Labour#s priorities lie once again.

All their pre-election cr*p about "fair" was utter nonsense. They care about one thing only the public sector. What have they broken every single other election pledge?

Why are they still in government? They are utter bull sh*tters who came out with populist cr*p that made a load of promises when in reality they just cared about their mates in the PS and no-one else.

RobbieTheRobber

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is how it works in the real world! If you have a business and sales (and therefore income based on sales), collapse, you have to cut costs to stay at the races. It doesn't matter if you think you are worth 150K a year, if that money is not there to pay you, if the business cannot survive by paying you and others salaries that were agreed 5-6 years ago when times were very very different!!! It becomes completely irrelevant!!!

NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!
Countries are not businesses!

I know of no business that when someone not employed by them loses their job gets paid by that company.

I know of no business who pay monthly for every child(school going) under 18 in a nation. etc etc etc

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What I was trying to say was that there should be no doubt whatsoever that Labour is the party of the public sector.

Labour have been in power around 2 years out of the last 17 but somehow have managed to do all this for the PS?

FF oversaw social partnership and expansion

FF/Greens brought in the first austerity measures
They brought in Troika
They brought in CPA

Stopping increments was not part of any of these measures

FG have a large majority over Labour and seemingly struck down labour wishes for higher USC for those over €100k - If they wanted to FG could stop increments although its interesting that the Government have indicated that their legal advice is that increments are part of core pay and fall under CPA


perhaps its simply easier for FG not to do it and blame Labour

Tim Robbins

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

Based on the OP, the issue for this thread seems to be, should the next public sector pay increment be delayed in order to preserve funding for respite care. So let's not get sidetracked this early in the thread.

I have renamed thread.

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What have they broken every single other election pledge?

what election pledges did they make about the PS?

Tim Robbins

Perardua wrote: »

I also think this article is just another of those intended to foster maximum ill feeling between the sectors and to deflect criticism from the latest financial burden that we all have had to shoulder.

That argument is such a cop out. If we question anything about the public sector we are falling for this sinister- divide and conquer - campaign.

It is yet another propaganda technique to deflection attention away from very valid points. If you can remind of us bankers, or tell us about frontline services this one is usually used.

Pharaoh1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On Frontline last night someone made the decision that if the public sector held off on their next increment ( I didn't even know they were getting one) by 2 months it would save the state 30 million meaning there would be no need for a cut respite care.

All seems reasonable.

A Labour councilor in the audience started moaning that people in the public sector were hanging on by the finger nails and really needed this increase.

But, hold on a sec. On average these people get paid more than the private sector and most of the private sector are on pay freezes.
In addition people without a job are on even less and are also not getting any increments.

But here's the crux of the matter. What this Labour person was saying was making sure the public sector were not delayed by two months on a pay increment when we are in the middle of a bailout program was more important than people who need respite care.

Incredible really.

This just turns people off the Unions / Labour when these organisations claim to represent them.

What do you think?

The reaction of that Councillor was very predictable and I'm sure that its not that she is lacking in compassion or understanding.

To understand this I think you have to understand the mindset and philosophy of many (not all I would admit) in the Labour party as well as the ULA and many in Sinn Fein.

If your philosophy is one where you see more state control and a greater proportion of the workforce working for the state as a good thing you are more or less hardwired against even uttering a mild criticism of any part of the state sector. You get it all the time from Labour spokespeople and many have difficulty even speaking out against ridiculously high salaries in the upper echelons of the Public Sector preferring instead to talk about about greater taxes on everyone.
A reasonable person might conclude that at a time of supposed national bankruptcy it would be reasonable to cancel the increases being given to one group - maybe at least those PS earning over say 50k in order to stop the cuts for another group (the carers) but I can completely understand how many in the Labour party don't see it like that.
Their first thought is for the welfare of those on the public payroll and the reaction of that Labour Councillor did not surprise me in the least.

