Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Economy & The Public Sector

  • 13-02-2012 12:59am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    MOD NOTE
    Tangential discussion moved from another thread.
    No, this has nothing to do with A&A per se but we're all taxpayers so lets talk!
    Dades


    fitz0 wrote: »
    They're civil servants. It would take divine intervention to get them to do work.

    Uh oh! Someone has fallen for the "fight each other while we rob you" Public Sector v Private Sector ruse.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Uh oh! Someone has fallen for the "fight each other while we rob you" Public Sector v Private Sector ruse.

    I really wish people would stop saying that. Even if we were to accept that taxes are the government are "robbing us", 1/3 of the amount that they "rob" goes to pay for the public sector. The public sector are not victims of the government's "robbing", they're the second largest beneficiary of it just behind social welfare recipients.

    Now if I was to see public sector employees showing some kind of solidarity with the private sector by, for example, voluntarily giving up part of their pay packet on the understanding that the money saved would be used to reduce taxes for everyone instead of fighting absolutely necessary cuts every step of the way I might see your point but until then it would be far more accurate to describe the situation as "fight each other while we rob half of you to pay the other half ".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    fitz0 wrote: »
    They're civil servants. It would take divine intervention to get them to do work.

    Uh oh! Someone has fallen for the "fight each other while we rob you" Public Sector v Private Sector ruse.

    Oh sorry, I forgot to add my punctuation.

    *ahem*

    :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I really wish people would stop saying that. Even if we were to accept that taxes are the government are "robbing us", 1/3 of the amount that they "rob" goes to pay for the public sector. The public sector are not victims of the government's "robbing", they're the second largest beneficiary of it just behind social welfare recipients.

    Taxes are not robbery, I never said that. Citizens need good government and a strong effective civil service to provide things which are essential to human well being but have little or no value if you're only interested in the bottom line. Clean air for example, or a secular education system available to those of the majority of people who are not rich enough to pay for private schools. Comparing public sector workers to social welfare recipients serves to underline your disrespect for them and the work they do.

    The Government are not the ones robbing us.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Now if I was to see public sector employees showing some kind of solidarity with the private sector by, for example, voluntarily giving up part of their pay packet on the understanding that the money saved would be used to reduce taxes for everyone instead of fighting absolutely necessary cuts every step of the way I might see your point but until then it would be far more accurate to describe the situation as "fight each other while we rob half of you to pay the other half ".

    Those who don't work in the public sector are quick to ignore the fact that many of the people who do have had their pay cut by various supposedly temporary emergency taxation measures, my sister tells me she takes home 25% less than she did in 2007. (Obviously I'm inclined to believe her, but you are free to disregard that as a testimonial and I certainly would in your shoes). But even without that dramatic figure, pay has been cut by increasing tax (for everyone, not just the private sector). The Croke Park agreement was a bloody disaster, I really think the public sector unions are not only out of touch but actively not listening to their members.

    And just in case it was missed by anyone before now, the Government are not the ones robbing us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭markfla


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Uh oh! Someone has fallen for the "fight each other while we rob you" Public Sector v Private Sector ruse.

    I really wish people would stop saying that. Even if we were to accept that taxes are the government are "robbing us", 1/3 of the amount that they "rob" goes to pay for the public sector. The public sector are not victims of the government's "robbing", they're the second largest beneficiary of it just behind social welfare recipients.

    Now if I was to see public sector employees showing some kind of solidarity with the private sector by, for example, voluntarily giving up part of their pay packet on the understanding that the money saved would be used to reduce taxes for everyone instead of fighting absolutely necessary cuts every step of the way I might see your point but until then it would be far more accurate to describe the situation as "fight each other while we rob half of you to pay the other half ".

    Well don't go crying to them if you're raped or robbed then or you have a sick family member, I'm sure you can do a better job at educating them too. Get called out to a car crash with mangled young people or suicides and you may change your tune. For the record I'm in private sector and haven't voluntarily reduced my wage. Sorry for derailing thread mods.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Taxes are not robbery, I never said that. Citizens need good government and a strong effective civil service to provide things which are essential to human well being but have little or no value if you're only interested in the bottom line. Clean air for example, or a secular education system available to those of the majority of people who are not rich enough to pay for private schools. Comparing public sector workers to social welfare recipients serves to underline your disrespect for them and the work they do.

