Public sector workers willing to take pay cuts?

damo

First of all this not an anti public sector worker post.

It has been apparant for some time that there needs to be job losses and pay cuts in the public sector, but given the horrendous state the country finds itself in today thanks to the policies of the bertie ahern and brian cowen governments, aswell as total recklesness by the countries banks, the need for huge cuts in public spending has never been as apparant as it is now. The budget deficit is expected to exceed 20 billion.

So to the public sector workers on here: will you accept the pay cuts that are coming in the next budget, or would you consider a pay cut as reason for industrial action?

connundrum

Surely it'd be better that all public sector workers take a 20% pay cut in order to potentially save 1000 jobs (for example).

Its better to have those 1000 people still employed, paying taxes, rather than going on the dole.

What sort of a pay cut would they have to take to save 17,000 jobs?

javaboy

Moved from After Hours.

gerry28

So to the public sector workers on here: will you accept the pay cuts that are coming in the next budget, or would you consider a pay cut as reason for industrial action?

No i'm not willing to accept a paycut. But it would have to be a fairly large one before i'd be on the street striking. I'm not going to strike over a couple of percent.

I think this next budget will take enough from my wages without a pay cut. Property tax, carbon tax and water charges will all be in within 2 years. So I couldn't accept a paycut with those cuts coming down the track.

marzic

yes. Even if i was permanent (contract till may 2010, then...?), I would be willing to drop my pay a bit more. I definately would take a further cut if I could secure a long term contract. In fairness I'm in a mid/higher end technical grade which in my opinion pays better now than private sector equivalent and probably did during the boom too(altho there were good bonus payments in private sector), for less hours. I know the lower grade admin salaries are sh*te in public sector/local gov.

P. Breathnach

damo wrote: »

... So to the public sector workers on here: will you accept the pay cuts that are coming in the next budget, or would you consider a pay cut as reason for industrial action?

Even public sector workers who are resigned to the possibility of pay cuts are unlikely to say that they support or welcome the idea. Human nature.

alentejo

I would be prepared to take a 5% pay cut. This would mean that in the space of one year would mean a 10% reduction (incl pension levy)in net pay over one year. (not including the tax Levy's imposed in both budgets)

However, I get really worried when the additional tax's burdens are suggested and interest rate rises in the future.

I fear that in one or two years time that I will be well paid by European norms, however will be cash poor due to high mortgages and high taxation.

I do think that this country has been scandalously mis managed over the past decade.

Sarn

I would be prepared to take another hit, but I have no dependents and in the fortunate position of having no debt. Currently, between the pension levy and the other tax changes my take home pay is down just over 15%.

efb

Well the two biggest things for me re mismanagement were the creation for pointless QUANGOs and Benchmarking.

All those independent bodies set up to deflect blame from the government, Financial Regulator (sic)- what did they actually regulate? All i ever heard from them was credit unions were loaning money to poor people and that was bad (can poor people's non repayment ruin an economy?)

All those commissions, I don't have time to list them off, and all those regulatory bodies that still seem to have to revert to the Minister anyway (Energy)

Benchmarking was a joke and so was partnership in the Celtic Tigers years, payrises for all (unionised workers) cosy jobs for the union chiefs (FÁS anyone...) and the politician's were happy meanwhile inflation soared and competitiveness was lost, but that wasn't going to stop the cosy cartel.

I'm not taking a cheap dig at the PS, I've friends in there who are checked by the beuracracy (sp), and felt quite demorilised in their job, but if we want to identify the failing of the current/previous governments then this is it. (And its not as if anyone in the opposition benches can go crowing either, they proposed similar or worse, and we as a people didn't turn up our noses to it either. So maybe its time we all took stock and were a little less Brendan, and a little more grace.

amacca

If I still worked in the public sector I think I might not have a choice in the matter. If I still worked there I think I would say yes with some caveats.

My decision would be based on how I see the burden of taxation being redistributed and how they deal with social welfare.

If I seen high earners (250k -500k) continue tor get away with paying as little as 20% tax in total (as little as 5% in some cases pre 2007) while the rest of us middle income earnersw shell out much much more than this in taxes both direct and indirect then I would have to say I would have a massive problem with taking a pay cut.

