Benchmakring III without the comparison

ardmacha

fliball123 wrote: »

So what if they do why should a working populous pay towards someone elses pension when they cannot afford their own. If you want to go by other countries look at how much the likes of Germany pay their ps in comparison to the private sector.

My main point is its unfair to ask people to pay for other peoples pensions when they cannot afford their own.

So, tell us, how are the civil service pensions in Germany? How much do they contribute?

glacial_pace71

fliball123 wrote: »

I have given you 2 links that disproves that this is the norm as you put it. Its the norm in the public sector alright but why should that not be challenged? LIke I say when over half the working population cannot afford to put money into their own pension it is an absolute scandal that they are forced to pay for the public servants to have one. If they wont one..let them pay it themselves and then give them their levy back.

Its not plausable to expect people to pay for this when they cant afford their own. its that simple. The public sector DB scheme is a ticking time bomb which over the next couple of decades will explode


But by all means you think this is fricken normal. It will be more damaging to be on the hook for this than any bank ever was

Fliball, the poor Richard Curran chap thought that a public sector pension is 2/3 the value of final salary. (He's mixing up the scheme with that of certain financial institutions). The other article compares apples and oranges, being oblivious to the changes in 1995 (full PRSI, limited pension) and 2004 (restricted early retirement).

The scheme is generally 1/80 for every year of whole-time equivalent of service, plus 3/80 lump sum. For most scheme participants, the lump sum element is to cover the period between 65 and eligibility for the state pension at 68. For those who have moved between the public and private sector, and for those who have had reduced WTE years, e.g. job-sharers, it'd be unlikely that even a fraction of these would have the requisite years for their pension contributions to produce an amount over the value of the state pension.

Most private sector schemes offer a mix of employer and employee contributions. For example, AIB used to offer in the region of 15% of salary towards an employee's scheme, but found that this was atypical for certain specialists, e.g. IT personnel, who are better served by specific contractual arrangements. Still though, if you believe the Indo (which I take it you do, given that you refer to their articles on various matters), the AIB staff representatives continued to argue for ICT personnel to be included in the 15% scheme:
/business/irish/aib-workers-union-unite-threatens-industrial-action-over-pensions-dispute-30911159.html
However, another Indo source states that AIB offers on average an 18% employer contribution and that there are associated Labour Court rulings on the matter:
/business/irish/media-bites-aib-pension-contributions-above-average-30356538.html

The 140,000 existing public sector pensioners cost in the region of €19k per annum. Given that the state pension is €11k-12k per annum, i.e. if part of their pensions were eliminated in favour of the standard social welfare pension (contributory or non-contributory), then the actual pension received for their superannuation contributions is in the order of €7-8k per annum. Those who joined after 1995 already pay in the region of 6.5% in pension contributions. Even if the employer's share was 7.5%, i.e. half the 15% on offer in other major institutions, then I couldn't see an average return of €8k per annum for 20 years of retirement as matching 40 years of contributions during a career. (This is not even to mention the 7.5% levy which has applied for the past 7 years of their careers).

There are many trees up which to bark about the public service but the grumble about certain pensions is only encouraging some politician's lackey to take a petrol or matches to a hospice or retirement home. The constant "they must die now" vibe inevitably produces its own imperative: you'll recall "Big Ian" Paisley's rants and raves, and him being the first to wag the finger if some loyalist followed the logic of what was being said to a physical action conclusion. There are 140,000 who will eventually pass away. Of the 280,000 public servants there are some who have the same scheme as those you wish to see expire, but for the majority of the 280,000 the various revised arrangements apply. In fact the danger for the Government would be the loss of hundreds of millions in revenue per annum if it were to release employees to their own pension schemes.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Fair enough then loosen the noose by giving private sector employees their money back by taking the tax they pay towards public sector pensions and allow them put it into their own

Fliball, as usual you are talking complete rubbish when you refer to the public sector.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-03-25a.76

As you can see, between 2009 and 2012, the cost of public service pensions dropped from €116 bn to €98 bn so public sector employees have already given back €18 bn to the private sector taxpayer over three years. How greedy are you?

