new pension levy

spurious

All anyone wants is a fair go.

If 3A are leaping about and Tracy and Jason throw something at the teacher and get the whole class into trouble, you don't punish Johnny and Sarah for it.

feduptotheteeth

Hi. I had a post going under another thread asking if non public servants thought the pension levy was fair. That thread became blocked because of inane drivel which forums seem to attract. It was amazing to see the amount of "begrudgery" about the public service with the "good pensionable job" syndrome coming to the fore. One poster suggested that the levy should be 50%. I cannot understand how public service unions are letting this matter go on without being more vociferous against this totally unfair levy as it applies only to the public sector workers.

This is a copy of my reply to the posts:

Hmm I have no doubt most public sector workers would disagree about the pension levy while most if not all would agree with some form of contribution to steady the public finances. But here's the thing, Bank of Ireland have just given their staff a pay increase as has the ESB. The pension levy is being introduced to save 2bn yet the government are shoring up the banking system with 7 bn euro. How can you explain to a Nurse , fire fighter or Garda who are out saving lives and in danger to themselves that they must take a pay cut while those they are trying to "stimulate" in the private sector start giving themselves a pay rise. This all smacks of "good enough for those with permanent pensionable jobs" Those in the private sector who made the most out of the Celtic Tiger should be made to pay, as well as the public service. Cosy cartels between local authority representatives and government departments with banking and business has led our country into this mess - not the public service. Yes the public service is bloated and can be trimmed back and I think this may be the way to achieve more realsitic targets of savings in the public sector. I expect that most post replies will be of the begrudging variety of "they have permanent pensionable jobs and deserve everything they get" but this will not solve the problem. The public service did not make a killing out of the celtic tiger. In fact the much maligned (and in my view flawed) Benchmarking system took the pension of a public servant into account in the last report. This system was used to bring public service worker wages up to private sector standard. A crazy idea to start with but one embraced whole heartedly by the Unions and Government. In the end the Unions were hoodwinked and only the top ranks of the public sector came out with massive increases. I would recommend that those increases be reversed but I doubt if that would be a runner. So before everybody gets on the punish the public sector bandwagon, think this thing through and remember that we will always need our nurses, fire fighters and Gardai as well as a lot of other public servants. We really need to get to the people who caused the problem in the first place.

Hillel

feduptotheteeth wrote: »

Hi. I had a post going under another thread asking if non public servants thought the pension levy was fair. That thread became blocked because of inane drivel which forums seem to attract. It was amazing to see the amount of "begrudgery" about the public service with the "good pensionable job" syndrome coming to the fore. One poster suggested that the levy should be 50%. I cannot understand how public service unions are letting this matter go on without being more vociferous against this totally unfair levy as it applies only to the public sector workers.

Extract from a post I made under Politics:
"A high proportion of Public Servants went into the public service straight from school and simply don't understand the many differences between the public and private sectors.

It is essential that "established" public sector staff realise that the game has well and truly moved on for their non-permanent colleagues - and for the majority of employees in the private sector. Many have lost their jobs, others are at daily risk of losing them. Most of the remainder have seen their Pension Funds savaged, with falls of 50%+ over the past couple of years. Most of these would gladly pay the Pension Levy, if they could be guaranteed a reasonable pension on retirement."

I recognise, and appreciate, the dedicated and valuable work that a high proportion of teachers carry out. It is a privilege, and a great responsibility, to play such an influential part in shaping young life's. (Had things worked out differently I could have been a 2nd level teacher, myself.) It is right and proper that teachers get adequately paid for this work. This is not an "us and them" issue. Most people are feeling real pain, right now. Unfortunately, like it or not, there is a lot more to come for many of us.

DanSolo

corklady wrote: »

I have a number of family members working in the public sector (HSE) and it seems to be the opinion of everyone in there that they have it so hard and it's all so unfair bla bla bla....
The funny thing is that none of them seem to realise how damn lucky they are. They have permanent jobs

When you make just a laugh out loud booboo in your very first point it takes the shine off the rest of your post a bit. No, a large amount of them don't. I don't.
OK, back onto your high horse.

Coolio

This pension levy was named thus as it was another PR exercise. No-one in the private sector was going to query the small print as to them it made perfect sense..a guaranteed pension in times when private pensions are decimated, so to ask public servants to pay a premium for this sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately, it has began to filter through now that it is a pay-cut in disguise. It has nothing to do with the pension as it also applies to JC and LC supervision and correction which are non-pensionable.

Is a pay-cut fair? Maybe, but don't dress it up as anything other than that! At least then the discussions can be on pay-cuts and whether they're appropriate and not an easy slam-dunk public/private argument.

rainbowtrout

Coolio wrote: »

Unfortunately, it has began to filter through now that it is a pay-cut in disguise. It has nothing to do with the pension as it also applies to JC and LC supervision and correction which are non-pensionable.

Do you have a link for that? i can't see how they can slap a pension levy on non pensionable work, especially for people who correct and are currently not employed as teachers.

The expenses around exam supervision/practicals/corrections, have been cut by 25%, but that would be in line with cuts public services expenses.

