Public service pay cut?

Acquiescence

Acquiescence wrote: »

I would suspect that the vast majority that roll out this argument are farmers who do actually maintain access to mains water whether they use it or not.

Maybe I'm wrong in this case.

But personally in that position or similar i would certainly contend that contributing to the upkeep of the infrastructure would be important. What if a circumstance were to arise where the well water is inaccessible for whatever reason.

Most rural dwellings aren't near any public water infrastructure I'd say.

If we have a particularly dry summer we run out of water for a week until the table rises on a regular basis. This is on a deep well, not the standard shallow well that a lot of older houses would have had.

There isn't any public infrastructure to connect to from asking the council, and they have no interest or plans to provide the infrastructure, even if they were getting more tax take for water that they already get.

Friends in Laois are in the same situation, despite being a five minute drive to Carlow town they had to get a well dug when building their house last year because there isn't any infrastructure to connect to.

beauf

addaword wrote: »

Every parent likes to see their kids educated by their family and good friends on the best choices to make in life. It is not extremely difficult to get in to the public service. They can always leave and get a job in the private sector but I doubt they ever will, the public service just has so many advantages.

If that's true then there is no problem. If anyone wants to get in they can just join when they want to. Also the public sector will have no problem retaining staff especially in critical areas.

beauf

DubInMeath wrote: »

Most rural dwellings aren't near any public water infrastructure I'd say.

If we have a particularly dry summer we run out of water for a week until the table rises on a regular basis. This is on a deep well, not the standard shallow well that a lot of older houses would have had.

There isn't any public infrastructure to connect to from asking the council, and they have no interest or plans to provide the infrastructure, even if they were getting more tax take for water that they already get.

Friends in Laois are in the same situation, despite being a five minute drive to Carlow town they had to get a well dug when building their house last year because there isn't any infrastructure to connect to.

Everyone makes compromises based on where they decide to live.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Everyone makes compromises based on where they decide to live.

Yep they do, if I was to live in an estate I would probably kill the resident committee.

But my answer was to the posters assumption that people have access to the public mains supply and deciding not to use it, despite already paying for it through the taxation that already exists.

Edgware

[Deleted User] wrote: »

this thread has given me an awful dose of guilt

i'll pass the 2% on to the butler i think

Now now don't spoil him. Those downstairs will be getting notions. Its bad enough he wants an hour off Sunday morning to go to Mass

Edgware

DubInMeath wrote: »

Most rural dwellings aren't near any public water infrastructure I'd say.

If we have a particularly dry summer we run out of water for a week until the table rises on a regular basis. This is on a deep well, not the standard shallow well that a lot of older houses would have had.

There isn't any public infrastructure to connect to from asking the council, and they have no interest or plans to provide the infrastructure, even if they were getting more tax take for water that they already get.

Friends in Laois are in the same situation, despite being a five minute drive to Carlow town they had to get a well dug when building their house last year because there isn't any infrastructure to connect to.

So they decided to build without knowing there was an adequate water supply. Good move

beauf

DubInMeath wrote: »

Yep they do, if I was to live in an estate I would probably kill the resident committee.

But my answer was to the posters assumption that people have access to the public mains supply and deciding not to use it, despite already paying for it through the taxation that already exists.

He described a specific scenerio. Not a sweeping generalisation. What you described was entirely different. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm bias against one off housing. The countryside is littered with ugly incoherent one off housing. It's poorly planned. Issues with services are well known but people proceed regardless. Then play the poor mouth.

People should have the opportunity to live in rural locations. No problem with that. It's the blunderbuss approach I dislike.

beauf

How this thread got here from public pay is curious.

Edgware

Edgware wrote: »

So they decided to build without knowing there was an adequate water supply. Good move

Your reading comprehension isn't the best at times when trying to be edgy.

Where did I say that my friends built where there was an inadequate water supply?
Not being on the mains supply doesn't mean that you have an inadequate water supply.

The supply issues that I face during a drought is due to farmers increasing their herd numbers with the ending of milk quotas and the need for additional water with the increased herd numbers.

beauf

Don't get that much in urban areas. Odd that.

This is related to public sector pay how?

combat14

Commercial and residential rents
insurance &
private sector wages all need to come down
time to make the country competitive again?

Edgware

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your reading comprehension isn't the best at times when trying to be edgy.

Where did I say that my friends built where there was an inadequate water supply?
Not being on the mains supply doesn't mean that you have an inadequate water supply.

The supply issues that I face during a drought is due to farmers increasing their herd numbers with the ending of milk quotas and the need for additional water with the increased herd numbers.

So the supply is adequate only for them but any change in circumstances and it isn't.

tayto lover

I really laugh at these threads on cutting public sector pay.
Not going to happen.

purifol0

DubInMeath wrote: »

You said this earlier, but you can still join if you want. Unlike the private sector the public sector don't discriminate on age and as a new entrant, you will have the option to work until your 70.

Gardai discriminate on age - max age 35 years old, this was challenged at the European Court of Justice on foot of a Workplace Relations Commission complaint.


