Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

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.

200Billion in dept, fiscal deficit of close to 9 billion this year say they can't afford it. That coupled with salary comparisons with irish private sector and indeed other public sector wages across the globe.

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

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.

An agreed upon restoration of pay cuts, should in my opinion, not happen until the budget deficit is close to 0 percent and the national debt repayments are close to what they were in circa 2008........

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

An agreed upon restoration of pay cuts, should in my opinion, not happen until the budget deficit is close to 0 percent and the national debt repayments are close to what they were in circa 2008........

3% is close to 0 %.

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

3% is close to 0 %.

And the national debt repayments?

Idbatterim

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.

Nail on the head here, public or private sector, we are all workers and our taxes are going to fund the welfare wonderland welfare system! I have just gotten notice of a rent increase in Dublin, people are really struggling, where is the great welfare system for me? for over 10 years I have paid in, not gotten a bloody cent back out of it, yet you can have never contributed anything to it and take it and the tax payer for a bloody ride!

My gf is a public sector worker in the Uk, would have voted Labour obviously. They really are on low wages over there in comparison with here. She is a social worker, so I asked her do you not see a contradiction with Labour there on the one side trying to claim they are representing you and on the other hand maintaining welfare rates (thus necessitating) cuts to her salary. I also asked her in all her years of social work and throwing money at it, why we still are where we are... If throwing money were the solution to everything, Ireland would be worldclass in every area, which we certainly arent.

the problem with Labour is they actually create problems, they disincentivise work and those who need to be given a hand up and not out and break the culture of opting out, as its all they know. They are going to get a piece of my mind when I see them out canvassing at election time, thats for sure!

At least FG dont pretend to be anything to everyone! I will gladly be worse off financially before I would vote FF in to do another boom bust special, the snakes!

Riskymove

kippy wrote: »

An agreed upon restoration of pay cuts, should in my opinion, not happen until the budget deficit is close to 0 percent and the national debt repayments are close to what they were in circa 2008........

and what else should be contingent on these criteria?

kippy

Riskymove wrote: »

and what else should be contingent on these criteria?

What do you mean?
Tax cuts etc?

Riskymove

kippy wrote: »

What do you mean?
Tax cuts etc?

anything else about government income and expenditure

kippy

Riskymove wrote: »

anything else about government income and expenditure

Well I think the states finances are in an absolute mess at the moment try arguing against that- None moreso on the debt side of things.
As I have mentioned on another post, possibly in this thread, reducing this debt, through whatever mans possible should be a key priority as it will get picked up by our kids and their kids otherwise (heading that way now tbf).

There are a lot of potentential pitfalls ahead for the state on the financial side which I don't believe have been allowed for or factored in.

I don't beleive it is benefical to the ste to increase the salaries of one sector (the one they directly control) when in this position and particularily when I believe that there are still cost savings to be made in the area.

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

Well I think the states finances are in an absolute mess at the moment try arguing against that- None moreso on the debt side of things.
As I have mentioned on another post, possibly in this thread, reducing this debt, through whatever mans possible should be a key priority as it will get picked up by our kids and their kids otherwise (heading that way now tbf).

There are a lot of potentential pitfalls ahead for the state on the financial side which I don't believe have been allowed for or factored in.

I don't beleive it is benefical to the ste to increase the salaries of one sector (the one they directly control) when in this position and particularily when I believe that there are still cost savings to be made in the area.

So this is an opinion piece without a shred of evidence to back up what you believe and don't believe.


You don't work in the Public Sector and you're not involved in the partnership process and nor are you an economist so where do you get your opinions from?

My guess (yes,an opinion) would be the Independent..am I right?

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

So this is an opinion piece without a shred of evidence to back up what you believe and don't believe.


You don't work in the Public Sector and you're not involved in the partnership process and nor are you an economist so where do you get your opinions from?

My guess (yes,an opinion) would be the Independent..am I right?

It's the same as pretty much anything you post, except my opinions are backed by fact and are generated from a number of sources.
You don't believe the states finances are in the a very very bad way?
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-debt-to-gdp
http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/
The state are currently borrowing 650 odd million a month, down a lot but still increasing the overall debt.
Countless sources can back all of this up.........

You've no idea where I work, what my background is etc etc etc.

