I thought we were broke!

OMD

barneystinson wrote: »

That would all be well and good if the pension levy were a pension contribution, which it isn't. Unless you know something I don't (for the second time)?

Section 7 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009:
(1) Nothing in this Act is to be read as conferring any additional benefit payable, or that may become payable, under a public service pension scheme.
(2) A deduction under section 2 is not a pension contribution for the purposes of the Pensions Act 1990

So that tells me it's not a pension contribution and it doesn't confer any benefit - so it is a deduction from pre-tax pay, aka a pay cut, albeit presented slightly differently, so as to avoid industrial relations armageddon.

None of that matters. You said 80k was the equivalent to 73k in private sector. What you think pension levy is doesn't matter. You still get the pension. To get the same pension the private sector worker would have to put in more. So the 80k public sector pay is actually equivalent to a private sector salary of around 85k. Not the 73k you are saying. That is a substantial difference.

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

It depends on how the funds are invested, where they're invested and who is managing it. My fund from my time in industry is still promising a significantly greater return than the last statement I go about my PS pension, despite the fact that I've spent, now, only slightly longer in industry than in the PS.

I'd love to be able to channel my PS pension contributions into my private pot, but there's no provision for that.

If you are a low paid worker you may have a point but at this kind of money no pension fund would grow enough to give the same benefits for 6.5% contribution. None.

kerryguy78

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Yes, let's all give up and forget that we're broke. We have some the highest paid PS workers, pensioners and unemployed in the developed world and we're also the most in debt.

We don't do anything about it because our politicians haven't got the wherewithal to stand up to the vested interests. They want their jobs too!

Meanwhile idiots like me keep paying for everything while getting less and less in return.

Yes, let's just leave all well alone and get on with our lives regardless. Let the debts mount up - debts that are not paying for infrastructure or benefits to society as a whole, that's gone, a long time ago. No, it's debt to pay for the people in Ireland who believe they deserve to get handouts from the ever-decreasing number of taxpayers more than any of the other self-serving group.

I was shouting about it years ago and I'll keep shouting about it at every opportunity. It's wrong, just wrong and has to stop if this country is ever going to get back on it's feet again.

So if there's a PS bashing thread every day then good, because everyday one more person might try and do something about it!

Well said, i'm a tax payer and feel i'm being laughed at for getting up to work and pay tax. Only clowns pay tax!!!!!

barneystinson

OMD wrote: »

None of that matters. You said 80k was the equivalent to 73k in private sector. What you think pension levy is doesn't matter. You still get the pension. To get the same pension the private sector worker would have to put in more. So the 80k public sector pay is actually equivalent to a private sector salary of around 85k. Not the 73k you are saying. That is a substantial difference.

And yet again, as I have made clear several times, I was talking about the take home pay. I suppose the take home pay is irrelevant to you in your job?

• Let's say you're currently earning 50k in the private sector (gross salary).
• And you have the opportunity of a PS job with a gross salary of 100k (because these jobs are so overpaid, right!).
• And of course the job also comes with a generous DB pension.
• And you only have to pay a pension contribution of 6.5%.
• BUT... there's a "pension related deduction" of 60% of the gross salary, which means the taxable gross is actually 40k.

Would you weigh up the move based on the gross salary or the take home pay?

barneystinson

OMD wrote: »

If you are a low paid worker you may have a point but at this kind of money no pension fund would grow enough to give the same benefits for 6.5% contribution. None.

What about the employer's contribution?

barneystinson

kerryguy78 wrote: »

Well said, i'm a tax payer and feel i'm being laughed at for getting up to work and pay tax. Only clowns pay tax!!!!!

Do you think clowns should be exempt from tax?

beeftotheheels

kerryguy78 wrote: »

Well said, i'm a tax payer and feel i'm being laughed at for getting up to work and pay tax. Only clowns pay tax!!!!!

Please can we put this idea to bed? It is now very very difficult if not impossible to not pay your taxes in Ireland if you live here (JP McManus and Denis O'Brien and co claim not to live here).