Mr Ed

dml wrote: »

I work at tertiary level and have serious concerns about the pension levy issue. I do agree that in the current economic climate, we all have to 'take some pain', but I feel that targeting the pension levy is underhanded and dictatorial. There has also been some sensational spin-doctoring going in trying to turn the general public against public service workers, which I think has largely been achieved by the careful underplaying of some important facts and the overemphasis of others. I would really appreciate it if the government could act in an open, honest way by putting all the facts on the table, not just those facts that will make them seem like the 'good' guys by penalising the 'bad guys' (i.e. us - public sector workers). A few issues need to clarified:

(1) Pay increases were made via benchmarking when it became apparent that the public sector worker's salaries were lagging significantly behind those of public sector workers. Unfortunately, as with most government processes, by the time the awards were being realised through benchmarking, the skids had started being put on some areas of private sector pay. But, did you ever hear any of the private sector whingeing about being paid more than the public sector workers? I don't think so...I certainly did not hear any such objections. But, this time period where the public sector worker was the poorly paid one has been conveniently forgotten. When I took up my own job 11 years ago, I had a lucrative private sector option available. I availed of the public sector opportunity at approx. 65% of the salary that I could have earned in the private sector. But, the public sector job/teaching was where my interests lay, so hence made the decision I did. So, for a few years, I was the underpaid one…

(2) The spin-doctoring going on around the pensions issue made it appear that public sector workers pay no pension contributions, which is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. To date, I have been contributing 5% of my gross salary to my pension (as is reflected in my payslip). So, I would appreciate the government acknowledging the fact that I am indeed currently (and have for the past 11 years) been making a contribution, instead of them trying to mislead the general public by ignoring this fact.

(3) The government is not giving me an option as to whether I want to (a) have a smaller pension or (b) contribute the additional amount now being levied. If I were in the private sector, such a choice would most likely have been mine. But, now I am being dictated to and have no choice in the matter. I have an inflated mortgage (thanks to a housing boom) for a 2 bed place and creche fees to pay. The government seems to have ignored the significant economic consequences that this sudden reduction in take-home pay will have for some. (They reduce our pay then lecture us about being ‘unpatriotic’ by going across the border to try to save a few euro so that we can better deal with changed economic circumstances).

(4) I find it highly suspicious that the government is choosing the pension scheme as the target here. And – guess what?! – the pension fund is the one being used to bail out a bank that is important only to large-scale businessmen and – guess who?! – property developers?! So, we – the public sector workers – are being used to bail out the property developers. So, is it not convenient to suddenly have all this extra cash (aka ‘pension levy’) to sink into a flailing and unviable bank called Anglo Irish? To pay solicitors fees when shareholders sue and the government has to defend the bank. How convenient to have more money for all of this?! Because, as long as the government has the money in pension funds, they earn the interest on the money and can use it (seemingly unwisely) to ‘invest’ in certain projects.

(5) The government is paying lip-service only when it comes to promises about taxing those with the mega incomes. But..this is being said to appease the public and I doubt will ever come into play. Then we have to watch while disgraced former heads of government agencies and banks are given golden handshakes along the lines of ‘I know you stuffed up, so here is a few 100 000 euro, please disappear quietly..’.

The government kept on promising ‘hard choices will have to be made’. I have yet to see evidence of this. As far as I can see, from pension levies, income levies, cuts in the early childcare supplement and cuts in overseas Aid…the government has made only ‘soft choices’. The easy way out has been taken once again.

A desperate situation altogether.

Point 1
Benchmarking was used to bring public sector pay in line with private sector pay at the time. however, it didn't factor in your pension entitlements at the time and therefore inflated the rises awarded.

Point 2
I'm not aware of the spin your talking about and have always known that some contributions are made by Pub sector workers however your 5 percent contribution pales in comparison to the 20% - 25% that private sector workers would have to contribute to receive a similar [ension.

Point 3
I would welcome a system giving workers the option to opt out of their pension entitlements and contributions on a reduced basis. Everyone has to pay their own way.

Point 4
All workers, private and public have contributed to the pension fund that is bailing out the banks and any consequences of its use will have serious ramifications for the country.

Point 5
We're all going to have to pull together and face higher taxes coz they're on the way on April 7th. I just hope its not too much but tbh it 's going to be tough for most.

Lets just hope we can all pull through this together!

Coolio

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Do you have a link for that? i can't see how they can slap a pension levy on non pensionable work, especially for people who correct and are currently not employed as teachers.

The expenses around exam supervision/practicals/corrections, have been cut by 25%, but that would be in line with cuts public services expenses.

Received a letter from SEC regarding my appointment as an exam supervisor last week and it outlined the 'Pension Related Deduction'(PRD):

"If you are otherwise employed in a public service body and you are a member of, or have access to, a public service pension scheme...your income will be subject to the PRD"

Rates:
€0-€15000 3%
€15001 -20000 6%
€20001+ 10%

If you call the SEC, they'll explain it badly to you. Don't know if such info exists on the net yet.

TheDriver

It gets worse than that, if you are in a homework club and paid through the school/vec officially like our one is, they can take pension levy from that too!!! And that is never going to be pensionable!
ALl pay is what it says and they mean all pay!!