Are the Private Sector simply Jealous of the Public Sector?

pearcider · 23-02-2010 11:37pm

Welease wrote: »

The point is a general one about the high costs of wages in Ireland with no additional value being provided. So don't get bogged down in the specifics .. It's pretty much well understood now that we are a high cost economy.

I am just quoting what was available on the web after a quick search.. I don't claim to be an expert.. But since you are categorically stating I am wrong, and that you reckon UK medics get up to 30% more, can you provide some evidence (remebering not all medics live in London).

The sites I got info from..
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=132
NHS Paramedic Pay is Band 5 - Band 5 pay ranges from 20.7K to 26.8K (at today rate of exchange that is 23.5K - 30.4K)

For Ireland the salary rates quoted were..
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20673684/Working-as-a-National-Ambulance-Service-Paramedic
After qualification 29.7K Euro - 37.1K Euro. including long service increments (numebrs quoted does not include shift, weekend or public holiday pay which can increase salary by 6-8K
Leading Paramedic - 30.4K - 42.5K and extra 9.7K is paid to those who complete Advanced Paramedia training program..

There's not much in it alright. But what about the pension levy for the Irish medics, the different tax rates and allowances, the different cost of living. Have lived in London I can tell you...your pound goes a LOT further than your euro does in Dublin - especially when it comes to food/drink, discretionary spend and rent/mortgage repayments. As our bubble economy deflates, these discrepancies will change. Point being, the currency exchange factor you use 0.88 GBP/EUR is nowhere near correct. The analysis is considerably more complicated but you made it sound as if they get paid 40% more in your original quote...ya see where I'm coming from? :rolleyes:

Welease · 23-02-2010 11:55pm

pearcider wrote: »

There's not much in it alright. But what about the pension levy for the Irish medics, the different tax rates and allowances, the different cost of living. Have lived in London I can tell you...your pound goes a LOT further than your euro does in Dublin - especially when it comes to food/drink, discretionary spend and rent/mortgage repayments. As our bubble economy deflates, these discrepancies will change. Point being, the currency exchange factor you use 0.88 GBP/EUR is nowhere near correct. The analysis is considerably more complicated but you made it sound as if they get paid 40% more in your original quote...ya see where I'm coming from? :rolleyes:

So you don't have any figures to back up your 30% more claim?

I just quoted figures that are available from reputable sites... nothing more.. you made the assumptions

BUT

The point is.. (and it is a very important point that people need to start to understand)... in order to run a competitive country and attract investment you have to offer value. When you try and cut wages to regain competitiveness we end up with strikes, go slows, works to rules etc. which drives potential investment even further away.

If people want to continue to be paid X amount more than our European counterparts, then they need to provide X amount more value than our European counterparts..

As has been previously noted, why would a car maker pay a US line workers 10 times the rate of a Chinese worker who produces exactly the same amount of cars per day... That doesnt make economic sense. If you want to be paid 10 times the amount, and you don't want to be involved in a race to the bottom, then you need to deliver 10 times the value.

So back to the original point, has the poster to who I was responding to .. actually earned that wage (in a competitve sense) or merely been paid that wage.. there is a huge difference and one that is key to our current economic issues.

Rgds,
Welease.

pearcider · 24-02-2010 12:09am

Welease wrote: »

So you don't have any figures to back up your 30% more claim?
I just quoted figures that are available from reputable sites... nothing more.. you made the assumptions

Sorry, I meant it's 30% more than your figures...you quoted GBP25k and EUR35k... very misleading figures when in reality the guys in London - which has similar costs to Dublin according to Mercer - are on GBP35k. The guys in Ireland have a lower wage after the paycut + pension levy (ie your figures are out of date) plus the ludicrous living expenses that the bubble economy imposed on them. In addition, anyone who has lived and worked in both cities knows a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin. Cheers.

Welease · 24-02-2010 12:28am

pearcider wrote: »

Sorry, I meant it's 30% more than your figures...you quoted GBP25k and EUR35k... very misleading figures when in reality the guys in London - which has similar costs to Dublin according to Mercer - are on GBP35k. The guys in Ireland have a lower wage after the paycut + pension levy (ie your figures are out of date) plus the ludicrous living expenses that the bubble economy imposed on them. In addition, anyone who has lived and worked in both cities knows a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin. Cheers.

