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

Are the Private Sector simply Jealous of the Public Sector?

123457»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Smiegal wrote: »
    Unions, like alot of other Organisations, have alot to answer for, I agree and anyone who says the public sector does not need reform needs there heads checked but you cant keep hitting everyone over and over again and then expect them to roll over and play ball or threaten them that we'll hit you again... Come on... Commons sense says people will naturally resist that kind of attidude.

    You see Smiegal the problem is because of the unions actions, they benchmark to protect those who are not pulling their weight in the PS. Because of this no real reform has happened as was expected and sold to the taxpayers by subsequent Governments.

    The only course of action at this stage is to hit everyone with cuts. If reforms were allowed to happen then I would warrant that we would all be in a far better place now.
    Point is the second set of cuts were not done fairly. The people lower down the scale should not have been hit at all the last time, and the people at the top should have been hit much much harder.

    I agree with you on this point and I would wager an awful lot of the general public would have had no problem with the lower paid being left out or being cut at a lesser rate. However if the Unions continue on with their ridiculous "work to rule" and escalate the "struggle" further then whatever good will is left will be gone.
    As I said, Unions have alot to answer for, but I shudder to think what it would be like with out them. Every working class person in the country would be trodden on by there employer simply because thier employer would have that ability. An employers number one goal is to make money and we would make it so much easier for them (at our own expense) if we were to do away with unions completly!

    I disagree. From my experience unions hinder companies/organisations abilities to work in a productive manner. Even worse they will also hinder those within those organisations who want to work efficiently and progress their careers because the union is protecting the wasters who do not want to put in a hard days graft. I have seen this in my dealings with various bodies that are heavily unionised.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    conorhal wrote: »
    Yeah.... So what your saying is that the private sector should take your beating for you then? No thanks, my employers already thrown in a few diggs, I'm smarting as it is.


    No they are your words.

    What i'm saying is..... portraying this idea that if you reform then we wont cut you again as some sort of fair deal is an insult.

    They have hit us twice already, saying do as we say and we might not cut you again is quite a provocative thing to say.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,977 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    changes wrote: »
    No they are your words.

    What i'm saying is..... portraying this idea that if you reform then we wont cut you again as some sort of fair deal is an insult.
    It's a necessity though - further cuts need to be made. It's either in numbers or in pay.
    Reforms should have, of course, been sought much earlier but the government fools just bowed to unions and kept increasing numbers. Now both have screwed up and are screwing people over.
    They have hit us twice already, saying do as we say and we might not cut you again is quite a provocative thing to say.
    Yep, and they took a ham-fisted approach to it all. Nobody is happy but I'd just like to hope people see there's very little way of doing it fairly. Hit the lowest paid (arguable if they are lowly paid too) the same amount as near the top doesn't exactly seem the best idea but what can you do when unions best proposal was some days off?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,151 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    ixoy wrote: »
    what can you do when unions best proposal was some days off?
    That wasn't their only idea to be fair, they also suggested to keep borrowing thereby spreading the adjustment over a longer period :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    ixoy wrote: »
    It's a necessity though - further cuts need to be made. It's either in numbers or in pay.
    Reforms should have, of course, been sought much earlier but the government fools just bowed to unions and kept increasing numbers. Now both have screwed up and are screwing people over.

    Numbers are reducing already, temp staff are being let go and retirees are not being replaced. This all adds up.

    An example is donegal county council, 1 in 5 of their staff have been let go over the last year or so. It is happening.

    We have already had our pay cut, people need to acknowledge that things are changing and not just keep calling more cuts, more cuts, more cuts.

    My feeling is that there will not be another paycut in the next budget for PS/CS workers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭Smiegal


    changes wrote: »
    Numbers are reducing already, temp staff are being let go and retirees are not being replaced. This all adds up.

    An example is donegal county council, 1 in 5 of their staff have been let go over the last year or so. It is happening.

    We have already had our pay cut, people need to acknowledge that things are changing and not just keep calling more cuts, more cuts, more cuts.