I can tell you the main thing I am concerned about is passing on all of this crap to my kids and their kids and their kids - for the sake of 4-5 years letting the country get out of control.

Sadly from what I can tell, it looks like we've learned nothing.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

So this is an opinion piece without a shred of evidence to back up what you believe and don't believe.


You don't work in the Public Sector and you're not involved in the partnership process and nor are you an economist so where do you get your opinions from?

My guess (yes,an opinion) would be the Independent..am I right?

Surely everyone's entitled to their opinions here, wherever they get them from - you at one end of the spectrum, Fliball at the other, and most of the rest of us somewhere in between...

If no-one was allowed have an opinion without producing their academic credentials there'd be tumbleweed in here, and neither you nor I would be posting here either!

In my opinion, there's no question but that underperformance isn't managed well enough in the PS, primarily due to the strength of the PS unions which protect the lazy few to the detriment of the majority of good workers.

A situation where virtually everyone gets awarded their increment does discredit the system we are paid under. Peer review by one's colleagues/subordinates might be a good idea. Or the facility to withhold an increment for a short period of time, say 3 months, while giving a person a chance to show an improvement, might also help - at the moment denying a person their increment is so exceptional and extreme managers shy away from it, but if they could simply say here's a 3 month window for you to pull up your performance, it would be used a lot more than the nuclear option.

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

It's the same as pretty much anything you post, except my opinions are backed by fact and are generated from a number of sources.
You don't believe the states finances are in the a very very bad way?
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-debt-to-gdp
http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/
The state are currently borrowing 650 odd million a month, down a lot but still increasing the overall debt.
Countless sources can back all of this up.........

You've no idea where I work, what my background is etc etc etc.

I can tell you the main thing I am concerned about is passing on all of this crap to my kids and their kids and their kids - for the sake of 4-5 years letting the country get out of control.

Sadly from what I can tell, it looks like we've learned nothing.

A few web sources thrown up to back up your opinions.

At least you didn't quote the Indo in fairness.

But then I *do* se you're based in Galway.

Neither the banks,the Govt,the PS or the private sector have any meaningful prescence there.

The economy is based in Dublin,the Govt is based in Dublin,the PS is based in Dublin and the population of this country is based in Dublin.

The recovery will be based in Dublin.

Yet the regions get new roads that nobody every uses,hotels nobody every stays in and grants for meaningless projects that nobody will every avail of.

And as you say,we are borrowing to keep this happening when neither the population nor the potential for growth makes this feasible...a modern,educated and well-remunerated PS and private sector is losing out as money-pits lke Galway and Cork are sapping our financial resources.

Just a thought.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

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

Oh like the public servants did with new entrants...do you want to be the pot or kettle in that statement

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

A few web sources thrown up to back up your opinions.

At least you didn't quote the Indo in fairness.

But then I *do* se you're based in Galway.

Neither the banks,the Govt,the PS or the private sector have any meaningful prescence there.

The economy is based in Dublin,the Govt is based in Dublin,the PS is based in Dublin and the population of this country is based in Dublin.

The recovery will be based in Dublin.

Yet the regions get new roads that nobody every uses,hotels nobody every stays in and grants for meaningless projects that nobody will every avail of.

And as you say,we are borrowing to keep this happening when neither the population nor the potential for growth makes this feasible...a modern,educated and well-remunerated PS and private sector is losing out as money-pits lke Galway and Cork are sapping our financial resources.

Just a thought.

Wow.


An entire post where you resort to attacking the poster's location rather than address the issue.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

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









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.

Godge it fits in to what I am saying the G.E in 2016 we will not be out of the mire or still borrowing so anyone stating Ps pay rises above increments will not be getting anything from me.

FG would be crazy to give this back in the same year as charging everyone else water. Look at all of my posts

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Godge it fits in to what I am saying the G.E in 2016 we will not be out of the mire or still borrowing so anyone stating Ps pay rises above increments will not be getting anything from me.

FG would be crazy to give this back in the same year as charging everyone else water. Look at all of my posts

But the general election will be about the policy for the following five years, so of course, FG will be promising to reverse the cuts.

Godge

kippy wrote: »

An agreed upon restoration of pay cuts, should in my opinion, not happen until the budget deficit is close to 0 percent and the national debt repayments are close to what they were in circa 2008........

