FF TDs face down Cowen over bonus

Hillel

FF TDs face down Cowen over bonus http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ff-tds-face-down-cowen-over-bonus-1712725.html
So now we know, the first to turn down the call to patriotic duty are our "Public Servants" in the Dail. What possible hope of public service reform, if our elected representatives don't show leadership on this one.
Name and shame every single one of them, I say. Personally, I want to know who in my constituency has put their country first. I will take it entirely personal against those who have not.

The Raven.

Here is a breakdown of the situation so far. It is quite an eye-opener !!

Willing to give it up voluntarily

Eamon Gilmore….....Labour Leader
Joan Burton………....Labour Deputy Leader
Joe Costello………....Labour
Jan O'Sullivan……....Labour
Simon Coveney…....Fine Gael
Michael Moynihan...Fianna Fail

Declined to say

Enda Kenny………....Fine Gael Leader
Pat Rabbitte………...Labour
Liz McManus…….....Labour


Considering it

Mary O'Rourke……..Fianna Fail


Waiting for Government legislation

Ruairi Quinn……......Labour
Seamus Kirk……......Fianna Fail
Brian Hayes……......Fine Gael


Full-out Refusal to Voluntarily give it up voluntarily

Emmett Stagg……...Labour
John Cregan……......Fianna Fail
Bernard Allen…….....Fine Gael
Jackie Healy-Rae…..Independent
Bertie Ahern………....Fianna Fail


It doesn't surprise me in the case of Jackie Healy-Rae or Bertie Ahern, but I must say I'm shocked at Emmett Stagg :eek:!!

Feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes.

nesf

The Raven. wrote: »

It doesn't surprise me in the case of Jackie Healy-Rae or Bertie Ahern, but I must say I'm shocked at Emmett Stagg :eek:!!

People's party allegiances does not dictate their views on what they're entitled to. People often overstate the uniformity of political views within a Party.

Bertie hasn't stated that he'll refuse to give it up voluntarily, it's more nuanced than that, unsurprisingly.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Bertie hasn't stated that he'll refuse to give it up voluntarily, it's more nuanced than that, unsurprisingly.

Nuanced: what a nice way to describe Bertie's brand of verbal obfustication.

galwayrush

Apparently they don't have to give up the money because of some constitutional issue, nothing that couldn't be sorted by a properly worded referendum:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

galwayrush wrote: »

Apparently they don't have to give up the money because of some constitutional issue, nothing that couldn't be sorted by a properly worded referendum:rolleyes:

The cost of the referendum would exceed the potential savings by a considerable margin.

There is another method for withdrawing the long-service increment: at the next election, replace those who draw it with people who do not qualify for it.

dave-higgz

The Raven. wrote: »

Here is a breakdown of the situation so far. It is quite an eye-opener !!

Willing to give it up voluntarily

Eamon Gilmore….....Labour Leader
Joan Burton………....Labour Deputy Leader
Joe Costello………....Labour
Jan O'Sullivan……....Labour
Simon Coveney…....Fine Gael
Michael Moynihan...Fianna Fail

Fair Play

The Raven. wrote: »

Considering it

Mary O'Rourke……..Fianna Fail



Full-out Refusal to Voluntarily give it up voluntarily


Jackie Healy-Rae…..Independent
Bertie Ahern………....Fianna Fail

No Surprises there

Mr.Micro

nesf wrote: »

People's party allegiances does not dictate their views on what they're entitled to. People often overstate the uniformity of political views within a Party.

Bertie hasn't stated that he'll refuse to give it up voluntarily, it's more nuanced than that, unsurprisingly.

Bertie is still a TD? He has no shame and it speaks volumes that and the current refusal of indvidual TD's to give up the bonuses of the calibre of individuals that make up our Dail. Low and lower. Obey the party until it comes to personal greed.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Nuanced: what a nice way to describe Bertie's brand of verbal obfustication.

I was going for ironic...

gollem_1975

the article says that Enda Kenny is refusing to say whether he would hand back his bonus.. the article doesn't mention Bertie Ahern having said anything at all about the 6,400€ bonus. qualitatively whats the difference between the 2 positions.

though come to think of it Enda could have bought a decent website for that €6,400 ;-)

The article does mention that bertie "voluntarily gave up his ministerial pension while he is a sitting TD".. that counts for nothing I suppose.

Killaqueen!!!

The Independent had a full (enough) list of which TDS were prepared to give it up and who wasn't. It's quite shocking.