    My feeling is that there will not be another paycut in the next budget for PS/CS workers.

    We seem to be of the same mindset, but unfortunately I believe there will be more cuts come the next budget in the form of tax hikes which will effect everyone this time. Joke. What can we do though. The Government has played it's hand well on this one. If only they could focus this ability on the right areas.... Creating jobs for example...


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,151 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    Smiegal wrote: »
    We seem to be of the same mindset, but unfortunately I believe there will be more cuts come the next budget in the form of tax hikes which will effect everyone this time. Joke.
    I actually think that is a real possibility, hasn't he said there will be a revamp of the tax system in Dec with the levies being consolidated and bringing more people into the tax net. Don't think most people would mind paying a little more tax however.


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭unit 1


    Smiegal wrote: »
    We seem to be of the same mindset, but unfortunately I believe there will be more cuts come the next budget in the form of tax hikes which will effect everyone this time. Joke. What can we do though. The Government has played it's hand well on this one. If only they could focus this ability on the right areas.... Creating jobs for example...
    Government policy is quite clear imo. They are unable to devalue our currency as we are in the euro. If you cannot devalue your currency the only alternative is to devalue your people. This can only be achieved by a policy of mass unemployment in order to drive down wages. Therefore mass unemployment is actuallly government ploicy, but they could never admit this. This is bourne out by their actual attitude to so called job creation and employment protection.

    More cuts in ps pay seem likely but are they fair.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    mickeyk wrote: »
    Don't think most people would mind paying a little more tax however.

    That depends..

    do I mind paying more tax to fund job creation initiatives etc?... not really...
    do I mind paying more tax to further fund an overstaffed and underperforming HSE... damn fkin right I do...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    unit 1 wrote: »
    Government policy is quite clear imo. They are unable to devalue our currency as we are in the euro. If you cannot devalue your currency the only alternative is to devalue your people. This can only be achieved by a policy of mass unemployment in order to drive down wages. Therefore mass unemployment is actuallly government ploicy, but they could never admit this. This is bourne out by their actual attitude to so called job creation and employment protection.

    More cuts in ps pay seem likely but are they fair.

    Thats not strictly true. If you can't or won't lower your cost then you can increase your value to offset the cost.
    If both the public and private sectors in Ireland want to continue to be paid x% more than our competitors, then they need to start identifying ways to at a minimum deliver x% more value.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,151 ✭✭✭The_Honeybadger


    unit 1 wrote: »
    Government policy is quite clear imo. They are unable to devalue our currency as we are in the euro. If you cannot devalue your currency the only alternative is to devalue your people. This can only be achieved by a policy of mass unemployment in order to drive down wages. Therefore mass unemployment is actuallly government ploicy, but they could never admit this. This is bourne out by their actual attitude to so called job creation and employment protection.

    More cuts in ps pay seem likely but are they fair.
    FF are and always were a populist party only interested in power. Why would any government draw this sort of thing on themselves and practically oust themselves from government voluntarily. I have read "the shock doctrine" and it is not beyond the realm of belief that governments have done this sort of thing in the past, but I believe our problems are more to do with incompetence and greed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,992 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    For ANY PS worker claiming they are not well-paid with a job of 30K+ in the current economic climate, I honestly think they need a little more perspective.

    Of course having the kids in a fancy school (or kids at all), an expensive mortage and expensive car may well make the wage seem worse than it is.

    I would prefer the wage cuts were a little more proportional but there is no U-turning on them as a whole - none whatsoever. Our Fiscal stance is the only think giving us any credibility over the like so Greece in the international markes.

    Also, you can't say with an ounce of seriousness that private sector workers had it good in the boom because of bonuses - honestly, how many jobs would fat bonuses actually have applied to?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    noodler wrote: »
    For ANY PS worker claiming they are not well-paid with a job of 30K+ in the current economic climate, I honestly think they need a little more perspective.

    Of course having the kids in a fancy school (or kids at all), an expensive mortage and expensive car may well make the wage seem worse than it is.

