Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Godge

noodler wrote: »

If it is as simple as I suggested and you only care about cuts which could affect your own pension then you can say so.

I find your repeated references to my own situation offensive and I do not intend to reply to the substantive issue as a result.

This has never been about my future pension, I have been one of the few on here to openly declare the conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who are not as open about what they do or what they are or have been entitled to. I do believe that there should be a cap on public service pensions. Depending on where that is placed, I could suffer. On other threads I have also argued for the abolition of child benefit (at a time when I had children and was in receipt of it) against my own interests. I support the HHC, the LPT and water charges, even though I have to pay them. My own interests come second to my beliefs.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

I find your repeated references to my own situation offensive and I do not intend to reply to the substantive issue as a result.

This has never been about my future pension, I have been one of the few on here to openly declare the conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who are not as open about what they do or what they are or have been entitled to. I do believe that there should be a cap on public service pensions. Depending on where that is placed, I could suffer. On other threads I have also argued for the abolition of child benefit (at a time when I had children and was in receipt of it) against my own interests. I support the HHC, the LPT and water charges, even though I have to pay them. My own interests come second to my beliefs.

I will ignore your situation then and I apologise for bringing it up twice.



Still, I can't phathom how you can justify a standpoint of justification for a two-tier (or even three tier now with the combined scales) system when you were so admantly against cuts to PS pay.

tayto lover

Godge wrote: »

I find your repeated references to my own situation offensive and I do not intend to reply to the substantive issue as a result.

This has never been about my future pension, I have been one of the few on here to openly declare the conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who are not as open about what they do or what they are or have been entitled to. I do believe that there should be a cap on public service pensions. Depending on where that is placed, I could suffer. On other threads I have also argued for the abolition of child benefit (at a time when I had children and was in receipt of it) against my own interests. I support the HHC, the LPT and water charges, even though I have to pay them. My own interests come second to my beliefs.

Ah you're a martyr Godge, a martyr for the cause.

mariaalice

noodler wrote: »

You haven't been following the thread if you are asking me that question.



Fiscally Insolvent.

Without financial independence.

Quibble over the definition if you like. I am sure the troika would have loved to hear the Godge-conomics at the time - "Technically, we aren't bankrupt so we don't have to cut anything!".


Interesting that Greece also required a bailout and they cut 75,000 jobs at least.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/mar/03/greece-public-sector-job-cuts

At least 15,000 were compulsory.

The article says 150,000 was the total target but I haven't checked progress since then.



Back to the original point Godge.

How to you reconcile your opposition to PS pay cuts at the time of the HRA despite excess Labour supply in Ireland with your support of a two-tier wage structure in the Public Sector for new entrants now because "it happens in the private sector"? If it is as simple as I suggested and you only care about cuts which could affect your own pension then you can say so.

I don't think the civil and public services is perfect by the way, we are not in the same situation as Greece, you want mass compulsory redundancies yet don't sight exactly how.

We could compulsory make redundant half the primary school teachers ( because we cant afford it ) and make each class 6o to 1 pupil teacher ration.

noodler

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't think the civil and public services is perfect by the way, we are not in the same situation as Greece, you want mass compulsory redundancies yet don't sight exactly how.

We could compulsory make redundant half the primary school teachers ( because we cant afford it ) and make each class 6o to 1 pupil teacher ration.

Again, you continously say you have followed the thread but you have come to this conclusion?

I don't what what else to say apart from repeat that you should read the relevant parts of the thread again. Context is everything.

mariaalice

noodler wrote: »

Again, you continously say you have followed the thread but you have come to this conclusion?

I don't what what else to say apart from repeat that you should read the relevant parts of the thread again. Context is everything.

I have gone through all your posts on this thread and I don't see where you state who exactly and which exact posts in the public and civil services should be subject to compulsories mass redundancies., somebody is going to to lose out if there was mass redundancies in the public services and it wont be the redundant public services who would have their redundancy payments and pensions or social welfare.

Would these mass redundancies be under existing legislation on redundancy and would the redundant public and civil servants still get any social welfare or pensions they would be entitled too.

Sheldons Brain

noodler wrote: »

I love that Godge thanked your post.


Someone who is perfectly willing to ignore the application of the supply and demand argument in Ireland's labour force to the Public Sector when it suits him i.e. the fact he is so obviously against PS pay cuts despite swells of unemployment (i.e. at HRA time). Yet, its okay to do so for new entrants apprently. I am delighted to at least see Godge implictily admit that he doesn't have an idealogical position at all - he just wants his own pension protected.


Regarding your post itself. Why should new entrants suffer vis-a-vis existing PS members? Many of which are less skilled than their modern cohort? Isn't that supposed to be the type of thing unions fight against?

As I said I do not think this difference should remain in the long term, but it is the difference in welching on terms with existing employees and proposing news ones to new people.

Godge

mariaalice wrote: »

I have gone through all your posts on this thread and I don't see where you state who exactly and which exact posts in the public and civil services should be subject to compulsories mass redundancies., somebody is going to to lose out if there was mass redundancies in the public services and it wont be the redundant public services who would have their redundancy payments and pensions or social welfare.

Would these mass redundancies be under existing legislation on redundancy and would the redundant public and civil servants still get any social welfare or pensions they would be entitled too.

They won't need social welfare or pensions as they will be hung, drawn and quartered to ensure they are really gone. Well pretty much the non-violent equivalent to that.

ezra_pound

Godge wrote: »

They won't need social welfare or pensions as they will be hung, drawn and quartered to ensure they are really gone. Well pretty much the non-violent equivalent to that.

Right. you're obviously not remotely serious. So you're just trolling.

Scofflaw

ezra_pound wrote: »

Right. you're obviously not remotely serious. So you're just trolling.

OK, two points:

1. people are not required to be serious all the time - looking at the rest of Godge's posts on this thread, it's clear he is serious, and has added substantively to the debate here

2. accusations of trolling should not be made on thread, but reported. I appreciate there was a report of Godge's post, but it comes after your post, not before, and your post was left on the thread after the report. Hence the yellow card.

moderately,
Scofflaw

noodler

Godge wrote: »

They won't need social welfare or pensions as they will be hung, drawn and quartered to ensure they are really gone. Well pretty much the non-violent equivalent to that.

To address this seriously for a moment and to be clear to one poster in particular that I am not advocating mass PS redundancies..


The added cost to the SW Bill is not and should be the State's first priority with regards reducing numbers.

This line of argument, taken to the extreme, would imply that the State could keep employing people until there was no unemployment.

mariaalice

noodler wrote: »

To address this seriously for a moment and to be clear to one poster in particular that I am not advocating mass PS redundancies..


The added cost to the SW Bill is not and should be the State's first priority with regards reducing numbers.

This line of argument, taken to the extreme, would imply that the State could keep employing people until there was no unemployment.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted you, what's the difference between cutting public services numbers and making them redundant.

Lots of the public services needs reform for example current public services pension provision is probably unsustainable.

noodler

mariaalice wrote: »

I am sorry if I misinterpreted you, what's the difference between cutting public services numbers and making them redundant.

Lots of the public services needs reform for example current public services pension provision is probably unsustainable.

I haven't advocated cutting public service numbers.