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

The US you get 6 months on the scratch/dole then your on your own would you be for that as well.

Yes, I would be for the extension of JSB and the abolition of JSA, replacing it with optional paid work.

Geuze

glacial_pace71 wrote: »

Those who joined after 1995 already pay in the region of 6.5% in pension contributions.

Note that PS have ALWAYS paid 6.5% pension conts.

I repeat, to be clear, they have always paid 6.5% pension conts.

After April 95, new recruits began to pay full-rate PRSI.

fliball123

Private Joker wrote: »

fliball, you have a serious issue with the public service in this country, we get it already. there is no need to start a new thread about it every few months .

how many times does the same argument need to be made? frankly i find your arguments are just rants better suited to after hours.

I have a serious issue when I see the state of our A&Es , our class rooms , our infrastructure and when I look at the amount of tax that I pay. The 2 dont add up what I pay I am certainly not getting any kind of value in return and now the people responsible for the above think that they are deserving of more from my back pocket. Like the thread name states this is benchmarking III without any measure just a pure blank cheque every little ps piggy gets a sup from the trough its actually embarrassing for any government to be entering talks about ps pay rises while we are borrowing 6 billion this year. Maybe a few days for Enda or Howlin in Beaumont hospital without a bed and sitting there in pain with no help would help focus their narrow minds on where any money should be going

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

So, tell us, how are the civil service pensions in Germany? How much do they contribute?

What is the pay differential between public and private sectors in Germany??

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Fliball, as usual you are talking complete rubbish when you refer to the public sector.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-03-25a.76

As you can see, between 2009 and 2012, the cost of public service pensions dropped from €116 bn to €98 bn so public sector employees have already given back €18 bn to the private sector taxpayer over three years. How greedy are you?

How much did it go up in the decade before that..and have you figures their for 2013 - 2015?

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Note that PS have ALWAYS paid 6.5% pension conts.

I repeat, to be clear, they have always paid 6.5% pension conts.

After April 95, new recruits began to pay full-rate PRSI.

Can you comfirm that what the public service pays in contributions, levies etc cover the full cost of their pension? The answer is NO there is a shortfall which has to be covered by people who quite simply cannot afford their own. I never said they didnt contribute..So I will bold and undeline and caps it for you

THE PS DO NOT PAY ENOUGH TO COVER THE FULL COST OF THEIR PENSIONS

fliball123

glacial_pace71 wrote: »

Fliball, the poor Richard Curran chap thought that a public sector pension is 2/3 the value of final salary. (He's mixing up the scheme with that of certain financial institutions). The other article compares apples and oranges, being oblivious to the changes in 1995 (full PRSI, limited pension) and 2004 (restricted early retirement).

The scheme is generally 1/80 for every year of whole-time equivalent of service, plus 3/80 lump sum. For most scheme participants, the lump sum element is to cover the period between 65 and eligibility for the state pension at 68. For those who have moved between the public and private sector, and for those who have had reduced WTE years, e.g. job-sharers, it'd be unlikely that even a fraction of these would have the requisite years for their pension contributions to produce an amount over the value of the state pension.

Most private sector schemes offer a mix of employer and employee contributions. For example, AIB used to offer in the region of 15% of salary towards an employee's scheme, but found that this was atypical for certain specialists, e.g. IT personnel, who are better served by specific contractual arrangements. Still though, if you believe the Indo (which I take it you do, given that you refer to their articles on various matters), the AIB staff representatives continued to argue for ICT personnel to be included in the 15% scheme:
/business/irish/aib-workers-union-unite-threatens-industrial-action-over-pensions-dispute-30911159.html
However, another Indo source states that AIB offers on average an 18% employer contribution and that there are associated Labour Court rulings on the matter:
/business/irish/media-bites-aib-pension-contributions-above-average-30356538.html

The 140,000 existing public sector pensioners cost in the region of €19k per annum. Given that the state pension is €11k-12k per annum, i.e. if part of their pensions were eliminated in favour of the standard social welfare pension (contributory or non-contributory), then the actual pension received for their superannuation contributions is in the order of €7-8k per annum. Those who joined after 1995 already pay in the region of 6.5% in pension contributions. Even if the employer's share was 7.5%, i.e. half the 15% on offer in other major institutions, then I couldn't see an average return of €8k per annum for 20 years of retirement as matching 40 years of contributions during a career. (This is not even to mention the 7.5% levy which has applied for the past 7 years of their careers).