I know it's not only the FF TDs who are refusing to give up their bonus but it really shows lack of leadership in the present government. Why should we take income levys, cuts in our public services etc. when they aren't prepared to take the cut? It's ridiculous. These TDs already have a salary over 100,000euro!!

deadhead13

It is one thing for a TD not to voluntarily give up the bonus, it would be another thing entirely to legally challenge legislation put in place to remove it. In the current climate, I just don't think any politician would risk the flak that taking such a stand would cause. So we will just have to wait and see if legistationary changes are made. Or will the whole issue be fudged?

nesf

deadhead13 wrote: »

It is one thing for a TD not to voluntarily give up the bonus, it would be another thing entirely to legally challenge legislation put in place to remove it. In the current climate, I just don't think any politician would risk the flak that taking such a stand would cause. So we will just have to wait and see if legistationary changes are made. Or will the whole issue be fudged?

All it would take is one person to challenge it to put the legislation in trouble. I really wouldn't bet against one out of the many challenging it which is probably what's giving the Government pause.

Jackie Healy Ray could easily challenge it given that he won't be standing for re-election most likely.

deadhead13

Your right, it is not something I would place a bet on. But if this is causing problems now, what will happen when the Board for Higher Renumerations come back with their findings in july?

nesf

deadhead13 wrote: »

But if this is causing problems now, what will happen when the Board for Higher Renumerations come back with their findings in july?

Pay reductions might be easier from a legal standpoint than abolishing certain payments (though I'm only speculating here).

Honestly, politician pay isn't what the focus is with the Higher Renumerations Board. We'll save a lot more by cutting senior civil servant pay than politician pay and that's the crucial bit from a strictly fiscal point of view. Politician pay is more the symbolic icing on the cake rather than the main course so to speak.

deadhead13

As far as politicians are concerned, I think the Board is only reviewing ministerial pay grades. You wouldn't expect rebels in the cabinet, but senior civil servants would be less concerned with curryng favour with the electorate than a politician would. I have no idea about legislation or employment contracts with regards the civil service, but I suspect there will be trouble ahead.

Hillel

galwayrush wrote: »

Apparently they don't have to give up the money because of some constitutional issue, nothing that couldn't be sorted by a properly worded referendum:rolleyes:

It's great to see our elected representatives having such respect for the constitution. In fairness, Bertie led from the the front, in this area. :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is another method for withdrawing the long-service increment: at the next election, replace those who draw it with people who do not qualify for it.

No cost saving there, the current lot would get a pension based on it.

dresden8

deadhead13 wrote: »

As far as politicians are concerned, I think the Board is only reviewing ministerial pay grades. You wouldn't expect rebels in the cabinet, but senior civil servants would be less concerned with curryng favour with the electorate than a politician would. I have no idea about legislation or employment contracts with regards the civil service, but I suspect there will be trouble ahead.

I disagree. Civil Servants are getting a hugely bad time at the moment but they all started out junior and they do, believe it or not, believe in public service and the social contract. They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

(Heads for shower, having defended senior management)

Hillel

nesf wrote: »

Honestly, politician pay isn't what the focus is with the Higher Renumerations Board. We'll save a lot more by cutting senior civil servant pay than politician pay and that's the crucial bit from a strictly fiscal point of view. Politician pay is more the symbolic icing on the cake rather than the main course so to speak.

I agree that much will not be saved in either case - but, nevertheless, it is important.

In the case of politicians there is a widespread perception, that I share, that many are now in it purely for personal gain. This is not surprising, given the gravy train that politics has become. Bringing politicians pay back in line with the general populace makes it more likely that truly interested and committed individuals, many of whom are squeezed out by the party machines, will be elected. It also sends out a strong message to the general populace - i.e. leading from the front.

Cutting senior civil service pay is equally important from a leadership perspective. The less-senior grades will simply not support the level of change required, if there is no movement from the top.

Hillel

dresden8 wrote: »

I disagree. Civil Servants are getting a hugely bad time at the moment but they all started out junior and they do, believe it or not, believe in public service and the social contract. They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

I tend to agree with you that many senior civil servants are commited to to the greater good. Certainly, as a population, they would compare favourably to the majority of politicians.

dresden8 wrote: »

They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

Affordability is relative, peoples lifestyle tends to grow in line with their income.

ixoy

Hillel wrote: »

Cutting senior civil service pay is equally important from a leadership perspective. The less-senior grades will simply not support the level of change required, if there is no movement from the top.