Source for this 35K salary? The NHS london weighting is still below 30K from my sources..

And btw.. how can you quote Mercer as saying Dublin is as expensive as London.. When your table shows London is more expensive, but in the same paragraph claim "a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin."

pearcider · 24-02-2010 12:45am

Welease wrote: »

Source for this 35K salary? The NHS london weighting is still below 30K from my sources..

And btw.. how can you quote Mercer as saying Dublin is as expensive as London.. When your table shows London is more expensive, but in the same paragraph claim "a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin."

Not really. The Range 5s get GBP27k+20% = GBP32k...putting into euros gives EUR36.5k (fx spot) which I suppose more or less equals the Irish pay when Londons (marginal) increased cost of living is factored into account. So...not much in it is all I'm saying...certainly not the 40% difference you suggest in your original post by quoting the salaries without even factoring the currency exchange difference.

Of course even this anaylsis is incomplete since we don't take account of allowances, working conditions and pensions.

To use your original example of a paramedic to illustrate the real or otherwise wage competitiveness between the two countries actually shows there is virtually no difference.

Welease · 24-02-2010 12:57am

pearcider wrote: »

To use your original example of a paramedic to illustrate the real or otherwise wage competitiveness between the two countries actually shows there is virtually no difference.

So you believe wages across the board in Ireland are essentially equal to the rest of Europe?

And by the way, you keep accusing me of using misleading figues, when it's you for whatever reason that seems intent on ignoring the actual initial point and cooking the numbers to suit you own agenda..

Simple fact.. a paramedic living in Bath will have a starting salary of 23.5k Euros.. a paramedic in Sligo will have a starting salary of 29.7K Euro's...

pearcider · 24-02-2010 1:06am

Welease wrote: »

So you believe wages across the board in Ireland are essentially equal to the rest of Europe?

Jaysus, no! :eek:

I'm only talking about your specific example...just saying that medics in the UK and Ireland earn basically the same wage for the same work. Of course, they haven't cut public sector wages by 10% (yet) in the UK...looking at their current deficit and the huge Labour government spending spree of the past decade (not unlike our own)and even accounting for the devaluation of sterling, the tories might well have to.

After that, I can only suppose it's a race to the bottom.

Welease · 24-02-2010 1:11am

pearcider wrote: »

Jaysus, no! :eek:

I'm only talking about your specific example...just saying that medics in the UK and Ireland earn basically the same wage for the same work. Of course, they haven't cut public sector wages by 10% (yet) in the UK...looking at their current deficit and the huge Labour government spending spree of the past decade (not unlike our own)and even accounting for the devaluation of sterling, the tories might well have to.

After that, I can only suppose it's a race to the bottom.

But they don't... you keep cooking the figures with london weightings etc... and not factoring in your benefits etc..

Simple fact.. a paramedic living in Bath will have a starting salary of 23.5k Euros.. a paramedic in Sligo will have a starting salary of 29.7K Euro's and you get (i believe) a defined benefit pension...

And it doesn't need to be a race to the bottom if people start accepting in order to justify there extra pay then need to find ways of delivering that extra value... If they can't then it probably justtified to claim they are overpaid.

Edit - If it helps to make the point.. apparently Paramedic start salaries in France are 1300 Euro per month.. (15,600 Euro per year).. although they are physicians as france doesn't employ specific paramedics.

pearcider · 24-02-2010 1:22am

Welease wrote: »

Simple fact.. a paramedic living in Bath will have a starting salary of 23.5k Euros.. a paramedic in Sligo will have a starting salary of 29.7K Euro's and you get (i believe) a defined benefit pension...

On paper, it's a bad deal for the guy in Bath...good deal for the Sligo person alright. But you can't use one off examples like that. How many paramedics live in Sligo? How much does a pint cost in Sligo? A house? A car? Does Bath have more attractive women than Sligo?

I'm using the two capital cities where the biggest chunk of the public sector employees live and work.

WE could go into it endless detail with individual examples but I'm way too busy for that and my point is made I think.

