Tonights Prime Time on Pensions: The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train

Carlow52

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0402/primetime_av.html?2519581,null,230

The earlier part of the program has the Economist predicting bankruptcy unless there is mega pain on 7th

However what i found most illuminating is the The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train
eg: Garret Fitz retired on 18.5k and inflation would have made it 34k now but the pay parity scandal means he is on 105k:mad:
It can be seen at time 09:20 on the clip.

This applies to all public servants and the scandal is exacerbated when you have people on receipt of multiple ministerial and other pensions

ongarite

Shocking report alright.
The only people I have sympathy with for in all this mess are people who are to retire soon who have PRSA. No sympathy for anyone on public sector pension.
The value of these has been destroyed in the last year (mine is down 40%). At least I have many many years for mine to pull back some of the losses its taken.

thebouldwhacker

Carlow52 wrote: »

This applies to all public servants and the scandal is exacerbated when you have people on receipt of multiple ministerial and other pensions

not really, its an old deal for pre 1995 employees it think. All I know for sure is state employees are contract workers when they start so none of this applies. Also the pension levey, not what it seems... ALL state employees, even if they don't have or dont pay into a pension are being charged it, and its on a weekly basis so if you get a lump sum (outstanding wages etc) it gets charged on a weekly rate so you pay even more!!!

We're all fooked!!! (Mel B- Bo Slecta, circa 2005)

dresden8

Not all public servants get the full pension as said in the show.

And using former Taoisigh as examples to screw all public sector is a joke.

Anyway, I suppose next Tuesday will show up the independence of RTE, are we being softened up by a hard hitting news show?

thebouldwhacker

ongarite wrote: »

No sympathy for anyone on public sector pension.
.

firstly I dont work for the public sector, outside of that... surly you cant be serious....do you not feel sorry for the bord na mona workers???

Sorry for calling you surly:D

nesf

Carlow52 wrote: »

The earlier part of the program has the Economist predicting bankruptcy unless there is mega pain on 7th

Yeah, he phrased it quite well. People have to cop on and realise exactly how dire the fiscal situation is unfortunately.

ongarite

ongarite wrote: »

The value of these has been destroyed in the last year (mine is down 40%). At least I have many many years for mine to pull back some of the losses its taken.

It's a joke, I've lost near 50% of mine in the last year and there's not a thing I can do about it which is really heartbreaking. So much for me planning ahead and thinking I was doing a good thing when I put my money into it, I should of just spent it on a new car

jimmmy

Carlow52 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0402/primetime_av.html?2519581,null,230

The earlier part of the program has the Economist predicting bankruptcy unless there is mega pain on 7th

However what i found most illuminating is the The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train
eg: Garret Fitz retired on 18.5k and inflation would have made it 34k now but the pay parity scandal means he is on 105k:mad:
It can be seen at time 09:20 on the clip.

This applies to all public servants and the scandal is exacerbated when you have people on receipt of multiple ministerial and other pensions

True. I am glad that RTE, ( even though I suspect they are not as short of a few bob as many others when they retire ) finally made a programme that has started exposing the truth. I was going on about public sector pensions here over the past week on another thread and most of what I got was criticism. The whole pensions thing is a scandal. It was highlighted to me when a few friends who are retired public servants told me their extremely high pensions, which even they admitted were way too high. They told me the figures in confidence so I cannot divulge them. Suffice to say it is far more than they can spend, even with numerous luxury holidays abroad etc.

Spare a thought for the people who , not having public sector pension to look forward to, slaved 60 to 70 hours a week for years , without holidays, in order to have a few bob to educate their children , pay for retirement / future bills etc - only to lost most of this money because they were unpatriotic enough to invest it in the Irish economy ( the blue chip shares eg AIB, B of I, and section 27 buy to let property investment - now empty and in negative equity - which the govt encouraged ).

jimmmy

jimmmy wrote: »

the blue chip shares

More like poker chip shares in a losing game :mad:

Akrasia

hellboy99 wrote: »

It's a joke, I've lost near 50% of mine in the last year and there's not a thing I can do about it which is really heartbreaking. So much for me planning ahead and thinking I was doing a good thing when I put my money into it, I should of just spent it on a new car

given the fact that pension funds are bankrupt, all pensions should be means tested.

The current system is, current pensioners are given priority over current workers. Thats hardly fair if some of those pensioners are also landlords or in receipt of other income that leaves them in a comfortable position (eg a spouse with a comfortable pension) while current workers might be relying solely on the pension they are expecting when they retire.