Neither your opinion nor my opinion will matter.

The legislation provides for the restoration of the pay cuts once the financial emergency is over. That will be judged as when the deficit hits 3% which is the target set by those who oversaw the recovery.

Once the deficit drops below 3%, the only question is when exactly and how much.

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

A few web sources thrown up to back up your opinions.

At least you didn't quote the Indo in fairness.

But then I *do* se you're based in Galway.

Neither the banks,the Govt,the PS or the private sector have any meaningful prescence there.

The economy is based in Dublin,the Govt is based in Dublin,the PS is based in Dublin and the population of this country is based in Dublin.

The recovery will be based in Dublin.

Yet the regions get new roads that nobody every uses,hotels nobody every stays in and grants for meaningless projects that nobody will every avail of.

And as you say,we are borrowing to keep this happening when neither the population nor the potential for growth makes this feasible...a modern,educated and well-remunerated PS and private sector is losing out as money-pits lke Galway and Cork are sapping our financial resources.

Just a thought.

What does where it says on my profile that I am based have anything to do with anything? Talk about straw man arguments.......


Are you actualy saying that the figures on our national debt are incorrect and we don't owe anything at all?
There are countless sources out there that back up my national debt figures.

I have no issues with paying people, the PS are generally paid pretty well in the whole scheme of things and generally have decent terms and conditions.

kippy

Godge wrote: »

Neither your opinion nor my opinion will matter.

The legislation provides for the restoration of the pay cuts once the financial emergency is over. That will be judged as when the deficit hits 3% which is the target set by those who oversaw the recovery.

Once the deficit drops below 3%, the only question is when exactly and how much.

The legislation can be reviewed and changed at the drop of a hat - in the same way that it was initially brought in.

Do you believe it is a good thing to increase spending on one relatively small sector of society when:
1. There are still efficiencies to be made in the sector.
2. The national debt it at the crazy level that it is now.
3. Borrowing continues at a strong pace.
4. The fundamentals in the economy are not pointing to any kind of a recovery.

Godge

kippy wrote: »

The legislation can be reviewed and changed at the drop of a hat - in the same way that it was initially brought in.

Do you believe it is a good thing to increase spending on one relatively small sector of society when:
1. There are still efficiencies to be made in the sector.
2. The national debt it at the crazy level that it is now.
3. Borrowing continues at a strong pace.
4. The fundamentals in the economy are not pointing to any kind of a recovery.

It doesn't matter what I think, or what my opinion is on whether all or some or none of the public sector are overpaid or underpaid, what matters is what is in the legislation and what was committed to in the Dail at the time the legislation was passed and what the courts would say in the event that a union brought a challenge.

The main thing here is that in imposing pay cuts the Government breached contract law, a very serious step, justified by a temporary financial emergency. When the financial emergency is over, that excuse for breaking contract law does not stand up. Once money is available (and we can argue as to when that is, this year's financials are surprisingly very very strong) the money has to be given back.

And oh, it is not just public servants, pharmacists and farmers and anyone who had their fee cut will have a claim as well.

barneystinson

kippy wrote: »

The legislation can be reviewed and changed at the drop of a hat - in the same way that it was initially brought in.

Do you believe it is a good thing to increase spending on one relatively small sector of society when:
1. There are still efficiencies to be made in the sector.
2. The national debt it at the crazy level that it is now.
3. Borrowing continues at a strong pace.
4. The fundamentals in the economy are not pointing to any kind of a recovery.

If they renege on the agreed upon restoration, or legislate any further to facilitate doing so, there would be widespread industrial action.

They pushed the PS workers to the edge with Haddington Road, and if it's not honoured despite the budget deficit having been reined in as intended, then the country will brought to a standstill by the PS unions.

EDIT: What I'm saying is that certainty, and its associated cost, needs to be a factor in the decision. Cost vs benefit. You effectively dismantle the social partnership system, and risk making the whole public sector very difficult to administer and deal with for a generation, as there will be no goodwill or trust.

Tiger Mcilroy

Am i missing the part that the country is nowhere even close to being solvent again, the logic to increase spending at this stage of a "recovery" is absolutely bonkers.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

But the general election will be about the policy for the following five years, so of course, FG will be promising to reverse the cuts.