Cowboy tax advisers being cheered on by the banks (did they learn nothing from the bogus non resident accounts investigation) keep suggesting that it is possible to extract cash from a business and pay no tax - by and large it is not.

The rumour has taken hold that it is oh so easy for the middle classes to avoid paying taxes and believe me it really was back in 2005. But it does not reflect reality in 2013 as distinct from the reality in 2005.

This is why Revenue are hiring more poachers from the professions to turn them into gate keepers, they are doing their job.

kerryguy78

its just demoralising to be gettin up at 5.30am every morning to go to work, when others who won't get off their arses stay in bed and get ''paid'' for doing nothing

kerryguy78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Please can we put this idea to bed? It is now very very difficult if not impossible to not pay your taxes in Ireland if you live here (JP McManus and Denis O'Brien and co claim not to live here).

Cowboy tax advisers being cheered on by the banks (did they learn nothing from the bogus non resident accounts investigation) keep suggesting that it is possible to extract cash from a business and pay no tax - by and large it is not.

The rumour has taken hold that it is oh so easy for the middle classes to avoid paying taxes and believe me it really was back in 2005. But it does not reflect reality in 2013 as distinct from the reality in 2005.

This is why Revenue are hiring more poachers from the professions to turn them into gate keepers, they are doing their job.

i'm talking about long term dolers

barneystinson

kerryguy78 wrote: »

its just demoralising to be gettin up at 5.30am every morning to go to work, when others who won't get off their arses stay in bed and get ''paid'' for doing nothing

Janie Mac, I never realised clowns worked such long hours...

beeftotheheels

kerryguy78 wrote: »

its just demoralising to be gettin up at 5.30am every morning to go to work, when others who won't get off their arses stay in bed and get ''paid'' for doing nothing

Who is getting paid for doing nothing (pensioners aside)?

Would you trade places with the person who thought he had a good job through to 2009 when he ended up on the dole because his employer became bankrupt?

Of the woman who can't work because she ignored her back problems to the point where she lost too much power in her right leg and now cannot drive?

It is too easy to put people into buckets and label them. Every case has its own individual hardships - not least yours because you're getting up as I'm in the land of zzzs

But wanting to believe that there is some mystery magic button out there which could resolve all our ills without hurting any people who are already hurting just is not true. Whatever cuts are made, whatever taxes rise will hurt at least one person who feels that they just can't take any more.

beeftotheheels

kerryguy78 wrote: »

i'm talking about long term dolers

We had 4% unemployment in 2007, which suggests that the vast majority of people on the dole are there because they've lost their jobs since 2007 (and that doesn't include the people who took the boat and so avoid being in our unemployed statistics).

Yes they exist, but they're the minority, not the majority who would give their right arm for a job.

kerryguy78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Who is getting paid for doing nothing (pensioners aside)?

Would you trade places with the person who thought he had a good job through to 2009 when he ended up on the dole because his employer became bankrupt?

Of the woman who can't work because she ignored her back problems to the point where she lost too much power in her right leg and now cannot drive?

It is too easy to put people into buckets and label them. Every case has its own individual hardships - not least yours because you're getting up as I'm in the land of zzzs

But wanting to believe that there is some mystery magic button out there which could resolve all our ills without hurting any people who are already hurting just is not true. Whatever cuts are made, whatever taxes rise will hurt at least one person who feels that they just can't take any more.

once again i'm talking about the ppl who during the boom that couldn't be bothered working even doe employers were crying out for workers

barneystinson

OMD wrote: »

None of that matters. You said 80k was the equivalent to 73k in private sector. What you think pension levy is doesn't matter. You still get the pension. To get the same pension the private sector worker would have to put in more. So the 80k public sector pay is actually equivalent to a private sector salary of around 85k. Not the 73k you are saying. That is a substantial difference.

Oh and just to be clear, I was talking about a specific case in point (you'll note I started the example with the phrase "case in point").