You were the only person abusing the facts when you suggested there is a 10k differential between the 2 salaries (ie 35k vs 25k) in the first post that I called you out on. That much is clear. :cool:

I bid you good night.

Welease · 24-02-2010 2:02am

pearcider wrote: »

On paper, it's a bad deal for the guy in Bath...good deal for the Sligo person alright. But you can't use one off examples like that. How many paramedics live in Sligo? How much does a pint cost in Sligo? A house? A car? Does Bath have more attractive women than Sligo?

I'm using the two capital cities where the biggest chunk of the public sector employees live and work.

WE could go into it endless detail with individual examples but I'm way too busy for that and my point is made I think.

You were the only person abusing the facts when you suggested there is a 10k differential between the 2 salaries (ie 35k vs 25k) in the first post that I called you out on. That much is clear. :cool:

I bid you good night.

I never suggested there was a 10K differential, I also never stated it was 35K vs 25K as you contintually suggest. I stated, and you even quoted me..

Welease wrote: »

Some quick googling suggests top pay band for paramedics in the UK is ~25K (STG) and in Ireland it's ~35K (Euro) without taking into account unsociable hours and other benefits such as pensions.

There is one key important difference, which doesn't appear to be that "clear" to you (HINT:- Its the bit I even had in CAPS for emphasis)...
If that was your sole point, then can I LOL@YOU? /wink

As for the rest of your logic, it's simply flawed. The best case you can come up with, using all the stacked bonus's you could find would be for top level cost paramedic in the UK (London) to be equal an average cost Irish paramedic. But your own logic just proves my point.. The vast majority of paramedics in the UK don't receive London bonus's, so therefore work for a minimum of 20% less than their Irish counterparts (there are about 10m people in London and about 50m outside, again basic logic dictates you are wrong thinking more paramedics would be based in London, not withstanding only inner London gets the full bonus).

Reducing the discussion to it's fundamental elements.. the basic post qualification salary scale starts for a UK paramedic at 23.5K EUROS and in Ireland it's 29.7K EUROS.That is a fact...
To the original point, for those who earn the average within those pay scales, do Irish paramedics provide 25% more value than their UK counterparts to justify the differential in a competitive manner?

The answer is probably no... Do I provide an equivalent 25% over my European counterparts (and in my case 300-400% more than my Asian counterparts)?The answer is also probably no.. Unless we are in a position to start addressing the value component then we will continue to have limited appeal to foreign investment.

So regretfully, you appear to be wrong on pretty much every point.. that much IS clear :cool:

As a country, if people don't want to be in a "race to the bottom", we need to stop doing exactly what you are doing here and cooking figures to make us look competitive in a best case unrealistic scenario. Noone falls for that crap, which is precisely why we are losing jobs abroad..
We need to understand the real cost difference, identify where the value opportunities are, and drive to deliver that visible value. If people cannot do that, then they need to accept that in a lot of cases, they are too costly and their jobs may go elsewhere.

Head The Wall · 24-02-2010 10:51am

pearcider wrote: »

The guys in Ireland have a lower wage after the paycut + pension levy (ie your figures are out of date) plus the ludicrous living expenses that the bubble economy imposed on them. In addition, anyone who has lived and worked in both cities knows a 35k salary in London affords you a higher standard of living than same in Dublin. Cheers.

I think you meant to say the ludicrous living expenses people imposed on themselves. I and many others didn't impose these expenses on ourselves and don't see now why we have to subsidise other peoples bad choices

The_Honeybadger · 24-02-2010 12:46pm

Head The Wall wrote: »

I think you meant to say the ludicrous living expenses people imposed on themselves. I and many others didn't impose these expenses on ourselves and don't see now why we have to subsidise other peoples bad choices

True to a point, mainly regarding houses and new cars, but we all paid over the odds for alot of things. You couldn't get away from the price of groceries, insurance, alcohol (if you drink) and other things which were inflicted on all of us. I honestly don't know how tourists tolerated the rip-off culture here when they visited. Many (myself included

) were frugal and lived within our means and are not now tied to massive debts but I would still say I paid more than I should have for many things over the years. The general public just didn't see value for money as a priority and their wallets were duly emptied as a result.

