Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

You didnt PM me any "details" you said there's two women you work with who are publicans(two in the same department).

Thats not any kind of proof thats just stalking somebody to repeat what you've said on the forum.

You're basicilly saying that there are no public sector workers who have additional incomes. Nonsense.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

I can guarantee that every party in the next election will be promising to examine and restore pay for at least some public servants.

There might be a fringe lunatic independent (Shane Ross?) who might argue against it.

I think you will find FG will not be for it. Only one Labour Minister is spouting this nonsense

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

I would agree...and it would be political lunacy to oppose the reversals too as the PS are one of the largest voting blocks in the country.

Once again when it is put to the public that this money needs to be borrowed or found via increases in taxation..the rest of the non PS voting block will vote accordingly.

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again when it is put to the public that this money needs to be borrowed or found via increases in taxation..the rest of the non PS voting block will vote accordingly.

we'll see :rolleyes:

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

The black economy costs the country 20 billion a year and people are whining about 100 euro a month in PS wages.

and your so blinded by looking for pay rises that you do not see the high cost we pay for the likes of wage and pensions in the ps and welfare drives the black economy. The taxation system in this country promotes it FFS.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again when it is put to the public that this money needs to be borrowed or found via increases in taxation..the rest of the non PS voting block will vote accordingly.

Well don't forget that the nearly 300k PS workers also have spouses and family, and that there's an ever increasing number of retired former PS workers as well, who have nothing better to do than spend their enormous pensions and vote, so that's quite a considerable block of voters too... :pac:

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Really so offices of 10 people with 2 having cancer can only exist in the public sector...haha will you give me a break

That is not what I said.

Offices of 10 people with 2 having cancer and getting paid sick leave for six months only exist in the public sector.

All of the studies you are happy to quote only count paid sick leave. In the private sector, the sick leave wouldn't be paid and wouldn't be in the statistics you love.

I don't know why I am explaining this, you probably won't understand.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I think you will find FG will not be for it. Only one Labour Minister is spouting this nonsense

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again when it is put to the public that this money needs to be borrowed or found via increases in taxation..the rest of the non PS voting block will vote accordingly.

I would be happy to wager a substantial amount that FG will at the least have in their manifesto that during the next government as the economic situation improves, they will consider how much of the pay cuts can be reversed.

That is what is in the law if you bothered to read it rather than spout nonsense.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

and your so blinded by looking for pay rises that you do not see the high cost we pay for the likes of wage and pensions in the ps and welfare drives the black economy. The taxation system in this country promotes it FFS.

So you will support a shift away from income tax onto greater capital taxes and property taxes along with water charges?

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

If,as a country you want public services,you as a taxpayer have to pay for them.

It's really that simple.

There's NOTHING you can do about that.

And you also seem to have forgotten...your beloved taxes are paying for a lot more than public service pay.

I am also a taxpayer and despite not having children *I* took TWO paycuts to fund YOUR kid's education and YOUR children's allowance.

Now I have to pay for my water to subsidise our old age pension and YOUR children's college education....how is this fair? I wont tolerate it!!

I pay more than enough tax for an aboslutely sh1t public service. Anything half decent I have to pay again for it.

We pay too much for what we get in this country.

There is nothing you can do, your not getting any more of a pay rise above the pay rises already going on through increments. The money is not there..

I know it pays for more than ps pay..but what I pay in taxes I get a pretty bad return on it.

the roads are sh1t
the a&e are sh1t
the guards are sh1t..they sit there in their cars with their guns in zones going from 120kpm to 60kpm ala shooting fish in a barrel, and all the while if your attacked or burgled it takes hours to respond.

They are but a few of the crappy services I get for my tax I could go on for ever..I would rather I didnt pay any taxes and privatise the lot and pick a decent service run by people driven by competing with others for your money instead of having people sitting there waiting for their next increment to kick in.

