Slashing Public Sector Pay

ardmacha · 13-05-2011 11:06AM

I think you have taken my post out of context.. I am responding to a previous poster who seemed to be suggesting that a 9% pension payment adequately covered the cost of a final salary DB scheme (and they provided a simplistic mathematical scenario to justify the claim).. My post was to show that their had considerably under called the cost because of the nature of the investments required to fund such a scheme..

Welease, fair play for at least providing numbers and a rational argument, which is by no means usual on this forum.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think.

You (and Drumpot) are posting the cost of private sector style pension.
I am posting the appropriate rate of contribution for public servants for the pay as you go public sector pensions.

You cite inflation. My point is that today's public servants pay something like 2% of current GNP which is used to pay today's pensioners. In the future those public servants receive pensions which represent a similar relationship; higher monetary values, but a similar relationship to PS pay and no less affordable provided that some adjustment is made for increased lifespan.

My point is that, in general, the state is a more efficient pension provider. Now you can fairly say that PS salaries when compared with private salaries should reflect the greater difficulty of providing private pensions and that is a legitimate concern for benchmarking.

sarumite · 13-05-2011 12:16PM

waster81 wrote: »

isnt it much easier for you to sit there and bash public service and then we have a lot of private sector who contribute nothing uselful for our society

If they are not costing the tax payer money, then I really don't care. IF the government is looking to raise taxes, then those people who pay taxes have a right to question where their money is going and how their money is being spent.

sarumite · 13-05-2011 12:18PM

sollar wrote: »

@welease

Increments are not pay rises they are increments.... (i'm being as contrary as the contribution crowd).....increments are a pre agreed part of the public service pay structure.

Its not contrary, its just being consistent. An decrease in gross pay is a pay cut, an increase in gross pay is a pay rise. You can define it as a pre agreed incremental pay rise, but its still a pay rise wether you look at gross or net pay.

Jaysoose · 13-05-2011 01:34PM

sarumite wrote: »

Its not contrary, its just being consistent. An decrease in gross pay is a pay cut, an increase in gross pay is a pay rise. You can define it as a pre agreed incremental pay rise, but its still a pay rise wether you look at gross or net pay.

We could go one further the increments are increases in pay for no increase in responsibility or productivity either.

OMD · 13-05-2011 02:09PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Welease, fair play for at least providing numbers and a rational argument, which is by no means usual on this forum.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think.

You (and Drumpot) are posting the cost of private sector style pension.
I am posting the appropriate rate of contribution for public servants for the pay as you go public sector pensions.

You cite inflation. My point is that today's public servants pay something like 2% of current GNP which is used to pay today's pensioners. In the future those public servants receive pensions which represent a similar relationship; higher monetary values, but a similar relationship to PS pay and no less affordable provided that some adjustment is made for increased lifespan.

My point is that, in general, the state is a more efficient pension provider. Now you can fairly say that PS salaries when compared with private salaries should reflect the greater difficulty of providing private pensions and that is a legitimate concern for benchmarking.

The level of pensions though can be enormous. A teacher retiring today with 40 years service and a normal life expectancy will earn more as a pensioner than in his entire working life. Yes inflation will have had a big role here but still it shows how little PS workers have paid historically into their pensions.

Also your point that current workers pay the pensions of past workers ignores the fact that the number of workers is going down.

kippy · 13-05-2011 02:31PM

OMD wrote: »

Also your point that current workers pay the pensions of past workers ignores the fact that the number of workers is going down.

Thats not the worrying part (as it can be said that the level of contributions to the pensions have increased)
The worrying part is that the NPR is empty with little chance of any return on what we invested it in. This is worring for private and public workers.

Gumbo · 13-05-2011 03:28PM

OMD wrote: »

A teacher retiring today with 40 years service and a normal life expectancy will earn more as a pensioner than in his entire working life.

how so?
wont he or she only earn 50% of their salary for their retirement life?
assuming 40 years service at 65, then pension life is only 13 years according to the average life expectancy chart for Ireland.

so 13 years earning 50% compared to 40 years earning 100% ?
something doesnt add up there??

ardmacha · 13-05-2011 03:31PM

teacher retiring today with 40 years service and a normal life expectancy will earn more as a pensioner than in his entire working life.

Very very doubtful, although teachers do tend to long lived and are typically women. This would be caused be inflation and while in the 80's (inflation), 90s (real economic growth) and 00s (fake economic growth) pensions increased quickly this should not be true in the Eurozone in future.

