Why is public sector pay such a big issue now?

givyjoe81

Riskymove wrote: »

ALL public sector workers have taken a pay cut and there are MASS cuts (17,000 +) in numbers

so why are people still coming on here looking for this to be done?


p.s. we can actually continue to pay the current public sector pay bill if we chose to (not I think we should)

Not enough of a 'pay cut', and i think your getting ahead of yourself with the job cuts, that was a RECOMMENDATION from Bord snip, it hasnt actually happened yet.

And no we CANNOT afford to continue paying the current PS wage bill, thats the point. Borrowing hand over fist doesnt equal an ability to pay, and yes nor SHOULD WE.

Riskymove

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Not enough of a 'pay cut', and i think your getting ahead of yourself with the job cuts, that was a RECOMMENDATION from Bord snip, it hasnt actually happened yet.

And no we CANNOT afford to continue paying the current PS wage bill, thats the point. Borrowing hand over fist doesnt equal an ability to pay, and yes nor SHOULD WE.

Not enough of a cut.....ah the true colours at last, join your friends who are not really interested in balancing the books, just punishing public sector workers

The RECOMMENDATION of the mcCarthy report is likely to be implemented to a great extent at least. there has also been a moratorium on recruitment and promotion for some time now and any staff leaving on early retirement or career break will not be replaced, contract staff not being renewed.....so reduction of numbers is underway

yes we CAN continue paying the current PS wage bill if we wanted (again I am not saying we should or will) we are borrowing money because there is a gap between revenue and expenditure but the PS wage bill is only a part of that expenditure

Count Dooku

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

this may come as a shock mate, but public servants pay taxes too! :eek:

It only looks that they pay taxes
In reality they pay it from money, which government receive from private sector worker taxes, ie PS workers have smaller salaries, then it looks, in order to make payroll easier

irish_bob

Riskymove wrote: »

Not enough of a cut.....ah the true colours at last, join your friends who are not really interested in balancing the books, just punishing public sector workers

The RECOMMENDATION of the mcCarthy report is likely to be implemented to a great extent at least. there has also been a moratorium on recruitment and promotion for some time now and any staff leaving on early retirement or career break will not be replaced, contract staff not being renewed.....so reduction of numbers is underway

yes we CAN continue paying the current PS wage bill if we wanted (again I am not saying we should or will) we are borrowing money because there is a gap between revenue and expenditure but the PS wage bill is only a part of that expenditure

why would private sector workers or the state in general wish to have the highest paid public sector in europe , especially when history has shown that thier is no correlation between rate of pay and level of service , why would the state want to pay its teachers 30% more than in the uk , same with nurses and police , why would we want to pay our consultants double what they earn in germany , a doctor in germany earns what a nurse earns here , its farcicial

irish_bob

Riskymove wrote: »

Not enough of a cut.....ah the true colours at last, join your friends who are not really interested in balancing the books, just punishing public sector workers

The RECOMMENDATION of the mcCarthy report is likely to be implemented to a great extent at least. there has also been a moratorium on recruitment and promotion for some time now and any staff leaving on early retirement or career break will not be replaced, contract staff not being renewed.....so reduction of numbers is underway

yes we CAN continue paying the current PS wage bill if we wanted (again I am not saying we should or will) we are borrowing money because there is a gap between revenue and expenditure but the PS wage bill is only a part of that expenditure

why would private sector workers or the state in general wish to have the highest paid public sector in europe , especially when history has shown that thier is no correlation between rate of pay and level of service , why would the state want to pay its teachers 30% more than in the uk , same with nurses and police , why would we want to pay our consultants double what they earn in germany , a doctor in germany earns what a nurse earns here , its farcicial , just because someone has taken a pay cut doesnt mean they have suffered , all depends what rate of pay they were on in the 1st place

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

why would private sector workers or the state in general wish to have the highest paid public sector in europe , especially when history has shown that thier is no correlation between rate of pay and level of service , why would the state want to pay its teachers 30% more than in the uk , same with nurses and police , why would we want to pay our consultants double what they earn in germany , a doctor in germany earns what a nurse earns here , its farcicial

sure, why wouldn't you wish to....we're great


Of course, its clearly set out in my posts that we should have the highest paid public service?...isn't it?....ah it must be ....sure Irish_bob wouldn't have posted this line agian otherwise?.....?