    I would prefer the wage cuts were a little more proportional but there is no U-turning on them as a whole - none whatsoever. Our Fiscal stance is the only think giving us any credibility over the like so Greece in the international markes.

    Also, you can't say with an ounce of seriousness that private sector workers had it good in the boom because of bonuses - honestly, how many jobs would fat bonuses actually have applied to?

    I don't like this generalisation. It isn't fair to categorise people based on category levels. Surely it depends on what a person actually does which says if they are well paid.
    If I worked in the PS and was on 35k I would consider myself to be badly paid.
    There are also plenty of people earning less than €30k who are very well paid considering the job they are doing (a person who just sweeps the roads for example doesn't deserve much more than minimum wage).

    The lower paid have done very well out of the celtic tiger (even though they will say they didn't) - huge social welfare increases if you are out of work, and not paying any tax if you are in work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,992 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    MaceFace wrote: »
    I don't like this generalisation. It isn't fair to categorise people based on category levels. Surely it depends on what a person actually does which says if they are well paid.
    If I worked in the PS and was on 35k I would consider myself to be badly paid.
    There are also plenty of people earning less than €30k who are very well paid considering the job they are doing (a person who just sweeps the roads for example doesn't deserve much more than minimum wage).

    The lower paid have done very well out of the celtic tiger (even though they will say they didn't) - huge social welfare increases if you are out of work, and not paying any tax if you are in work.

    Okay, you believe the majority of the PS workers should feel undervalued at 30K plus?

    I won't ask you what you do but I am assuming it is the Private Sector. Nonetheless I hope the sense of entitlement is justified - there are thousands of people out of work at the moment through NO fault of their own though.

    Most of the rest of your post is a little away from the point for me. Have you never heard of the people the Tiger left behind?
    Anyway, ironic you are against typecasting 20% of the population in PS jobs but you have no problem saying the "lower paid" (whatever that means) did "very well" out of the Celtic Tiger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,853 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    noodler wrote: »
    Okay, you believe the majority of the PS workers should feel undervalued at 30K plus?

    Big question I think is who are the PS workers on 30K? From what I can tell, they tend to fall into 3 categories:

    1) People without third level education
    2) People on the first few years of their increment scale
    3) People in part-time/job sharing arrangements.

    And in all three of the above cases, there are people who earn more then 30K regardless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    noodler wrote: »
    Okay, you believe the majority of the PS workers should feel undervalued at 30K plus?
    No. I never said, not indicated that.
    noodler wrote: »
    I won't ask you what you do but I am assuming it is the Private Sector. Nonetheless I hope the sense of entitlement is justified - there are thousands of people out of work at the moment through NO fault of their own though.
    Indeed and many of my friends are looking for jobs and almost every one will end up taking a decrease in salary.
    noodler wrote: »
    Most of the rest of your post is a little away from the point for me. Have you never heard of the people the Tiger left behind?
    Anyway, ironic you are against typecasting 20% of the population in PS jobs but you have no problem saying the "lower paid" (whatever that means) did "very well" out of the Celtic Tiger.

    My point is that we should not be speaking in terms of how much you earn to say how you should be affected. I would imagine there are plenty of people earning a lot more than they should be and that is regardless of how much they actually earn (whether it be 15k or 150k).

    I don't think the Tiger actually left many behind, at least not enough for us to actually talk about (as they are too few).
    My point is that what we would consider low paid here in Ireland today is a lot higher than most other countries and just because you are "only" on 20k should not mean you should be exempt from the pain.

    So, when I hear that something like 30% of the PS are earning less than 30k (or something like that) it is a meaningless point.

    (I think we are saying the same thing but I don't think anyone should be excluded from criticism)


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,992 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Stark wrote: »
    Big question I think is who are the PS workers on 30K? From what I can tell, they tend to fall into 3 categories:

    1) People without third level education
    2) People on the first few years of their increment scale
    3) People in part-time/job sharing arrangements.