As I have already said several times, the type of person they are looking to hire will already be in a job at executive level, where they have various benefits such as car, health insurance, professional subs, pension plan and performance bonuses. So for simplicity sake I made the assumption that all of these on one side of a seesaw would equate to one gold plated Govt pension, and a few extra days of annual leave on the other side (and I reckon I was being generous to you at that).

So having taken all of the non-pay elements out of the equation that left the comparison to be between the salary (or more relevantly) take home pay of the 2 jobs.

In which case it is entirely correct and valid to say the 80k PS job equates to 73k in the private sector, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

beeftotheheels

barneystinson wrote: »

Oh and just to be clear, I was talking about a specific case in point (you'll note I started the example with the phrase "case in point").

As I have already said several times, the type of person they are looking to hire will already be in a job at executive level, where they have various benefits such as car, health insurance, professional subs, pension plan and performance bonuses. So for simplicity sake I made the assumption that all of these on one side of a seesaw would equate to one gold plated Govt pension, and a few extra days of annual leave on the other side (and I reckon I was being generous to you at that).

So having taken all of the non-pay elements out of the equation that left the comparison to be between the salary (or more relevantly) take home pay of the 2 jobs.

In which case it is entirely correct and valid to say the 80k PS job equates to 73k in the private sector, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

It just doesn't. Tax director in practice will have a lousy pension, lousy, believe mine is currently valued (the pot) at about 24k. The pension is a huge difference and employers only offer gold plated contributions to very serious execs (think CEO) not to tax directors.

So it is not worth 73k in the private arena, it is worth more than face value, not to mention that you won't have billing, time sheets, the risk of being sued, antsy clients, long hours, deadlines that interfere with your holidays and you will have the fun of actually drafting legislation, being able to catch the bad guys and be on the side of angels...

Revenue had no problem hiring POs and APs from the private sector and I doubt that they will this time, they don't need to (and never should have) compete on salary once they're not offering a breadline salary.

barneystinson

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It just doesn't. Tax director in practice will have a lousy pension, lousy, believe mine is currently valued (the pot) at about 24k. The pension is a huge difference and employers only offer gold plated contributions to very serious execs (think CEO) not to tax directors.

So it is not worth 73k in the private arena, it is worth more than face value, not to mention that you won't have billing, time sheets, the risk of being sued, antsy clients, long hours, deadlines that interfere with your holidays and you will have the fun of actually drafting legislation, being able to catch the bad guys and be on the side of angels...

Revenue had no problem hiring POs and APs from the private sector and I doubt that they will this time, they don't need to (and never should have) compete on salary once they're not offering a breadline salary.

Maybe you should apply for the tax director job ad I linked to earlier in the thread... Or apply for the PO role if you fit the spec. Curiously, I haven't seen any male APs or POs hired from outside in the recent competitions - make of that what you will.

Gumbo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It just doesn't. Tax director in practice will have a lousy pension, lousy, believe mine is currently valued (the pot) at about 24k. The pension is a huge difference and employers only offer gold plated contributions to very serious execs (think CEO) not to tax directors.

You need to take control of your pension fund!
My AIB PRSA is worth 25% more then my contributions since 2003.

OMD

kceire wrote: »

You need to take control of your pension fund!
My AIB PRSA is worth 25% more then my contributions since 2003.

25% in 10 years is bad alright. I suppose it is beating inflation at least.

beeftotheheels

kceire wrote: »

You need to take control of your pension fund!
My AIB PRSA is worth 25% more then my contributions since 2003.

I don't give a damn about my pension fund - you move employer and under current Irish law it is not worth an iota once you become a "deferred beneficiary" who can be wiped out on the alter of "current pensioners" at the drop of a hat. I'm 35. The worst age for pensions in that I paid in when equities were expensive and lost out when they crashed. I'll make it back.

I give a damn about public sector gilt edged pensions because public sector employees don't seem to realise what they are worth. Let's be honest, retiring with a private sector fund worth less than €1m, probably €2m and you're not going to be set up for life. Retiring with a public sector final salary scheme and you are.

