Public service pay cut?

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry where are you getting public sector pay is low. If you compare to the private sector its higher if you compare to a lot of other public sectors in other countries in the OCED its higher...Get your facts right. If you mean its to low for you then by all means feel free to get a new job?

Not that a serious analysis would be worthwhile but comparing like with like is always a very advisable step

And even then its merely for amusement while the actual processes for determining and agreeing partnership models for multi-year stability rumble on

I find it helps to point out that public sector workers enjoy an employer-employee relationship with the state that differs from what ummm posters with your approximate angle seem to understand as a given

The taxpayer or service user of a state is also not a customer in the way you would appear to want it to apply

"My taxes pay for your wages", even if it meant anything at all in message board discussion (it doesn't) let alone applicable usage beyond venting or windup, would still need to account for a few tricky concepts such as

i. Customers don't have a role in dictating terms of employment
ii. Public servants pay taxes
iii. Public service isnt here to make profit nor even to break even- otherwise the task would likely not have fallen to the public service
iv. Public servants pay towards their own pensions in a few different ways
v. Once someone has earned their remuneration through the contracted arrangement its their money. Their coffee. Nothing to do with you at all
vi. Public servants would need to be paid even in your personal utopia, and in order to credibly challenge for a change the level of which you would seem to describe as desirable you would, im afraid, need to demonstrate a patience for complexity somewhat of a different order than the one simple perspective evinced thus far
vii. Even not failing vi above youd probably end up there or thereabouts tbh
viii. Even if not you would be two generations actually winding down whatever you actually could change
ix. Despite what you might think, with pay, pension and recruitment reform this has actually happened and has been happening since 1995 so congrats
x. I earned the price of two coffees typing this post and it will please me to treat them as if you personally have paid for them, because thats how it works, definitely

Thanks

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

yeah and yet we were able to do 2 comparisons back in the naughties through bench marking to compare private and public sector wage..Apples and Oranges when there should and could be cuts but apples and apples when looking for a payrise.

I think youll find our terms got better as the country went through a decade of incredible growth and our terms got worse as there was an economic crisis, yes

There may have been a lag due to collective bargaining, there may have been a flatter curve due to limits on our earnings or a floor on how bad it can get due to the nature of, well, public service employment

It kinda says it on the tin

Sorry, was this yr big point? Im not sure it rocked anybody out of their existing position tbh

BonnieSituation

fliball123 wrote: »

Attack the ball not the man or is that the fact that I am right stick in your craw

I don't even work in the public sector.

I have done in the past. I will do in the Future. It's how careers go.

Your obvious problems with public sector workers and their payscales have a clear personal bent to them and as such, it's rather pointless having a discussion if all you want is a rant and a row.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Not that a serious analysis would be worthwhile but comparing like with like is always a very advisable step

And even then its merely for amusement while the actual processes for determining and agreeing partnership models for multi-year stability rumble on

I find it helps to point out that public sector workers enjoy an employer-employee relationship with the state that differs from what ummm posters with your approximate angle seem to understand as a given

The taxpayer or service user of a state is also not a customer in the way you would appear to want it to apply

"My taxes pay for your wages", even if it meant anything at all in message board discussion (it doesn't) let alone applicable usage beyond venting or windup, would still need to account for a few tricky concepts such as

i. Customers don't have a role in dictating terms of employment
ii. Public servants pay taxes
iii. Public service isnt here to make profit nor even to break even- otherwise the task would likely not have fallen to the public service
iv. Public servants pay towards their own pensions in a few different ways
v. Once someone has earned their remuneration through the contracted arrangement its their money. Their coffee. Nothing to do with you at all
vi. Public servants would need to be paid even in your personal utopia, and in order to credibly challenge for a change the level of which you would seem to describe as desirable you would, im afraid, need to demonstrate a patience for complexity somewhat of a different order than the one simple perspective evinced thus far
vii. Even not failing vi above youd probably end up there or thereabouts tbh
viii. Even if not you would be two generations actually winding down whatever you actually could change
ix. Despite what you might think, with pay, pension and recruitment reform this has actually happened and has been happening since 1995 so congrats
x. I earned the price of two coffees typing this post and it will please me to treat them as if you personally have paid for them, because thats how it works, definitely

Thanks

Sorry but the fact is the tax I pay (overpay) does go into paying public sector pay and pension THIS IS A FACT and the only difference the relationship you seem to think you have with your employer is that you can put a gun to their head and use unions and strike and hold all tax payers to ransom. The general public are at a loss currently with Teachers threatening strikes even do they have a had a good year and a half of dialing it in over seesaw. Then we have had the joy of watching the various feck ups of the governments handling of different aspects of the Corona virus, too many to talk about from vaccine feck ups to misleading communications its been a nightmare. Do I need to start going back through the amount of scandals through out the last 20/30 years within the PS. From Gardas falsifying breathaliser tests to the clusterphucks of smear tests.