Also your point that current workers pay the pensions of past workers ignores the fact that the number of workers is going down.

The number of workers is going down presently, but not in any general way over a long period of time.

OMD · 13-05-2011 03:42PM

kceire wrote: »

how so?
wont he or she only earn 50% of their salary for their retirement life?
assuming 40 years service at 65, then pension life is only 13 years according to the average life expectancy chart for Ireland.

so 13 years earning 50% compared to 40 years earning 100% ?
something doesnt add up there??

A teacher retiring now will be on 50% of her final salary which is the equivalent of a teachers starting salary in 2011 and a multiple of her Year 1 salary 40 years ago. Indeed only 10 years ago this teacher would have still been top of her pay scale but only earning 40K

Also in general wages rise (I know pay freeze at present) so in 19 years time (average expectancy age 65) the teacher could reasonably expect a pension of 80%+ of their own final salary.

A teacher retiring in 2000 would have been on a full pension of approx €20,000. That teacher is now earning a pension of €30,000 (or 75% of her actual final salary)

Add to that the lump sum of 1.5 times final salary.

waster81 · 13-05-2011 04:03PM

sarumite wrote: »

If they are not costing the tax payer money, then I really don't care. IF the government is looking to raise taxes, then those people who pay taxes have a right to question where their money is going and how their money is being spent.

Its probably been wasted on lazy overweight private sector people clogging up beds in wards.

Wasting garda time through anti social behaviour because private sector people are too busy working chasing the next euro to be bothered spending time with their kids

sarumite · 13-05-2011 04:08PM

waster81 wrote: »

Its probably been wasted on lazy overweight private sector people clogging up beds in wards.

Wasting garda time through anti social behaviour because private sector people are too busy working chasing the next euro to be bothered spending time with their kids

Gotcha, so the typical private sector worker is an overweight bad parent. :rolleyes:

waster81 · 13-05-2011 04:10PM

well id say ignorant as well

dvpower · 13-05-2011 04:10PM

waster81 wrote: »

Its probably been wasted on lazy overweight private sector people clogging up beds in wards.

Wasting garda time through anti social behaviour because private sector people are too busy working chasing the next euro to be bothered spending time with their kids

Get back under your bridge.

waster81 · 13-05-2011 04:12PM

Oh and the majority find it easier to sit there and do nothing but whinge and moan.

It would be too much to expect them to contribute their time to society, take an interest in their community

sarumite · 13-05-2011 04:13PM

kceire wrote: »

how so?
wont he or she only earn 50% of their salary for their retirement life?
assuming 40 years service at 65, then pension life is only 13 years according to the average life expectancy chart for Ireland.

Average life expectancy takes into consideration infant mortality etc, not exactly a useful statistic when looking at the maturation of a pension.

waster81 · 13-05-2011 04:14PM

dvpower wrote: »

Get back under your bridge.

lol

sarumite · 13-05-2011 04:20PM

-deleted-

Scofflaw · 13-05-2011 04:25PM

waster81 wrote: »

Get back under your bridge.

lol

Sent under the bridge for the next three days for flame bait, trolling, and persistently low quality contributions. Have a sit and a bit of a think about what might constitute worthwhile contribution to the forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

dan_d · 13-05-2011 04:29PM

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/19534398/?view=Standard

An interesting statement from this minister for reform. I wonder exactly what practices he has in mind....I'd imagine it will vary wildly according to dept. I would think that every dept has it's own way of operating with varying "unacceptable" practices going on.

Have to say - FF - specifically Ahern, McCreevy and Cowen (any other names you can think of!) - deserve a root where the sun don't shine for what they've allowed to happen in the last 10 years.....sometimes I think horsewhipping would be too good for 'em:D

dvpower · 13-05-2011 04:56PM

dan_d wrote: »

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/19534398/?view=Standard

An interesting statement from this minister for reform. I wonder exactly what practices he has in mind....I'd imagine it will vary wildly according to dept. I would think that every dept has it's own way of operating with varying "unacceptable" practices going on.

More on this here

Mr Howlin said what was likely to emerge was a twin-track approach with a new reduced ceiling and floor for leave entitlements for existing staff and a revised system of lower leave entitlements for new entrants.

The Minister said he wanted the public service to have leave entitlements that were analogous with the private sector, but acknowledged that could not be achieved instantly.