Similarly with state pensions, if there is a crisis in pensions (and there is) the priority should be given to those most in need and not just based on the agreement that happened to be in place when they retired

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

True. I am glad that RTE, ( even though I suspect they are not as short of a few bob as many others when they retire ) finally made a programme that has started exposing the truth. I was going on about public sector pensions here over the past week on another thread and most of what I got was criticism. The whole pensions thing is a scandal. It was highlighted to me when a few friends who are retired public servants told me their extremely high pensions, which even they admitted were way too high. They told me the figures in confidence so I cannot divulge them. Suffice to say it is far more than they can spend, even with numerous luxury holidays abroad etc.

jimmmy, there is no secret about how public service pensions are computed, yet you post here as if something had been exposed that only public service pensioners and trusted confidants like yourself knew.

In fact, there was an error in the Prime Time report when it was said that the pension scheme was non-contributory before 1995; that was not true for the whole public service.

El Stuntman

jimmmy wrote: »

Spare a thought for the people who , not having public sector pension to look forward to, slaved 60 to 70 hours a week for years , without holidays, in order to have a few bob to educate their children , pay for retirement / future bills etc - only to lost most of this money because they were unpatriotic enough to invest it in the Irish economy ( the blue chip shares eg AIB, B of I, and section 27 buy to let property investment - now empty and in negative equity - which the govt encouraged ).

jimmy people have to take responsibility for their own actions, if they were foolish enough to invest all of their wealth in a single asset class (be that property, bank shares or tulip bulbls), they must face up to the consequences of that decision - not something that we Irish are very good at.

jimmmy

Akrasia wrote: »

Similarly with state pensions, if there is a crisis in pensions (and there is) the priority should be given to those most in need and not just based on the agreement that happened to be in place when they retired

That would save the state borrowing many many billions each year. There are some people getting pensions of over 100,000 euro per year from the state which they do not need. Most state pensions are smaller than that of course, but as Prime Time showed they have increased out of proportion.

jimmmy

El Stuntman wrote: »

jimmy people have to take responsibility for their own actions, if they were foolish enough to invest all of their wealth in a single asset class (be that property, bank shares or tulip bulbls), they must face up to the consequences of that decision - not something that we Irish are very good at.

Of course people have to take responsibility for their own actions...that is why many - who did not have big fat public service pension to look forward to - did. Nobody suggested anyone was "foolish enough to invest all of their wealth in a single asset class (be that property, bank shares or tulip bulbls)". That does not take away from the fact many I know slaved up to 60 to 70 hours a week for years , without holidays, in order to have a few bob to educate their children , pay for retirement / future bills etc - only to have lost most of this money because they were unpatriotic enough to invest it in the Irish economy , in different sectors ( including the blue chip shares eg AIB, B of I, and section 27 buy to let property investment - now empty and in negative equity - which the govt encouraged ).

El Stuntman

jimmmy wrote: »

Of course people have to take responsibility for their own actions...that is why many - who did not have big fat public service pension to look forward to - did. Nobody suggested anyone was "foolish enough to invest all of their wealth in a single asset class (be that property, bank shares or tulip bulbls)". That does not take away from the fact many I know slaved up to 60 to 70 hours a week for years , without holidays, in order to have a few bob to educate their children , pay for retirement / future bills etc - only to have lost most of this money because they were unpatriotic enough to invest it in the Irish economy , in different sectors ( including the blue chip shares eg AIB, B of I, and section 27 buy to let property investment - now empty and in negative equity - which the govt encouraged ).

sorry jimmy but anyone who uses patriotism as a reason for investment decisions is a fool, I can't put it any more simply than that.

Anyway, I'd be willing to bet that no-one who invested in Irish bank shares or Section 23 property ever saw patriotism as a major motivating factor - big fat capital growth, tasty dividends, tax sheltering maybe but patriotism? pull the other one for god's sake

jimmmy

I did not say people used patriotism as a reason for investment decisions ....but I do know it was not unpatriotic to work hard, to try to provide for oneself and ones children, without depending on state handouts. Even at school I remember AIB, Bank of Ireland etc being cited as blue chip shares....people did not expect them to fall by 90 or 95%. They were Irish companies, among the biggest and most profitable ones in the land, companies people knew and trusted. Simarily the person who invested in property ( say a buy to let apartment, which was encouraged by the government as the thing to do, to provide a plentiful supply of rental accomodation ) hoped to make money out of it - perhaps for his retirement or childrens education...it was merely a by-product of that deceision that over 100,000 of tax fed its way to the Irish govt by way of stamp duty, income tax, vat etc. The person who did not invest in the Irish economy - for whatever reason - is laughing. The people who are laughing most are the people who have big public service pensions, as outlined on the programme last night.