As for the rest of your message.

1: Most private sector workers cant afford their own pension but have to pay tax to pay for the PS pensions. Public sector pensions should be done away with or the public servant should pay 100% for their own pension and take their pension levy back.

2: PS is paid more than the private sector this is a fact and this has only been the case since the naughties and its not prevalant in most other countries throughout the globe its like the tail wagging the dog

3: We are 240billion in debt a very high % of this was for borrowing for our day to day spend over the last 25years. Take out COVID and the bad behavior of banks and we would still of had to borrow 150Billion.

4: We are now running a deficit of 17Billion we had it down to zero in 2019 and this year in 2021 we have to continue to deal with Corona, Brexit and attacks on our corpo tax take.

5: We could have anywhere from 15/25% unemployment after Brexit and Corona goes where do we get the money to pay for this.

6: With WFH going to be the norm with a lot of the High tech and Phrama jobs, people will be able to this from different countries so any attack on presonal taxation will cause an exodus of high earners.

7: Even now there is still no accountability for PS no mater how good bad or ugly they are in their job yet a good % will go into work get their pay and their increments when the time comes its hardly a breeding ground for an appetite to be hard working.

8: Government have just reduced the time of undocumented supposed refugees time for getting legalised here from 8 years to 4 months we are going to have an influx of people coming here for our welfare rates. Where do we get the cash for this.

Yet the government think its a good idea to give payrises. This is not going to end well. The PS is too stagnant, cushioned and inflexible in a lot of areas. The whole area of spend not just ps pay and pensions has to be looked at root and branch and savings made where it can be made. We are in for a decade of problems.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry but the fact is the tax I pay (overpay)

Honestly? I stopped reading here my good man.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honestly? I stopped reading here my good man.

It's actually frightening that someone in a position to "overpay" tax thinks that the points that are being made have any validity or form part of a cogent argument.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly? I stopped reading here my good man.

yeah because the truth is hard to take, you should read it.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

yeah because the truth is hard to take, you should read it.

Look im honestly not trying to wind you up, it just seemed like a poor use of my time.

I was thinking of the taxpayer

fliball123

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's actually frightening that someone in a position to "overpay" tax thinks that the points that are being made have any validity or form part of a cogent argument.

Sorry but paying over 50% of what you earn after 35k (lower than the AIW) is overpaying in tax by any measure globally not to mention the p1ss poor return you get for this money. Its frightening to think that with 240Billion in debt 17 Billion of a deficit and the PS are getting a payrise.

BonnieSituation

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry but paying over 50% of what you earn after 35k (lower than the AIW) is overpaying in tax by any measure globally not to mention the p1ss poor return you get for this money. Its frightening to think that with 240Billion in debt 17 Billion of a deficit and the PS are getting a payrise.

It's posts like this that make me wish we had proper civics classes.

Then again, who'd pay for them...

fliball123

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's posts like this that make me wish we had proper civics classes.

Then again, who'd pay for them...

Attack the post not the poster am I wrong anywhere within it? If I am explain it to me like you were a Civics teacher, or maybe you would just go out on strike if you were one

BonnieSituation

fliball123 wrote: »

Attack the post not the poster am I wrong anywhere within it? If I am explain it to me like you were a Civics teacher, or maybe you would just go out on strike if you were one

You're awful fond of that mantra. It's like the hazard lights for someone completely out of their depth.

Let's look at that post again:

BonnieSituation wrote: »

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry but paying over 50% of what you earn after 35k (lower than the AIW) is overpaying in tax by any measure globally not to mention the p1ss poor return you get for this money. Its frightening to think that with 240Billion in debt 17 Billion of a deficit and the PS are getting a payrise.

It's posts like this that make me wish we had proper civics classes.

Then again, who'd pay for them...

---

www.publicjobs.ie

Should be something there that tickles you.

fliball123

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You're awful fond of that mantra. It's like the hazard lights for someone completely out of their depth.

Let's look at that post again:



It's posts like this that make me wish we had proper civics classes.

Then again, who'd pay for them...

---

www.publicjobs.ie

Should be something there that tickles you.

I am out of my depth and 3 times now you have deflected away from the truth thats in front of you as you have no counter..Good stuff go and give yourself an increment.

