Public service pay cut?

barneystinson

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you think it's zero?

You're the one who made the assertion, you should be prepared to back it up otherwise it's just ould shyte talk, don't you think?

Who, how many, where are they, and what do you propose is to be done about it? Don't be surprised if you make a stupid, general comment targeted at a group of over 300,000 people, and some of them take umbrage and call you out on it. :rolleyes:

enricoh

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

It's funny how the people in the private sector choose pay and perks over security then when crisis hits the public sector should take a hit. As for the banking crisis, nothing to do with the public sector. Everyone chooses their line of work to some degree. If you aren't happy with your decision then change career and stop begrudging others their job security.

I'm pretty sure Ireland has a banking regulator paid from the public purse.
A bit of googling tells me Patrick neary was the regulator keeping tabs on the banks during the tiger. Stellar work Patrick, no doubt sent to pasture with the lump sum n pension!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/banking-inquiry-patrick-neary-arguably-5777369.amp

Dav010

barneystinson wrote: »

You're the one who made the assertion, you should be prepared to back it up otherwise it's just ould shyte talk, don't you think?

Who, how many, where are they, and what do you propose is to be done about it? Don't be surprised if you make a stupid, general comment targeted at a group of over 300,000 people, and some of them take umbrage and call you out on it. :rolleyes:

To be fair, we know the unemployment rate was 24% in June, it’s not ould ****e talk to speculate that a tiny number of those are PS.

maneno

enricoh wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Ireland has a banking regulator paid from the public purse.
A bit of googling tells me Patrick neary was the regulator keeping tabs on the banks during the tiger. Stellar work Patrick, no doubt sent to pasture with the lump sum n pension!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/banking-inquiry-patrick-neary-arguably-5777369.amp

YOU are wrong, the “Banking regulator” is not paid from the public purse, they are independent and in fact they remit their excess money to the government every year, so it’s not your taxes keeping it afloat, try harder

Dav010

maneno wrote: »

YOU are wrong, the “Banking regulator” is not paid from the public purse, they are independent and in fact they remit their excess money to the government every year, so it’s not your taxes keeping it afloat, try harder

I am open to correction on this, but up until 2010 when the position was dissolved, the Financial Regulator was a constituent part of the Central Bank, which is 100% State owned.

Sinzo

Dav010 wrote: »

I am open to correction on this, but up until 2010 when the position was dissolved, the Financial Regulator was a constituent part of the Central Bank, which is 100% State owned.

In fairness no one can deny that the regulator and the central bank were abject, some would argue criminal, in their handling of the Celtic Tiger.

But there were many more leaders in banking, Fitzpatrick and the like, in financial services, the developers and builders etc., who also behaved dishonestly and, indeed, criminally..

Indeed, Fitzpatrick, himself, also walked off with a huge private pension also..

So no side holds all the cards when it comes to the moral high ground..

Edgware

fliball123 wrote: »

The facts are the there are a lot less pensions in the private sector than in the public sector. Someone in the private sector who has a pension is nearly always a defined contribution. So what age are ps allowed retire to get their pension again by the time this clusterphuck and brexit completes I will be lucky to get my OAP at 80 with the way the government keep putting the age up. Will the government go and raid the private pension pot again like last time?

The facts are I am not paying a pension for anyone in the private sector bar my own. The same cannot be said about public servants thats a fact and unfair as I cant afford to put by for my own.

The public service jobs were advertised. Anyone could apply and avail of the generous conditions unlike the private sector where a lot of jobs are filled by relatives and word of mouth

enricoh

maneno wrote: »

YOU are wrong, the “Banking regulator” is not paid from the public purse, they are independent and in fact they remit their excess money to the government every year, so it’s not your taxes keeping it afloat, try harder

Who appoints the banking regulator?
Sweet Jesus, Patrick neary retired with a 630k lump sum and 140k a year pension! -

Neary, who retired with a €630,000 golden handshake and gets a €143,000-a-year pension, conceded his office (the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority) did not do enough to prevent the crash.

govt appoint one person to a role regulating an entire sector, ensure that that role is filled sweetly or has no teeth

somehow the entire sector involved suddenly have zero responsibility for their own behaviour

fabulous mental hoops some people will construct

and fabulous how poorly some people can fail to draw the line between the govt and political parties and the public sector

but again, explaining complexity to people only out to score simple points to their own satisfaction is a fool's errand

be like blaming david mcwilliams for not transforming the public sector

sure hasnt the private sector appointed him to do so? and isnt he well paid and a genius?

jesus hed want to get on with it. the people most likely to boost him seem to be very unhappy with the actual progress made

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

govt appoint one person to a role regulating an entire sector, ensure that that role is filled sweetly or has no teeth

somehow the entire sector involved suddenly have zero responsibility for their own behaviour

fabulous mental hoops some people will construct

and fabulous how poorly some people can fail to draw the line between the govt and political parties and the public sector

but again, explaining complexity to people only out to score simple points to their own satisfaction is a fool's errand

That’s your bosses you are talking about.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

That’s your bosses you are talking about.

ive a line in there about ppl who fail to discern the different roles and functions of govt and public service

id draw yr attention to it

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

ive a line in there about ppl who fail to discern the different roles and functions of govt and public service

id draw yr attention to it

It’s those politicians who your unions lobby and who sign off on your wage increases.