Very true. I'd hope civil servants would be more willing to take cuts if they saw it trickle downwards. However, when the levy came in the Principal Officers (to whom TDs pay is linked I believe) got a pay increase and that really annoyed them.
In fact given TDs are also civil servants, the whole thing is now not just public vs private but, to some degree, also public vs public. If the TDs all gave up their bonus it would ease at least one of the divisions.

deadhead13

dresden8 wrote: »

I disagree. Civil Servants are getting a hugely bad time at the moment but they all started out junior and they do, believe it or not, believe in public service and the social contract. They took the 10% pay cut initially, granted, they could afford it.

(Heads for shower, having defended senior management)

If Brian lenihan is true to this budget promise of reducing senior civil servants pay to those of similar size european countries, this could result in a large drop in salaries. I have no axe to grind with civil servants but human nature would suggest there are few people would accept this with good grace. I have no knowledge of the inner workings or culture of the civil service, so I may be wrong.

Hillel

ixoy wrote: »

Very true. I'd hope civil servants would be more willing to take cuts if they saw it trickle downwards. However, when the levy came in the Principal Officers (to whom TDs pay is linked I believe) got a pay increase and that really annoyed them.

Linking TD's pay in this manner means that they have a vested interest in benchmarking increases for the public sector, regardless of whether they are warranted or not. There must be a better mechanism.

I wonder where the relativity between PO pay and TD's pay came from?
(I would have thougt that the average PO would be vastly more experienced, and have a far more demanding job, than the average backbench or opposition TD.)

Hillel

deadhead13 wrote: »

If Brian lenihan is true to this budget promise of reducing senior civil servants pay to those of similar size european countries, this could result in a large drop in salaries. I have no axe to grind with civil servants but human nature would suggest there are few people would accept this with good grace. I have no knowledge of the inner workings or culture of the civil service, so I may be wrong.

I suspect shades of "Yes Minister" here, commisioning a study or report is always a useful way of pretending to do something.

dresden8

Hillel wrote: »

Linking TD's pay in this manner means that they have a vested interest in benchmarking increases for the public sector, regardless of whether they are warranted or not. There must be a better mechanism.

I wonder where the relativity between PO pay and TD's pay came from?
(I would have thougt that the average PO would be vastly more experienced, and have a far more demanding job, than the average backbench or opposition TD.)

As I recall, I could be hugely mistake here, TD got an increase which linked them to PO's (Buckley) and then PO's got benchmarking, which meant the TDs got benchmarking twice.

All part of Bertie's frontloading the goodies.

deadhead13

Hillel wrote: »

I suspect shades of "Yes Minister" here, commisioning a study or report is always a useful way of pretending to do something.

Yes...... July does seem a long time to wait for what is essentially a bit of number-crunching. I wonder will it involve any "fact-finding" missions.

ixoy

dresden8 wrote: »

As I recall, I could be hugely mistake here, TD got an increase which linked them to PO's (Buckley) and then PO's got benchmarking, which meant the TDs got benchmarking twice.

That's what I recall as well. Am I also right in thinking the higher grades, like principal officers and asst. sec, did particularly well in bench marking?

I'd like to think that the people of this country would take a long hard look at those TDs refusing to hand back bonuses and remember it when the elections come around again. Somehow I don't think that will happen and I've a depressing feeling FF will still get back in, despite crushing this country with mismanagement.

Hillel

ixoy wrote: »

That's what I recall as well. Am I also right in thinking the higher grades, like principal officers and asst. sec, did particularly well in bench marking?

I'd like to think that the people of this country would take a long hard look at those TDs refusing to hand back bonuses and remember it when the elections come around again. Somehow I don't think that will happen and I've a depressing feeling FF will still get back in, despite crushing this country with mismanagement.

I don't know, I smell change in the air. My family background is FF for three generations. FAmily members who would never have considered breaking ranks are now riled up and ready to jump ship. (I'm considering going out canvasing. The problem is for which candidate? Party? Decisions, decisions.)

dresden8

Hillel wrote: »

I don't know, I smell change in the air. My family background is FF for three generations. FAmily members who would never have considered breaking ranks are now riled up and ready to jump ship. (I'm considering going out canvasing. The problem is for which candidate? Party? Decisions, decisions.)

Fnckin hell. Only maybe now?

Fnckn hell!

Liam Byrne

Today's Tribune had a big and noble article about how Bertie wouldn't oppose losing his pension IF the government decided to pull the plug on it.

Why did that make me think it's a foregone conclusion that they won't, but a transparent PR stunt so that Teflon comes up smelling of roses again when he's "offered" but the government don't do it, so he's the good guy ?

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why did that make me think it's a foregone conclusion that they won't, but a transparent PR stunt so that Teflon comes up smelling of roses again when he's "offered" but the government don't do it, so he's the good guy ?