Yet the public sector insist we ignore this huge benefit they receive, not available in the private sector, and that our hearts bleed for them on the basis that they now have to make some small and generally insignificant in the grand scheme of the numbers contribution via the levy towards their own gilt edged pensions.

beeftotheheels

barneystinson wrote: »

Maybe you should apply for the tax director job ad I linked to earlier in the thread... Or apply for the PO role if you fit the spec. Curiously, I haven't seen any male APs or POs hired from outside in the recent competitions - make of that what you will.

Tax director - in industry? Where you care about the provision in the income statement more than you care about the law?

Thanks but no thanks. Some of us actually still have a grá for the work, for understanding the law and advising our clients (or indeed contacts in the Castle) on the law. Reduce a profession to number crunching and it is really more of a skilled trade.

The work life balance appeals more to women, but I'm going to offer my unscientific opinion that we're actually more ethical, the call from the side of the angels resonates more strongly with us (unscientific but I've worked on both sides of the Irish sea and even women who were not mothers tended more towards considering joining the Revenue authorities when they advertised positions, I've only known one man to make that leap, I know several women who have for the reason of joining the side of the angels).

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

If you are a low paid worker you may have a point but at this kind of money no pension fund would grow enough to give the same benefits for 6.5% contribution. None.

In Ireland, maybe. But my private pot is managed through a UK fund and the returns exceed my notional PS pot. As I said it's a real pity there isn't the flexibility to opt out of the PS fund and make your own arrangements.

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

In Ireland, maybe. But my private pot is managed through a UK fund and the returns exceed my notional PS pot. As I said it's a real pity there isn't the flexibility to opt out of the PS fund and make your own arrangements.

UK funds are no better than Irish ones. You are extremely unlikely to be better off by investing your own pension unless low paid.
Investing in foreign currency means you are gambling with the currency markets. This may have made your fund look very good over the last 2 years or so but it is not long term growth.

Count Dooku

Jawgap wrote: »

In Ireland, maybe. But my private pot is managed through a UK fund and the returns exceed my notional PS pot. As I said it's a real pity there isn't the flexibility to opt out of the PS fund and make your own arrangements.

You should tell about it to your union shop steward, everybody will benefit if PS workers will pay own pensions themselves

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

UK funds are no better than Irish ones. You are extremely unlikely to be better off by investing your own pension unless low paid.
Investing in foreign currency means you are gambling with the currency markets. This may have made your fund look very good over the last 2 years or so but it is not long term growth.

To be honest, I'm less concerned about absolute performance and currency fluctuations and more concerned about regulatory risk - in short, I think pension funds, and financial services in general, are better regulated in the UK than here.

there's also the issue of admin fees and costs which tend to be substantially higher here than in the UK.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Again, you are making no sense. For example if you are calculating the "cost of the public sector" as a percentage of total expenditure of course you use the gross cost. If you are calculating the "cost of the public sector" to private sector taxpayers only, you use the net cost. So even in the limited example you give, there are times when you use either one.

I am not saying that the gross cost is wrong or the net cost is right, what I am saying is that the appropriate figure to use depends on what you are trying to measure. If you use the wrong figures to make a point, it is something that will end up in the "standard of financial journalism" thread.

Why are people trying to bring up nett vs gross savings when it comes to cutting. Once savings are made. Remember this will have a knock on effect of saving a lot more when it comes to paying the public sector pensions that are based on salary so by cutting even if we do lose out in tax we gain more again on the savings in pensions later on when they retire. So 1 billion will probably work out in the long run as a billion saved

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Why are people trying to bring up nett vs gross savings when it comes to cutting. Once savings are made. Remember this will have a knock on effect of saving a lot more when it comes to paying the public sector pensions that are based on salary so by cutting even if we do lose out in tax we gain more again on the savings in pensions later on when they retire. So 1 billion will probably work out in the long run as a billion saved

Eh no, that is not how it works. You would need to assume that there would never be another pay rise in the public service no matter what happened inflation which is a silly assumption to make.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Eh no, that is not how it works. You would need to assume that there would never be another pay rise in the public service no matter what happened inflation which is a silly assumption to make.