Sinzo

Dav010 wrote: »

That’s your bosses you are talking about. The politicians who sign off on your wage increases and cave to the unions.

Yeah Dave.. and I bet you're the kind of boss who makes sure your workers get the lowest pay possible.

And only for the fact that the State makes you pay a minimum wage, you would be paying even less..

Dav010

Sinzo wrote: »

Yeah Dave.. and I bet you're the kind of boss who makes sure your workers get the lowest pay possible.

And only for the fact that the State makes you pay a minimum wage, you would be paying even less..

My staff are extremely well paid and have been with me for years. In fact in one of my businesses, two employees who started a decade ago with no qualifications are now partners in the firm.

A cheap shot, but a miss.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s those politicians who your unions lobby and who sign off on your wage increases.

sigh

whats the tangent here

govts agree a lot of figures, some of em relate to the pay of public sector employess

this seems like a basic thing to be going over with someone 176 pages in to a thread on public sector pay if im honest

Sinzo

Dav010 wrote: »

My staff are extremely well paid and have been with me for years. In fact in one of my businesses, two employees who started a decade ago with no qualifications are now partners in the firm.

A cheap shot, but a miss.

Well, in fairness, you're guilty of some disingenuous cheap shots yourself Dave.

It's good to know you pay at least two of them well. Mind you I'm not sure what you mean when you say you pay them well... perhaps you pay them a living wage, which is not great really.

fliball123

Edgware wrote: »

The public service jobs were advertised. Anyone could apply and avail of the generous conditions unlike the private sector where a lot of jobs are filled by relatives and word of mouth

AND??? We cant afford the current pay and pensions let alone payrises those are the facts regardless of what was advertised where. Your boss will be 240 odd billion in debt by the end of the year and main revenue stream of tax to pay for your wage is going to be cut by at least 20%, so like any other entity that has income and expenditure we need to cut our cloth. There isll be an absolute sh1tstorm if the government try to tax more on income before the spend side is tackled

AND?

theres a lot of govt spending that isnt public sector salaries

there's more than income taxation to meet exceptional economic demands on govt

thats it. thats the debate on your two main points pretty much done.

and it was really easy. youd almost have been expected to notice those two obvious items yourself.

nb the govt doesn't have to suddenly cut pay or workers in a year where it loses money as if it were a small town café

thats a ridiculous mentality to take towards a govt sector.

raised many the time for those with eyes willing to read and comprehend it

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

AND?

theres a lot of govt spending that isnt public sector salaries

there's more than income taxation to meet exceptional economic demands on govt

thats it. thats the debate on your two main points pretty much done.

and it was really easy. youd almost have been expected to notice those two obvious items yourself.

nb the govt doesn't have to suddenly cut pay or workers in a year where it loses money as if it were a small town café

thats a ridiculous mentality to take towards a govt sector.

raised many the time for those with eyes willing to read and comprehend it

Why doesn’t it have to shed jobs and freeze pay when it needs to like a small town cafe? You can roll your eyes all you want, giving a pay increase at a time when billions has been added to the national debt and the private sector has seen a 19% rise in unemployment, widespread pay reductions/freezes is disgraceful.

its a government. it doesnt have to react to economic predictions based on essentially unknowable outcomes as we stand by doing anything

my point was of course quite clear- a govt doesnt react to yearly projected losses by taking ten thousand jobs into the office for a chat

thats profit-motive private sector ideology applied where it simply doesnt belong

should a govt cut its cloth to measure? sure, over an elongated period of time.

should a govt react to an economic downturn by slashing employment/investment?

plenty of opinions on that, believe it or not.

should a govt hop to cutting public sector pay with reference only to the next budget, as opposed to the overarching demands on its services, the long term needs of its staffing and retention, the difference between it and the private sector mission?

of course it shouldnt. youd be an idiot to demand it to do so.

and again, completely ignoring the points raised you didnt like. govts can and should borrow sensibly to support the failing private sector. govts can and should consider tax as a viable fundraiser when needed.

society doesnt exist to suit the private sector, but in particular it should combat at every juncture- even ones as low-rent so as to make the one-note idiot noise arguments seen in these threads regardless of the patience and time taken to seek to educate and counter- the private sector ideologies espoused by those who think that the private sector is the be all and end all of govt practice

the private sector is useful, even if it falls over a lot. its more limited propronents should show a little more humility when it falls over and needs a more grown-up model to come in and rescue it from itself.

oh- and its pay restoration, you are incorrect to call it an increase.

barneystinson

Dav010 wrote: »

To be fair, we know the unemployment rate was 24% in June, it’s not ould ****e talk to speculate that a tiny number of those are PS.

What're you on about there, it looks like you didn't read the posts that the quoted post refers to, which is nothing to do with the unemployment rate...