BonnieSituation

fliball123 wrote: »

I am out of my depth and 3 times now you have deflected away from the truth thats in front of you as you have no counter..Good stuff go and give yourself an increment.

I said above I didn't work in the public sector.

Honestly, if the most basic comprehension of what people write is beyond you, why do you bother?

All of your arguments were succinctly shot down by snoopsheep above. What more needs to be added?

fliball123

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I said above I didn't work in the public sector.

Honestly, if the most basic comprehension of what people write is beyond you, why do you bother?

All of your arguments were succinctly shot down by snoopsheep above. What more needs to be added?

To which I countered and they have not come back you said you didnt bother reading it

BonnieSituation

fliball123 wrote: »

To which I countered and they have not come back you said you didnt bother reading it

Do you want to try that sentence again?

It's not clear.

fliball123

fliball123 wrote: »

To which I countered and they have not come back you said you didnt bother reading it

I read your post

It didn't actually address any of the *actual* factual stuff i posted.

It started, within the first few words, with a clear opinion that you framed as a fact.

It carried on with a lot of selective information that didnt address anything other than tropes which have been dismissed or contended many timed before, in this thread, in other threads.

You dont want a discussion, because you dont accept the actual complexities and the actual underlying moving parts of the situation- some of which i broke down a little in my longer post.

You want to state your selective stream of information as if it didnt need to intersect with any of the things i pointed out.

Now, bytimes i feel its important to counter such narrow-perspective posting with my own perspective that "its actually a good deal more complex than that"

I dont do this because i think you will accept it, and it ought to be clear that i dont accept your central premises.

So we arent in a discussion, and im not really beholden to "counter" your follow up contentions once its clear that you aren't interested in a discussion.

Which i think is ok! Im sure you feel the same about my posts.

But essentially, "the country faces economic challenge- cut public sector pay!" is always a nonsense kneejerk regardless of the actual situation and your reiterating that the country faces economic challenges and going into ever greater detail (while inaccurately portraying oh yknow actual pay comparisons and actual pension arrangements) on those challenges is an irrelevancy based on the thrust of my i-ix

x. Was a bit of a nosetweak, granted. I never claimed to be a saint.

Scoundrel

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry where are you getting public sector pay is low. If you compare to the private sector its higher if you compare to a lot of other public sectors in other countries in the OCED its higher...Get your facts right. If you mean its to low for you then by all means feel free to get a new job?

Why don't you get a job in the PS if it's so great and stop your Newstalk inspired ill informed barely literate ranting? Or are you having it too handy sponging away on the 350 free money from Government? Which was processed and delivered to you by public service workers?

AndrewJRenko

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry but paying over 50% of what you earn after 35k (lower than the AIW) is overpaying in tax by any measure globally not to mention the p1ss poor return you get for this money. Its frightening to think that with 240Billion in debt 17 Billion of a deficit and the PS are getting a payrise.

Did you not do one of those international comparisons that you're so fond of? Ireland is NOT a high tax country;
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/ireland-v-the-rest-of-the-world-do-we-pay-too-much-tax-1.3230432

fliball123 wrote: »

yeah and yet we were able to do 2 comparisons back in the naughties through bench marking to compare private and public sector wage..Apples and Oranges when there should and could be cuts but apples and apples when looking for a payrise.

Kinda neat how you just ignored all the facts there...

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

I read your post

It didn't actually address any of the *actual* factual stuff i posted.

It started, within the first few words, with a clear opinion that you framed as a fact.

It carried on with a lot of selective information that didnt address anything other than tropes which have been dismissed or contended many timed before, in this thread, in other threads.

You dont want a discussion, because you dont accept the actual complexities and the actual underlying moving parts of the situation- some of which i broke down a little in my longer post.

You want to state your selective stream of information as if it didnt need to intersect with any of the things i pointed out.

Now, bytimes i feel its important to counter such narrow-perspective posting with my own perspective that "its actually a good deal more complex than that"

I dont do this because i think you will accept it, and it ought to be clear that i dont accept your central premises.

So we arent in a discussion, and im not really beholden to "counter" your follow up contentions once its clear that you aren't interested in a discussion.

Which i think is ok! Im sure you feel the same about my posts.

But essentially, "the country faces economic challenge- cut public sector pay!" is always a nonsense kneejerk regardless of the actual situation and your reiterating that the country faces economic challenges and going into ever greater detail (while inaccurately portraying oh yknow actual pay comparisons and actual pension arrangements) on those challenges is an irrelevancy based on the thrust of my i-ix

x. Was a bit of a nosetweak, granted. I never claimed to be a saint.