So do the Army (25), Navy(27) and Air Corp(23).


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unacceptably-slow-progress-on-age-barrier-for-new-gardai-39084586.html


So thats approx 25,000 public sector jobs which discriminate on age. You may need to edit your post.

Edgware

Edgware wrote: »

So the supply is adequate only for them but any change in circumstances and it isn't.

Same as in a town or city.

noodler

MarkR wrote: »

I'm on 30+ pages here, so maybe I missed it. If the public service should take a pay cut, should those still working in the private sector also be taxed an equivalent amount, so we can all get the country back up and running together?

Hundreds of thousand of private sector workers have lost their jobs.

On average, massive paycuts have been inflicted on them.

Reputable Rog

DubInMeath wrote: »

Most rural dwellings aren't near any public water infrastructure I'd say.

If we have a particularly dry summer we run out of water for a week until the table rises on a regular basis. This is on a deep well, not the standard shallow well that a lot of older houses would have had.

There isn't any public infrastructure to connect to from asking the council, and they have no interest or plans to provide the infrastructure, even if they were getting more tax take for water that they already get.

Friends in Laois are in the same situation, despite being a five minute drive to Carlow town they had to get a well dug when building their house last year because there isn't any infrastructure to connect to.

Not true, there’s rural water schemes the length and breath of the country in addition to public mains.
You may also note that since 2014 the Councils do not generate revenue from water as it is under the control of Irish Water.

MarkR

noodler wrote: »

Hundreds of thousand of private sector workers have lost their jobs.

On average, massive paycuts have been inflicted on them.

Oh I know. We shouldn't tax those people. Just the ones that are still working. That's why I said it in my post. You might have skipped that bit.

Neames

tayto lover wrote: »

I really laugh at these threads on cutting public sector pay.
Not going to happen.

They cut it before. So why do you think they won't cut it again?

Hotblack Desiato

salonfire wrote: »

And likewise the public sector only look at the salaries when the private sector is flying, hence the scramble of benchmarking on the 00s.

Once the private sector takes a nose-dive - twice now in 11 years - the response of the public sector is to look the other way.

They daren't breathe the word bench-mark in recent years

Well this is all complete bollox, because benchmarking was reversed in 2008-09 and pay levels are still below that level 11 and 12 years later.

Hotblack Desiato

noodler wrote: »

Hundreds of thousand of private sector workers have lost their jobs.

Most of them haven't lost their jobs though. Their employers have been temporarily closed due to the lockdown. Not even remotely the same thing.
A lot of businesses which have closed permanently (Bewleys, Debenhams) were on their last legs anyway even before this crisis when the economy was doing very well. They were badly run businesses.

On average, massive paycuts have been inflicted on them.

Quite a few public servants would be better off on the 350 a week.

noodler

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Most of them haven't lost their jobs though. Their employers have been temporarily closed due to the lockdown. Not even remotely the same thing.
A lot of businesses which have closed permanently (Bewleys, Debenhams) were on their last legs anyway even before this crisis when the economy was doing very well. They were badly run businesses.

.

Nonsense.

More people are on the PUP than the TWSS, and so have lost their jobs, plus a substantial number of those on the subsidy scheme will never open.

P.S. what a random pick of two high profile businesses to try and make a wider point about a million odd people on State support.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Nonsense.

More people are on the PUP than the TWSS, and so have lost their jobs, plus a substantial number of those on the subsidy scheme will never open.

P.S. what a random pick of two high profile businesses to try and make a wider point about a million odd people on State support.

every public servant took serious cuts to terms and conditions which have yet to be restored almost a decade later

cherrypick all you want about private sector as a whole, the above stands

most private sector workers comparable to public service jobs above minimum grade have seen very solid pay rises since then.

theres no getting around it. educated, qualified and experienced private sector workers are overpaid and the govt should either cut rates to all contractors/service providers or raise a levy on private sector workers earning above 30k immediately.

the country cant afford to subside the luxurious private sector any longer. what planet are these people on?

daithi7

Sunday Times Editorial:
Ireland is in no financial state to increase public sector pay

Donohoe has approved payment of a scheduled 2% public-sector pay rise
The Sunday Times
Sunday May 31 2020, 12.01am BST, The Sunday Times

In its economic commentary published at the end of March, the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) forecast that Irish national economic output would drop this year by 8%. Last week, in an updated commentary, the same body revised the expected fall in output to 10%. The ESRI also expects the gap between government revenues and spending — the general government balance — to reach €28bn this year. This means that the state will be adding €5,700 to the national debt for every person in the country on top of the €41,600 per person at the start of the year.

The drastic deterioration in the public finances brought about by the current pandemic has also been exercising the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (Ifac). In a new report it advises that, in the near term, the government “should promote as quick a rebound as possible by continuing [business] supports”. Once the lockdown is lifted, the council reckons that growth could be quite fast, but that some sectors, such as tourism and food services, will not fare so well. The advisory body reckons that continuing budgetary stimulus will be required in the recovery phase. By the time the economy eventually settles on a new post-pandemic growth path, the Ifac warns that the government debt burden “could be near record highs”.