There are many trees up which to bark about the public service but the grumble about certain pensions is only encouraging some politician's lackey to take a petrol or matches to a hospice or retirement home. The constant "they must die now" vibe inevitably produces its own imperative: you'll recall "Big Ian" Paisley's rants and raves, and him being the first to wag the finger if some loyalist followed the logic of what was being said to a physical action conclusion. There are 140,000 who will eventually pass away. Of the 280,000 public servants there are some who have the same scheme as those you wish to see expire, but for the majority of the 280,000 the various revised arrangements apply. In fact the danger for the Government would be the loss of hundreds of millions in revenue per annum if it were to release employees to their own pension schemes.

I have pointed out that over 50% of private sector have no scheme and that 1 in 5 in the private sector over the bust stopped paying their pension, therefore they have no money and no pension bar the OAP which they pay in full via PRSI. Now I do accept there are private sector pensions out there and if you or anyone else bothered to read what I put up here. I have said defined contribution should be consigned to the past in both public and private sectors as when the pension goes belly up the the tax payer is asked to be the doorstop which is unfair.

Geuze

The PS cont does not cover the full cost of the pension, correct, and they shouldn't, as their employer should pay some of the cost.

When we as a nation hire a nurse, we must accept that we must pay their wage and contribute towards their pension.

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

and no pension bar the OAP which they pay in full via PRSI.

Note that PRSI conts don't cover the full cost of social insurance.

The State has used taxes to top up the SI fund.

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

I have said defined contribution should be consigned to the past in both public and private sectors as when the pension goes belly up the the tax payer is asked to be the doorstop which is unfair.

I think you mean DB here.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

How much did it go up in the decade before that..and have you figures their for 2013 - 2015?

The cost will have dropped further because of a number of factors:

(1) Further pay cuts to the higher earners
(2) Further reduction in the number of public servants
(3) No pay increases for public servants
(4) New pension scheme for new entrants from 2013

The €98 bn was based on an assumption of rising PS numbers and pay increases. They didn't happen so the cost will be less. I reckon the current cost is around €88 - 90 bn and I think an official from Howlin's Department confirmed this at a Dail committee.

More money being given by the public sector to the private sector.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I have pointed out that over 50% of private sector have no scheme and that 1 in 5 in the private sector over the bust stopped paying their pension, therefore they have no money and no pension bar the OAP which they pay in full via PRSI. Now I do accept there are private sector pensions out there and if you or anyone else bothered to read what I put up here. I have said defined contribution should be consigned to the past in both public and private sectors as when the pension goes belly up the the tax payer is asked to be the doorstop which is unfair.

This is another false statement. The SI fund has been in deficit for quite some time and has been propped up by tax contributions. A previous problem with the fund was solved by making public servants pay PRSI and contribute to private sector pensions (more money from the public sector for the private sector).

In addition, the SI fund only covers the contributory OAP. The non-contributory OAP comes out of general taxation, paid by all, including public servants.

It seems fliball, that you want public servants to pay for their own pensions and pay for the pensions of the private sector as well.

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

The PS cont does not cover the full cost of the pension, correct, and they shouldn't, as their employer should pay some of the cost.

When we as a nation hire a nurse, we must accept that we must pay their wage and contribute towards their pension.

But the problem is the employer uses tax payers money to cover it. Imagine a company doing this where they are broke and borrowing and then they decide to charge customers more money to shovel into their employees pensions and at a time when over 50% of their customers cant afford their own. It doesnt take a genius to know this company would of hit the wall, the pension scheme would of been wound up. This is where the anomaly is.