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

its a government. it doesnt have to react to economic predictions based on essentially unknowable outcomes as we stand by doing anything

my point was of course quite clear- a govt doesnt react to yearly projected losses by taking ten thousand jobs into the office for a chat

thats profit-motive private sector ideology applied where it simply doesnt belong

should a govt cut its cloth to measure? sure, over an elongated period of time.

should a govt react to an economic downturn by slashing employment/investment?

plenty of opinions on that, believe it or not.

should a govt hop to cutting public sector pay with reference only to the next budget, as opposed to the overarching demands on its services, the long term needs of its staffing and retention, the difference between it and the private sector mission?

of course it shouldnt. youd be an idiot to demand it to do so.

and again, completely ignoring the points raised you didnt like. govts can and should borrow sensibly to support the failing private sector. govts can and should consider tax as a viable fundraiser when needed.

society doesnt exist to suit the private sector, but in particular it should combat at every juncture- even ones as low-rent so as to make the one-note idiot noise arguments seen in these threads regardless of the patience and time taken to seek to educate and counter- the private sector ideologies espoused by those who think that the private sector is the be all and end all of govt practice

the private sector is useful, even if it falls over a lot. its more limited propronents should show a little more humility when it falls over and needs a more grown-up model to come in and rescue it from itself.

Ah here, we are not talking about projected losses or projected increase in national debt. This is typical fingers in your ears stuff. This is actual losses and increased debt and the Government should react immediately by suspending all pay increases, irrespective of whether you want to call them restorations. Economic conditions have gone through a seismic change, only a PS would ignore that and still think the increases should be paid. The events caused by Covid will not just effect this years budget, it will effect budgets for years to come.

you are incorrect to refer to increases, this has been pointed out

not interpreting anything in a particular way

incorrect

not much point if you cannot even take basic correction on a factual error

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you are incorrect to refer to increases, this has been pointed out

not interpreting anything in a particular way

incorrect

not much point if you cannot even take basic correction on a factual error

You refer to it as pay restoration, pay was to be restored when economic conditions improved. When private sector workers took pay cuts, do you think they called increases over the past 10 years “pay restorations”? That is a purely PS term.

If this “restoration” was based to economic conditions, how on earth would think it should go ahead this year? Most economists predict that Covid will cause a recession far worse than the last one. Unbelievable.

SouthWesterly

fliball123 wrote: »

AND??? We cant afford the current pay and pensions let alone payrises those are the facts regardless of what was advertised where. Your boss will be 240 odd billion in debt by the end of the year and main revenue stream of tax to pay for your wage is going to be cut by at least 20%, so like any other entity that has income and expenditure we need to cut our cloth. There isll be an absolute sh1tstorm if the government try to tax more on income before the spend side is tackled

Youre being disingenuous here.
That national debt you speak of it a debt for paying for services which you avail of on a daily basis in some form or other.
I'll take a pay cut if you stop using public services and expecting "my boss" to pay for them.
So don't use the roads, the water, hospitals, schools etc etc and "my boss" Won't have to pay for them and be in debt.

Saying it's public servants fault for doing jobs which pay a wage to provide services you use and that we should be the ones to take the hit is rubbish.

Am I overpaid? Not according to figures the state uses to assess every employee in the country In giving them a wage supplement in the form of a working family payment.

If I had a decent wage I wouldn't need the extra payment and I would be paying more tax back to the state.

to dav010

im not sure what you think youre debating now

pay restoration continues as agreed

if- and this has been said many times in the thread- a major economic downturn occurs, no doubt the next round of pay talks will be a tough process

none of that changes the pay restoration that has been agreed.

this is how it works. were you gnashing your teeth as the govt dawdled over pay restoration the past decade while public workers paid a huge cumulative price to prop up the private banking/property sector?

id say not.

dont come frothing now demanding the entire system change overnight to suit the opinion you formed a minute ago.

its transparent

nb the correct term remains restoration regardless of what you or the private sector would call it.

i mean what the govt as an employer agrees as terms and conditions with its employees is never going to hop and skip to the opinion of every angry barstool, but at least get the terms right and dont squeeze them, youll only make yourself angry that way

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

to dav010

im not sure what you think youre debating now

pay restoration continues as agreed

if- and this has been said many times in the thread- a major economic downturn occurs, no doubt the next round of pay talks will be a tough process

none of that changes the pay restoration that has been agreed.

this is how it works. were you gnashing your teeth as the govt dawdled over pay restoration the past decade while public workers paid a huge cumulative price to prop up the private banking/property sector?

id say not.

dont come frothing now demanding the entire system change overnight to suit the opinion you formed a minute ago.

its transparent

nb the correct term remains restoration regardless of what you or the private sector would call it.

i mean what the govt as an employer agrees as terms and conditions with its employees is never going to hop and skip to the opinion of every angry barstool, but at least get the terms right and dont squeeze them, youll only make yourself angry that way

This was said by another poster earlier, I asked how he/she bailed out the private sector, no responce. How did you prop up the private banking/property sector?

jesus

by taking a 15 odd percent real term pay cut for a decade and multiple permanent changes to pension contributions

extra hours

extra workload

promotion opportunities diminished

pay for future roles diminished

i mean are you serious?

all to bail out private sector