    The Government are not the ones robbing us.

    Those who don't work in the public sector are quick to ignore the fact that many of the people who do have had their pay cut by various supposedly temporary emergency taxation measures, my sister tells me she takes home 25% less than she did in 2007. (Obviously I'm inclined to believe her, but you are free to disregard that as a testimonial and I certainly would in your shoes). But even without that dramatic figure, pay has been cut by increasing tax (for everyone, not just the private sector). The Croke Park agreement was a bloody disaster, I really think the public sector unions are not only out of touch but actively not listening to their members.

    And just in case it was missed by anyone before now, the Government are not the ones robbing us.
    markfla wrote: »
    Well don't go crying to them if you're raped or robbed then or you have a sick family member, I'm sure you can do a better job at educating them too. Get called out to a car crash with mangled young people or suicides and you may change your tune. For the record I'm in private sector and haven't voluntarily reduced my wage. Sorry for derailing thread mods.

    You both make compelling arguments for why the public sector should be paid well and well resourced and I agree with both of you. Unfortunately nothing that either of you said changes the fact that we're taking in ~€38 billion in tax and spending ~€55 billion. Those two simple figures are the only thing that matters in any conversation on public sector expenditure and the reason why there is so much "fighting" between the public and private sectors is the apparent desire of the public sector and their supporters to ignore them. Yes doctors, gardai and teachers work very hard and do very good jobs but no amount of hard work from the public sector will convince me that our country should borrow itself into bankruptcy to pay them money we don't have


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 238 ✭✭dmw07


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You both make compelling arguments for why the public sector should be paid well and well resourced and I agree with both of you. Unfortunately nothing that either of you said changes the fact that we're taking in ~€38 billion in tax and spending ~€55 billion. Those two simple figures are the only thing that matters in any conversation on public sector expenditure and the reason why there is so much "fighting" between the public and private sectors is the apparent desire of the public sector and their supporters to ignore them. Yes doctors, gardai and teachers work very hard and do very good jobs but no amount of hard work from the public sector will convince me that our country should borrow itself into bankruptcy to pay them money we don't have

    I agree in part with everyone here really.

    Simple maths tells us to tighten the belts though.

    That is not happening.

    I champion doctors, nurses, garda and firemen (most of whom are part time and give up a lot of their spare time to do the job) and some don't even have the resources to do their jobs properly. But, there is a lot of dead wood and a lot of over paid, under worked employees in the public sector. Speaking from personal experience of about 6-7 close friends and family in the civil service.

    The stereotype of civil servants is overplayed but they agree that what goes on in the public sector would never happen in the private. The organisation is terrible, the bonus method is retarded and a lot of under-preforming employees would be sacked.

    The fat needs to be removed. That is being blocked, by the fat.

    Things need to change.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    dmw07 wrote: »
    The fat needs to be removed. That is being blocked, by the fat.
    And the trades unions, who will raise hell if their ability to use their membership to parasitize indirectly upon the private sector, and the general public, is threatened.

    Nothing I've ever heard about the civil service unions has suggested to me that they're significantly different from what went on in a certain largish, well-known manufacturing facility near Cork which, when I worked there, used to have 550 people employed (some of them gainfully), and now has none.


  • Registered Users Posts: 238 ✭✭dmw07


    robindch wrote: »
    And the trades unions, who will raise hell if their ability to use their membership to parasitize indirectly upon the private sector, and the general public, is threatened.

    Nothing I've ever heard about the civil service unions has suggested to me that they're significantly different from what went on in a certain largish, well-known manufacturing facility near Cork which, when I worked there, used to have 550 people employed (some of them gainfully), and now has none.

    Unions


    ****Quiver****


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    markfla wrote: »
    Well don't go crying to them if you're raped or robbed then or you have a sick family member, I'm sure you can do a better job at educating them too. Get called out to a car crash with mangled young people or suicides and you may change your tune. For the record I'm in private sector and haven't voluntarily reduced my wage. Sorry for derailing thread mods.

    is thier meant to be some kind of warning in there that if we complain about state sector wages , the guards and nurses will simply up and leave , if that is the purpose of your post , its a tad lame , thier are any number of people who are all too willing to don a garda or nurses uniform , the wages are exceptionally good for either in this country


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    It's funny, I heard on newstalk the other day (and checked figures here ) that the average wage for German professors (of the lecturing variety I mean) is about 48k a year.