Frankie Lee

jimmmy wrote: »

I did not say people used patriotism as a reason for investment decisions ....but I do know it was not unpatriotic to work hard, to try to provide for oneself and ones children, without depending on state handouts. Even at school I remember AIB, Bank of Ireland etc being cited as blue chip shares....people did not expect them to fall by 90 or 95%. They were Irish companies, among the biggest and most profitable ones in the land, companies people knew and trusted. Simarily the person who invested in property ( say a buy to let apartment, which was encouraged by the government as the thing to do, to provide a plentiful supply of rental accomodation ) hoped to make money out of it - perhaps for his retirement or childrens education...it was merely a by-product of that deceision that over 100,000 of tax fed its way to the Irish govt by way of stamp duty, income tax, vat etc. The person who did not invest in the Irish economy - for whatever reason - is laughing. The people who are laughing most are the people who have big public service pensions, as outlined on the programme last night.

I'm studying accountancy and in my corporate financial management my lecurer had notes up from a couple of years ago giving example of risks in shares, she had Bank of Ireland as being close to zero risk.

Mr.Micro

El Stuntman wrote: »

sorry jimmy but anyone who uses patriotism as a reason for investment decisions is a fool, I can't put it any more simply than that.

Anyway, I'd be willing to bet that no-one who invested in Irish bank shares or Section 23 property ever saw patriotism as a major motivating factor - big fat capital growth, tasty dividends, tax sheltering maybe but patriotism? pull the other one for god's sake

Too right, the very same people are now buying shares on the back of public money being injected into banks and financial institutions both here and in other countries. Its profit and self interest that are the motivators.

ardmacha

The point was also made on the programme that there is nothing particularly unreasonable about public sector pensions, it is merely the poor performance of private sector pensions that makes them seem generous. It is perfectly reasonable that pensioners will have a constant relationship with other sections of society, and all that is required to maintain that is that they are funded from a resource that grows with GNP. Government pensions are funded from taxes, which grows with GNP. Now this could mean that pensions would fall in hard times, like now, it is rather odd that a public servant on 50k now has a levy when a person receiving twice that on pension has had not a cut. The issue may be that some public sector jobs are overpaid and so the linked pensions are too high, there is also an issue with people living longer. But fundamentally the private pensions industry has failed to control risk and this is hardly surprising as it the banks who owned the industry who were creating this risk. As the programme said there will have to be bigger component of State pension in the future paid for by greater PRSI contributions by everyone.

jimmmy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Too right, the very same people are now buying shares ....

Rubbish. If they were , the share prices would not still be on the floor.

El Stuntman

jimmmy wrote: »

I did not say people used patriotism as a reason for investment decisions ....but I do know it was not unpatriotic to work hard, to try to provide for oneself and ones children, without depending on state handouts. Even at school I remember AIB, Bank of Ireland etc being cited as blue chip shares....people did not expect them to fall by 90 or 95%

some people did, read the archives at thepropertypin.com for proof

jimmmy wrote: »

Simarily the person who invested in property ( say a buy to let apartment, which was encouraged by the government as the thing to do, to provide a plentiful supply of rental accomodation ) hoped to make money out of it - perhaps for his retirement or childrens education...it was merely a by-product of that deceision that over 100,000 of tax fed its way to the Irish govt by way of stamp duty, income tax, vat etc.

this is self-serving claptrap, people invested in property to make a quick buck, please do not try and make them out to be super-patriots of some kind

next you'll be telling me that people who fell for the Bulgarian apartment scam were just 'trying to lift those poor Bulgarians out of poverty'

you have somewhat of a point regarding the generosity of PS pensions, don't ruin it by spouting nonsense like the above

jimmmy

ardmacha wrote: »

The point was also made on the programme that there is nothing particularly unreasonable about public sector pensions

lol lol lol. It must have been a different programme to the one everyone else saw.