My kid is not in education so you paid nothing for him and besides me and the wife will have more than paid for his education when our taxes come out
.
I pay my PRSI and my tax that I pay will also more that pay for my OAP. Your paying the water charge to cover the ps increments. Good man you feel good about that.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

So ten years ago...when a house cost 400k because of private sector greed and a PS wage of 38k was considered to be quite good.

Very equitable.

Yes and at the same time the ps pay bill was going through the roof more than doubling ..ps greed

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Well don't forget that the nearly 300k PS workers also have spouses and family, and that there's an ever increasing number of retired former PS workers as well, who have nothing better to do than spend their enormous pensions and vote, so that's quite a considerable block of voters too... :pac:

There are still more none ps affiliated people in this country to vote...As I say when it is spelt out in black and white as a pay rise for the 300 and a pay cut for everyone else..We will see what way the wind blows on it

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

That is not what I said.

Offices of 10 people with 2 having cancer and getting paid sick leave for six months only exist in the public sector.

All of the studies you are happy to quote only count paid sick leave. In the private sector, the sick leave wouldn't be paid and wouldn't be in the statistics you love.

I don't know why I am explaining this, you probably won't understand.

Sorry I missed that point. but it kind of asks the question why it is happens in one sector and not the other?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

I would be happy to wager a substantial amount that FG will at the least have in their manifesto that during the next government as the economic situation improves, they will consider how much of the pay cuts can be reversed.

That is what is in the law if you bothered to read it rather than spout nonsense.

I am not saying that in the future that ps will get pay rises above increments ..I am saying in 2016 when we will still be borrowing and owe a lot more than we do now..As well as asking people to pay for water that under that environment the appetite for ps pay rises on top of increments would not be tolerated..By all means once the deficit is down, and we have a handle on the debt and taxes are reduced..Then go for it providing the performance of the ps employee merits it , I have no problem with it what so ever.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

There are still more none ps affiliated people in this country to vote...As I say when it is spelt out in black and white as a pay rise for the 300 and a pay cut for everyone else..We will see what way the wind blows on it

Don't be so naive, that's not how it will be spelt out, apart from hardliners like independents, socialists etc. politics is all about lowest common denominator stuff.

I'll laugh my arse off if/when the party you vote for in the next GE starts restoring the pay cuts, and you're on here incandescent with rage

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

So you will support a shift away from income tax onto greater capital taxes and property taxes along with water charges?

What are you on about?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

I have no problem with it what so ever.

I'm pretty sure you'll find one, when the time comes!

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Don't be so naive, that's not how it will be spelt out, apart from hardliners like independents, socialists etc. politics is all about lowest common denominator stuff.

I'll laugh my arse off if/when the party you vote for in the next GE starts restoring the pay cuts, and you're on here incandescent with rage

it wont be happening in 2016 and I have told you the reasons why.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

There are still more none ps affiliated people in this country to vote...As I say when it is spelt out in black and white as a pay rise for the 300 and a pay cut for everyone else..We will see what way the wind blows on it

Yes, but what is the relative turnout of the two blocks on polling day..? I'd hazard it's substantially higher in my block than yours... You'd better get an early order in for a couple of megaphones to try to mobilise the troops when the time comes.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you'll find one, when the time comes!

No if the criteria I have set out is meet I have no bother with it..I do believe there are good people in the ps working away and deserve pay rises ..but only when we can afford them and only after others get alleviated first

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

it wont be happening in 2016 and I have told you the reasons why.

Thanks for clearing that up Enda.:rolleyes:

You can't say anything about 2016 with any certainty.

(Except that I'll be getting an increment, my first in a few years, and well earned )

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Yes, but what is the relative turnout of the two blocks on polling day..? I'd hazard it's substantially higher in my block than yours... You'd better get an early order in for a couple of megaphones to try to mobilise the troops when the time comes.

There wont be pay rises by or in 2016 ...