And you'd extend this to Ruari Quinn et al?

hallelujajordan

Although I seem to be the only one who holds this view . . . . .

As mentioned in a separate thread, I don't believe that the long-service bonus should be withdrawn. . . . . In any other position, in any other organisation, ones salary increases proportionately with length of service. This is not a bonus, rather a recognition of that fact.

Is it unreasonable that a TD with more than 10years service gets paid somewhere in the region of 6% more than a newly-elected TD. Would you think it unreasonable if you in your current position were paid 6% more than someone who was doing the same job as you but for 10 years less ? ?

There are far more important areas to focus on . . Ministerial Pensions , teacher payments, unvouched expenses . .

I also believe its important that the remuneration that we pay to politicians is consistent with the job we are asking them to do and the skill set we need to hire. . .

Carlow52

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Although I seem to be the only one who holds this view . . . . .

As mentioned in a separate thread, I don't believe that the long-service bonus should be withdrawn. . . . . In any other position, in any other organisation, ones salary increases proportionately with length of service. This is not a bonus, rather a recognition of that fact.

Is it unreasonable that a TD with more than 10years service gets paid somewhere in the region of 6% more than a newly-elected TD. Would you think it unreasonable if you in your current position were paid 6% more than someone who was doing the same job as you but for 10 years less ? ?

There are far more important areas to focus on . . Ministerial Pensions , teacher payments, unvouched expenses . .

I also believe its important that the remuneration that we pay to politicians is consistent with the job we are asking them to do and the skill set we need to hire. . .

The issue here is not whether they are 'entitled' etc.

The issue is that it was put forward in the budget by the Gov as a way of saving money and now they say they cant do it so another example of bungling.

In addition the costs not saved will either be borrowed or taken from the private sector workers who still have jobs or similar in how they took cash from the OAPs by way of the Xmas bonus.

This mess only brings the days of social unrest nearer

hallelujajordan

Carlow52 wrote: »

The issue here is not whether they are 'entitled' etc.

The issue is that it was put forward in the budget by the Gov as a way of saving money and now they say they cant do it so another example of bungling.

In addition the costs not saved will either be borrowed or taken from the private sector workers who still have jobs or similar in how they took cash from the OAPs by way of the Xmas bonus.

This mess only brings the days of social unrest nearer

I agree . . and I think the mess is very much driven by party politics and the need to make populist rather than sensible decisions . .

Time for a National Government !

nesf

From RTE.ie:

Mr Cowen said the intention was not to give an impression on Budget day that these measures would immediately come into force because legislation would be required for this change, and the Government would now have to consider how to deal with the situation in the future.

Details: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0420/budget.html

Hillel

nesf wrote: »

From RTE.ie:
Details: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0420/budget.html

Yet another example of Brian caving in when the pressure came on. He has no control of the FF party, let alone the government, or the country. Time for the Greens to pull the plug!

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

And you'd extend this to Ruari Quinn et al?

I didn't see Ruari Quinn, et OR al using it as a PR stunt with a big interview in the paper.....

But if I had, then yes.

Of course, Bertie's probably more OK, financially, even in the highly unlikely event that he hasn't discussed this with his former deputy and is certain it won't come to pass....

How so ? Because he's been spending his paid TDs jetting around the world doing SFA for us (mind you, that's better than screwing up)

And he can also bet on a few horses if he needs a dig-out.....

Sir Oxman

And just to add, apparently the 5 junior ministers being dumped are to get a 53k payoff - you could not make this up.

No link as yet - front page of Indo on VB's Nightly News.

Hillel

gambiaman wrote: »

And just to add, apparently the 5 junior ministers being dumped are to get a 53k payoff - you could not make this up.

No link as yet - front page of Indo on VB's Nightly News.

Exactly as I expected. They are taking us to the cleaners.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I didn't see Ruari Quinn, et OR al using it as a PR stunt with a big interview in the paper.....

But if I had, then yes.

Of course, Bertie's probably more OK, financially, even in the highly unlikely event that he hasn't discussed this with his former deputy and is certain it won't come to pass....

How so ? Because he's been spending his paid TDs jetting around the world doing SFA for us (mind you, that's better than screwing up)

And he can also bet on a few horses if he needs a dig-out.....

More that Ruari Quinn et al are playing the same game by deflecting attention back to the Government to pass legislation. No less cynical for them not giving big interviews in the paper.

ednwireland

the imf will cut their wages, cos thats where we are heading with this shower cowen couldnt manage anything, the whole gov have been shown up. cant remeber who said it but they said the gov havent taken a hard decision in 12 years and they dont look like their going to start now.

