Stark Registered User
#196

noodler said:
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 Registered User
#197

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

No. I never said, not indicated that.

noodler said:

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 said:

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 Registered User
#198

Stark said:
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 said:

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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 Registered User
#199

noodler said:



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 Registered User
#200

Riskymove said:
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 Registered User
#201

noodler said:
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

noodler Registered User
#202

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


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

Riskymove Registered User
#203

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


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

noodler Registered User
#204

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



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

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

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!