Economy & The Public Sector

sonicthebadger* · 13-02-2012 1:59am #1

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.

Sam Vimes · 13-02-2012 10:36am

sonicthebadger* 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 ".

fitz0 · 13-02-2012 11:00pm

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

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:

sonicthebadger* · 14-02-2012 1:22am

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.

markfla · 14-02-2012 6:16am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

sonicthebadger* 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.

Sam Vimes · 14-02-2012 10:35am

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

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

dmw07 · 14-02-2012 3:57pm

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.

robindch · 14-02-2012 4:12pm

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.

dmw07 · 14-02-2012 4:34pm

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****

irishh_bob · 14-02-2012 8:24pm

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

Gbear · 14-02-2012 11:38pm

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.

Tim Robbins · 14-02-2012 11:59pm

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.

smokingman · 15-02-2012 12:01am

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...

Tim Robbins · 15-02-2012 12:08am

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.

Tim Robbins · 15-02-2012 12:12am

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

Gbear · 15-02-2012 1:34am

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.

sonicthebadger* · 21-02-2012 10:18pm

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/.

fitz0 · 21-02-2012 10:27pm

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:

Hotblack Desiato · 24-02-2012 1:25am

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.

smokingman · 24-02-2012 5:06pm

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

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.

equivariant · 28-02-2012 1:25am

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

amacachi · 28-02-2012 1:27am

equivariant wrote: »

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.

magicbastarder · 28-02-2012 1:36am

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.

equivariant · 28-02-2012 1:57am

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)

amacachi · 28-02-2012 2:14am

equivariant wrote: »

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?

equivariant · 28-02-2012 11:02am

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.

amacachi · 28-02-2012 3:50pm

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.

equivariant · 28-02-2012 4:19pm

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.

amacachi · 28-02-2012 4:48pm

equivariant wrote: »

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.

equivariant · 28-02-2012 9:07pm

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.

Newaglish · 28-02-2012 10:17pm

equivariant wrote: »

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.

equivariant · 28-02-2012 10:51pm

Newaglish wrote: »

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.

Wow. The condescension in this post is amazing. "In this forum, we tend to blah blah". Who appointed you the ethical guardian of the forum? I have posted here before you know, and I don't need a lecture on constructing an argument.

Anyway, to your points. It is undeniably a fact that public sector workers have suffered large paycuts. In my own workplace, I would estimate that most of my colleagues have seen their take home pay reduced by at least 15% in the last 2 years. I made this point earlier. Do you seriously doubt this?

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.

You completely missed the point. I was merely arguing that the public sector cannot be run like a typical corporation as had been implied by amacachi. Your own post in fact supports that position, when you argue that there is always going to be a trade off between the needs of citizens and what can be afforded. Agreed, and that is precisely the point. No corporation will concern itself with such a tradeoff - it will generally concern itself with maximising profit, and the needs of the citizenry hardly influence corporate decision making.

I believe that in this forum, we tend to try to avoid straw men, and we actually try to present arguments based on logic and sound inference and not necessarily based on what the opinion makers in the Irish Independent tell us to believe.

PS On your point about the deficit between tax income and state expenditure, I wonder were you so keen on balancing the books when our obscenely low corporation tax was under scrutiny? Or when our political leaders agreed to pay punitive interest rates on loans to bail out our private sector financial institutions?

amacachi · 28-02-2012 11:01pm

equivariant wrote: »

Here

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)

Figure of speech. If one doesn't vote for a government but is ruled by them it's their government. If you're bound by what a union negotiates then it may as well be your union.

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.

Hold on, wanting a breakdown of your claim of paycuts is irrelevant? LOL.

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.

Why are we here discussing anything then? Some of the best posting I've ever seen. :rolleyes: There's no strawman in what I am saying. If maintaining services were the most important thing they could've been maintained. That is not the most important thing however to the government, the unions nor most of the workers. Their pay packet is all they care about and the government just cares about keeping them as happy as they can and **** the service that's provided.
There's plenty of areas that could've been targetted for cuts with less effect on the service at the end of the line but that would have meant a reduction in power long-term for the unions which they don't want. It's a merry dance we all have to just sit back and watch.

Turtwig · 28-02-2012 11:16pm

Gbear wrote: »

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.

Think this was the video you were referring to.

Can't find it now but both NS and the Economist had similar stuff about this too. Tbh, to me it does make sense. It all depends on the culture of the company and your role within it though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Newaglish · 28-02-2012 11:28pm

equivariant wrote: »

Wow. The condescension in this post is amazing. "In this forum, we tend to blah blah". Who appointed you the ethical guardian of the forum? I have posted here before you know, and I don't need a lecture on constructing an argument.