As the original poster wrote :
"However what i found most illuminating is the The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train
eg: Garret Fitz retired on 18.5k and inflation would have made it 34k now but the pay parity scandal means he is on 105k
It can be seen at time 09:20 on the clip.
This applies to all public servants and the scandal is exacerbated when you have people on receipt of multiple ministerial and other pensions "

Mr.Micro

jimmmy wrote: »

Rubbish. If they were , the share prices would not still be on the floor.

Its not rubbish, the share prices have been going up mostly and profit is profit, even if it is smaller than before, even if its on a daily basis. Look at GM in the US share price goes up when the Government hints its going to give more money, when its restructure plan is ready. These people do not care where the money comes from.

jimmmy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its not rubbish, the share prices have been going up mostly and profit is profit, .

Sorry to inform you but as anyone who knows anything about the economy will tell you, the losses made on the financial markets are much bigger than any tiny little gains made this last week or two. Peoples savings ( personal or through a pension fund ) in bank shares ( eg AIB, B of I, Anglo , Irish Life etc ) have shrunk by so much from market peak you must have heard about that ?

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... The people who are laughing most are the people who have big public service pensions, as outlined on the programme last night.

I have a medium size public service pension. I am not laughing at anybody.

In discussing public affairs, it is inappropriate to demonise people.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have a medium size public service pension.

What seems medium to you may seem huge to others.

As the original poster wrote : "Garret Fitz retired on 18.5k and inflation would have made it 34k now but the pay parity scandal means he is on 105k
It can be seen at time 09:20 on the clip.
This applies to all public servants. "

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am not laughing at anybody.

Of course you are not. As one of my friends ( who privately admits he has an over generous public sector pension ) said to me recently, he would not laugh at someone who did not win a lottery.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

What seems medium to you may seem huge to others.

And it might seem small to a different set of others.

As the original poster wrote : "Garret Fitz retired on 18.5k and inflation would have made it 34k now but the pay parity scandal means he is on 105k
It can be seen at time 09:20 on the clip.
This applies to all public servants. "

I have no great interest in the financial situation of Garrett Fitzgerald, and have no idea if the claims made are accurate. But the claim that "this applies to all public servants" involves a distortion, because the Taoiseach's pay rate was increased way out of proportion to pay rates generally.

Of course you are not. As one of my friends ( who privately admits he has an over generous public sector pension ) said to me recently, he would not laugh at someone who did not win a lottery.

You are using cheap sarcasm to impute to me an attitude that I do not have.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And it might seem small to a different set of others.

Naturally. I am talking about - and what the excellent programme was talking about - was the comparison of public sector pensions compared with reality, including the majority of pensions / what people have to live on.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have no great interest in the financial situation of Garrett Fitzgerald, and have no idea if the claims made are accurate. But the claim that "this applies to all public servants" involves a distortion, because the Taoiseach's pay rate was increased way out of proportion to pay rates generally.

You are quite correct in that the Taoiseach's pay rate was increased way out of proportion to pay rates generally, like all public sector pensions. As the original poster said:
"However what i found most illuminating is the The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train
eg: Garret Fitz retired on 18.5k and inflation would have made it 34k now but the pay parity scandal means he is on 105k
It can be seen at time 09:20 on the clip.
This applies to all public servants and the scandal is exacerbated when you have people on receipt of multiple ministerial and other pensions "

oscarBravo

Yes, jimmmy, we've read the OP. Stop spamming it.

JonathanAnon

Was a troubling report alright. Public sector workers cannot continue to be mollycoddled by the state in this way, we just cannot afford it.

What I dont get is that the public sector wanted to be benchmarked with the private sector, in a time when EVERYONE in the private sector knew that it was a temporary boom. I have a lot of friends who are in construction (flooring, plumbing etc etc) and they have all been working their asses off cos they knew the boom wouldnt last.

I have nothing against public sector workers, but they need to be benchmarked back DOWN, and a lot of them need to be made redundant. It doesnt make sense that in the biggest recession that this country has ever seen that there should be one sector that is completely immune to it. I dont think Cowen will have the balls to do the job.

jimmmy

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I have nothing against public sector workers, but they need to be benchmarked back DOWN, and a lot of them need to be made redundant. It doesnt make sense that in the biggest recession that this country has ever seen that there should be one sector that is completely immune to it. I dont think Cowen will have the balls to do the job.

+1

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... You are quite correct in that the Taoiseach's pay rate was increased way out of proportion to pay rates generally, like all public sector pensions. ...