givyjoe81

Riskymove wrote: »

Not enough of a cut.....ah the true colours at last, join your friends who are not really interested in balancing the books, just punishing public sector workers

The RECOMMENDATION of the mcCarthy report is likely to be implemented to a great extent at least. there has also been a moratorium on recruitment and promotion for some time now and any staff leaving on early retirement or career break will not be replaced, contract staff not being renewed.....so reduction of numbers is underway

yes we CAN continue paying the current PS wage bill if we wanted (again I am not saying we should or will) we are borrowing money because there is a gap between revenue and expenditure but the PS wage bill is only a part of that expenditure

True colours?! What are you on about, chirst almighty PS workers have to be the most overly sensitive bunch out there. Without digging up the whole pension levy again, its not quite the same as the savage cuts a huge number of private sector workers have had to take, never mind the ones who lost their job. Its not about punishing anyone, for god's sake get over yourself, its about not bankrupting the country.

We simply cannot afford to continue paying your wages at the current level, what part of this do you not understand?! Yes PS wages are only a part of public spending, but a huge part of it! And there need to be cuts accross the board, and the pension levy doesnt 'cut' enough off the wage bill!

Do you think any business in their right mind would borrow money just to pay their staff?! i.e. if they had less money coming in than going out!!! NO, they would either lay people off or cut their wages until they get to a level of equilibrium, which is way off in terms of public sector wage expenditure at the moment. Further more what bank would give a company money to pay their wages if they cant afford to pay them from their own takings? Financial suicide on the part of the bank and company is what it would be, same principle to be applied to PS.

What on earth do you mean we could CHOOSE to continue paying the current wage levels, do you mean if you make bigger cuts elsewhere just to keep PS workers happy and 'save' them from a cut in salary? Do you mean we should continue to borrow astronomical amounts of money to continue these levels of pay?

Please do elaborate on a rational theory as to how we could continue to pay the current levels of pay, without winning the space lottery.

Riskymove

True colours?! What are you on about, chirst almighty PS workers have to be the most overly sensitive bunch out there. Without digging up the whole pension levy again, its not quite the same as the savage cuts a huge number of private sector workers have had to take, never mind the ones who lost their job. Its not about punishing anyone, for god's sake get over yourself, its about not bankrupting the country.

If you are actually interested in bringing the pay bill down to a more sustainable level, it can be done through numbers rather than a pay cut....but as you suggest...some people want a "bigger" cut than the levy....why?...if not simply wanting to punish PS

the reports outlined above show that

49% of SME had pay cuts...average cut 13%

(ISME Report)

9% of private sector frims made pay cut, i.e 91% did not

(Mercer report)

"huge numbers"? "savage cuts"?

true some sectors are hit more than others...not an excuse to take it out on others and demand same or more

We simply cannot afford to continue paying your wages at the current level, what part of this do you not understand?!

but we could, why cant you understand?

And there need to be cuts accross the board, and the pension levy doesnt 'cut' enough off the wage bill!

whats enough?

Do you think any business in their right mind would borrow money just to pay their staff?! i

no and I've made the point that the borrowing is to bridge the gap between income and expenditure not to solely fund wages

What on earth do you mean we could CHOOSE to continue paying the current wage levels, do you mean if you make bigger cuts elsewhere just to keep PS workers happy and 'save' them from a cut in salary? Do you mean we should continue to borrow astronomical amounts of money to continue these levels of pay?

Yes i mean we could CHOOSE to do that.......but for a third time I say...I am not suggesting we do

givyjoe81

Riskymove wrote: »

If you are actually interested in bringing the pay bill down to a more sustainable level, it can be done through numbers rather than a pay cut....but as you suggest...some people want a "bigger" cut than the levy....why?...if not simply wanting to punish PS

the reports outlined above show that

49% of SME had pay cuts...average cut 13%

(ISME Report)

9% of private sector frims made pay cut, i.e 91% did not

(Mercer report)

"huge numbers"? "savage cuts"?

true some sectors are hit more than others...not an excuse to take it out on others and demand same or more




but we could, why cant you understand?




whats enough?




no and I've made the point that the borrowing is to bridge the gap between income and expenditure not to solely fund wages



Yes i mean we could CHOOSE to do that.......but for a third time I say...I am not suggesting we do

Those two reports dont make sense, so 49% of SME's have made cuts, yet you quote that only 9% of the private sector have made cuts?! SME's are the private sector are they not, equating for anywhere up to 80% of employment in total? Not a referenced fact just an estimate given to me a while back in a lecture.