Why should we accept the premise that we should contribute to their pension? When we as a nation hire a nurse we must pay them what we can afford and what they deserve and if they want a pension they should provide for their own pension. I think nurses in the main in Ireland are overworked and underpaid by the way and they along with other front line workers should get a pay rise but then again there are some on the front line and throughtout the ps not deserving of a payrise. All politicans for example do not deserve any payrise..But I stand by my premise that the current benchmarking III without any measurement is pure madness and when collective bargaining is being used unfortunately all good workers get tarred with the same feather

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

I think you mean DB here.

sorry yeah DB is what I meant

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Note that PRSI conts don't cover the full cost of social insurance.

The State has used taxes to top up the SI fund.

It depends on what the person is paying and what they garner throughout their life. As in if someone works all their life, has private health insurance, never has a kid and dies the day they retire. I would say they have paid PRSI without getting anything in return

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

But the problem is the employer uses tax payers money to cover it. Imagine a company doing this where they are broke and borrowing and then they decide to charge customers more money to shovel into their employees pensions and at a time when over 50% of their customers cant afford their own. It doesnt take a genius to know this company would of hit the wall, the pension scheme would of been wound up. This is where the anomaly is.

Why should we accept the premise that we should contribute to their pension? When we as a nation hire a nurse we must pay them what we can afford and what they deserve and if they want a pension they should provide for their own pension. I think nurses in the main in Ireland are overworked and underpaid by the way and they along with other front line workers should get a pay rise but then again there are some on the front line and throughtout the ps not deserving of a payrise. All politicans for example do not deserve any payrise..But I stand by my premise that the current benchmarking III without any measurement is pure madness and when collective bargaining is being used unfortunately all good workers get tarred with the same feather

You know fliball, even when you are being nice to the public sector, you are getting your facts completely wrong.


http://www.thejournal.ie/the-lancet-patient-safety-nurses-1332414-Feb2014/

Leaving aside the sensationalist heading, this bit is interesting:

"In Ireland, the average patient-to-nurse ratio is 6·9, found the study. The ratios for other European countries were 12·7 in Spain and 10·8 in Belgium and 5·2 in Norway. "

A lot more overworked nurses in Belgium.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264183896-en/03/03/g3-03-01.html?itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-30-en&_csp_=e92c9913836e5fffbbecfc400984a40b


This OECD study shows Ireland with the third-highest number of nurses per 1000 population in the EU.

In defending the public service, you actually picked on one of the few areas where we have more than sufficient staff. If you had said police officers, third-level lecturers, teachers or hospital consultants, you would have been right. Your point only highlights your lack of knowledge.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

The cost will have dropped further because of a number of factors:

(1) Further pay cuts to the higher earners
(2) Further reduction in the number of public servants
(3) No pay increases for public servants
(4) New pension scheme for new entrants from 2013

The €98 bn was based on an assumption of rising PS numbers and pay increases. They didn't happen so the cost will be less. I reckon the current cost is around €88 - 90 bn and I think an official from Howlin's Department confirmed this at a Dail committee.

More money being given by the public sector to the private sector.

on point 2 how many left for the dole as apposed to getting their pension?
on point 3 there was increments in these years so there was pay increases.
on point 4 there has been a moratorium on new new entrants to the total saved there is 0

You dont know how much it is it will be interesting to see what the overall pay and pensions bill has come down by since 2008 and this needs to be published before any payrises come into play

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

It depends on what the person is paying and what they garner throughout their life. As in if someone works all their life, has private health insurance, never has a kid and dies the day they retire. I would say they have paid PRSI without getting anything in return

Someone in the public service who remains single works from 17 to 65, has paid 6.5% of his salary in superannuation and dies the day before his 65th birthday has got nothing for his 48 years of contributions.

That is one of the reasons you are so wrong with your calculations of the cost of public service pensions.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

This is another false statement. The SI fund has been in deficit for quite some time and has been propped up by tax contributions. A previous problem with the fund was solved by making public servants pay PRSI and contribute to private sector pensions (more money from the public sector for the private sector).

In addition, the SI fund only covers the contributory OAP. The non-contributory OAP comes out of general taxation, paid by all, including public servants.

It seems fliball, that you want public servants to pay for their own pensions and pay for the pensions of the private sector as well.