WalterMitty · 24-02-2010 6:29pm

mickeyk wrote: »

True to a point, mainly regarding houses and new cars, but we all paid over the odds for alot of things. You couldn't get away from the price of groceries, insurance, alcohol (if you drink) and other things which were inflicted on all of us. I honestly don't know how tourists tolerated the rip-off culture here when they visited. Many (myself included ) were frugal and lived within our means and are not now tied to massive debts but I would still say I paid more than I should have for many things over the years. The general public just didn't see value for money as a priority and their wallets were duly emptied as a result.

Even during boom , i shopped around for best value , used lidl and aldi, searched online for food deals in all the shops , didnt take out debt, didnt buy flashy cars and gadgets etc.

Godge · 24-02-2010 11:00pm

WalterMitty wrote: »

Even during boom , i shopped around for best value , used lidl and aldi, searched online for food deals in all the shops , didnt take out debt, didnt buy flashy cars and gadgets etc.

But if you went to the doctor or the dentist, needed a solicitor in court, bought house or car insurance, had a current bank account, needed physiotherapy, travelled on public transport, filled your heating oil tank or switched on your gas central heating, turned a light bulb on, put petrol in your car, had your small business audited, and needed a shrink at the end of it all to cope with it, you were ripped off for each and everyone of those.

Smiegal · 25-02-2010 5:36am

Saadyst wrote: »

I find it hilarious when public sector workers mention "paying taxes".

what I find hilarious is that a huge amount of what is earned by a public sector employee is eventualy returned to his/her employee via revenue.... With the obvious exeption of whatever is spent abroad... Thus in reality the cost of ps wage bill is artificial.

MaceFace · 25-02-2010 9:06am

Smiegal wrote: »

what I find hilarious is that a huge amount of what is earned by a public sector employee is eventualy returned to his/her employee via revenue.... With the obvious exeption of whatever is spent abroad... Thus in reality the cost of ps wage bill is artificial.

How about the imported goods a person buys?

gandalf · 25-02-2010 9:12am

Smiegal wrote: »

what I find hilarious is that a huge amount of what is earned by a public sector employee is eventualy returned to his/her employee via revenue.... With the obvious exeption of whatever is spent abroad... Thus in reality the cost of ps wage bill is artificial.

If thats the mentality of people in the public service then we are f****d!

Smiegal · 25-02-2010 2:43pm

MaceFace wrote: »

How about the imported goods a person buys?

I will continue to make these one sided comments in response to any opposite one sided comments. In reality I cansee the two sides to the argument but what p****s me off are people who are willing to make outlandish comments about the while thing.

But... it is a fundamental differance between a private sector employer and the public sector employer (Government) in that the wage a private sector employer pays out will never be seen again by him/her, however when the government pays let's say 50,000 to it's employee the it gets back (these are estimates!!!!) around 35-45% initially through income tax, PRSI, levies and any other pre-deductions that tax is paid on. Then of courseyou have VAT etc. on what ever he or she spends the remainder of the momey on.

Food for thought is all as it's some something I haven't seen mentioned before...

And in response to the original question of the thread... Of course it's jealousy. People in the public sector are obviously trying to protect their income... That is only human nature at the end of the day for Gods sake. Yes cuts must happen but only to an extent... After that if they keep happening to the same sector of people well you'll eventually get there backs up... It's HUMAN NATURE...

Stark · 25-02-2010 2:55pm

Smiegal wrote:

Food for thought is all as it's some something I haven't seen mentioned before...

It has been mentioned before. It was also mentioned on the threads about social welfare, as in "why should there be an upper limit? It all gets spent in the economy anyway".

Smiegal wrote:

And in response to the original question of the thread... Of course it's jealousy. People in the public sector are obviously trying to protect their income... That is only human nature at the end of the day for Gods sake. Yes cuts must happen but only to an extent... After that if they keep happening to the same sector of people well you'll eventually get there backs up... It's HUMAN NATURE...