    In Ireland the average is about 78k.

    Also, germany has a slightly higher rate of upper band income tax (42%, in case anyone thought there might be a mitigating factor there).

    Granted people rightly point out that there is a mitigating factor in the form of a higher cost of living but that higher cost of living is not entirely unrelated to the ludicrous wages we're paying those in the employ of the government.

    It's not about taking the money away from the public sector. It's about taking back the money we didn't have to give them in the first place.
    I do wonder if allowing public sectors to be represented by unions is a good idea at all. Whatever way it's fixed, power has to be taken out of the hands of those in the public sector and some semblance of fairness and only rewarding honest endeavour has to be driven into the public sector (although not really to the ground level staff).

    Front line staff in the guards, nurses and teachers (if they were of a higher standard) have a right to a reasonable wage but people who are lazy asshats getting incremental wages they haven't earned, particularly in the higher echelons of the public sector, need to be pruned.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    dmw07 wrote: »
    Unions


    ****Quiver****

    Unions were really good about 100 years ago where they stood up for people who were being abused. Now, they do not care about people being abused.

    1. In the "boom" they ensured that wage gaps between top ranked public sector and low ranked public sector remained very large.

    2. The union big boys such as Jack O'Connor are all on well over 6 figure salaries.

    3. The Unions have recently agreed that new members of the public sector get paid 10 percent less than everyone else. This is completly unfair. Why should someone doing the exact same work as the person sitting beside them get 10% less. Only because the person on 10% more is a paid up member.

    4. They did not give two hoots about the gama workers who were only getting two euros an hour. Why because these people were not paying members?

    It irks when they try to take the moral high ground.

    They are as much to blame for the mess we are in as the banks.

    You cannot get married by the state on a Saturday. It has to be a Monday to Friday. If you want to go to a parent teacher meeting you have to take a half from work, when it make more sense for the teacher to do the occasional Saturday morning in return for those 3 months off in the summer. You cannot bring your kids to a library at a bank holiday weekened because they take Saturday off every bank holiday weekend. You cannot even bring them during that week in Christmas because they take that all off too. don't ever try to return books at lunchtime because they close then - well at least they all do in Fingal.

    These are all very basic things.

    How about all these public sector union people who tell us how great they are give up their private health insurance and are forced to use the services they provide at a very high cost to the state?

    Yeah that's sounds fair to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭smokingman


    I've never worked in the public sector but my wife went from working in IBM to it a few years ago. While she's out on maternity leave right now, she would come home every second week before that telling me that her boss had hauled her in to his office to tell her to slow down. I sh|t you not, that is exactly what she is told, week in, week out. She was apparently making the others in the office look bad but my wife is not the sort to laze away a day. She cannot understand the thought process that would make someone make their days seem longer by doing nothing. Having worked in high pressure offices all my working life, I also can't see the logic in not having your salary linked to how well you do your job as opposed to just getting increments no matter how lazy or useless or downright incompetent you are.

    The more stories she tells me, the more I despair for this country.

    It's a tough question to ask to find a solution but, while there are genuine hard working people in the public sector, I liken the lack of personal responsibility in it to the same trait in the religious.

    "As long as I keep my head down, I'll go to heaven"
    "As long as I keep my head down, I'll stay in this job for life"

    "I'll follow the ten commandments as defined and be rigid against any new moralities like humanism"
    "That's not my job, I file B21 forms; you're probably looking for someone that files B21a forms"

    etcetera...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Gbear wrote: »
    It's funny, I heard on newstalk the other day (and checked figures here ) that the average wage for German professors (of the lecturing variety I mean) is about 48k a year.

    In Ireland the average is about 78k.
    Professors? Sure what about those Fas people? Think about this. Fas is an organisation to help people with little or no qualifications get some skills and get a fairly basic job and the upper management go around flying in 1st class firing off all sorts of nonsense as expenses.