Has the public service pensions not changed from retiring income to average Income? Surely if people in the ps get another paycut or/and are not getting increments for say the next 5/6 years until we are completely out of the mess (with luck) Then it has to have a knock on effect for pensions as in bringing down their career average wage which is what pensions are based on?

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/01/public-service-pensions-single-scheme-commencement-order/

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Has the public service pensions not changed from retiring income to average Income? Surely if people in the ps get another paycut or/and are not getting increments for say the next 5/6 years until we are completely out of the mess (with luck) Then it has to have a knock on effect for pensions as in bringing down their career average wage which is what pensions are based on?

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/01/public-service-pensions-single-scheme-commencement-order/

It'll have more than a knock-on effect for pensions...nobody will want to take PS jobs anymore and public services will suffer exponentially...in addition the Private Sector will suffer as PS people spend less money as there is less money in thier pockets.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

It'll have more than a knock-on effect for pensions...nobody will want to take PS jobs anymore and public services will suffer exponentially...in addition the Private Sector will suffer as PS people spend less money as there is less money in thier pockets.

I would hazard a guess that fair % of those currently not working and those in college or those in jobsbridge would bite your hand off to get a job in the public sector..It may not pay as much as it once did and your pension may come down a bit aswell, but both are guaranteed and when compared to the private sector there is still a fair premium paid to those working in the public sector. Also it would mean they would not have to emigrate to find work

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that fair % of those currently not working and those in college or those in jobsbridge would bite your hand off to get a job in the public sector..It may not pay as much as it once did and your pension may come down a bit aswell, but both are guaranteed and when compared to the private sector there is still a fair premium paid to those working in the public sector. Also it would mean they would not have to emigrate to find work

Dunno where you get that idea...starter in my job is 21k and thats a contract...there's no more permanent posts as long as the moratorium is in place.

And if all these hordes of people are so desperate for work why was it so difficult to fill PS posts for so many years?

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

Dunno where you get that idea...starter in my job is 21k and thats a contract...there's no more permanent posts

What the idea that if jobs came up in the public sector after another pay cut and a delay in paying increments by 5/6 years that people who are on the dole or in jobsbridge or contemplating emigration would not go for these jobs?

Your post seemed to suggest that people wouldnt bother going for a job in the PS if this were the case which is simply not true.

Have you proof of positions not being filled. As far as I can tell there has been a moratorium for the last number of years so no new permanent jobs have been available? Therefore you cant say for definate that roles if they became available under those conditions would or would not be filled

Jawgap

if the choice is Jobsbridge, emigration or a paying job in the PS - I reckon most would go for the PS job.

what will be interesting to see is how many applicants apply who currently hold comparable paying jobs in private companies - and what their salary expectations are.

The starting salaries for the AOs they are trying to recruit is about €29k - I'm not saying they won't get applicants - they will by the bucketload, but will they get competent people to operate at the level specified in the recruitment information? I doubt it.

Most of the AOs I've interacted with have been graduates - plenty of knowledge, lots of 'book' learning but very much diamonds in the rough when it comes to the practical competencies - in other words we're going to pay them €29k pa to learn:rolleyes:

fliball123

Jawgap wrote: »

if the choice is Jobsbridge, emigration or a paying job in the PS - I reckon most would go for the PS job.

what will be interesting to see is how many applicants apply who currently hold comparable paying jobs in private companies - and what their salary expectations are.

The starting salaries for the AOs they are trying to recruit is about €29k - I'm not saying they won't get applicants - they will by the bucketload, but will they get competent people to operate at the level specified in the recruitment information? I doubt it.

Most of the AOs I've interacted with have been graduates - plenty of knowledge, lots of 'book' learning but very much diamonds in the rough when it comes to the practical competencies - in other words we're going to pay them €29k pa to learn:rolleyes:

That is the nature of all employment. It is the same in the private sector and dont be under illusions is something such as a senior position in say the dept of Finance comes in ..they are hardly going to hire a graduate out of college. But as I state this is how employment woks if you have a non crucial role you hire someone and put them on a learning curve with that job

Jawgap

fliball123 wrote: »

That is the nature of all employment. It is the same in the private sector and dont be under illusions is something such as a senior position in say the dept of Finance comes in ..they are hardly going to hire a graduate out of college. But as I state this is how employment woks if you have a non crucial role you hire someone and put them on a learning curve with that job

unfortunately that's exactly what the do!!!