Firstly, I'm sorry that my post appeared to be condescending and that isn't what I intended. I was alluding to the fact that the one of the reasons why we sometimes have threads that are not really related to religion at all is because the forum has a general ethos (ew) of seeking facts to support arguments. I know you say that you "don't need a lecture on constructing an argument" but surely then you would have to accept that, to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Anyway, to your points. It is undeniably a fact that public sector workers have suffered large paycuts. In my own workplace, I would estimate that most of my colleagues have seen their take home pay reduced by at least 15% in the last 2 years. I made this point earlier. Do you seriously doubt this?

I don't know whether to doubt or believe the assertion as I have only seen anecdotal evidence to support it. That being said, I'm aware of the events in the wider economy and I can't think of any specific public sector paycuts other than the pension levy (which I don't think goes as high as 15%?) and I would imagine that any paycuts people in your department have experienced would be across the public sectory generally and would therefore be pretty easy to dig up from a public source?

You completely missed the point. I was merely arguing that the public sector cannot be run like a typical corporation as had been implied by amacachi. Your own post in fact supports that position, when you argue that there is always going to be a trade off between the needs of citizens and what can be afforded. Agreed, and that is precisely the point. No corporation will concern itself with such a tradeoff - it will generally concern itself with maximising profit, and the needs of the citizenry hardly influence corporate decision making.

OK... but do you agree then that cost cutting in this sector, despite the fact that it may impact on the level of services provided to the public, may be necessary?

I believe that in this forum, we tend to try to avoid straw men, and we actually try to present arguments based on logic and sound inference and not necessarily based on what the opinion makers in the Irish Independent tell us to believe.

I really don't follow what point you're making here? Could you clarify?

PS On your point about the deficit between tax income and state expenditure, I wonder were you so keen on balancing the books when our obscenely low corporation tax was under scrutiny? Or when our political leaders agreed to pay punitive interest rates on loans to bail out our private sector financial institutions?

These are two completely separate points and I don't know how you are logically connecting them to this debate. What I'm trying to say is that is may be necessary - based on our current public finances - to review public sector spending. I'm not in any way implying that public sector workers are overpaid, underpaid or adequately paid. All I'm saying is that if the government has a certain amount of money and cannot sustainably run a deficit like this in the long term (or in the short to medium term either, for that matter).

I really don't want to answer those points as they are going to muddy the waters and create an irrelevant side-debate but however, I will make a comment if you feel that it's relevant. I believe the low corporation tax rate is a good thing as it attracts foreign direct investment into this country on a massive scale. You can have companies paying 12.5% on billions of profits channelled through the country or you can have them paying 30% of nothing, as they wouldn't be here to begin with. The knock-on effects on the country in terms of employment, income taxes and general consumption are invaluable.

I did believe at the time that the interest rate on our bailout fund was punitive, to a degree, but I also knew that it was a little bit of a show for the public that the interest rate was set artifically high in order to give us a chartiable paycut to give a sense of justice to the common man and to make the bailout more politically acceptable to the public.

equivariant · 28-02-2012 11:40pm

amacachi wrote: »

Figure of speech. If one doesn't vote for a government but is ruled by them it's their government. If you're bound by what a union negotiates then it may as well be your union.

Just wrong. When you don'y pay the union dues and when you do not have access to union assistance in legal disputes, it is not your union. It may surprise you to learn that unions do more than negotiate Croke Park deals

Hold on, wanting a breakdown of your claim of paycuts is irrelevant? LOL.

LOL indeed. Do you doubt that such pay cuts have taken place in the public sector? If you do, then we have nothing to talk about as you are clearly not aware of reality. If you don't then why keep repeatedly try to ask for something that is irrelevant to the argument. I never claimed that the pay cuts were in any way exclusively public sector, so if they occurred then what is the relevance of the breakdown. Anyway, unlike the private sector, lots of information about public sector pay is publicly available, so you can go and find out for yourself just as easily as I can, if it is that important to you.

If maintaining services were the most important thing they could've been maintained. That is not the most important thing however to the government, the unions nor most of the workers. Their pay packet is all they care about and the government just cares about keeping them as happy as they can and **** the service that's provided.

So you reveal your true colours. This is just slanderous bile (at least the part about the workers). And the irony of a private sector advocate complaining that 'all they care about is their paypacket' is presumably not lost on you.

There's plenty of areas that could've been targetted for cuts with less effect on the service at the end of the line but that would have meant a reduction in power long-term for the unions which they don't want. It's a merry dance we all have to just sit back and watch.