    We are being robbed by the public sector.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    smokingman wrote: »
    "As long as I keep my head down, I'll go to heaven"
    "As long as I keep my head down, I'll stay in this job for life"

    "I'll follow the ten commandments as defined and be rigid against any new moralities like humanism"
    "That's not my job, I file B21 forms; you're probably looking for someone that files B21a forms"

    etcetera...
    Where they differ is on guilt. Religious people feel guilty but public sector have this attitude: "Don't blame us for the recession!".

    I think they are more like creationists. They refuse to recognise the evidence which shows that their high wages are the main cause of the deficit problem in the same way as creationists refuse to accept fossils and molecular evidence


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    smokingman wrote: »
    I also can't see the logic in not having your salary linked to how well you do your job as opposed to just getting increments no matter how lazy or useless or downright incompetent you are.

    A bit tangential but I remember seeing a video narrated by an american or canadian professor of economics arguing that data indicates that once people receive a comfortable wage, by and large they tend to work better, not as their wages increase, but as their freedom increases with respect to their work.

    It was one of those economic videos narrated by an economics professor where the video itself is sped-up sketching done by a hand to illustrate the points.

    Anyone know what i'm on about? There's a few of them and I can't remember how I found them in the first place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    I love how people don't even question the concept that someone going from working in the private sector to working in the public sector gets called into an office and told to slow down every second week. I went from public to private and I can tell you I worked a lot harder in a very similar job in the public sector than I do now. I'm not the only person I know who can say that either. But again, all that is unfounded claims and hearsay, much like the majority of the public sector bashing in this thread.

    Here's an economist talking more knowledgeably than me about Ireland's tax take and spend: http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/01/10/just-like-that-200000-jobs-and-the-government%E2%80%99s-magic-trick/.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Seeing as how my off the cuff remark seems to have started this thread, I should probably contribute.

    Having worked in the public sector, albeit briefly, I really don't know where the public misconception (which I happily abuse for sarcasm's sake) comes from. I worked harder there than I ever have in a private company, bar serving in a restaurant.

    And since I worked in the public sector my opinion on this matter is automatically true. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    dmw07 wrote: »
    The stereotype of civil servants is overplayed but they agree that what goes on in the public sector would never happen in the private. The organisation is terrible, the bonus method is retarded and a lot of under-preforming employees would be sacked.

    The fat needs to be removed. That is being blocked, by the fat.

    Things need to change.

    Haha. My wife works in the financial services sector. 5 years ago she worked for the fund management arm of A Rather Large Irish Bank (which today is not state owned).
    Everyone there considered themselves rather underpaid - which by market standards they were. She applied to Extremely Large US Investment Bank (subseqnently not rescued by the US taxpayer) and was accepted at about 50% salary increase.
    But they assigned her to a team 'lead' by an obnoxious asshole who didn't have the first clue and assigned her no work. She literally sat there for two weeks asking 'what am I supposed to do' with no answer. She resigned after two weeks and got a similar, but slightly less well paid, post in a European bank (guess what, also not rescued by the taxpayer), where things are mostly good - but even there the rugby playing friend of the boss is allowed get away with murder while ordering everyone else around.

    If you think idiotic recruitment and management policies only happen in the public sector, you've another think coming.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭smokingman


    I love how people don't even question the concept that someone going from working in the private sector to working in the public sector gets called into an office and told to slow down every second week.

    I'm just stating what happens in my wifes situation on a regular basis. I don't know if it happens a lot elsewhere but the fact that it happens at all would indicate a serious flaw in that particular areas work attitude.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I really wish people would stop saying that. Even if we were to accept that taxes are the government are "robbing us", 1/3 of the amount that they "rob" goes to pay for the public sector. The public sector are not victims of the government's "robbing", they're the second largest beneficiary of it just behind social welfare recipients.

    Now if I was to see public sector employees showing some kind of solidarity with the private sector by, for example, voluntarily giving up part of their pay packet on the understanding that the money saved would be used to reduce taxes for everyone instead of fighting absolutely necessary cuts every step of the way I might see your point but until then it would be far more accurate to describe the situation as "fight each other while we rob half of you to pay the other half ".