You owned him there. Owned him.

BonnieSituation

GarIT wrote: »

There have been calls for the last few years anyway to introduce a technology pay scale, the same way there is a solicitor, architect and engineer pay scale.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, and project management too- badly wanted skills to get that recognition imo and transferable across all depts pretty much

I'm actually in one of these binds as it happens.

I was empanelled after interview, very highly [blew my mind that the interview went that well], but because of this intransigence, the payscale is at an admin grade.

I was also empanelled last year for another generalist role at the same grade.

The technical role will be more difficult, involve more of my time, but will be ultimately more rewarding and will improve my skillsbase. It will also be paid at a significantly lower rate than the same job in the private sector.

The generalist role will be obviously easier and will require none of my technical skills, qualifications or experience.

They are paid the same.

Does one take the easy way out? [Narrator: they always take the easy way out]

I see this happening all over the public sector for roles in my area, where those that fit my experience are set within the administrative structure and then there's a massive leap to the management level for what would be a team lead. There's no smooth transition or tech level for them. It's long overdue that those in technical roles are paid for and separated from the generalist roles.


Just thought I'd throw that one out there for the floor.

Furze99

176 pages of replies within 24 hours - Oh Ho Ho, just goes to show how many public servants are on here and how touchy they are.

Have any of them taken any pay pain over the past 12 months?

La la land to think there can't be consequences, a levelling, a reckoning.

Scoundrel

Furze99 wrote: »

176 pages of replies within 24 hours - Oh Ho Ho, just goes to show how many public servants are on here and how touchy they are.

Have any of them taken any pay pain over the past 12 months?

La la land to think there can't be consequences, a levelling, a reckoning.

Have any public sector workers got 350 a week free money from the government for lying around doing nothing for the last year like many private sector spongers have got?

It seems to me the private sector is quite happy to take and keep all profit but once something goes wrong the begging bowl is out and the money from government is gladly and speedily taken.

fliball123

tayto lover wrote: »

You owned him there. Owned him.

Really lets see as we will have huge unemployment rate after Covid, the higher tax earners leaving due to more taxation and being able to work from anywhere in the world why would you they pay more for the privalage of living in Ireland, when the new Corpo tax rules kick in we will see the 12.5 billion (give or take a billion) we get in revenue in Corpo tax decimated.. How will it work giving pay rises when the money being used is not there..Do we continue to borrow.

Owned will you grow up your not in a school yard. I dont want to see PS pay cuts as history has shown that the country has to be completely phucked and is normally the last resort is to cut the ps pay and pensions and the only time they ever took a cut was when the troika told the government that they were taking the p1ss with regards to our finances.

So lets compare say the next year to when it happened last time. PS pay and pensions ballooned on the back of stamp duty revenue and when that disappeared due to the property bubble bursting cuts had to happen. Same will happen when the corpo tax base is eroded.

So further comparison to that time
We have a lot more debt now
We are back to around the same deficit
We will have as much unemployment once covid goes.

The writing is on the wall and I will be referring you to this post and your owned statement when the cuts are implemented.

fliball123

Deleted User wrote: »

I read your post

It didn't actually address any of the *actual* factual stuff i posted.

It started, within the first few words, with a clear opinion that you framed as a fact.

It carried on with a lot of selective information that didnt address anything other than tropes which have been dismissed or contended many timed before, in this thread, in other threads.

You dont want a discussion, because you dont accept the actual complexities and the actual underlying moving parts of the situation- some of which i broke down a little in my longer post.

You want to state your selective stream of information as if it didnt need to intersect with any of the things i pointed out.

Now, bytimes i feel its important to counter such narrow-perspective posting with my own perspective that "its actually a good deal more complex than that"

I dont do this because i think you will accept it, and it ought to be clear that i dont accept your central premises.

So we arent in a discussion, and im not really beholden to "counter" your follow up contentions once its clear that you aren't interested in a discussion.

Which i think is ok! Im sure you feel the same about my posts.

But essentially, "the country faces economic challenge- cut public sector pay!" is always a nonsense kneejerk regardless of the actual situation and your reiterating that the country faces economic challenges and going into ever greater detail (while inaccurately portraying oh yknow actual pay comparisons and actual pension arrangements) on those challenges is an irrelevancy based on the thrust of my i-ix

x. Was a bit of a nosetweak, granted. I never claimed to be a saint.