In reality, it doesnt matter how much of a pay cut the private sector has taken, the case in point is the PS, and its enormous wage bill. PS workers are the governments, and therefore the peoples employees, and as such is their responsbility to assess PS wage bill, staff numbers etc just as the private sector does with its own staff.

Obviously the government wants to maintain services as much as possible so the obvious solution is to cut wages and not jobs. Wastage is not quite the same as redundancies, not even nearly in fact, and I have yet to hear of a single person in the PS being made redundent, its not a case of punishing anyone, its smart economics and financial prudence to tighten the belt.

You keep banging on about a 'choice' which is pretty the same kind of choice as putting a shotgun to your face and pulling the trigger. I could choose to get a load of credit cards tomorrow and rack up a huge bill without any forseeable ability to pay. It's ludicrous to suggest that we could, never mind should make such a choice.

You make an interesting point that some sectors are effected more than others by wage cuts, do you not see the irony in that statement?! The public service are kicking and screaming to avoid the simple fact, that they are and should be affected by 'savage' wage cuts if needs be, it simply comes down to an ability to pay your wages, which as a country we dont have! There is not enough tax revenue coming in!!

The futility of this argument is quickly dawning on me, Christmas and Turkeys comes to mind.

irish_bob

id put as much faith in that report which states that only 9% of private sector workers have taken a pay cut as i would in brian cowen winning a worlds sexiest man poll , the same union head who conducted it ( geraghty ) cherry picked his way through facts and figures and completley ignore the 300,000 who have lost thier jobs in order to come up with those conclusions

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

id put as much faith in that report which states that only 9% of private sector workers have taken a pay cut as i would in brian cowen winning a worlds sexiest man poll , the same union head who conducted it ( geraghty ) cherry picked his way through facts and figures and completley ignore the 300,000 who have lost thier jobs in order to come up with those conclusions

That report was done by Mercer, not Geraghty. He just quoted it.

Wrong on the facts again Bob.

givyjoe81

dresden8 wrote: »

That report was done by Mercer, not Geraghty. He just quoted it.

Wrong on the facts again Bob.

Care to comment on the 'facts' stated earlier by Frisky? How do 49% of SME's take cuts resulting in only 9% of private sector workers taking any cut? And do you really think that this takes into account every single firm and private sector worker in the country? Does 300k job losses not count as a pay cut, i.e. a 100% loss in pay?!

dresden8

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Care to comment on the 'facts' stated earlier by Frisky? How do 49% of SME's take cuts resulting in only 9% of private sector workers taking any cut? And do you really think that this takes into account every single firm and private sector worker in the country? Does 300k job losses not count as a pay cut, i.e. a 100% loss in pay?!

I don't have to defend those numbers, I didn't come up with them.

If you think they are incorrect take it up with ISME, IBEC and Mercer. At least two of those organisations are hardly friends of the Public Sector.

And it's not 100% loss. Social welfare replaces an element of that. In fact for people with families social welfare is quite generous. There are a number of threads on this issue, along with a number of press articles, not to mention the Bord Snip report which comment on this.

Wrong on the "facts" again.

givyjoe81

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't have to defend those numbers, I didn't come up with them.

If you think they are incorrect take it up with ISME, IBEC and Mercer. At least two of those organisations are hardly friends of the Public Sector.

And it's not 100% loss. Social welfare replaces an element of that. In fact for people with families social welfare is quite generous. There are a number of threads on this issue, along with a number of press articles, not to mention the Bord Snip report which comment on this.

Wrong on the "facts" again.