Gumbo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If their 100K thing is a load of cr*p. Someone in public sector on 65K, with a whopping pension and great terms on conditions is on well over 100K when you factor in all their benefits.

i dont understand this statement
Someone in the PS on 65k, pays their tax and pension contributions of of this 65k, they dont get 35k as a top up FFS

Also, any idea what you are refering to when you talk about "Benefits"?

HellFireClub

frankosw wrote: »

Where are the figures to support the idea that not paying increments can pay for respite care??


So far there are no facts merely something somebody said on The Frontline.

Cost of increments per year, 200 Million Euro...

Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0625/dept-concerns-over-health-budget-overruns.html

Cost of respite care grant cuts: (77,000 families receiving the new reduced payment of 1375 Euro a year) =105,875,000 Euro.

So we could stop paying these crazy increments for one year and have enough money to restore these grants and conveniently we'd still have another 100 Million Euro to play with!

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/budget-2013-respite-care-cut-703321-Dec2012/

frankosw

Title of this thread is nonsense..as i've said there is no "Next public sector increment".

People posting stuff about workers in this country shoulod at least have thier fact correct before writing.

kippy

A couple of points, some already made.

1. Not all staff in the public sector get increments. (they are tied to pay grades etc and once you reach the top of a particular paygrade - in accordance with your contract - increments stop) The incremental scales are available on the publicjobs.ie website
2. Those that do receive increments generally receive them on an annual basis on the aniversary of their appointment to that particular scale/job/role etc and as such there is not one date that all those due to get increments, get increments.
3. An increment is not a cash "lump sum". It is a pay rise in accordance with the terms and conditions of ones contract. Therefore the payment of the increment is spread out over your salary, in the same way as any other pay rise would work.
4. Increments are of course subject to all taxes/levies/pensions contributions etc that are applied to salary as they are part of salary.

The last figures I seen for increments were that on an annual basis approximately 250 million is spent on them. That figure is probably going down as time goes by and the hiring freeze remains active.
This is a gross figure to the state. The actual cost to the state of honoring it's employment contracts is much much less ( I would put a conservative figure of 150 million on it, at most)


Personally if someone wants to cut my salary or renage further on my employment contract in the interest of those that are poorer/sicker in society, then I honestly haven't gotten an issue with that. However there is absolutely no guarantee that that money will go towards that function.

30 million is apparently the cost of this cut to the carers.
Cut 30 million from overseas aid.
Cut 30 million of our interest repayments next year.
Put a tax of 1 cent on text messages
There are literally hundreds of ways of generating 30 million that do not impact on the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people in this country.

Larbre34

Riskymove wrote: »

funnily enough I think most of us would be honest enough to say we dont know

can you somehow divine a persons workload, working hours and effort based on very minimal information?

have you some insight into this guy's work?

It would typically involve holding a role commensurate with a chief executive, personally holding the legal and accounting responsibility for an annual budget of 150-200 million euros a year, across 7 or 8 functional areas with a staff of 1,000, covered by hundreds of bits of legislation and having to negotiate a Council of 25 odd narcissists to do it, with a typical working week of 60-70 hours.

If someone advertised a role in the private sector equating to that for €132k a year, they'd be laughed out of the golf club.

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is how it works in the real world!

in the real world a company has income and costs

it does't fund a wide range of other programmes like social welfare etc

for all your talk about our borrowing to pay PS, the state income is still well above the cost of the PS

income €38 bn or so
cost of PS €18bn or so

ardmacha

The basic premise of this thread is fallacious, i.e. that it is job of subset of public servants to pay for respite grants. It is the job of all citizens to support carers, if they deserve support. Making the property tax 0.19% would do the trick and be fairer as all citizens (or most) would be making a contribution.