So is it not fact that my tax goes to pay towards public sector pay and pensions..this is a bloody fact. I am giving information as I see and the troubles this country is currently and will in the very near future face and sticking your fingers in your ears or your head in the sand is not going to change this. With all your statement here you have not challanged one fact. So I will outline them below

Fact 1 :Public sector pay and pensions are paid for by the state. The state gets that money from taxation and from borrowing which also has to be paid. Ergo money I pay in tax pays for public sector pay and pensions. I am not saying i pay all of it but I do pay towards it that is fact.

Fact 2: We have a debt of 240billion now, back in 2009/10/11 when ps last got cuts we had just under 200Billion

Fact 3: We are now currently running the same deficit as then

Fact 4: The OCED are trying to harmonise corpo tax rules including drop boxes for IPs and the 12.5% . This was a very big carrot that was used to bring MNCs to do business here so inevitable we are going to lose some ground here this was actually 12.5% last year. As I say this is going to be like what happened with stamp duty the government treated it as an annual income and it disappeared with the property crash. When this starts to disappear how will they fill that gap, on top of the 17billion we needed to borrow this year. On top again of the unemployment rates which will spike and be seen for real once Covid and PUP payments are no longer in our frameset.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/record-12-5bn-windfall-in-corporation-tax-expected-this-year-1.4378944

Fact 5: As a country we are currently borrowing at historically low interest rates what happens when the cost of borrowing rises and it will rise. This will mean more cash coming out to cover interest payments.

Now they are facts deal with them I understand you want to have a go at me. But these facts still remain.

wench

Furze99 wrote: »

176 pages of replies within 24 hours - Oh Ho Ho, just goes to show how many public servants are on here and how touchy they are.

You'd need better reading comprehension than that to pass the CS entrance exam. The thread has been running for 11 months.

fliball123

Scoundrel wrote: »

Have any public sector workers got 350 a week free money from the government for lying around doing nothing for the last year like many private sector spongers have got?

It seems to me the private sector is quite happy to take and keep all profit but once something goes wrong the begging bowl is out and the money from government is gladly and speedily taken.

No but many of them have got more for just watching the clock or even worse for blowing into breathalyzer guns or for dialing it in on seesaw or for phucking up smear tests.

Furze99

Furze99 wrote: »

176 pages of replies within 24 hours - Oh Ho Ho, just goes to show how many public servants are on here and how touchy they are.

Have any of them taken any pay pain over the past 12 months?

La la land to think there can't be consequences, a levelling, a reckoning.

Apologies if ive missed something, this thread is a year old and the latest bump only covers about maybe seven or eight pages in a week?

Not that it would matter to your lazy takedown but if it was based on a complete inaccuracy that would at least be worth pointing out, right?

Pogue eile

fliball123 wrote: »

No but many of them have got more for just watching the clock or even worse for blowing into breathalyzer guns or for dialing it in on seesaw or for phucking up smear tests.

Are you in some sort of warped logic trying to suggest that all Public Service employees are guilty by association with a couple of shameful cases?

Can I use the same logic and share a link to for example the Revenue's latest Tax Defaulters list and assume - using your perfectly sound logic- that all private sector workers are lying cheating tax dodging reprobates??

gmisk

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm actually in one of these binds as it happens.

I was empanelled after interview, very highly [blew my mind that the interview went that well], but because of this intransigence, the payscale is at an admin grade.

I was also empanelled last year for another generalist role at the same grade.

The technical role will be more difficult, involve more of my time, but will be ultimately more rewarding and will improve my skillsbase. It will also be paid at a significantly lower rate than the same job in the private sector.

The generalist role will be obviously easier and will require none of my technical skills, qualifications or experience.

They are paid the same.

Does one take the easy way out? [Narrator: they always take the easy way out]

I see this happening all over the public sector for roles in my area, where those that fit my experience are set within the administrative structure and then there's a massive leap to the management level for what would be a team lead. There's no smooth transition or tech level for them. It's long overdue that those in technical roles are paid for and separated from the generalist roles.


Just thought I'd throw that one out there for the floor.

This post is totally spot on imo.
There are now at least dedicated ICT panels, even if they are at same grade as generalist.

The PS/CS is crying out for ICT skills, so you might have a decent shot at progressing in the grades. So I wouldn't let it put you off entirely.

I started as a CO (got far too content at department tbh) but then started to knuckle down got my masters etc and now up to an AP.
I was also offered other roles in private sector for bigger money over the years but was happy generally in department. I made my choice to have a better work life balance over money and generally happy with it

It's funny how this topic comes up everytime there is a recession or similar, the CS/PS is open to anyone so if people think it's such a cosy wee number why not join?