The private sector pay for their own OAP via taxes and how can you say public servants are paying for private sector pensions when they do not even contribute enough to cover their own..So that is a falsehood and I would like you to retract it please.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

on point 2 how many left for the dole as apposed to getting their pension?

Huh? They stayed working and got pay cuts in 2013. Also working hours went up so all part-time staff saw their pay cut.

fliball123 wrote: »

on point 3 there was increments in these years so there was pay increases.

Not for everybody. No increments for the higher earners and lengthened increments for everyone else.

fliball123 wrote: »

on point 4 there has been a moratorium on new new entrants to the total saved there is 0

Not true again. Nurses and teachers were replaced when numbers dropped below certain levels.

fliball123 wrote: »

You dont know how much it is it will be interesting to see what the overall pay and pensions bill has come down by since 2008 and this needs to be published before any payrises come into play

Something like €3 bn in total.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

The private sector pay for their own OAP via taxes and how can you say public servants are paying for private sector pensions when they do not even contribute enough to cover their own..So that is a falsehood and I would like you to retract it please.

They pay PRSI towards your pension.

Sheldons Brain

fliball123 wrote: »

The private sector pay for their own OAP via taxes and how can you say public servants are paying for private sector pensions when they do not even contribute enough to cover their own..So that is a falsehood and I would like you to retract it please.

Taxes are paid by everyone, not just the private sector.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

You know fliball, even when you are being nice to the public sector, you are getting your facts completely wrong.


http://www.thejournal.ie/the-lancet-patient-safety-nurses-1332414-Feb2014/

Leaving aside the sensationalist heading, this bit is interesting:

"In Ireland, the average patient-to-nurse ratio is 6·9, found the study. The ratios for other European countries were 12·7 in Spain and 10·8 in Belgium and 5·2 in Norway. "

A lot more overworked nurses in Belgium.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264183896-en/03/03/g3-03-01.html?itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-30-en&_csp_=e92c9913836e5fffbbecfc400984a40b


This OECD study shows Ireland with the third-highest number of nurses per 1000 population in the EU.

In defending the public service, you actually picked on one of the few areas where we have more than sufficient staff. If you had said police officers, third-level lecturers, teachers or hospital consultants, you would have been right. Your point only highlights your lack of knowledge.

What fact did I get wrong and I am only going by what I have seen for myself up in Beaumont and in temple street. The nurses are making very simple mistakes and in the main look very tired and if you look at the barrage of publicity around differing mistakes being made thoughout the countries hospitals it doesn't take an brainiac to see that services are dangerously underfunded.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

They pay PRSI towards your pension.

No they dont their prsi does not even cover their own pension

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Ok lets look at the 7 years so

The PS in that 7 years have also had 7 bouts of increments (costing between 100m and 250m a year) and in the decade preceding the bust the amount we pay for ps pay and pensions more than doubled through stupid stupid ideas such as benchmarking.
They also still have a fricken pension be grateful for that over 50% of the private sector don't have that luxury yet they have the luxury of covering the cost of the public sectors pensions. There has been an analysis done 1 in 5 in the private sector stopped paying into a pension as they could not afford it.
In the 7 years the dole queue rose too 400k at its highest from 100k its now come down a fair bit from that but its still too high.. How many of those who joined were from the public sector? as there was not one forced redundancy through out the crash.
They have and take a hell of a lot more sick leave then their private sector counter parts same goes with annual leave. ..
Now that there may be some wiggle room you want payrises..why not spend that money on employing new recruits to share the burden you have pointed out.
Why not spend it on Health where there is a disgraceful and dangerous amount of mistakes being made.
Why not give tax cuts to all employees instead of just easing the burden on the public sector?

We all made sacrifices but the ps were largely removed from the firing line during the bust and should not be first in line for a hand out

Also the private sector in general work till the job is done not this 37.5 hours a week. Some weeks I put in 50/60/70 hours to get something over the line.

so while I accept you took cuts you were also shielded from the majority of the harshness that the last 7 years brought

Sweeping generalisation about the public and private sector from both sides of the argument here.
It's plane to see there are people with very wrong and entrenched views from both sides of the fence who could well do with spending some time in the sectors they have issues with.