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

No if the criteria I have set out is meet I have no bother with it..I do believe there are good people in the ps working away and deserve pay rises ..but only when we can afford them and only after others get alleviated first

That is very decent of you, I doff my cap to you kind sir...

Be sure to let us know the moment there has been sufficient alleviation elsewhere, so that we can dare to darken our masters' door...

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up Enda.:rolleyes:

You can't say anything about 2016 with any certainty.

(Except that I'll be getting an increment, my first in a few years, and well earned )

You proved my point...you cant say anything with certainty, yet the ps are certain they will be getting pay rises..its gas..its like we stopped borrowing or the debt just flew away for a holiday..

One thing is certain..the maths on it does not tally for ps getting a payrise

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

That is very decent of you, I doff my cap to you kind sir...

Be sure to let us know the moment there has been sufficient alleviation elsewhere, so that we can dare to darken our masters' door...

I have put out 3 things

1 deficit gone
2 debt under control
3 tax cuts for everyone

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

You proved my point...you cant say anything with certainty, yet the ps are certain they will be getting pay rises..its gas..its like we stopped borrowing or the debt just flew away for a holiday..

One thing is certain..the maths on it does not tally for ps getting a payrise

No be fair now, your point was an unambiguous statement of fact, that there will be no restoration of pay in or by 2016.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

You proved my point...you cant say anything with certainty, yet the ps are certain they will be getting pay rises..its gas..its like we stopped borrowing or the debt just flew away for a holiday..

One thing is certain..the maths on it does not tally for ps getting a payrise

And you have just priced my point. YOU GENERALISE too much.

You state that "yet the is are certain they will be getting pay rises"
When in actual fact "The PS" are not saying that. A few posters are saying that on an Internet forum, you you maintain that 280,000 PS employees are saying what you state. Rubbish.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I am not saying that in the future that ps will get pay rises above increments ..I am saying in 2016 when we will still be borrowing and owe a lot more than we do now..As well as asking people to pay for water that under that environment the appetite for ps pay rises on top of increments would not be tolerated..By all means once the deficit is down, and we have a handle on the debt and taxes are reduced..Then go for it providing the performance of the ps employee merits it , I have no problem with it what so ever.

So you are backing down on this post:

fliball123 wrote: »

I think you will find FG will not be for it. Only one Labour Minister is spouting this nonsense

I am saying that come the 2016 election that FG, like everyone else will be saying that now the economy is getting back on its feet, it is time to revisit the pay cuts and restore pay.

Idbatterim

Where are the Pd's when you need them? nowhere, as doing the right thing won't get you anywhere here, lowest common denominator stuff as a previous poster said. Would love to see a pdfg hypothetical coalition (they'd be perfect bed buddies in my opinion)My disgust at the labour party is up there with ff!

golfwallah

Riskymove wrote: »

or maybe working in the health servive or ion the emrgency services simply results in a higher level of illness and injury than sitting at a desk?

Riskymove wrote: »

well, no it won't

it is an efficiency saving really

ezra_pound wrote: »

True.

We're talking about reducing the overall rate of absenteeism and cost associated with sick leave here - not differences between various areas of the public service.

And reducing the overall sick leave rate will, indeed, result in more effective use of resources that can be used productively to achieve additional results elsewhere (including moving people from back-room to front-line activities, where ever possible).

So the savings are real (even though the overall cost of the public service might not fall in the short-term) - not just imaginary or to be dismissed as merely "efficiencies".

I would also expect that these savings would contribute to reduced costs of the public service in the long-term.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

No be fair now, your point was an unambiguous statement of fact, that there will be no restoration of pay in or by 2016.

No i didnt say that I said at a time when we were still borrowing and being asked to pay for water there would be no pay rises...By all means once things improve and the ps employees who deserve pay rises should get them, but I cannot see that improvement until 2018/19 at the earliest

Monife

fliball123 wrote: »

No i didnt say that I said at a time when we were still borrowing and being asked to pay for water there would be no pay rises...By all means once things improve and the ps employees who deserve pay rises should get them, but I cannot see that improvement until 2018/19 at the earliest

Do you think there should be tax cuts in the next budget?