    And if I was to see even one private sector cheerleader acknowledge that in fact there have been massive job losses and salary cuts in the public sector, then I might take comments like this seriously. Most of my public sector colleagues have seen their take home pay decrease by 15-20% in the last 2 years. Most units and departments where I work now have about 10% fewer employees than 2 years ago. That amounts to an awful lot of people who would have been public sector employees that are now out of work. But, the very same private sector advocates will be the ones banging on about the poor quality of our university graduates, or the shoddy service from our public healthcare providers, while all the time demanding paycuts and decimation of these very same sectors.

    BTW, I have yet to see any private sector samaritans volunteering for some pay cuts to help the rest of us out


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    BTW, I have yet to see any private sector samaritans volunteering for some pay cuts to help the rest of us out

    How would that help exactly? It would mean lower GDP and less taxes so a higher deficit.

    Also I assume you know very few people who get increments.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,997 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the only person i know who works in a public sector role whose job is threatened is someone who has been teaching for about 6 years, but that's not long enough for her to have been made permanent.
    i know about half a dozen people in the private sector who lost their jobs, and others who had to take the pay cuts suggested above.

    i'd be curious as to where in the public sector there have been massive job losses; voluntary redundancy not counted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    amacachi wrote: »
    How would that help exactly? It would mean lower GDP and less taxes so a higher deficit.

    Also I assume you know very few people who get increments.

    I was referring to Sam Vimes suggestion that public sector workers might consider taking voluntary pay cuts (on top of the ones that have already been imposed on them)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    I was referring to Sam Vimes suggestion that public sector workers might consider taking voluntary pay cuts (on top of the ones that have already been imposed on them)

    His suggestion would help one thing, yours would help none.

    I'll ask again though, do you know anyone who gets increments? Also what's the breakdown of the paycuts you're claiming and how much applies to non-state employees?


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    amacachi wrote: »
    His suggestion would help one thing, yours would help none.

    My what?

    I didn't make a suggestion. I made a sarcastic reference to another poster's suggestion.

    Regarding the rest of your post. I don't understand the relevance of your question "do you know anyone who gets increments?". Yes, I do, of course. I also know many people who have been denied their normal progression because of promotion freezes.

    Regarding paycuts. I, of course, know that most private sector workers have suffered large pay cuts too - I would never deny that. What annoys me is the suggestion that there has been no pain suffered by public sector workers. This seems to be accepted as a self evident truth by a large number of people (at least those who like to get their news from the Irish I*******ent). There have been many job losses in the public sector, especially among junior staff, who are likely to be on temporary contracts.

    Most public sector employees that I know are well aware that they are lucky to have jobs and are quite willing to accept the pay cuts that have already been imposed. Many public sector workers are (like I am) married to private sector workers who have been made redundant or suffered loss of income and, are well aware of the consequences of this recession. The myth of the comfortable public sector employee blissfully going about his business, completely insulated from the effects of the recession is just that, a complete myth. All of my colleagues in my public sector workplace are working longer hours for much less pay. And all are willing to do so.

    What they are not willing to accept is the slander and screeching and wailing of a small group of people who seem to be unable to come to terms with the fact that it is no longer their god given right as 'entrepeneurs' to rip off the rest of the country with overpriced products and services.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    So no breakdown at all? What's the paycut in the PS made up of? There's the levy or USC or whatever they're calling it now that everyone pays. The pension levy is the only thing exclusive to the PS and where someone is moving up a payscale has generally been offset. Claiming a reduction in overtime or the fact that each paypoint on a scale didn't move up "as expected" is the same as a paycut is very misleading.

    The simple fact is that if one looks at the state like any other company then those who work for it are a cost, those who work elsewhere are contributers. Plenty of the lower paid workers have seen through the unions and their BS since the whole thing kicked off. As you say, it's the temp and new workers who get punished, thank your union for that, will always be that way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    amacachi wrote: »
    So no breakdown at all? What's the paycut in the PS made up of? There's the levy or USC or whatever they're calling it now that everyone pays. The pension levy is the only thing exclusive to the PS and where someone is moving up a payscale has generally been offset. Claiming a reduction in overtime or the fact that each paypoint on a scale didn't move up "as expected" is the same as a paycut is very misleading.