Yes but this will start (as we can already see) well before 2016, as I say and I am on the record as saying so..payrises can start again once we are no longer borrowing and after some cuts for tax payers..

kippy

Godge wrote: »

It doesn't matter what I think, or what my opinion is on whether all or some or none of the public sector are overpaid or underpaid, what matters is what is in the legislation and what was committed to in the Dail at the time the legislation was passed and what the courts would say in the event that a union brought a challenge.

The main thing here is that in imposing pay cuts the Government breached contract law, a very serious step, justified by a temporary financial emergency. When the financial emergency is over, that excuse for breaking contract law does not stand up. Once money is available (and we can argue as to when that is, this year's financials are surprisingly very very strong) the money has to be given back.

And oh, it is not just public servants, pharmacists and farmers and anyone who had their fee cut will have a claim as well.

The financial emergency is far from being over.

kippy

barneystinson wrote: »

If they renege on the agreed upon restoration, or legislate any further to facilitate doing so, there would be widespread industrial action.

They pushed the PS workers to the edge with Haddington Road, and if it's not honoured despite the budget deficit having been reined in as intended, then the country will brought to a standstill by the PS unions.

EDIT: What I'm saying is that certainty, and its associated cost, needs to be a factor in the decision. Cost vs benefit. You effectively dismantle the social partnership system, and risk making the whole public sector very difficult to administer and deal with for a generation, as there will be no goodwill or trust.

Look. The PS unions have been all but broken at this point.

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

The main thing here is that in imposing pay cuts the Government breached contract law, a very serious step, justified by a temporary financial emergency. When the financial emergency is over, that excuse for breaking contract law does not stand up.

Can you tell us what this statute/contract law that the government supposedly broke is

barneystinson

kippy wrote: »

Look. The PS unions have been all but broken at this point.

How so? Just because they accepted the financial reality when the govt weren't actually in control of our finances?

kippy

barneystinson wrote: »

How so? Just because they accepted the financial reality when the govt weren't actually in control of our finances?

The government aren't in control of our finances now either, the international bond markets are and indeed the IMF reviews go on for some time yet.
How do you think increasing expenditure on public sector wages will effect credit ratings, bond prices, and the IMF's reviews going forward, in a time of deficits huge debt and a mortgage crisis that hasnt even started yet in some ways.

The Unions had plenty choice but thankfully the members saw the reality. That reality hasnt changed.

Sheldons Brain

kippy wrote: »

The government aren't in control of our finances now either, the international bond markets are and indeed the IMF reviews go on for some time yet.
How do you think increasing expenditure on public sector wages will effect credit ratings, bond prices, and the IMF's reviews going forward, in a time of deficits huge debt and a mortgage crisis that hasnt even started yet in some ways.
.

No doubt the normalisation of things will help further increase confidence in the Bond markets.

Head The Wall

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No doubt the normalisation of things will help further increase confidence in the Bond markets.

You reckon Ireland is back to normal? Ha ha ha

kippy

Looks like general European consensus is tax cuts are the way forward. That being said, it may not apply here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/0822/638827-draghi/

Godge

Head The Wall wrote: »

Can you tell us what this statute/contract law that the government supposedly broke is

Here is the detailed explanation from three days ago.

Godge wrote: »

It is a bit more than that.

Contract law is very important and it is extremely difficult to resile from contracted agreements. However, that is what the Government did with the Financial Emergency Acts. At the time, there were fears that such cuts to contracted pay could be found to be unconstitutional because of the protection of contractual rights in the Constitution. This was never challenged fully in the Courts and the Government would have resisted a challenge anyway. The basis of any resistance would have been the public interest defence based on the financial challenge that faced the State and that these cuts were necessary to save the State from going bankrupt. It is likely, in my opinion, that the Government would have managed to defend any challenge. However, one of the main planks of their defence would have been the following legislative provision which was included in each of the Acts.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0005/sec0013.html#sec13

"Before 30 June in 2010 and every year after 2010, the Minister shall—

(a) carry out a review of the operation, effectiveness and impact of this Act, having regard to the overall economic conditions in the State and national competitiveness,

(b) consider whether or not any of the provisions of this Act continue to be necessary having regard to the purposes of this Act, the overall economic conditions in the State, national competitiveness and Exchequer commitments in respect of public service pensions,

(c) make such findings as he or she thinks appropriate consequent on such review and consideration, and

(d) cause a written report of his or her findings resulting from the review and consideration to be prepared and laid before each House of the Oireachtas."