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

And you have just priced my point. YOU GENERALISE too much.

You state that "yet the is are certain they will be getting pay rises"
When in actual fact "The PS" are not saying that. A few posters are saying that on an Internet forum, you you maintain that 280,000 PS employees are saying what you state. Rubbish.

Well I take that back that is what chopper on here thinks. But on the other hand if the ps were offered a pay rise do you think they would turn it down?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

So you are backing down on this post:



I am saying that come the 2016 election that FG, like everyone else will be saying that now the economy is getting back on its feet, it is time to revisit the pay cuts and restore pay.

No I am saying that it wont happen in 2016 which was always my point..I would be hoping in 2017/18 that we will have our deficit gone and after this we can alleviate tax payers then and only then pay rises for ps but only for those who deserve it. If you look at my approach I have always said it would not happen when we have to start paying water (2016) and while we are still borrowing which will be at least up until 2018 and after tax cuts..

fliball123

Monife wrote: »

Do you think there should be tax cuts in the next budget?

No not at all not until the borrowing has ceased, but if the government are determined to alienate someone somewhere the in tax cuts should happen as apposed to pay rises in the ps. that way everyone gets something

Monife

fliball123 wrote: »

No not at all not until the borrowing has ceased, but if the government are determined to alienate someone somewhere the in tax cuts should happen as apposed to pay rises in the ps. that way everyone gets something

I agree. Tax money back in everyone's pockets is much better than pay restoration as our pay would still be taxed and wouldn't receive much of it where as a tax cut or credit increase now and pay restoration later, would be better for everyone's pockets

mariaalice

So say you need hospital consultants and as they have world wide opportunities they could choose to works some where else( even in countries that pay less but have much less of a work load and much better back up services ).

Do you stick to you ideology of no pay increases for public servants or do you increase consultants pay.

comongethappy

mariaalice wrote: »

So say you need hospital consultants and as they have world wide opportunities they could choose to works some where else( even in countries that pay less but have much less of a work load and much better back up services ).

Do you stick to you ideology of no pay increases for public servants or do you increase consultants pay.

Pay what the market will bear.
If a position has no applicants, then sweeten the deal.

Idbatterim

Fg hints at increase to marginal rate threshold...

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/harris-hints-at-tax-rate-changes-as-budget-talks-set-to-begin-30527619.html

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

Fg hints at increase to marginal rate threshold...

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/harris-hints-at-tax-rate-changes-as-budget-talks-set-to-begin-30527619.html

they have hinted at this a few times and I fully expect them to do it

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Well I take that back that is what chopper on here thinks. But on the other hand if the ps were offered a pay rise do you think they would turn it down?

If ANYBODY in the world was offered a payrise, do you think they would turn it down?

Would YOU turn down a pay rise for the better of the country, i would imagine you would grab the extra money with both hands.

chopper6

kceire wrote: »

If ANYBODY in the world was offered a payrise, do you think they would turn it down?

Would YOU turn down a pay rise for the better of the country, i would imagine you would grab the extra money with both hands.

I'd imagine he would not only grab it both hands but sell out everybody else if necessary..."Pull the ladder up"

comongethappy

kceire wrote: »

If ANYBODY in the world was offered a payrise, do you think they would turn it down?

Would YOU turn down a pay rise for the better of the country, i would imagine you would grab the extra money with both hands.

Of course I'd grab it.

I've no beef with the workers getting their due as per agreements.

I only take issue with governments working against Ireland's interest by being so craven at the negotiating table.

chopper6

comongethappy wrote: »

Of course I'd grab it.

I've no beef with the workers getting their due as per agreements.

I only take issue with governments working against Ireland's interest by being so craven at the negotiating table.

So paying Ireland's workers is against Ireland's interest?