However, he said they could set down those norms for new entrants and drive them through for the remainder of the workforce over time.

So new arrangements will apply to new entrants (i.e. virtually nobody) and apply to the remainder of the workforce over time (i.e. never).

Jaysoose · 13-05-2011 05:02PM

dvpower wrote: »

More on this here

So new arrangements will apply to new entrants (i.e. virtually nobody) and apply to the remainder of the workforce over time (i.e. never).

Yep its more of the same "nothing to see here..move along now"..

Jaysoose · 13-05-2011 05:04PM

dan_d wrote: »

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/19534398/?view=Standard

An interesting statement from this minister for reform. I wonder exactly what practices he has in mind....I'd imagine it will vary wildly according to dept. I would think that every dept has it's own way of operating with varying "unacceptable" practices going on.

Have to say - FF - specifically Ahern, McCreevy and Cowen (any other names you can think of!) - deserve a root where the sun don't shine for what they've allowed to happen in the last 10 years.....sometimes I think horsewhipping would be too good for 'em:D

Well the much talked about CPA should deliver this sort of information then the minister can go about reform within individual departments...shouldnt it?

dvpower · 13-05-2011 05:12PM

rte wrote:

He said in local authorities, days off for fairs and traditional events had been incorporated into mainstream leave and that reforming this would be a daunting task.

rte wrote:

The Minister said reform would have been required even if Ireland were not living on borrowed money to keep the lights on and the doors open.

Something just doesn't add up here. If we are 'living on borrowed money to keep the lights on and the doors open' then how is it a daunting task to remove leave that originated as days off for 'fairs and traditional events' ?

Is it more daunting to push through reform than to watch the lights go out?

nursextreme · 13-05-2011 05:41PM

dvpower wrote: »

So new arrangements will apply to new entrants (i.e. virtually nobody) and apply to the remainder of the workforce over time (i.e. never).

Much the same as the 10% pay cut imposed on new entrants to the Public Sector, the moratorium/cpa currently prevents this from having any effect. More of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Head The Wall · 13-05-2011 08:15PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

Well the much talked about CPA should deliver this sort of information then the minister can go about reform within individual departments...shouldnt it?

You really have to wonder how many more "Unforeseen Budgetary Circumstances" have to happen before the Govt toss that piece of sh1t CPA agreement out

deise blue · 13-05-2011 08:25PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

You really have to wonder how many more "Unforeseen Budgetary Circumstances" have to happen before the Govt toss that piece of sh1t CPA agreement out

I would imagine that the Government are hugely concerned that if they walk away from the CPA that organised , targeted industrial chaos will follow & reform will never happen.

It's completely understandable for any Government to wish to sidestep this appalling scenario & as such it appears that they will give the Agreement every chance to work.

20Cent · 13-05-2011 08:30PM

deise blue wrote: »

I would imagine that the Government are hugely concerned that if they walk away from the CPA that organised , targeted industrial chaos will follow & reform will never happen.

It's completely understandable for any Government to wish to sidestep this appalling scenario & as such it appears that they will give the Agreement every chance to work.

What evidence is there for "targeted industrial chaos"? There has only been one day of strike the whole crisis. The unions are pussy cats.

Head The Wall · 13-05-2011 08:36PM

20Cent wrote: »

What evidence is there for "targeted industrial chaos"? There has only been one day of strike the whole crisis. The unions are pussy cats.

Lazy, unwilling to reform and selfish pussy cats at that

sarumite · 13-05-2011 09:45PM

20Cent wrote: »

What evidence is there for "targeted industrial chaos"? There has only been one day of strike the whole crisis. The unions are pussy cats.

The unions have no reason to strike. The CPA is the best thing for the unions, striking only puts that in jepardy. They know that their members have nothing to gain by striking at the moment. It's got nothing to do with being pussy cats, and everything to do with common sense.

sollar · 13-05-2011 10:30PM

20Cent wrote: »

What evidence is there for "targeted industrial chaos"? There has only been one day of strike the whole crisis. The unions are pussy cats.

As someone who works in the ps, most people knew that they were going to face some cuts last time round. So it was largely tolerated.

But people now are feeling the pinch alot more and all the talk is of no way are they willing to take more cuts. There will definitely be strikes and industrial action if the CPA is broken.

Slashing Public Sector Pay

Comments