If I seen a generation of people who dont want to work and wont work getting money handed to the gratis to spend in the local off license/ bookies/ lanzaorote etc then I might have a problem with taking a cut. (disclaimer, I do not include the recently unemployed, disabled people, people who have made their contributions etc in this group, just joe nixer and joe double claimer and pump em out annie in the free council house....no one should pay for these peoples lifestyles...its not even good for them in the long run never mind the society we have to live in)

It would also make a cut much more acceptable if the cost of living was coming down to the same extent as the cut.....the 5% reduction we heard about recently was comprised mostly of mortgage repayment reductions which will almost surely be reversed in the coming years and start heading the other way. The real reduction seems to be in the order of about 1%....I do realise that a paycut usually precedes a reduction in the cost of living but in the current situation I think that wages will proably go down while cost of living increases (10% reduction in the cost of gas or not).....that also makes paycuts hard to swallow.

But as I said its probably going to happen anyway. However if the above isnt tackled then I would be surprised if paycuts are accepted meekly by the ps. I for one would support them in resisting a cut if the above wasnt tackled.

Drumpot

amacca wrote: »

joe double claimer and pump em out annie in the free council house.....

That had my wife in stitches . . So funny and so true . .


And I agree with your post, above part just had to be highlighted . .

stereo_steve

connundrum wrote: »

Its better to have those 1000 people still employed, paying taxes, rather than going on the dole.

The Public sector don't pay taxes. They are a loss to the system. Before someone jumps on me, this is not an attack!! Just pointing it out for your calculations.

So its better to have public sector employees out of work from a financial perspective. Ideally we would move excess public sector employees to the private sector assuming there were jobs.

Trix

stereo_steve wrote: »

The Public sector don't pay taxes. They are a loss to the system. Before someone jumps on me, this is not an attack!! Just pointing it out for your calculations.

So its better to have public sector employees out of work from a financial perspective. Ideally we would move excess public sector employees to the private sector assuming there were jobs.

I work in the public sector and i pay taxes. don't we all?

FlutterinBantam

Bottom line ladies and gents.

We cannot tax our way out of this, tax is at saturation point.

What must happen now is cost reduction, no way out of it.

Whether that will be by job losses, reduced pay, is not clear,but the fact remains,

IT HAS TO HAPPEN

mikemac

Is benchmarking still in operation?

Like does it provide for salary cuts?
If a few years ago the analysts reckoned certain public sector job were underpaid, will they analyze it again against equivalent jobs and start cutting pay?

Or does benchmarking only work one way.............

Drumpot

mikemac wrote: »

Is benchmarking still in operation?


Or does benchmarking only work one way.............

When it comes to buying votes . . It only goes one way Im afraid . .

Theres also the lack of political will to bring more pressure on them to reduce their own costs to the exchequer.

Not Public servants fault . .

meath commuter

My family was fairly comfortable - having been through the 80's we didn't extend ourselves too much and have a reasonable mortgage (albeit an hour from Dublin). However, our income has reduced by €1000 per month already! As mentioned above, it seems as if all the cuts are being foisted on the middle-income PAYE worker.

However, there is another way our of this mess that seems to have been overlooked. Re-deploy some of the excess public sector numbers to combat fraud! Revenue & Social Welfare (& others) could, with a little effort, bring in Billions in savings which would negate the need for any radical surgery.

Once Joe Nixer and Joe double-claimer (very good amacca) realise that the chances are that they'll be caught and the penalties are just not worth it, then attitudes will change throughout the Country.

That, in my view, is the main problem with Ireland today. Although we are allegedly a social democracy, too many people are jsut out for what they can scr€w out of the state and their fellow citizens. People need to acknowledge their responsibilities and actually participate in the system - not just complain about it!

Drumpot

meath commuter wrote: »

That, in my view, is the main problem with Ireland today. Although we are allegedly a social democracy, too many people are jsut out for what they can scr€w out of the state and their fellow citizens. People need to acknowledge their responsibilities and actually participate in the system - not just complain about it!

They say a government mirrors its people, we are doomed ! ! . .

ednwireland

meath commuter wrote: »

My family was fairly comfortable - having been through the 80's we didn't extend ourselves too much and have a reasonable mortgage (albeit an hour from Dublin). However, our income has reduced by €1000 per month already! As mentioned above, it seems as if all the cuts are being foisted on the middle-income PAYE worker.