The purpose of this Section was to demonstrate that the Government wasn't breaking contracts forever but was only doing so temporarily at a time when the country faced an unprecedented crisis and that the necessity for the cuts would be revisited in years to come.

What this does is create a legitimate expectation, maybe even a contractual right that once we are in a situation where the country's finances have eased, that the pay cuts and pension levy will be reversed. Yes, there are clauses to give the government some escape but if say, a public service union sought a judicial review in 2016 of tax cuts or extra payments to farmers on the basis of the provisions of this Act, the Minister would have to clearly justify why he wasn't giving the pay cut back. In the circumstances of a clearly improving financial situation, the union would have a very strong case.

This case would be supported by references to the Dail debates at the time in which such commitments were made clear.

To sum up, the cuts were never meant to be permanent (except possibly the pension levy), and the Acts and the Dail debates made that clear. In seeking the restoration, the unions are only acting on what was promised and agreed. And let us be clear, the unions are only seeking this on the basis that the deficit drops below 3%.

Godge wrote: »

We will hit 3% next year.

Already this year, the finances for the first seven months have us €800m ahead of target (about €1.3 bn for a full year).

Add in the water charges of €300/440m and we are most of the way to the €2 bn needed to get us to 3%.

It is likely therefore that the question of restoring public service pay cuts will become a live issue this time next year and be a huge political football in the run-up to the next election.

Ralphdejones

Funny how public servants were public enemy no. 1 in the media just 6 months ago, now there is not a ripple about them, and the government is talking about giving them payrises and there is not a whimper of complaint from the media. There is something very funny going on with the media in this country.

Godge

kippy wrote: »

Looks like general European consensus is tax cuts are the way forward. That being said, it may not apply here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/0822/638827-draghi/

Read what he says:

"Speaking at a conference of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, (USA) Mr Draghi said that despite the constraints of high debt levels, and the aftermath of the sovereign debt crisis, European governments have some room to use government tax and spending policy to restart their economies."


And first in line will be public sector workers, like it or not.

chopper6

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There is something very funny going on with the media in this country.

Yes...it's Shiite and controlled by the Govt.

Ralphdejones

chopper6 wrote: »

Yes...it's Shiite and controlled by the Govt.

Yes, it's shyte, but worse than that I would suspect its controlled by the people who really control the government, hint, that's not the ordinary taxpayer or voter

kippy

Godge wrote: »

Read what he says:

"Speaking at a conference of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, (USA) Mr Draghi said that despite the constraints of high debt levels, and the aftermath of the sovereign debt crisis, European governments have some room to use government tax and spending policy to restart their economies."


And first in line will be public sector workers, like it or not.

I read what it said. Spending policy is a huge area. As Ive stated elsewhere increased capital expenditure (roads, infrastructure etc)is the only thing I can see the EU allow us to do especially when our public sector wages compare far more favourably,even now, with those in other EU states.
Spending on public sector wages does not restart anything.

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

I read what it said. Spending policy is a huge area. As Ive stated elsewhere increased capital expenditure (roads, infrastructure etc)is the only thing I can see the EU allow us to do especially when our public sector wages compare far more favourably,even now, with those in other EU states.
Spending on public sector wages does not restart anything.

Public sector spend their wages in the economy...more money=more business and more trade.

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

Public sector spend their wages in the economy...more money=more business and more trade.

All workers spend their wages in the economy. Tax cuts benefit ALL workers and implemented correctly the economy in general.

carpejugulum

chopper6 wrote: »

Public sector spend their wages in the economy...more money=more business and more trade.

by that logic minimum wage should be 1 million or more

golfwallah

chopper6 wrote: »

Public sector spend their wages in the economy...more money=more business and more trade.

Where did I hear that argument before?

Ah, yes, I remember. It was Joan Burton describing Welfare as a driver of the economy!

Most Government spending happens in the Irish Economy. By your logic we could fix the economy by just having more and more Government spending.