What are you on about wrong on the facts again?! What 'facts' did i mention?! I merely aluded to the 'facts' your PS friend stated, convenient how you didnt mention the obvious errors in the 'facts' that he stated, and only pick up on ones which contradict your opinion. You lose your job your lose your income, and you do get in effect a 100% pay cut. Pay as in work for monetarty reward, not social welfare assistance.

But yes for people with families it can be quite generous, sometimes ludicrously so, cant think of the paper it was in on Sunday, but family on 3800€ benefits per month, but thats for another thread.

You mention the above organisations as enemies of not friends, which really is indicative of the siege mentality of PS workers, 'oh were all out to get you' everybody bashing the PS, complete nonsense, just picking up on undeniable facts and figures, not enough money in the pot! Take opinions, bias and everything else out the equation, simple simple as.

dresden8

givyjoe81 wrote: »

What are you on about wrong on the facts again?! What 'facts' did i mention?! I merely aluded to the 'facts' your PS friend stated, convenient how you didnt mention the obvious errors in the 'facts' that he stated, and only pick up on ones which contradict your opinion. You lose your job your lose your income, and you do get in effect a 100% pay cut. Pay as in work for monetarty reward, not social welfare assistance.

But yes for people with families it can be quite generous, sometimes ludicrously so, cant think of the paper it was in on Sunday, but family on 3800€ benefits per month, but thats for another thread.

You mention the above organisations as enemies of not friends, which really is indicative of the siege mentality of PS workers, 'oh were all out to get you' everybody bashing the PS, complete nonsense, just picking up on undeniable facts and figures, not enough money in the pot! Take opinions, bias and everything else out the equation, simple simple as.

Now we're making progress.

So, nobody has lost 100% of their income and according to the employers bodies, only the minority have taken pay cuts.

Whereas 100% of the public service has taken a "levy".

Turlough O'Sullivan never stops going on about the public sector. To call him "friendly" would be quite a stretch. He's as friendly as jimmmy.

Carry on.

dresden8

And as regards the "siege mentality" I refer you to this post of the lovely jimmmy

hear hear....as someone else wrote in the papers at the weekend, any public service "workers" who strike will be stoned in the streets !

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61341823#post61341823

Post number 27.

Then there was the thread about running public servants over which I can't find but I'll give it another lash, and then there are the posts where people can't wait for the IMF to come in and teach public servants a lesson.

Mal-Adjusted

guys, did you know that Public servants also caused cancer? and in their spare time, they kill puppies!:(

dresden8

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

guys, did you know that Poblic servants also caused cancer? and in their spare time, they kill puppies!:(

Every time a public servant takes a days leave it makes baby Jebus cry.

Riskymove

There is nothing wrong the "facts" as I presented them; if there are errors they are down to Mercer or ISME to examine

We are talking about pay cuts here...of course people have lost their jobs entirely and its far more prevalent than pay cuts...I dont disagree...but there is a lot of rhetoric out there about widespread pay cuts in the private sector...

Mercer say 9% have introduced pay cuts with a further 47% freezing pay or deferring increases; whats missing...why the 44% who have...yes... increased pay

FYI - Mercer is a leading global provider of consulting, outsourcing and investment services. Mercer’s 18,000 employees are based in more than 40 countries.


ISME report - 45% have introduced a pay cut, with 49% implementing pay freezes. Average pay cut 13%. 6% therefore have not frozen or reduced pay

I do not know what proportion of the private sector is made up of members of ISME but its nowehere near 80% as there are several other groups; small traders association, hotel federation etc

Riskymove

givyjoe81 wrote: »

You keep banging on about a 'choice' which is pretty the same kind of choice as putting a shotgun to your face and pulling the trigger. I could choose to get a load of credit cards tomorrow and rack up a huge bill without any forseeable ability to pay. It's ludicrous to suggest that we could, never mind should make such a choice.