It is human nature to protect what you have and people have every right to be upset and complain. But do people really have to take the country down with them? We've seen what happens in Greece when the unions get their way. The public sector pay bill accounts for a third of Government spending so there's no way it can be left untouched. But we all know a good portion of this is waste through inefficiencies. Where was the union effort to find a way to achieve savings without paycuts? It's all been obstruction, obstruction and a joke of an unpaid leave proposal presented right before Budget when it was too late to change anything. The plan for next year was to introduce some sort of reform in the PS to avoid paycuts for workers but given that the unions have vowed to oppose this every step of the way, who knows what's going to happen with people's salaries.

gandalf · 25-02-2010 3:01pm

Smiegal the fact you pay taxes is not to cover your wages its to allow you have the services of living in a civilised society. Saying that your wages don't really count on the bottom line of economy is deluded at best and if thats what the unions are feeding you I suggest you cancel your membership and save that subscription fee.

changes · 25-02-2010 3:05pm

Stark wrote: »

The plan for next year was to introduce some sort of reform in the PS to avoid paycuts for workers but given that the unions have vowed to oppose this every step of the way, who knows what's going to happen with people's salaries.

Thats sort of like - they've punched you in the face twice last year but if you agree to do what they say then they might not punch you in the face again next year too.

Last years punches haven't been forgiven yet, so talk of another punch next year is like a rag to a bull.

stevoman · 25-02-2010 3:07pm

To answer your original question OP. Yes the private sector is jealous of the public sector.

Smiegal · 25-02-2010 4:32pm

changes wrote: »

Thats sort of like - they've punched you in the face twice last year but if you agree to do what they say then they might not punch you in the face again next year too.

Last years punches haven't been forgiven yet, so talk of another punch next year is like a rag to a bull.

Brilliant analogy!! Says it all really. Private sector is happy to see ps workers (irregardless of how much they are paid or how productive they are) punched over and over again.... and when they see them trying to fight back they are disgusted!!!! I mean who the he'll do Public Sector workers think they are trying to protect their pay....

I also heard Cowen saying in relation to The Hanger 6 debacle that Governments can't just march in tearing up contracts..... Eh... Hello... So it's okay to tear up someones contract to save money (which I agree with by the way for the record) but its not okay to tear up another contract that will create 300 jobs.... Says it all really!

WalterMitty · 25-02-2010 4:45pm

Public sector, this is a zero sum game, maintaining current pay levels and staff numbers means the rest society must take a disproportionate burden through higher taxes on top of pays cuts and unemployment.

Does anyone really think that fianna fail would cut public sector pay,dole payments and pensions if it could be avoided? Fianna Fail are a populist party who always looked after public sector ,pensioners and unemployed as these people give them a lot of votes in return, the fact they are cutting these people shows how bad things are and unavoidable cuts are.

ixoy · 25-02-2010 4:45pm

Smiegal wrote: »

Brilliant analogy!! Says it all really. Private sector is happy to see ps workers (irregardless of how much they are paid or how productive they are) punched over and over again.... and when they see them trying to fight back they are disgusted!!!!

Well it's because for every refusal to reform or accept a pay cut, both public and private sectors will get punched in the form of taxes, welfare cuts, etc.

It's also because many private sector workers have been punched often from their own companies and don't want this extra hit.

It's also a lot to do with the (perceived) OTT reaction of the PS/CS to their cuts. Course you shouldn't be happy, but it could be a lot worse.
That and the refusal to admit the need for reform (even before it was threatened) and acknowledge the wastage and neccessity for an overhaul. It's frustrating to say the least.

Stark · 25-02-2010 4:52pm

Smiegal wrote: »

Brilliant analogy!! Says it all really. Private sector is happy to see ps workers (irregardless of how much they are paid or how productive they are) punched over and over again.... and when they see them trying to fight back they are disgusted!!!! I mean who the he'll do Public Sector workers think they are trying to protect their pay....

I'd prefer to be paid more. I'm still going to do my job until something better comes along though. In fact, if I didn't do my job, at best I wouldn't see a sniff of an "increment" come review time (probably won't anyway as we're in this recession thing), at worst I'd face dismissal and living on €200 a week on the dole. There seems to be an element in the PS unions that thinks they can dig their heels in, refuse to do what they're paid to do and then reap the rewards.