    And in all three of the above cases, there are people who earn more then 30K regardless.

    Exactly, 30K without a 3rd level education is very, very good. I am sorry I picked the figure - I just wanted something which I consider an outstanding wage for someone my age (early to mid 20s).

    Obviously 30K now is worth even more than it did two years ago.
    MaceFace wrote: »
    Indeed and many of my friends are looking for jobs and almost every one will end up taking a decrease in salary.

    Well I guess they have the benefit that prices have fallen to provide some sort of balance.


    MaceFace wrote: »
    My point is that we should not be speaking in terms of how much you earn to say how you should be affected. I would imagine there are plenty of people earning a lot more than they should be and that is regardless of how much they actually earn (whether it be 15k or 150k).

    If you are doing your job properly than how could you not deserve your 15K? I think its more like 18 with minimum wage anyway.
    Even if you are doing your job very well, you still might not deserve the level of pay which you are getting - thats a start truth.

    I sometimes worry the PS don't realise where their pay comes from? Every other business in the world has to actually lay people off AND reduce pay in exceptionally tough financial times and the government is no different.
    MaceFace wrote: »
    I don't think the Tiger actually left many behind, at least not enough for us to actually talk about (as they are too few).
    My point is that what we would consider low paid here in Ireland today is a lot higher than most other countries and just because you are "only" on 20k should not mean you should be exempt from the pain.

    If you are on 20K, in what way would you want people to share the pain? More tax or pay decreases? I think the 20K is a slightly misleading figure anyway, I doubt anyone is being paid so little by the government.

    We have a higher wage alright and a higher cost/price structure to match. You can't actually have one without the other.
    MaceFace wrote: »
    So, when I hear that something like 30% of the PS are earning less than 30k (or something like that) it is a meaningless point.

    (I think we are saying the same thing but I don't think anyone should be excluded from criticism)


    Again 30K is just a figure I personally feel is very good, I understand that there are people in the PS who may be much, much older than me, be far more experienced/skilled and be plain damn efficient at their jobs.

    My overall point would be that there can be no reneging on the actual cuts as a total figure - thats simply bookkeeping. I would like to see the higher earners hit a little more since they can't exactly upshop and change country if they feel they are being targeted but there remains the fact, for me, that if this government fails to implement the cuts then the next one will have to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    noodler wrote: »


    Every other business in the world has to actually lay people off AND reduce pay in exceptionally tough financial times and the government is no different.

    Every other business?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,992 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Riskymove wrote: »
    Every other business?

    Would you rather I said every other business which a recession negatively impacts on has to?

    I am not talking about Domino's Pizza if thats what you are getting at.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    noodler wrote: »
    Would you rather I said every other business which a recession negatively impacts on has to?

    I am not talking about Domino's Pizza if thats what you are getting at.

    I was thinking more about recent responses to financial climate by certain banking organisations


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,992 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Riskymove wrote: »
    I was thinking more about recent responses to financial climate by certain banking organisations

    I am against the prices Nama proposes, if not the principle, but it is worth saying thet just about every bank has let people go or is planning to in the very near future as part of "cost-cutting" measures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    noodler wrote: »
    I am against the prices Nama proposes, if not the principle, but it is worth saying thet just about every bank has let people go or is planning to in the very near future as part of "cost-cutting" measures.

    well perhaps the future may well bring that but so far we have seen wage increases, bonuses continuing and in one case an increase in interest rates as a response to losing money as oppossed to paycuts


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,992 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Riskymove wrote: »
    well perhaps the future may well bring that but so far we have seen wage increases, bonuses continuing and in one case an increase in interest rates as a response to losing money as oppossed to paycuts


    Well bare in mind they aren't nationalised and they aren't at the whim of the government, not yet anyway. They are a private business (the main two I persume you are talking about).

    However, PostBank and Halifax are gone and I may not have made it clear, but nearly every other bank has let people go since the troubles began. There are just more to come. I don't like the bonuses anymore than you but we don't control the banks.


Advertisement