Have I suggested we take such a choice? you have ignored the point I made three times

You make an interesting point that some sectors are effected more than others by wage cuts, do you not see the irony in that statement?! The public service are kicking and screaming to avoid the simple fact, that they are and should be affected by 'savage' wage cuts if needs be, it simply comes down to an ability to pay your wages, which as a country we dont have! There is not enough tax revenue coming in!!

once again i suggest there is an argument that we dont need to implement "savage" pay cuts to reduce the pay bill. the public service expanded far too much thanks to Bertie and needs to be trimmed and a reduction in numbers will have a significant effect.

there are also severe issues with a lack of accountability by staff and firing people is a very difficult undertaking. This all needs to change

in addition both the welfare bill and other spending needs to be tackled (a la McCarthy)

you have also ignored my question about how much of a cut is enough in your opinion?

irish_bob

Riskymove wrote: »

Have I suggested we take such a choice? you have ignored the point I made three times



once again i suggest there is an argument that we dont need to implement "savage" pay cuts to reduce the pay bill. the public service expanded far too much thanks to Bertie and needs to be trimmed and a reduction in numbers will have a significant effect.

there are also severe issues with a lack of accountability by staff and firing people is a very difficult undertaking. This all needs to change

in addition both the welfare bill and other spending needs to be tackled (a la McCarthy)

you have also ignored my question about how much of a cut is enough in your opinion?

nurses , teachers and guards should face a cut of about 15% this year , consultants about 30% and politicians the same , this would still put them ahead of thier uk counterparts , public servants here need to be mainly benchmarked against their european counterparts

Spudmonkey

Riskymove wrote: »

Not enough of a cut.....ah the true colours at last, join your friends who are not really interested in balancing the books, just punishing public sector workers

The RECOMMENDATION of the mcCarthy report is likely to be implemented to a great extent at least. there has also been a moratorium on recruitment and promotion for some time now and any staff leaving on early retirement or career break will not be replaced, contract staff not being renewed.....so reduction of numbers is underway

yes we CAN continue paying the current PS wage bill if we wanted (again I am not saying we should or will) we are borrowing money because there is a gap between revenue and expenditure but the PS wage bill is only a part of that expenditure

Anyone sure of the details on whats the government are bringing in versus their expenditure? And also the breakdown of the expenditure... i.e. what on PS pay, welfare, services??

podge3

irish_bob wrote: »

why would private sector workers or the state in general wish to have the highest paid public sector in europe , especially when history has shown that thier is no correlation between rate of pay and level of service , why would the state want to pay its teachers 30% more than in the uk , same with nurses and police , why would we want to pay our consultants double what they earn in germany , a doctor in germany earns what a nurse earns here , its farcicial , just because someone has taken a pay cut doesnt mean they have suffered , all depends what rate of pay they were on in the 1st place

We are paying those on the dole 300% more than in the UK but the majority of Irish people don't even want a 5% cut in that, it seems.

irish_bob

podge3 wrote: »

We are paying those on the dole 300% more than in the UK but the majority of Irish people don't even want a 5% cut in that, it seems.

while the levels of wellfare in this country are redicolously high , thier is huge opposition to cutting it , this isnt the case with cutting public sector pay , the one thing that could put people on the streets is taking away thier freebies , were a people who cherish the right to scrounge

dresden8

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Anyone sure of the details on whats the government are bringing in versus their expenditure? And also the breakdown of the expenditure... i.e. what on PS pay, welfare, services??

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/public%20expenditure/2009/rev2009rev.pdf

It's all in there. Be brave, dig in.

podge3

irish_bob wrote: »

... were a people who cherish the right to scrounge

I think its ingrained in the Irish psyche to be like this - I reckon people think we are still fighting the Brits and scrounging off them
rather than ourselves.

If we were to cut the public pay of all civil servants by, say, 20 % it would put the lower grades on less than what they would get on the dole. Look what that family of scroungers in Limerick are quoted as receiving - €3800 per month:eek:.

Everything needs to be addressed and social welfare has to be reduced by a lot more than 5% for the lay abouts that have never worked or will never work. I'm not referring to the recently unemployed here BTW.

Spudmonkey

dresden8 wrote: »

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/public%20expenditure/2009/rev2009rev.pdf

It's all in there. Be brave, dig in.

I found that, but it doesn't have the paybill,welfare, services breakdown...

Anyway according to the end of July, the numbers are:

2009
Intake - 34,400
Outgoing - 47,384
Shortfall - 27.4%


2008
Intake - 40,777
Outgoing - 49,186
Shortfall - 17.09%

I'm just wondering if not to decrease the PS paybill and welfare, what can be cut in order to retrieve the deficit?