Alcatel

As I've said elsewhere, the government should dig its heels in - just take the damn money off them all, bonuses and pensions and good-luck-junior-minister golden handshakes.

And if they have a problem with it, they can challenge it in the courts. And I'd say they'll have a good time getting re-elected.

bmaxi

gambiaman wrote: »

And just to add, apparently the 5 junior ministers being dumped are to get a 53k payoff - you could not make this up.

As John Browne, former Minister for f*** all, said on South East radio in October 2008 after it was announced he'd be benefiting from this little handout. "Sure it's no big deal", no doubt his fellow beneficiaries will have the same attitude.
I'd say there might be a few people, e.g. those handing over the keys of their homes to the same bank that screwed them in the first place, who just might take issue with that sentiment.

markpb

latimes.com wrote:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today released a proposed $7.05-billion city budget [...] Villaraigosa also proposed a 10% reduction in personnel costs for all city departments to save about $200 million, cuts that could be achieved through options that include potential layoffs, early retirements, work furloughs or city workers agreeing for forgo cost-of-living raises. The mayor said he would start by cutting his $223,000-a-year salary by 12% and freezing all salaries in the mayor’s office.

A man who runs a city with an urban population four times that of Ireland volunteers to reduce his salary below that of Brian Cowen to that of an Irish junior minister.

Compare and contrast...

deadhead13

Noel O'Flynn on RTE News at One was coming out with lines like - "what price democracy"..... "many TDs have put careers on hold"...."do you want TDs to put a euro coin in a turnstile everytime they enter Leinster House".

Our politicians sense of entitlement and how out of touch they are is unreal.

Sleepy

It might be an easy means of showing just how rarely most of them sit in the Dail...

hallelujajordan

markpb wrote: »

A man who runs a city with an urban population four times that of Ireland volunteers to reduce his salary below that of Brian Cowen to that of an Irish junior minister.

Compare and contrast...

Compare like with like. . running a US city is not the same as running a state, no matter what the population is and in addition you have no idea what additional payments are available to the mayor or what his take home pay is like . . .

Also, Cowen has already taken a 10% pay cut along with the rest of the cabinet. . In addition, his take home pay will have been hit by somewhere close to 20% based on the most recent budget, and public service pension levy. A assume he will be one of those who will voluntarily give up his long service payment . .

I believe there are inequities in the system that need to be corrected but its too easy to take a swipe at our politicians . . . .

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

its too easy to take a swipe at our politicians . . . .

Yes, yes it is. But that's their fault, not ours.

bmaxi

Also, Cowen has already taken a 10% pay cut along with the rest of the cabinet.

Did they not actually say they would "surrender" 10% of their salary? In the world of political speak, I'm not quite sure that's the same thing. It would be interesting to see what figure any percentages are applied to when it comes to benchmarking, for instance.

joseph brand

Its very disheartening to hear that our leaders cannot lead by example, but rather want us to lead by making examples of us. Cart-before-the-horse?

Animal Farm seems all to real when I picture cowens face, and think of the fat pigs on the farm, grunting and laughing with the odd Haruumph for good measure.

As someone wrote, 'All they seem capable of is winning votes'.

And of course we all know, 'ye get who ye vote for'! The Irish loved Berties cheeky childish smile, and his ability to convey himself as someone u might bump into, havin' an ould pint o stout down the local.

Ah sure isn't he great!

Electorate = Idiots.

brianthebard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Although I seem to be the only one who holds this view . . . . .

As mentioned in a separate thread, I don't believe that the long-service bonus should be withdrawn. . . . . In any other position, in any other organisation, ones salary increases proportionately with length of service. This is not a bonus, rather a recognition of that fact.

Is it unreasonable that a TD with more than 10years service gets paid somewhere in the region of 6% more than a newly-elected TD. Would you think it unreasonable if you in your current position were paid 6% more than someone who was doing the same job as you but for 10 years less ? ?

There are far more important areas to focus on . . Ministerial Pensions , teacher payments, unvouched expenses . .

I also believe its important that the remuneration that we pay to politicians is consistent with the job we are asking them to do and the skill set we need to hire. . .

TD's are there to serve the country, and supposedly not in it for the money. Every time they are elected they are signing a new contract, not keeping the old one. Its like teachers nowadays who are signed to one year contracts and must win their old job back to stay in work, they don't get raises. Why should the TD's? If someone becomes promoted to a ministerial position then perhaps its worth talking about whether they should earn more, but why should a TD who keeps getting elected but doesn't do anything exceptional or get promoted keep getting pay increases, just because he's there X number of years?