    I will repeat. I didn't ever and do not claim that pay reductions are exclusive to the public sector (although the pension levy was a pretty hefty one that was). Many public sector employees work jobs where there is no possibility of being payed for overtime, yet are putting in extra hours without extra pay. Regarding the issue of salary points, there are many people in my workplace who would be promoted to higher scales based on excellent performance but have no prospect of that happening in the next couple of years
    The simple fact is that if one looks at the state like any other company then those who work for it are a cost, those who work elsewhere are contributers. Plenty of the lower paid workers have seen through the unions and their BS since the whole thing kicked off. As you say, it's the temp and new workers who get punished, thank your union for that, will always be that way.
    I like the assumption that I am a union member (I am not). And it is not just the most junior staff who are feeling the bite, although those people are getting hit harder than most. The union certainly has not covered itself in glory, however it is not the organisation that seeks to victimise low paid public sector workers in the name of fairness.

    BTW, the state is not just another company and nor should it be treated in that way. If you believe that, then remember it the next time you complain about not having critical healthcare services anywhere outside Dublin, or having to actually pay the full cost of your children's university education or about not having a garda station in every small town that needs one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    I will repeat. I didn't ever and do not claim that pay reductions are exclusive to the public sector (although the pension levy was a pretty hefty one that was). Many public sector employees work jobs where there is no possibility of being payed for overtime, yet are putting in extra hours without extra pay. Regarding the issue of salary points, there are many people in my workplace who would be promoted to higher scales based on excellent performance but have no prospect of that happening in the next couple of years
    Still waiting for a breakdown of apparent paycuts.
    I like the assumption that I am a union member (I am not). And it is not just the most junior staff who are feeling the bite, although those people are getting hit harder than most. The union certainly has not covered itself in glory, however it is not the organisation that seeks to victimise low paid public sector workers in the name of fairness.
    Where was the assumption that you're a union member? Whether someone is or not though they'll be bound by whatever they negotiate.
    As far as I'm concerned unions exist to protect the higher-paid workers. When that hangar thing was going on in Dublin Airport they went for last in-first out. Younger workers who were more likely to have kids at home and bigger mortgages while being paid less were kicked out while the older workers who were on higher pay and less likely to have the kind of commitments weren't. The teachers' union has gone with a 10% cut for new entrants rather than what, probably a .5% decrease across the board which would've saved at least as much, likely much more.
    BTW, the state is not just another company and nor should it be treated in that way. If you believe that, then remember it the next time you complain about not having critical healthcare services anywhere outside Dublin, or having to actually pay the full cost of your children's university education or about not having a garda station in every small town that needs one.
    Ah the usual argument for being really, really inefficient. If services were important then there'd be paycuts instead of cuts in numbers.
    I generally don't complain about such things btw, I'm in favour of consolidation of medical care (if it were done properly, it won't be). I'm also in favour of university fees because the current situation has two massive downsides in my eyes, lowering standards and even more workers being seen as state workers. Free fees have done nothing to change the socio-economic make-up of student intakes in this country. All it's done is increase government influence and reach.

    I wouldn't worry anyway. This recession was the perfect chance to streamline and reduce the size of the state. Instead it's being propped up and we're getting a property tax etc. to tide it over until things improve. Once inflation starts and everything's balanced the ridiculous giveaways will start all over again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    amacachi wrote: »
    Where was the assumption that you're a union member?

    Here
    As you say, it's the temp and new workers who get punished, thank your union for that, will always be that way.

    In what sense is it "my" union if I am not a member. Its analogous to me saying that the Catholic Church is "your" church (I'm guessing that you are an atheist)