Unfortunately, this ignores that all taxpayers have to finance Government spending. Government doesn't generate wealth and money they receive just doesn't appear out of nowhere.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Here is the detailed explanation from three days ago.

Not being a lawyer I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the subject, but contracts can be changed without agreement through parliamentary acts of legislation. If the government were to increase the minimum wage, an employers contractual rights would not be protected (nether in common law nor the constitution). My layman understanding would be that ss long as the legislation itself was not found to be unconstitutional, then there is not conflict with contract law.

Little CuChulainn

golfwallah wrote: »

Where did I hear that argument before?

Ah, yes, I remember. It was Joan Burton describing Welfare as a driver of the economy!

Most Government spending happens in the Irish Economy. By your logic we could fix the economy by just having more and more Government spending.

Unfortunately, this ignores that all taxpayers have to finance Government spending. Government doesn't generate wealth and money they receive just doesn't appear out of nowhere.

The difference being that you get a return on wages in the form of production or service provision in addition to the spending in the economy whereas with welfare you only get the latter.

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

Here is the detailed explanation from three days ago.

sarumite wrote: »

Not being a lawyer I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the subject, but contracts can be changed without agreement through parliamentary acts of legislation. If the government were to increase the minimum wage, an employers contractual rights would not be protected (nether in common law nor the constitution). My layman understanding would be that ss long as the legislation itself was not found to be unconstitutional, then there is not conflict with contract law.

Really Godge, I'm surprised that you actually believe this. What you have supplied is some legislation stating that contracts are contracts which no one is arguing with but to try and connect that to a statement which holds as much weight as an election promise is borderline ridiculous

As Sarumite has said above and let me quote the govt's own website here

Changes to your contract of employment can occur due to a change in the law, but otherwise, changes must be agreed between your employer and yourself. Neither party can unilaterally decide to change the contract.

The bit in bold is what has happened and the govt can change the law again to bring your wages up or down, that is their choice/prerogative. If you want to think that you can challenge it in court then go ahead.

You vehemently defend the PS at all costs on here while you claim to now work in the Private Sector. You may do this of course but it sounds to me like you are very concerned with the finishing salary of your grade as ultimately this is what your PS pension is going to be based on and hence you try to defend the PS to the last on here.

If you love them that much why did you leave

golfwallah

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The difference being that you get a return on wages in the form of production or service provision in addition to the spending in the economy whereas with welfare you only get the latter.

Sure, you get services in return - this is consumption on the current account, as distinct from creation of future wealth earning capacity on the capital account.

But all of this has to be affordable to all taxpayers and not financed excessively from borrowings.

We have to live within our means and not devote too high a proportion of government spending on consumption (i.e. p.s. pay), particularly when p.s. pay rates are way ahead of the private sector.

Head The Wall

Some more figures and links here for people to peruse, I've selected the pertinent points

PUBLIC sector workers have received more than €1.4bn in incremental or length-of-service pay rises since the recession began in 2007.

Although the Government continued to borrow more than €1bn a month to run the country, length-of-service pay increases continued across all departments, agencies and organisations in the public sector throughout the duration of the economic collapse.


For each of the years 2007 to 2011, the department said the total cost of increments across the entire public sector was €1.25bn, or €250m a year.

That figure fell to €150m in 2013 due to mass retirements from the system and some State employees hitting the top end of the salary scales.

This is not really what I would call progress, the govt and their spin doctors may be trying to convince people that everything is good but it's painfully obvious it isn't


Irish Economy 2014: Public pay and pensions bill down 6% since 2007

The data below are net values for each year after deducting staff pension contributions.


2001 €10.2bn
2006 €16.2bn
2007 €17.6bn
2008 €18.7bn
2012 €16.9bn
2014 €16.6bn
2015 €16.4bn

The pay and pensions bill rose by 59% in the period 2001-2006.

Increases in public sector over the period 2001-2006 due to

- general pay rounds total €2.479bn (or 24.3%);
- “special” pay increases (primarily Benchmarking) total €1.328bn (or 13%), - - other factors (such as extra numbers of 38,000 and rising pensions for retirees) total €2.193m (or 21.6%).


Full-time equivalent numbers in the public service fell from 279,000 in 2009 (no earlier data available on FTEs) to 264,000 in 2012.