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

So we could stop paying these crazy increments for one year and have enough money to restore these grants and conveniently we'd still have another 100 Million Euro to play with!

no we wouldn't

firstly the latest official figure is €110m

secondly increments are subject to paye, prsi, usc and pension levy so then actual cost of 110m would be about €68m

and, as I mentioned decreasing one expenditure to increase another does nothing for tackling the deficit and therefore some other measure would still be needed

Larbre34

kippy wrote: »

2. Those that do receive increments generally receive them on an annual basis on the aniversary of their appointment to that particular scale/job/role etc and as such there is not one date that all those due to get increments, get increments.
3. An increment is not a cash "lump sum". It is a pay rise in accordance with the terms and conditions of ones contract. Therefore the payment of the increment is spread out over your salary, in the same way as any other pay rise would work.

True, and by the way the salary rate for the job is the top of that scale, not the bottom, increments are there to reflect initial inexperience over time, if increments were got rid of everyone would move to the top of the scales immediately, thats the legal situation

As well as the 285,000 public servants typically paying 35% of everything they earn back into the public coffers one way or another there are 40,000 less staff than there was 5 years ago so its reduced pensions not increments that concern them.

Tim Robbins

kceire wrote: »

i dont understand this statement
Someone in the PS on 65k, pays their tax and pension contributions of of this 65k, they dont get 35k as a top up FFS

Defined benefit pension would be worth at least 25 - 30K.

Also, any idea what you are refering to when you talk about "Benefits"?

Days off.

Gumbo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Defined benefit pension would be worth at least 25 - 30K.

How much out of the 65k does a PS staff member pay towards their DB Pension?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Days off.

You mean Annual Leave, yes i agree, the Private Sector should get Annual Leave too....Ohh Wait....

HellFireClub

Larbre34 wrote: »

True, and by the way the salary rate for the job is the top of that scale, not the bottom, increments are there to reflect initial inexperience over time, if increments were got rid of everyone would move to the top of the scales immediately, thats the legal situation

As well as the 285,000 public servants typically paying 35% of everything they earn back into the public coffers one way or another there are 40,000 less staff than there was 5 years ago so its reduced pensions not increments that concern them.

The best thing that the Troika could do for us now is to make us deal with this situation of automatic increments and other such madness within the public sector, (such as Celtic Tiger salaries), and like they do with Greece, withhold the next infusion of cash to us, until we sort ourselves out and our Celtic Tiger legacy salaries, for once and for all. We are clearly unable to do it in this country with the sacred cows that we allow to be put up there as sacrosanct that cannot be touched, so we have to still keep taking money off the disabled, its ridiculous.

Gumbo

HellFireClub wrote: »

We are clearly unable to do it in this country with the sacred cows that we allow to be put up there as sacrosanct that cannot be touched, so we have to still keep taking money off the disabled, its ridiculous.

+1

We need to make sure high earners pay their fair share.
Michael O' Leary and people like him, dont need Childrens Benefit.
Most lifer social welfare receivers should be approached.
Farmers need to be addressed.
the list goes on.

Riskymove

HellFireClub wrote: »

The best thing that the Troika could do for us now is to

we've been hearing this on boards since the financial problems began..." get the troika in and they'll do this and that" etc.

The troika have signed off on all measures to date, the deficit is closing, that is what they care about



do you think the people dependent on welfare in Greece have been unaffected?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

This turned into a hot mess relatively quickly. A few thoughts for posters:

1. In the future, don't start a thread without links. They aren't actually hard to find; Kathleen Lynch of the Labor Party called for highly paid public employees to forgo their scheduled wage increments in November.

2. There is a lot of hysteria on this thread. If your sole contribution to these threads is levying accusations at other posters and driving things off-topic, you won't be posting in this forum much longer.

I'm going to lock this thread, and be forewarned: if you want to start a future thread on a related topic (i.e. anything having to do with public sector wages, the CPA, etc), you need to have some kind of link to provide some figures and background and to ground the topic so we all know what we are supposed to be discussing. OPs that don't meet this standard may be locked and/or infracted.