This was the dire budgetary backdrop confronting Paschal Donohoe, the finance minister, when he decided to approve payment of a scheduled 2% public-sector pay rise this coming October. The planned increase is the final stage of the public service stability agreement 2018–2020 and is expected to benefit about 330,000 public-sector workers. Mr Donohoe confirmed the pay rise, stating: “We also do have commitments that we have made to public-sector unions over the last three years. And the very workers that we are talking about have been at the front line, in particular in our hospitals and in our gardai, in dealing with the most difficult consequences of Covid-19.” While that is undoubtedly true, it does not mean the scheduled pay increases are either wise or just.

When the current public sector pay deal was concluded in June 2017, the document recording the agreement noted that “improvements in the economy” had allowed the government to begin unwinding financial emergency measures in the public interest (Fempi), required during the Troika bailout. The problem is that the coronavirus pandemic may do nearly as much damage to the public finances as did the economic crisis a decade ago.

The Ifac is warning that after the economy returns to its normal growth trajectory, “high debt and low tax receipts are likely to mean the government would need to adjust taxes or spending”. It is fully understandable that public servants should demand “pay restoration”. But what about tax restoration? A decade ago the nation’s citizens were subjected to a significant increase in the burden of personal taxation to fend off national bankruptcy. While public-sector pay and conditions have been restored in the meantime, those high levels of tax remain in place. The Universal Social Charge lives on despite many political promises to abolish it. Significantly, the Ifac warned last week that tax levels may eventually have to be increased in order to pay back the current spike in public borrowing.


Then there is the vexed question of whether Irish public sector pay levels are already overly generous. According to the Central Statistics Office, average weekly earnings in the public sector (including semi-state) were €988.01 at the end of last year. That was 37% more than average private sector earnings of just €722.81. There has been a battery of arguments deployed to justify this gap: public sector workers have higher educational qualifications on average than their private sector counterparts; many private sector workers are employed by smaller companies, which tend to pay less than larger companies, and so on.

The same arguments apply in the United Kingdom, however, where public-sector workers earned on average £549 (€610) in January, just 1% more than the £543 earned by their private sector counterparts. By contrast, the Irish government has an entire department dedicated to the task of controlling public spending. Yet the British government is more successful in controlling public sector pay, the main driver of public spending.

There are two other factors that tend to be overlooked in the tendentious reports used to justify Ireland’s public/private pay chasm; pensions and the risk of unemployment. In both areas, public sector workers come off far better than their private sector equivalent, as will be clear once more when we survey the wreckage from this pandemic. Mr Donohoe’s decision to approve the 2% pay increase may be politically expedient but it certainly is not fair.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/editorial-ireland-is-in-no-financial-state-to-increase-public-sector-pay-vxr0vg5hw

Hotblack Desiato

If you think Rupert Murdoch or any of his rags give a damn about what is good for Irish society, you have another think coming.

He has an agenda to push. "Whatever will make me richer."

Hotblack Desiato

noodler wrote: »

More people are on the PUP than the TWSS

Because of unscrupulous employers taking advantage.

Irish SMEs have a well deserved reputation for not paying their bills, not paying their taxes, and not paying their employees what they are due.

thenightman

988 as average public service wages per week is ridiculous. That figure is pushed up enormously by the high wage grades like AP, PO & Ast Secretary. There are very few post 2011 workers (already on reduced wages and far worse pension compared to colleagues performing same role) who will see anywhere near that money for a decade or two. I've recently been promoted after 3 years as a CO to EO, and won't come near that for 12 years.

thenightman

thenightman wrote: »

988 as average public service wages per week .

The Semi States are included in that figure and incidentally they never had their pay cut during the last recession.

addaword

thenightman wrote: »

988 as average public service wages per week is ridiculous.

You are quite right there. It is from the public services own c.s.o. It is in start contrast to the average private sector earnings of just €722.81

There is not such a huge gap between public and private sector in Germany, France, UK etc.

thenightman wrote: »

Sunday Times Editorial:
Ireland is in no financial state to increase public sector pay



The same arguments apply in the United Kingdom, however, where public-sector workers earned on average £549 (€610) in January, just 1% more than the £543 earned by their private sector counterparts.

daithi7

thenightman wrote: »

988 as average public service wages per week is ridiculous. That figure is pushed up enormously by the high wage grades like AP, PO & Ast Secretary. There are very few post 2011 workers (already on reduced wages and far worse pension compared to colleagues performing same role) who will see anywhere near that money for a decade or two. I've recently been promoted after 3 years as a CO to EO, and won't come near that for 12 years.

So if that average wage is ridiculous as you say, and the salaries (and pensions) of AP, PO & Ast Secretary push this up to ridiculous levels, then I take it you are all for cutting the ridiculous salaries of AP, PO & Ast Secretaries, etc!?!