I am not sure what this thread is going to do as pretty much all of this has been "discussed" ad-nasum over the past decade, and it's very unlikely that anyone is changing their opinions based on it.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

No they dont their prsi does not even cover their own pension

You should really be an expert in Public sector pensions at this stage as they have been explained to you countless times.

For the record, can you outline the specifics of the public sector pension as you see it?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Someone in the public service who remains single works from 17 to 65, has paid 6.5% of his salary in superannuation and dies the day before his 65th birthday has got nothing for his 48 years of contributions.

That is one of the reasons you are so wrong with your calculations of the cost of public service pensions.

Your twisting and spinning remember Public servants also get the same social insurance benefits as those in the private sector.

So are you saying that the public service pays the full amount to cover their pensions..this is a simple question please answer yes or no and be done with it?

I have shown you that we all pay PRSI both sectors and both reap the same benefit. We all pay tax yet one sector gets a guaranteed pension the other does not. That is where the line is drawn.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Huh? They stayed working and got pay cuts in 2013. Also working hours went up so all part-time staff saw their pay cut.




Not for everybody. No increments for the higher earners and lengthened increments for everyone else.



Not true again. Nurses and teachers were replaced when numbers dropped below certain levels.





Something like €3 bn in total.

Point 2 you said further reduction in numbers not pay cuts or hours increase
point 3 it still cost the tax payer somewhere in the region of 100m and 250m a year for increments regardless of who got them
point 4 - I wasn't aware of that I thought that contract teachers were brought in

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Huh? They stayed working and got pay cuts in 2013. Also working hours went up so all part-time staff saw their pay cut.




Not for everybody. No increments for the higher earners and lengthened increments for everyone else.



Not true again. Nurses and teachers were replaced when numbers dropped below certain levels.





Something like €3 bn in total.

have you anything to back up that 3billion in savings?

fliball123

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Taxes are paid by everyone, not just the private sector.

And?

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Sweeping generalisation about the public and private sector from both sides of the argument here.
It's plane to see there are people with very wrong and entrenched views from both sides of the fence who could well do with spending some time in the sectors they have issues with.

I am not sure what this thread is going to do as pretty much all of this has been "discussed" ad-nasum over the past decade, and it's very unlikely that anyone is changing their opinions based on it.

Kippy I accept the premise that some in the public sector are deserving of payrises (above increments) I just do not agree with this blanket benchmarking III approach that rewards good and bad workers alike and at at a time when we are still borrowing 6 billion and where there are areas like Health that I have pointed out that are now at a dangerous level of underfunding.

There are people who are black and white with regard to ps but I am not one of them and I understand hard working ps employees feeling bitter towards their cuts but they also have to understand that the private sector got hit harder

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

You should really be an expert in Public sector pensions at this stage as they have been explained to you countless times.

For the record, can you outline the specifics of the public sector pension as you see it?

I see it like this the amount that the public sector pay for their pension does not cover the full cost of their pension as I see it they are asking people to pay the shortfall via higher taxation at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Private Joker

fliball123 wrote: »

I have a serious issue when I see the state of our A&Es , our class rooms , our infrastructure and when I look at the amount of tax that I pay. The 2 dont add up what I pay I am certainly not getting any kind of value in return and now the people responsible for the above think that they are deserving of more from my back pocket. Like the thread name states this is benchmarking III without any measure just a pure blank cheque every little ps piggy gets a sup from the trough its actually embarrassing for any government to be entering talks about ps pay rises while we are borrowing 6 billion this year. Maybe a few days for Enda or Howlin in Beaumont hospital without a bed and sitting there in pain with no help would help focus their narrow minds on where any money should be going

I actually find your tone offensive. You're vilifying public servants who have endured all the cutbacks and reductions in pay and conditions which have caused the conditions in our a&e's, it's not the public servants who work there that made the mess.
I am a public servant and i earn less now than i did 10 years ago, i struggle with my bills , if i got another pay cut in the form of extra pension contributions then i would have to consider leaving for the private sector, but why should I , do you not think a fair wage should be paid for an honest days work?

i never joined the public service for the pension , i doubt any person would have the foresight to think over 40 years into the future when starting a career. I take great pride in my work , there is something very gratifying about seeing a project from inception to completion with the sole purpose of enhancing the lives and safeguarding the livelihoods of the general public but its not entirely altruistic, i still need a wage that i can live on.