That's the distortion. The Taoiseach's pay rate (and the linked pension) grew out of proportion to other public service pay rates, so it is not a true indicator of public service pensions.

Mr.Micro

jimmmy wrote: »

Sorry to inform you but as anyone who knows anything about the economy will tell you, the losses made on the financial markets are much bigger than any tiny little gains made this last week or two. Peoples savings ( personal or through a pension fund ) in bank shares ( eg AIB, B of I, Anglo , Irish Life etc ) have shrunk by so much from market peak you must have heard about that ?

How very patronizing. Small gains in share prices 3 to 15% and people can take the gains( or losses) on a daily basis. Without public money there would be no banks now and the share prices mostly can only go up in future. What other institutions can boast of a Government guarantee backed by the taxpayer? Gains are gains no matter how small in a tough economic climate

People should not have put all their savings into one basket ( as in eggs ). They will have had a lesson in life's uncertainties.

jimmmy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

How very patronizing.

Its not, its the reality. The losses made on the financial markets are much much bigger than any whatever gains made this last week or two...if stocks gain for a few days they often if not usually go down again, such has been the volatility this last few months.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Small gains in share prices 3 to 15% and people can take the gains( or losses) on a daily basis.

So because there are now shares that are say 1.15 now, having been 1.00 a week or two ago, and say 18.00 8 months ago, people who relied on shares as part of their investment portfolio ( for retirement, kids education or whatever ) are laughing ?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Without public money there would be no banks now and the share prices mostly can only go up in future.

" the share prices mostly can only go up in future " lol lol

Mr.Micro wrote: »

People should not have put all their savings into one basket ( as in eggs ). They will have had a lesson in life's uncertainties.

Most people did not. They still lost heavily.....well, compared with public sector pensions anyway.

Mr.Micro

jimmmy wrote: »

Its not, its the reality. The losses made on the financial markets are much much bigger than any whatever gains made this last week or two...if stocks gain for a few days they often if not usually go down again, such has been the volatility this last few months.

Its a plus that the decline has halted, the banks are still in business, thanks in part to the stalwart taxpayer.That's reality.

So because there are now shares that are say 1.15 now, having been 1.00 a week or two ago, and say 18.00 8 months ago, people who relied on shares as part of their investment portfolio ( for retirement, kids education or whatever ) are laughing ?

Anybody investing in shares has to be prepared to risk and lose the lot.


Historically bank shares will rise again as they are an essential part of the economic fabric of society. Shares rose in all previous recessions, this one will be no different. It may take time as all excesses have to be purged.

From todays ISEQ. good news at least a silver lining for now ( subject to change) if one has bank shares.




In Dublin, the ISEQ index of Irish shares continued its recent upward trend to stand 0.9% higher at 2,385. Banks were once again to the forefront, with AIB adding 25% to €1.02, Bank of Ireland also gaining 25% to 85 cent and Irish Life & Permanent rising 12% to €1.72.


http://www.rte.ie/business/reports/marketupdate.html

meditraitor

Maybe I was dreaming but I heard them say on the program that a few years ago they implemented a 5% contribution(from 0%) on the Civil service pension and to offset this they gave themselves a 5% rise!
WTF

I do feel sorry for the bord na mona workers, brutal

jimmmy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its a plus that the decline has halted, the banks are still in business. That's reality.

Some banks overseas are not in business. The Irish banks are still in business....though that is not of much consilation to the pensioners whose shares are now almost worthless. Most people who have have part of their money invested in the "blue chip" Irish banks ( as they were called) have lost very heavily. If shares are volatile around approx one euro from a high of 18 euro , that proves my point. You do not seem to understand that. You wrote " share prices mostly can only go up in future ". Can you give a guarantee share prices will "mostly go up in future" ? Do you have a crystal ball ? Will you bet some of the value of a public sector pension on it ? Will public sector workers share some of the pain ? Put their money where their mouth is ?

ardmacha

I have nothing against public sector workers, but they need to be benchmarked back DOWN, and a lot of them need to be made redundant. It doesnt make sense that in the biggest recession that this country has ever seen that there should be one sector that is completely immune to it.

Public sector workers have had an effective pay cut and will pay more taxes like everyone else. Their after tax income will fall by 10-12%, which is the amount that GNP is declining. This is the average effect of the recession. yes, some people will have suffered much more, but others will not have any pay cut at all.