29k pa is not going to buy you someone who can operate at EU / OECD level, much less write cogent pre-budgetary analysis - it buys you a mid to late 20s Masters graduate (or maybe PhD) - nobody who is any good is going to move from private employment to take on an entry level position in the PS regardless of how fast the track is to promotion.

The problem is there is a gap between what they want (as described in the recruitment literature) and what they attract at that salary level - even if you do get a decent candidate you've no scope for offering them a higher starting salary that reflects their abilities - they come in on the bottom just like everyone else. So you end up with 'qualification rich / experience poor' individuals who have to be taken through how the real world works.

fliball123

Jawgap wrote: »

unfortunately that's exactly what the do!!!

29k pa is not going to buy you someone who can operate at EU / OECD level, much less write cogent pre-budgetary analysis - it buys you a mid to late 20s Masters graduate (or maybe PhD) - nobody who is any good is going to move from private employment to take on an entry level position in the PS regardless of how fast the track is to promotion.

The problem is there is a gap between what they want (as described in the recruitment literature) and what they attract at that salary level - even if you do get a decent candidate you've no scope for offering them a higher starting salary that reflects their abilities - they come in on the bottom just like everyone else. So you end up with 'qualification rich / experience poor' individuals who have to be taken through how the real world works.

Your being very general in terms of all positions within the public sector there is a whole spectrum of jobs from say accounts, to gaurds to nurses etc. The private sector are the same they wont skills and experience aswell , I.T. for example is a sector that is awash with opertunity if you have the nuance to specialise. Having said that a lot of private sector companies will opt to skill up existing staff or get in a graduate and put them on a learning curve..

Now as much as I am against automatic increments with in the ps as it promotes laziness and complacency. If the public sector introduced a skills/experince and goals based increments system which can be accurately measured as is the case in a lot of private sector companies , I dont think anyone would have a problem, except for the fact that we are still borrowing 12 billion a year. Sorry to keep coming back to this but this is unfortunately the case. and 29k is a lot more than what is offered for jobsbridge or the dole

Bits_n_Bobs

fliball123 wrote: »

If the public sector introduced a skills/experince and goals based increments system which can be accurately measured as is the case in a lot of private sector companies

What you are describing is not an 'increments system'. It's a pay-rise based on achievements.

fliball123

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

What you are describing is not an 'increments system'. It's a pay-rise based on achievements.

Sorry it is if your pay is incremented on this basis I believe it is an incremental system. Sure it does not matter what it is called once it is implemented correctly and after we get through the current financial difficulties

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Has the public service pensions not changed from retiring income to average Income? Surely if people in the ps get another paycut or/and are not getting increments for say the next 5/6 years until we are completely out of the mess (with luck) Then it has to have a knock on effect for pensions as in bringing down their career average wage which is what pensions are based on?

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/01/public-service-pensions-single-scheme-commencement-order/

Only for new entrants post 1 January 2013

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Only for new entrants post 1 January 2013

ahh ok thats why I put the ? at the end I was not sure if he had extended it to existing PS employees

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

ahh ok thats why I put the ? at the end I was not sure if he had extended it to existing PS employees

The very first sentence on the page you linked:
"The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin TD, has signed the Public Service Pensions Single Scheme Commencement Order which commenced the Single Scheme for new entrants to the public service who join on or after 1 January 2013."

Hard to see where the uncertainty arose for you there.

Femme_Fatale

barneystinson wrote: »

And true to the normal sequence of these threads we now reach the infighting phase

No in-fighting here. I don't work in the public sector.

cast_iron wrote: »

Why not? With respect, why should a clerk/street sweepers earning 25k not be included? They are largely unskilled and anyone could do the job, quite possibly for less.