I'm sorry that my post doesn't include figures and articles from the irish independent, this is an entirely emotive response . we're not all public service piggies that want to line our pockets with your taxes.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

have you anything to back up that 3billion in savings?

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1027770.shtml


my apologies, the saving was "only" €2.3 bn.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Can they not afford one or simply choose not to take one out?
Does this 50% of people include people earning relatively low wages in retail etc as one would not expect them to take out a pension until they move to a professional position or similar.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

I see it like this the amount that the public sector pay for their pension does not cover the full cost of their pension as I see it they are asking people to pay the shortfall via higher taxation at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Thats not very specific though is it?

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I see it like this the amount that the public sector pay for their pension does not cover the full cost of their pension as I see it they are asking people to pay the shortfall via higher taxation at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Specifically, how much of their pension do they pay for and how much of a shortfall is there?

How does it compare to the shortfall in the SI fund?

Or are you spouting soundbites?

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

What fact did I get wrong and I am only going by what I have seen for myself up in Beaumont and in temple street. The nurses are making very simple mistakes and in the main look very tired and if you look at the barrage of publicity around differing mistakes being made thoughout the countries hospitals it doesn't take an brainiac to see that services are dangerously underfunded.

You said that nurses were overworked and underpaid in a sweeping generalisation. That was wrong.

I produced hard statistical evidence that showed quite clearly that they shouldn't be overworked as there are more of them per patient and more of them per 1,000 population than in other countries. If there is a problem with the health services, it is not because we have too few nurses.

International comparisons show we have too few gardai, too few hospital consultants, too few ordinary civil servants and too few university lecturers. But we have too many nurses.

glacial_pace71

Just on the matter of hospital consultants, nurses and so forth I suppose there's a separate issue of structural reform. In many other countries nurses can sign off on the dispensing of certain medication and a host of related routine tasks. In Ireland the system is consultant-centred, which makes for a very expensive system when it comes to the number of consultant public service hours used on mundane tasks.
But it'd be wrong to blame consultants for allegedly being on the golf course too long, or at too many pharmaceutical company junkets, when in reality it's up to the health system to drive change in terms of how the public service contract hours are delivered.
Some of these problems fall outside the health system though: remember the cost of litigation and the presumption in Ireland that if a medical procedure is not successful then it'd somehow always be legally actionable.
Shatter made a few snarls at the legal profession, then the Govt curled up in foetal position, sucking their thumbs. Like any sensible schoolyard bullies they went looking for someone else to pick upon, and so nurses lost shift allowances and work extra hours per week for free, just so the Govt can hand it over to lawyers, or to overpay a hospital consultant tick a box somewhere. (Even then do remember that some of the cutbacks have produced a higher financial outlay, e.g. the Donegal fiasco where you need tens of thousands to be spent on locum and contractual cover).
The problem is that the Govt have toxified the whole 'Structural Reform' agenda, as they deliberately vandalised any attempt at having centres of excellence in the health service and so forth. Haddington Rd was supposed to be a simple claim ownership by the Govt of various reforms that were being sought anyway, together with the Govt getting to inflict some additional cutbacks. The damage of politicising the cuts so much and then abandoning the reforms in a half-baked fashion (e.g. see the overspending on health and education in politically marginal constituencies) has left the process so discredited the best course of action for the Govt is to repeal the financial emergency (FEMPI) legislation before its stuck down and to allow for properly-negotiated ongoing reform programmes.
Btw the population of Ireland has increased by 400,000 since 2006 but the number of public servants has fallen by 16,000 in that same period, i.e. from 305k to 289k:
databank.per.gov.ie/Public_Service_Numbers.aspx?rep=SectorHistory
The issue of productivity and how it is not being rewarded might also be seen by reference to the fact that the public numbers were over 320,000 in 2008, so the remaining staff are doing the work of 30,000 others in addition to their own roles, e.g. via extra hours, redeployment, restructuring of agencies, shift rostering arrangements and so forth. All for less pay. This is the problem for the Govt, to keep a straight face when talking of 'additional productivity measures' when so much is gushing down a political drain on ill-costed but politically-necessary hobby-horses or via a steadfast refusal to tackle vested interests in the legal profession, the financial services sector.