Spudmonkey

podge3 wrote: »

I think its ingrained in the Irish psyche to be like this - I reckon people think we are still fighting the Brits and scrounging off them
rather than ourselves.

If we were to cut the public pay of all civil servants by, say, 20 % it would put the lower grades on less than what they would get on the dole. Look what that family of scroungers in Limerick are quoted as receiving - €3800 per month:eek:.

Everything needs to be addressed and social welfare has to be reduced by a lot more than 5% for the lay abouts that have never worked or will never work. I'm not referring to the recently unemployed here BTW.

Read that story... was on the daily mail, not the most PC of papers but still made for some sickening reading...

http://www.politics.ie/economy/91036-harte-family-social-welfare-daily-mail.html

dresden8

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I found that, but it doesn't have the paybill,welfare, services breakdown...

Anyway according to the end of July, the numbers are:

2009
Intake - 34,400
Outgoing - 47,384
Shortfall - 27.4%


2008
Intake - 40,777
Outgoing - 49,186
Shortfall - 17.09%

I'm just wondering if not to decrease the PS paybill and welfare, what can be cut in order to retrieve the deficit?

I would imagine the PS paybill, along with welfare, the pharmacists, small farmers, taxpayers (yes, even including the public sector), motorists, et al will all end up paying.

The greens now have an opportunity to control us all through their green taxes, (which FF will heap on and blame the greens) and in their freakish heads it will be a great victory for the green agenda, an agenda we will only curse in the future.

Pretty sh1tty times coming up in general I reckon.

As a non-smoker I say they should re-introduce smoking in pubs, just as soon as pubs have lowered their prices, that should revive at least one moribund section of the economy. There must be more simple and cost free moves out there.

givyjoe81

Riskymove wrote: »

There is nothing wrong the "facts" as I presented them; if there are errors they are down to Mercer or ISME to examine

We are talking about pay cuts here...of course people have lost their jobs entirely and its far more prevalent than pay cuts...I dont disagree...but there is a lot of rhetoric out there about widespread pay cuts in the private sector...

Mercer say 9% have introduced pay cuts with a further 47% freezing pay or deferring increases; whats missing...why the 44% who have...yes... increased pay

FYI - Mercer is a leading global provider of consulting, outsourcing and investment services. Mercer’s 18,000 employees are based in more than 40 countries.


ISME report - 45% have introduced a pay cut, with 49% implementing pay freezes. Average pay cut 13%. 6% therefore have not frozen or reduced pay

I do not know what proportion of the private sector is made up of members of ISME but its nowehere near 80% as there are several other groups; small traders association, hotel federation etc

Your friend Dresdens ridiculous posts, and others mocking us that we are all PS haters is just pathetic it really is, as is backslapping each on for said ridiculous posts.

Golly gosh, so 100% of a well paid PS workforce took a minor 'pay cut'... Oh stop the press, gosh how will you folk ever get by..

Forgive me what I mean is that SME's not an association of such or their members, i.e. the entire population of SME companies in Ireland would make up about 80% of the jobs provided to the Irish economy. But your stats from whatever reports you get them dont really mean a thing to the PS, the only numbers that matters are the ones that indicate a clear inability to pay PS wages at the current levels.

Christ sake, all im saying, and keep saying is that it cant go on! Nothing about bashing you, i dont know you or any other of the PS workers on here, id bite your arm off to take your job right now, even with a pay cut!

I didnt ignore your point on the 'choice' you mentioned, but as i said its hardly a choice that any governement in their right mind would make, unless say they had a militant PS workers union breathing down their neck threatening to hold the country to ransom with strikes, now thats not my opinion just commenting on the noises made by said unions not so long ago.

As others have mentioned about SW cuts, i would, and can take a cut of up to 20%, but thats just me and I although I could take it, wouldnt do it with a smile on my face. Buts mainly down to an extremely modest lifestyle where I dont smoke and hardly drink. But off point.

What does provoke people into bashing, not that i did!, is the seeming inability (not yourself i might add) to acknowledge the other side of the coin, i.e. financial reality we live in!