A new benchmarking is appropriate, but the last one was a farce wit the increases proportional to union strength rather than anything else. If a new benchmarking was was on some of the misinformation in this thread it would be farce also.

Mr.Micro

jimmmy wrote: »

Some banks overseas are not in business. The Irish banks are still in business....though that is not of much consilation to the pensioners whose shares are now almost worthless. Most people who have have part of their money invested in the "blue chip" Irish banks ( as they were called) have lost very heavily. If shares are volatile around approx one euro from a high of 18 euro , that proves my point. You do not seem to understand that. You wrote " share prices mostly can only go up in future ". Can you give a guarantee share prices will "mostly go up in future" ? Do you have a crystal ball ? Will you bet some of the value of a public sector pension on it ? Will public sector workers share some of the pain ? Put their money where their mouth is ?

You appear to have a naive way of looking at the stock market with respect. Nothing is guaranteed in the stock market. As I posted bank shares in time will go up, whether they survive in their current set up or have to merge is another matter. When pensioners invested in bank shares they took the risk in a private company with NO guarantees as to their returns or even their initial investment.

bottlerocket

JonathanAnon wrote: »

EVERYONE in the private sector knew that it was a temporary boom.

Sorry but thats just nonsense.

If this were true then why were people continuing to spend heavily on houses in a peaking market from 2005-7? Must have those public sector workers, going round with their heads in the clouds, living in their bubble who were buying all the houses, cars, holidays, racking up credit card debts.

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I have nothing against public sector workers, but they need to be benchmarked back DOWN, and a lot of them need to be made redundant. It doesnt make sense that in the biggest recession that this country has ever seen that there should be one sector that is completely immune to it. I dont think Cowen will have the balls to do the job.

Much better. I daresay some should be marked down and some should be made redundant. I work in front line services for the public sector, make less than average industrial wage for long hours in a difficult job. I've lost 6.5% through the 'levy' and fair enough, something had to be done so I accepted it (voted no on the strike ballot too). I also will get hit with all the other tax increases that everyone else gets and expect to take a further hit of something in the region of 10% before all this is over. Yes I will have a decent enough pension at the end of it, for which I contribute 11.5% of my income. But for the OP to use a former Taoiseach as the marker for all public sector workers is disingenuous and dishonest. There is a case for some reform in the pensions system, but to demonise public sector workers because the banks destroyed the pensions of other workers is unfair and misses the point. There has been downright shameful, cowardly politics from the government on this issue and I am sick to death of the demonisation of the public sector. Of course some of the administrative staff should be let go, work practices should be reformed and the public sector as a whole made more efficient. Nobody I work with disputes this, nobody is against reform. The idea that we don't live in the real world is ludicrous. Yes we have job and pension security but we are acutely aware of this but we should not be the focus of demonisation as a result. Of course we have to be realistic, flexible and willing to play our part through new work practices, pay cuts, whatever is needed. We should not be made to suffer unduly for the sins of others, we didn't create this mess.

Carlow52

Carlow52 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0402/primetime_av.html?2519581,null,230

The earlier part of the program has the Economist predicting bankruptcy unless there is mega pain on 7th

However what i found most illuminating is the The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train
eg: Garret Fitz retired on 18.5k and inflation would have made it 34k now but the pay parity scandal means he is on 105k:mad:
It can be seen at time 09:20 on the clip.

This applies to all public servants and the scandal is exacerbated when you have people on receipt of multiple ministerial and other pensions

All public servants? My dad does a job for the public service that he'd earn three times as much if he went private. By going private I mean he'd be hired by the public service on a contract at a ludicrous rate. (he's one of the only people in the country who can do his job)

I've worked many a job in my lifetime, and some of those jobs were public service jobs. The ratio of people who worked hard and people who deserved firing was almost the same.

This PS crap needs to stop. Most of the anti PS crew havn't got a clue what theyre talking about..

meditraitor

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

This PS crap needs to stop. Most of the anti PS crew havn't got a clue what theyre talking about..

You seem like a knowledgable and experienced chap so can you answer a question for me

I watched the program last night and they said that a few years ago the pension for public sector jobs was a 0% contribution and then when they changed it to a 5% contribution the public sector gave themselves a 5% pay rise to offset it.

Is this true?

Yeah my dad got a pay rise alright.

He actually got back payment for that too. Something like 20k. Only because all the medical grades are linked. Which is a terrible system.

A medical scientist should definitely not be on the same scale as a nurse..