    As far as I'm concerned unions exist to protect the higher-paid workers. When that hangar thing was going on in Dublin Airport they went for last in-first out. Younger workers who were more likely to have kids at home and bigger mortgages while being paid less were kicked out while the older workers who were on higher pay and less likely to have the kind of commitments weren't. The teachers' union has gone with a 10% cut for new entrants rather than what, probably a .5% decrease across the board which would've saved at least as much, likely much more.
    As I posted earlier, you will not find me defending the unions, However, that is not where this argument started. The public sector unions and the public sector are not the same the thing, despite your confused attempts to conflate them. My point is and always has been that the public sector has suffered extensive job losses and paycuts during this recession - this point has nothing to do with how well or poorly the unions represent their members. I do not claim that these hardships are in any way exclusive to the public sector, thus your insistent demands for a breakdown of paycuts (which I never volunteered to give) is irrelevant to the point at hand. Just to save you the bother of asking again, I will not be providing any such breakdown. If you feel the need to persist, then provide it yourself. While you are at it of course, you should provide a corresponding breakdown for the entire private sector workforce otherwise I would suggest that any comparisons are meaningless.
    Ah the usual argument for being really, really inefficient. If services were important then there'd be paycuts instead of cuts in numbers.
    I generally don't complain about such things btw, I'm in favour of consolidation of medical care (if it were done properly, it won't be). I'm also in favour of university fees because the current situation has two massive downsides in my eyes, lowering standards and even more workers being seen as state workers. Free fees have done nothing to change the socio-economic make-up of student intakes in this country. All it's done is increase government influence and reach.

    I wouldn't worry anyway. This recession was the perfect chance to streamline and reduce the size of the state. Instead it's being propped up and we're getting a property tax etc. to tide it over until things improve. Once inflation starts and everything's balanced the ridiculous giveaways will start all over again.

    Once again, you persist with the straw men. My point about services in remote areas was to illustrate that the public service can not and should not be run just like any other corporation. Nothing in your argument above refutes that in any way. I am happy to learn that you favour consolidation of services, However, you may be surprised to learn, the world doesn't revolve around what you think is right. The public sector has a duty to provide service to all the residents of the state, not just to you, or to the 'customers' who can afford their service. As it happens, I also agree that University fees should be reintroduced on a properly means tested basis, but that is not the point I was making.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    As I posted earlier, you will not find me defending the unions, However, that is not where this argument started. The public sector unions and the public sector are not the same the thing, despite your confused attempts to conflate them. My point is and always has been that the public sector has suffered extensive job losses and paycuts during this recession - this point has nothing to do with how well or poorly the unions represent their members. I do not claim that these hardships are in any way exclusive to the public sector, thus your insistent demands for a breakdown of paycuts (which I never volunteered to give) is irrelevant to the point at hand. Just to save you the bother of asking again, I will not be providing any such breakdown. If you feel the need to persist, then provide it yourself. While you are at it of course, you should provide a corresponding breakdown for the entire private sector workforce otherwise I would suggest that any comparisons are meaningless.

    I think if you want to claim that there have been massive public sector paycuts and job losses that you should be able to provide some evidence of this though? You ask that "private sector cheerleaders" acknowledge this "fact" but in this forum we tend to acknowledge facts on the basis of supporting evidence.
    Once again, you persist with the straw men. My point about services in remote areas was to illustrate that the public service can not and should not be run just like any other corporation. Nothing in your argument above refutes that in any way. I am happy to learn that you favour consolidation of services, However, you may be surprised to learn, the world doesn't revolve around what you think is right. The public sector has a duty to provide service to all the residents of the state, not just to you, or to the 'customers' who can afford their service. As it happens, I also agree that University fees should be reintroduced on a properly means tested basis, but that is not the point I was making.

    This bit is just a whole lot of noise and not really a logical argument - saying "the world doesn't revolve around what you think is right" is not an effective refutation of someone's point. There's an implication where you say "The public sector has a duty to provide service to all the residents of the state, not just to you, or to the 'customers' who can afford their service" that consolidated services would result in services not being provided to certain citizens but you don't elaborate on how you think this will be.

    There is always going to be a trade-off between what citizens need and what can be afforded. If there was enough money, each person would have their own personal doctor on hand 24/7, free permanent childcare, one teacher per student, etc. but this is not feasible. You have to accept that in times where the government is running an unsustainable deficit that it needs to increase its income (through increased tax revenue) and/or decrease its expenditure. When our expenditure is about 55bn per annum of which about 20bn goes on public sector wages, it's an area that absolutely has to be addressed. Public sector wages are very simply put, a direct calculation of employee head count * average wage. You have to reduce one or the other, or both. Yes, this may result in either a worsening of the incomes for public sector employees or a reduction in services available to the public*. The poorer the country is, the less help it can generally afford to give people for free and that is an unfortunate, but very basic, fact.

    *There is the issue of tackling inefficiency in the public sector but that's essentially a combination of a) improved work practices leading to b) redundancies.


Advertisement