As I have repeatedly said in this thread, I am no fan of the unions. However, that doesn't excuse some of the ill informed rubbish that you have come out with in relation to public sector workers (as opposed to the unions).

magicbastarder · 28-02-2012 11:46pm

equivariant wrote: »

LOL indeed. Do you doubt that such pay cuts have taken place in the public sector? If you do, then we have nothing to talk about as you are clearly not aware of reality. If you don't then why keep repeatedly try to ask for something that is irrelevant to the argument. I never claimed that the pay cuts were in any way exclusively public sector, so if they occurred then what is the relevance of the breakdown. Anyway, unlike the private sector, lots of information about public sector pay is publicly available, so you can go and find out for yourself just as easily as I can, if it is that important to you.

argument lost.

equivariant · 29-02-2012 12:04am

Newaglish wrote: »

I really don't want to answer those points as they are going to muddy the waters and create an irrelevant side-debate but however, I will make a comment if you feel that it's relevant.

Perhaps it is truer to suggest that you don't want to answer those points as they do not fit in well with your political views. It is hardly an irrelevant side debate, when one of the main reasons for public sector cutbacks is to balance the books.

I believe the low corporation tax rate is a good thing as it attracts foreign direct investment into this country on a massive scale. You can have companies paying 12.5% on billions of profits channelled through the country or you can have them paying 30% of nothing, as they wouldn't be here to begin with. The knock-on effects on the country in terms of employment, income taxes and general consumption are invaluable.

This is a false dichotomy. The choice does not have to be between 12.5% of billions or 30% of nothing. And it seems that other countries can actually generate employment without having to prostitute themselves to multinationals in order to do it. Why must we?

I believe that the true dichotomy here is between a society that values good healthcare and education and values public service or a society that is willing to sell its soul to some big multinational corporations. By your logic, why not cut the corporation tax rate down to 10% or 5% or 0%? We could really get loads of multinationals that way.

I did believe at the time that the interest rate on our bailout fund was punitive, to a degree, but I also knew that it was a little bit of a show for the public that the interest rate was set artifically high in order to give us a chartiable paycut to give a sense of justice to the common man and to make the bailout more politically acceptable to the public.

The common man appreciates your belated explanation. We is too dumb to be knowing that stuff after all

Newaglish · 29-02-2012 12:17am

equivariant wrote: »

Perhaps it is truer to suggest that you don't want to answer those points as they do not fit in well with your political views. It is hardly an irrelevant side debate, when one of the main reasons for public sector cutbacks is to balance the books.

I did answer your question

This is a false dichotomy. The choice does not have to be between 12.5% of billions or 30% of nothing. And it seems that other countries can actually generate employment without having to prostitute themselves to multinationals in order to do it. Why must we?

I believe that the true dichotomy here is between a society that values good healthcare and education and values public service or a society that is willing to sell its soul to some big multinational corporations. By your logic, why not cut the corporation tax rate down to 10% or 5% or 0%? We could really get loads of multinationals that way.

Not really a false dichotomy I don't think. Our effective tax rate ends up so low when you account for various capital allowances and other reliefs, we don't need to reduce it any further - I don't think that it would result in any significant increase in FDI. With regard to increasing the rate - why do you think Google, Facebook, Microsoft et al are based in Dublin? Other countries would kill to have these companies and the only reason we have them is because of our low tax rate. Increase it, and they leave.

The common man appreciates your belated explanation. We is too dumb to be knowing that stuff after all

You really need to learn to look at this objectively, I feel that you're taking this whole thing way too personally at the moment. Either deal with my point or move on, I don't see how point-scoring commentary really helps with anything.

dmw07 · 29-02-2012 4:53pm

ninja900 wrote: »

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.

Nice one! Getting paid to do nothing because your boss is an idiot. Brilliant. I'm sure his team is still hitting their targets though. Otherwise shareholders will ask questions etc.

Not really about the public service, more about bad people at work;
Anyway, another funny story from a friend working in a public office. He was hauled off a job because his alcoholic boss did not understand scripted code. The leader public servant chap has no SQL knowledge (Although he oversees all IT developments) and when presented with a plan of action for a new back-end to a GUI by my mate, he accused him of trying to get him fired and questioned all his scribbling.

Alcoholics in work, ha, sure it could be worse.

Naughtius Maximus · 29-02-2012 7:05pm

ninja900 wrote: »

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.

But the taxpayer foots the bill for the PS.

01-03-2012 10:23pm

Naughtius Maximus wrote: »

But the taxpayer foots the bill for the PS.

Thankfully that wasn't the case with AIB or Anglo, eh? :eek:

Naughtius Maximus · 02-03-2012 8:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Thankfully that wasn't the case with AIB or Anglo, eh? :eek:

Point being; I was responding to claims about bad practice in the private companies. Zombie banks aside the tax payer doesn't pick up the tab for nonsense decisions by the private sector.
How many people do you think got fired for the likes of PPARS or the 35 million spent on the proposal for the new childrens hospital.
I'm not jumping on the nati public service and wagon but given the type of cronyism that's entrenched into Ireland I can just imagine the havoc it's created in the Public Sector.

Economy & The Public Sector

Comments