We voted in the party who legislated this though, remember that..

meditraitor

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Yeah my dad got a pay rise alright.

He actually got back payment for that too. Something like 20k. Only because all the medical grades are linked. Which is a terrible system.

A medical scientist should definitely not be on the same scale as a nurse..

We voted in the party who legislated this though, remember that..

So you understand the resentment out in the real world towards the PS and the reason some people get a bit pissed of with anyone who tries to defend the indefensible.

The OP used the word GRAVY TRAIN and i could not think of a more apt word for the perks the PS enjoy.

Its the good times are over so why should the gravy train be continued?

My dad has given his entire life to the PS. He works in the blood bank btw. I know exactly what you mean though. When I spent a summer there I could have walked in and fired half the staff with a 0% fall in productivity.

Common sense politics has just gone out the window at the moment. And we need it back.

jimmmy

meditraitor wrote: »

So you understand the resentment out in the real world towards the PS and the reason some people get a bit pissed of with anyone who tries to defend the indefensible.

The OP used the word GRAVY TRAIN and i could not think of a more apt word for the perks the PS enjoy.

Its the good times are over so why should the gravy train be continued?

I do not think anyone can continue to justify the gravy train, considering our massive national borrowing and the economic situation. Even a few friends who are retired public servants and who told me of their very high pensions, ( which even they admitted were way too high ) did not try to justify it.

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

I do not think anyone can continue to justify the gravy train, considering our massive national borrowing and the economic situation. Even a few friends who are retired public servants and who told me of their very high pensions, ( which even they admitted were way too high ) did not try to justify it.

How many? How much?

We don't want names, just a few facts.

Suffice to say it is far more than they can spend, even with numerous luxury holidays abroad etc.

Seriously? You're having a laugh.

Gumbo

meditraitor wrote: »

You seem like a knowledgable and experienced chap so can you answer a question for me

I watched the program last night and they said that a few years ago the pension for public sector jobs was a 0% contribution and then when they changed it to a 5% contribution the public sector gave themselves a 5% pay rise to offset it.

Is this true?

that cant be true???

my sister in law told me that she has been paying 6.5% of her wages since 1997. (13% now with the levy)

im relatively new to the PS so cant comment on going ons before 2006!

jimmmy wrote: »

I do not think anyone can continue to justify the gravy train, considering our massive national borrowing and the economic situation. Even a few friends who are retired public servants and who told me of their very high pensions, ( which even they admitted were way too high ) did not try to justify it.

considering your on an internet forum, i think you really could mention the job they retired at and what they claim to be earning in a pension. i can then check if its the truth on our pay scale in work. (no privacy issues, all salaries are displayed on our internet, listed by tob title and grade)

P. Breathnach

meditraitor wrote: »

So you understand the resentment out in the real world towards the PS ...

What do you mean by "the real world"? That group that shares your particular set of prejudices? Do those with a different point of view inhabit an unreal world?

When people adopt the techniques of propagandists, it becomes difficult to have a rational debate.

dresden8

Just to throw some facts and figures around Jimmmy's propaganda.

Take a HEO on 57,000. This is as high as most people can hope to reach and higher than a lot will go.

After 40 years of contributions, taxes, levies and whatnot the pension will work out at 28,000 per annum. Contrary to what Jimmmy says most people would have absolutely no problem spending that in a year.

Wow, 28,000 you might say, that's a lot. But hang on, what about the State Pension that comes out of that. (Contrary to what you might hear Civil Servants don't get both, whoever told you they do is a liar)

State Contributory Pension

Personal Rate 230.3 by 52 = 11,975.60
Adult Dependant Rate 206.3 by 52 = 10,276.60

Total State Pension 22,252.20

So out of 28,000 A HEO would get 22,252 from the State Pension and their "Gilt edged" Gold plated public sector pension would give around 6,000 a year.

Obviously for an EO on a max of 48,000 the state pension is nearly all their pension.

I don't know the max for an SO but a CO will only end up with the State Pension and maybe something small above that, or not.

For that six grand a year they're paying

Pension Levy 158 by 26 (fortnightly) = 4,108
Superannuation 32 by 26 = 832
PRSI 56 by 26 = 1,456

Total 6,396


Whoop de doo.

Obviously there's advantages if the missus is dead.

Forgot to say, post 95's are paying more PRSI and superannuation.

dresden8

Oh and of course, private sector do get their state pension and their private pension (what's left of it).