fliball123

Private Joker wrote: »

I actually find your tone offensive. You're vilifying public servants who have endured all the cutbacks and reductions in pay and conditions which have caused the conditions in our a&e's, it's not the public servants who work there that made the mess.
I am a public servant and i earn less now than i did 10 years ago, i struggle with my bills , if i got another pay cut in the form of extra pension contributions then i would have to consider leaving for the private sector, but why should I , do you not think a fair wage should be paid for an honest days work?

i never joined the public service for the pension , i doubt any person would have the foresight to think over 40 years into the future when starting a career. I take great pride in my work , there is something very gratifying about seeing a project from inception to completion with the sole purpose of enhancing the lives and safeguarding the livelihoods of the general public but its not entirely altruistic, i still need a wage that i can live on.

I'm sorry that my post doesn't include figures and articles from the irish independent, this is an entirely emotive response . we're not all public service piggies that want to line our pockets with your taxes.

I find the tone of the government and unsions offensive, so you tell me one ps employee who does not want a payrise otherwise I repeat all the ps piggies want a sip from the trough. The fact that they want this instead of a tax break for all would further this image in my head and in many others.

Actually it is there fault breaking it down when pay is about 80% of what is spent on health and the government cut the shreds the other 20% used on services before , during and after the cuts to actual wage to public sector employees..This money cut from the actual service should be returned before any payrises to anyone including tax cuts for all.

I have said before there are people working in the PS who deserve a pay rise above increments I have said it numerous times but while the blanket benchmarking III approach with no measure of who good, bad or ugly the employee is and no measure to either other Public services throughout the OCED or within the private sector I would rather not give pay rises. If they want to get someone in from the outside to go through individually the ps employees and give those who deserve a payrise a payrise I have no problem with that.

Your emotion spills over about how money is been taken from you..how do you think we all feel having to pay more taxes for these payrises?? When clearly in a lot of cases they are not deserved

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1027770.shtml


my apologies, the saving was "only" €2.3 bn.

So we are paying 6% less now than in 2007 and how many less working there now? Basically what you have put up has borne out what I am saying. They chose to cut the service and the fact that there are 30k/40k less working there is the only reason why there is a saving.

If you go back to 2006 pre benchmarking there is no saving at all. So basically the tax payer actually clawed back the money that Bertie used to buy votes.

Your link also states we have had no real growth in the last decade, yet we are still paying the more now than in 2005 with less workers in the public sector..

Your link if anything shows whey there should be no payrises..thanks for that

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Can they not afford one or simply choose not to take one out?
Does this 50% of people include people earning relatively low wages in retail etc as one would not expect them to take out a pension until they move to a professional position or similar.

Yet they are expected to pay more in tax for the ps pensions and payrises..Why should they be expected to do that?

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Thats not very specific though is it?

Whatever if you cant disprove it just agree and move on

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Whatever if you cant disprove it just agree and move on

Disprove what?
I asked you a very specific question and got a very non-specific answer.

I genuinely wonder what you think the pensions arrangements of civil servant are?

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Whatever if you cant disprove it just agree and move on

You say 50% of private sector workers cannot afford to fund their own pensions.
How do you know this?
How do you know that the same percentage of workers in the public sector also find it difficult to fund their own pensions but have no choice as it is mandatory?

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Yet they are expected to pay more in tax for the ps pensions and payrises..Why should they be expected to do that?

So they get a state OAP for pretty much free.

johnnyskeleton

MOD: fliball123, I was happy to allow you a bit of leeway before, but it's time to cut it out. Calling PS workers piggies and repeating the same point several times in a row is borderline trolling. Keep it up and I can only assume that it is actual trolling