Smiegal · 25-02-2010 5:19pm

ixoy wrote: »

Well it's because for every refusal to reform or accept a pay cut, both public and private sectors will get punched in the form of taxes, welfare cuts, etc.

It's also because many private sector workers have been punched often from their own companies and don't want this extra hit.

It's also a lot to do with the (perceived) OTT reaction of the PS/CS to their cuts. Course you shouldn't be happy, but it could be a lot worse.
That and the refusal to admit the need for reform (even before it was threatened) and acknowledge the wastage and neccessity for an overhaul. It's frustrating to say the least.

Frustrating for who exactly?????? Answer = Everyone!!!

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.

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.

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!

conorhal · 25-02-2010 5:23pm

changes wrote: »

Thats sort of like - they've punched you in the face twice last year but if you agree to do what they say then they might not punch you in the face again next year too.

Last years punches haven't been forgiven yet, so talk of another punch next year is like a rag to a bull.

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.

Smiegal · 25-02-2010 5:24pm

Stark wrote: »

I'd prefer to be paid more. I'm still going to do my job until something better comes along though. In fact, if I didn't do my job, at best I wouldn't see a sniff of an "increment" come review time (probably won't anyway as we're in this recession thing), at worst I'd face dismissal and living on €200 a week on the dole. There seems to be an element in the PS unions that thinks they can dig their heels in, refuse to do what they're paid to do and then reap the rewards.

Stark, its called being a Union... their members contracts have been torn up in thier faces... what do you expect them to do??

We all know why the cuts have tp happen so you dont need to go into that again but honestly... what in Gods name do you expect a Union to do in such a situation. Their prime goal is to protect their members pay and condition for crying out loud...

Stark · 25-02-2010 5:28pm

Smiegal wrote: »

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!

Every employer needs good staff and it's in their interest to pay a fair wage so their good staff don't go elsewhere. Problem is costs get way out of hand if you need to also need to pay the deadwood the premium rate in order to attempt to cover the necessary staff. There's also minimum wage to protect people who have no skills that make them worth keeping. A healthy labour market that offers choice to prospective employees is worth more than a heavily unionised labour market imo.

Smiegal wrote:

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.

15% is a nasty hit and that's not taking into account many other forms of remuneration that were taken away. Some doctors and consultants are down nearly 40% from their last year salary. Meanwhile people earning up to €38k for clerical jobs that barely pay over €20k in the private sector are taking cuts that are barely above the rate of deflation, and in some cases still climbing the increment scale so having the cuts balanced out. Obviously, earning less than €38k is a huge problem if your spouse loses his/her job due to our retarded social welfare system, but that's a whole other issue. The fairest solution would be to have individualised salary reviews for everyone, but that's generally not feasible in a unionised culture.

Smiegal wrote:

Stark, its called being a Union... their members contracts have been torn up in thier faces... what do you expect them to do??

What contracts were torn up? I doubt the Towards 2016 payscale increases that people were getting over the years were included in legally binding terms in people's contracts so I don't see why contracts would need to be rewritten in order to row back on those increases.

gandalf · 25-02-2010 5:59pm

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.

changes · 25-02-2010 6:00pm

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.

ixoy · 25-02-2010 6:31pm

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?

The_Honeybadger · 25-02-2010 6:48pm

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

changes · 25-02-2010 7:01pm

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.

Smiegal · 25-02-2010 7:40pm

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...

The_Honeybadger · 25-02-2010 7:50pm

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.

unit 1 · 25-02-2010 8:30pm

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.

Welease · 25-02-2010 10:32pm

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...

Welease · 25-02-2010 10:37pm

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.

The_Honeybadger · 26-02-2010 12:40am

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.

noodler · 01-03-2010 2:29pm

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?

MaceFace · 01-03-2010 4:22pm

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.

noodler · 01-03-2010 4:26pm

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.

Stark · 01-03-2010 5:01pm

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.

MaceFace · 01-03-2010 5:04pm

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)

noodler · 01-03-2010 5:21pm

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.

Riskymove · 01-03-2010 5:27pm

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?

noodler · 01-03-2010 5:30pm

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.

Riskymove · 01-03-2010 5:36pm

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

Are the Private Sector simply Jealous of the Public Sector?

Comments