Because they're not earning the stupidly high salaries that are the crux of the problem. Street sweeping isn't skilled but it's damn tough work.

What's so special about nurses and paramedics? Yea, it's not a particularly pleasant job, but they weren't forced into the jobs, nor did they choose those careers purely for some "greater good of the state".

Ah now. This thing "They weren't forced into it" does not legitimise unnecessarily tough conditions. There are junior doctors working 24 hours in a row, sometimes 35 hours in a row... but "Nobody forced them to work in that field" so that's enough to leave those conditions the way they are? It's a stupid reasoning, and could be applied to anything, yet it would be deemed unacceptable most of the time.
How do you know there aren't nurses and paramedics who chose their career as a vocation? And I really don't get this notion of "They chose to work in the public sector" as if there's something inherently immoral about that, and as if their detractors wouldn't take a job in the public sector.

Chemical Burn ReReg

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

No in-fighting here. I don't work in the public sector.

Of course you don't work in the public sector, you're unemployed. You've made that abundantly clear before.

cast_iron

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Because they're not earning the stupidly high salaries that are the crux of the problem. Street sweeping isn't skilled but it's damn tough work.

They have machines that clean the streets these days, but that's neither here nor there anyway. There's no reason that everyone can't take a bit of a pay cut.

Ah now. This thing "They weren't forced into it" does not legitimise unnecessarily tough conditions. There are junior doctors working 24 hours in a row, sometimes 35 hours in a row... but "Nobody forced them to work in that field" so that's enough to leave those conditions the way they are? It's a stupid reasoning, and could be applied to anything, yet it would be deemed unacceptable most of the time.

No, I was applying it to the examples you gave - nurses and paramedics. Nurses work 3 day a week (albeit 12 hour shifts). I would agree doctors hours are unacceptable, but you didn't mention them as they rarely illicit much sympathy for whatever reason.

How do you know there aren't nurses and paramedics who chose their career as a vocation? And I really don't get this notion of "They chose to work in the public sector" as if there's something inherently immoral about that, and as if their detractors wouldn't take a job in the public sector.

The idea that they chose it as a vocation is daft. They are claiming a salary are they not? They are not vocations anyway, if you ask me.
And there's nothing wrong with working in the public sector at all. I'm not sure anyone claimed it was immoral?

Femme_Fatale

cast_iron wrote: »

They have machines that clean the streets these days, but that's neither here nor there anyway. There's no reason that everyone can't take a bit of a pay cut.

The ones on crazy salaries should, I don't see why that means the ones on low salaries should. Even with machines it's a hard job, especially in the winter.

No, I was applying it to the examples you gave - nurses and paramedics. Nurses work 3 day a week (albeit 12 hour shifts). I would agree doctors hours are unacceptable, but you didn't mention them as they rarely illicit much sympathy for whatever reason.
The idea that they chose it as a vocation is daft. They are claiming a salary are they not? They are not vocations anyway, if you ask me.

But if you ask numerous people, they are. You thinking they're not vocations doesn't change that they are to many people. How is it daft to think they're vocations? Dealing with the health of other humans, sometimes really murky situations, is pretty hard-going and deserves respect.

cast_iron

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The ones on crazy salaries should, I don't see why that means the ones on low salaries should. Even with machines it's a hard job, especially in the winter.

You can be low paid and still over paid. If someone is low paid, they will by definition have to live in cheaper housing and live more frugally than those who are on higher salaries. It's not like they have the exact same cost base.

But if you ask numerous people, they are. You thinking they're not vocations doesn't change that they are to many people. How is it daft to think they're vocations? Dealing with the health of other humans, sometimes really murky situations, is pretty hard-going and deserves respect.

I know many, many people working in the health sector. I'm not sure any of them would say it's a vocation. Yes, alot will have done it to help others, but it is also a paid job that they can leave anytime they wish. And yes, of course they deserve respect. Do the people that built the hospitals they work in not deserve respect? Are nurses and paramedics more important than architects and engineers?

Femme_Fatale

cast_iron wrote: »

Do the people that built the hospitals they work in not deserve respect? Are nurses and paramedics more important than architects and engineers?