You're talking nonsense.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

So paying Ireland's workers is against Ireland's interest?


You're talking nonsense.

Please stop.

Please stop with your disingenous reading and deliberate misrepresentations of others' posts.

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

So paying Ireland's workers is against Ireland's interest?


You're talking nonsense.

1. The workers are getting paid.
2. It is if in the long term interests of the state to ensure stable finances and servicing a debt that the next 10 generations end up paying off, the paying above what it can aford to its workers is daft.

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

1. The workers are getting paid.
2. It is if in the long term interests of the state to ensure stable finances and servicing a debt that the next 10 generations end up paying off, the paying above what it can aford to its workers is daft.

Who says they cant afford it?

Paying thousands of people to sit on their arses all day as well giving them free houses makes a lot less sense to me.

Or the thousands of "refugees" being housed at the states expense in places like Mosney and hotels up and down the country...who's paying the 300 million a year it costs?

What about the non-means tested childrens allowance hat anybody can get regardless of their level of need?

Free third level education so wasters can hang out in college forever studying nonsense?

The PS in this country are doing a job of work,we took a disproportionate amount of pain and it's time we had the paycuts reversed..and they WILL be reversed despite what the armchair economists on here think.


I don't see these people picketing pubs charging 7 euro a pint or the crèches that charge 100 euro per day per child..


As I said before...most of this "for the good of the country" bullshiit is just jealousy from people who backed the wrong horse when it came to choosing their career...OR the thousands who weren't good enough to be selected for employment by the PS and now have a chip on their shoulders.

comongethappy

chopper6 wrote: »

As I said before...most of this "for the good of the country" bullshiit is just jealousy from people who backed the wrong horse when it came to choosing their career...OR the thousands who weren't good enough to be selected for employment by the PS and now have a chip on their shoulders.

You really are grasping for a strong argument here, but again you are failing.

Being critical of the a government awarding pay increases to peak levels automatically, while still running a €5 bn deficit is not born out of your infantile accusation of jealousy.

Personally I see reversing the disastrous near decade long strangulation of infrastructure funding being a bigger priority than pay rises..... especially when the budget still is in deficit

But, hey..... What do I know, I'm just blinded by jealousy (apparently).

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

No I am saying that it wont happen in 2016 which was always my point..I would be hoping in 2017/18 that we will have our deficit gone and after this we can alleviate tax payers then and only then pay rises for ps but only for those who deserve it. If you look at my approach I have always said it would not happen when we have to start paying water (2016) and while we are still borrowing which will be at least up until 2018 and after tax cuts..

You keep changing history, here is the exchange of posts:

fliball123 wrote: »

I will be voting for anyone who is against pay rises in the public sector and by keeping it in focus on here and other boards which are looked at.

Godge wrote: »

I can guarantee that every party in the next election will be promising to examine and restore pay for at least some public servants.

There might be a fringe lunatic independent (Shane Ross?) who might argue against it.

fliball123 wrote: »

I think you will find FG will not be for it. Only one Labour Minister is spouting this nonsense

Now, you have said that FG will not be for "it" which can only refer to "promising to examine and restore pay for at least some public servants" which is the post you quoted, and that is different to what you are now saying.

chopper6

comongethappy wrote: »

You really are grasping for a strong argument here, but again you are failing.

Being critical of the a government awarding pay increases to peak levels automatically, while still running a €5 bn deficit is not born out of your infantile accusation of jealousy.

Personally I see reversing the disastrous near decade long strangulation of infrastructure funding being a bigger priority than pay rises..... especially when the budget still is in deficit

But, hey..... What do I know, I'm just blinded by jealousy (apparently).

Not "pay increases" and not "pay rises".

An agreed upon restoration of pay cuts.

A year or two back people were demanding pay cuts and when they occurred they were refusing to admit that they were pay cuts at all.

Now that the Govt is talking about restoring the cuts they are being referred to as "pay rises".


Unbelievable.