The Irish Independent reported this week that data it was provided shows that a total of €1.4bn in incremental or length-of-service pay rises pay, has been paid in the public sector since 2007.

The PER's databank shows gross pay falling from €15.3bn in 2012 (total including pensions was €18.4bn) to €15.1bn in 2003 and €14.5bn in 2014.

The full-year savings of the 'Haddington Road' public pay agreement in 2013 has a target of €1bn - - €210m relates to pay of earners on €65,000+ €130m relates to increments and the rest is productivity and related measures but in the health area, budget limits are already being breached.

So €500m in savings would likely be a best outcome.

Sometimes you have to question the govt's maths, there was all this talk of reduced numbers and all they would save

It seems they have 15,000 less staff (all people on contracts obviously and probably the obligatory two a year that get fired) and gained another 34,000 pensioners.

Public Sector Pension cost has increased from €1.5 Billion in 2007 to €3.1 billion today. This is a number that is only going to go one way as well. This cost is what the current PS Pension Levy pays for and they want to get rid of it. Where will the funds come from then. Surely not the taxpayer????


Average Public Service Numbers* (Current and Pensoners)

2007 - 356,448
2012 - 384,800


Average Public Service numbers*

2007 - 269,668
2012 - 264,421

Average Pensioner numbers

2007 - 86,780
2012 - 120,379


Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, please correct me if I am

chopper6

Head The Wall wrote: »

Some more figures and links here for people to peruse, I've selected the pertinent points





This is not really what I would call progress, the govt and their spin doctors may be trying to convince people that everything is good but it's painfully obvious it isn't


Irish Economy 2014: Public pay and pensions bill down 6% since 2007




Sometimes you have to question the govt's maths, there was all this talk of reduced numbers and all they would save

It seems they have 15,000 less staff (all people on contracts obviously and probably the obligatory two a year that get fired) and gained another 34,000 pensioners.

Public Sector Pension cost has increased from €1.5 Billion in 2007 to €3.1 billion today. This is a number that is only going to go one way as well. This cost is what the current PS Pension Levy pays for and they want to get rid of it. Where will the funds come from then. Surely not the taxpayer????


Average Public Service Numbers* (Current and Pensoners)

2007 - 356,448
2012 - 384,800


Average Public Service numbers*

2007 - 269,668
2012 - 264,421

Average Pensioner numbers

2007 - 86,780
2012 - 120,379


Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, please correct me if I am

How can you have 'average' public sector numbers?

The number of employees is an absolute.

And since 2007 numbers are down by 30,000.


Where did you copy and paste that tripe from?

Head The Wall

chopper6 wrote: »

How can you have 'average' public sector numbers?

The number of employees is an absolute.

And since 2007 numbers are down by 30,000.


Where did you copy and paste that tripe from?

Typical PS response when they don't believe the figures in front of them

The source of the "tripe" is an actual govt document which you can download and look at your self

Analysis of Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill
2007 - 2012


I presume you will provide us with figures showing the drop in staff numbers of 30,000 since 2007

My figures come from a govt body so it will need to contradict that

I await your info

Sheldons Brain

Head The Wall wrote:

Some more figures and links here for people to peruse, I've selected the pertinent points

Quote:
PUBLIC sector workers have received more than €1.4bn in incremental or length-of-service pay rises since the recession began in 2007.

Although the Government continued to borrow more than €1bn a month to run the country, length-of-service pay increases continued across all departments, agencies and organisations in the public sector throughout the duration of the economic collapse.


For each of the years 2007 to 2011, the department said the total cost of increments across the entire public sector was €1.25bn, or €250m a year.

That figure fell to €150m in 2013 due to mass retirements from the system and some State employees hitting the top end of the salary scales.


This is not really what I would call progress, the govt and their spin doctors may be trying to convince people that everything is good but it's painfully obvious it isn't

Head The Wall, do you accept the question I posed in Post #195 that the payments of increments means that the PS paybill remains the same.

I presume you will provide us with figures showing the drop in staff numbers of 30,000 since 2007

You are moving the goalposts by using 2007, not the peak year of PS employment. But then this is par for the course.
The document you mention above states that PS employment will have fallen by almost 35,000 in 2014.