No, about the same. Although in some situations, yes. And vice-versa. I'm just saying nurses and the like in the public sector deserve what they get paid; it doesn't mean I think people in other roles, public or private, aren't as important.

Jawgap

cast_iron wrote: »

.....

No, I was applying it to the examples you gave - nurses and paramedics. Nurses work 3 day a week (albeit 12 hour shifts). I would agree doctors hours are unacceptable, but you didn't mention them as they rarely illicit much sympathy for whatever reason.

The idea that they chose it as a vocation is daft. They are claiming a salary are they not? They are not vocations anyway, if you ask me.
And there's nothing wrong with working in the public sector at all. I'm not sure anyone claimed it was immoral?

I'm not sure if you know many nurses or if you've ever spent time in a city centre A&E, a geriatric care unit, a hospice or an Alzheimers care facility - ain't no one doing that work just for the money!

I'd suggest any nurse only interested in money is working for the agencies and / or is working in a private hospital or as a private carer.

My own theory about why doctors get less sympathy is based around a number of points. First, the points needed to do medicine will get you on to any course you want - so doctors have choice. They can also exit medicine any time they want and pursue a career in a range of related areas such as research. Also doctors spend less time with patients and families compared to nurses and in terms of personality tend to be perceived as having less empathy. Finally, doctors' career progression offers more rewards for putting in long hours early in their training - but as junior doctors they still work ridiculous hours.

cast_iron

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure if you know many nurses or if you've ever spent time in a city centre A&E, a geriatric care unit, a hospice or an Alzheimers care facility - ain't no one doing that work just for the money!

I do know some nurses, and I have worked in the busiest A&E in the country. And visited old folks homes many times. I have seen a lot go on in these places, and I know how they work.

I never said anyone was doing it "purely for the money". What I did say, however, was that I don't think there are many there doing it "purely as a vocation". I suspect the reality is that there is an element of both notions attached to the reasoning a person chose such a career. Otherwise, they probably hate their job!

Idbatterim

going to take this down a different path now, the OP was about Haddington Road, etc, the below in my opinion is scandalous...

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026476.shtml

Its in relation to over HALF our population claiming some type of welfare...

"The bailout troika has requested that Joan Burton, minister for social protection, cut €440m next year, or just over 2% from the 2014 budget but a spokesperson has said a reduction of that scale could not be made “without doing some very harsh things.”

2% savage?! sorry 20% could be described as savage. Making moronic promises, like "we wont touch core welfare rates" for several years during the current crisis... Absolutely ridiculous, there needs to be serious overhaul of welfare, the entire taxation system and the public service...

Maura74

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure if you know many nurses or if you've ever spent time in a city centre A&E, a geriatric care unit, a hospice or an Alzheimers care facility - ain't no one doing that work just for the money!

I'd suggest any nurse only interested in money is working for the agencies and / or is working in a private hospital or as a private carer.

My own theory about why doctors get less sympathy is based around a number of points. First, the points needed to do medicine will get you on to any course you want - so doctors have choice. They can also exit medicine any time they want and pursue a career in a range of related areas such as research. Also doctors spend less time with patients and families compared to nurses and in terms of personality tend to be perceived as having less empathy. Finally, doctors' career progression offers more rewards for putting in long hours early in their training - but as junior doctors they still work ridiculous hours.

Knowing how these care home works, I visit one of them regularly. They taken in patient with Alzheimer’s, but do not have a clue how to care for them and lump them in with patients with many other conditions as well. They are certainly in it for the money and provide as little care as possible. None of the staff are there for the love of giving the best possible care to their residents.

At lease the UK is doing something about it now, but it is too little too late and it's about time Ireland did the same.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19992538

examples of neglect by professionals

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/bobby-russell-hiv-veteran-sues-hospital_n_3860308.html

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/clinical-negligence/medical-misdiagnosis-personal-injury-claims.html

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/clinical-negligence-victim-damages.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6216559/One-in-six-NHS-patients-misdiagnosed.html