QUOTE]

why do you think that is ? its the easiest hit we are working therfore too busy to complain or protest, its also the biggest return for the exchequer, chasing aftyer high earners wont bring in anywhere near the money slapping some tax on people who cant avoid it will

ive just taken a 10% pay cut we've just cut another 20% out of our running costs to try and survive (i just wish the public sector/ civil service could adopt this attitude )

jimmmy

meath commuter wrote: »

However, our income has reduced by €1000 per month already! As mentioned above, it seems as if all the cuts are being foisted on the middle-income PAYE worker.

Many other people in the state - the majority who pay your wages - only wish they had a permanent and pensionable job , with an income high enough to suffer a " €1000 per month already " hit when take home pay is reduced by a relatively small percentage.

irish_bob

stereo_steve wrote: »

The Public sector don't pay taxes. They are a loss to the system. Before someone jumps on me, this is not an attack!! Just pointing it out for your calculations.

So its better to have public sector employees out of work from a financial perspective. Ideally we would move excess public sector employees to the private sector assuming there were jobs.

you are entirely correct , if you have a civil servant on 30 k per year and they pay 5 k in tax , the cost to the state is 25 k per year , if you sack the same civil servant and pay them 15 k in benefits , the cost to the state is 15k , a saving of 10 k , if the state simply paid public servants a lesser wage tax free , thier would be no real difference

ardmacha

Many other people in the state - the majority who pay your wages - only wish they had a permanent and pensionable job , with an income high enough to suffer a " €1000 per month already " hit when take home pay is reduced by a relatively small percentage.

Since such jobs were available over the years one wonders why they didn't get one, if it was of interest to them. Were they of lower calibre than present public servants?

thebman

Trix wrote: »

I work in the public sector and i pay taxes. don't we all?

A better way to put it would be the dead weight in the public sector would cost less on the dole as they don't contribute enough to the state to actually pay their wages.

You pay tax but you work for the government so they pay your full wage and then take a little back which is where the you don't pay tax thing comes from.

If I give you 30,000 and you give me back 7,000 and I call it tax then couldn't I have just given you 23,000 and saved us all a lot of bother?

To say the entire wage is a downside to the economy assumes the work done is of no use to the economy which is probably inaccurate in most cases.

ronbyrne2005

Listening to economic commentators and people close to power they are likely to benchmark public sector to average rates in public sectors across Europe which would mean substantial pay cuts as PS here are paid a lot more than EU average. I cant really see any justification for complaints against such a process, as we are part of EU and in competition with other EU countries. Maybe the PS could be cut to average EU levels plus a bit extra to cover for higher cost of living here relative to EU average. We are no more than an average EU country now so can only afford to pay average EU payrates.

jimmmy

ardmacha wrote: »

Since such jobs were available over the years one wonders why they didn't get one,

Not everyone in the country can or should be a public servant.

thebman

ardmacha wrote: »

Since such jobs were available over the years one wonders why they didn't get one, if it was of interest to them. Were they of lower calibre than present public servants?

Maybe someone elses old, worthless hole was already in the position when they graduated from college.

/not normally this rough but your post deserved such a response.

ronbyrne2005

jimmmy wrote: »

Not everyone in the country can or should be a public servant.

but EVERYONE has to pay for the public service. Why should PS earn so much more than private in pay and pensions when they have such great job security etc? In every other EU country PS earns less than private(after controlling for education etc) and the PS in those countries are happy wth that as they have job security and pride in their provision of public services. They also pay much higher income taxes in EU on their LOWER pay and pensions! We really have been living in fantasy land in this country over past decade.

jimmmy

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

but EVERYONE has to pay for the public service. Why should PS earn so much more than private in pay and pensions when they have such great job security etc? In every other EU country PS earns less than private(after controlling for education etc) and the PS in those countries are happy wth that as they have job security and pride in their provision of public services.

I could not agree more, and 95% of people I know ( even public servants themselves ) agree with you and me on that point too.

I_am_Jebus

another productive public service pay/numbers thread I see. :rolleyes: Just what we needed.

mellyzeb

Wake up folks - the average public servant doesn't earn more than their private sector equivilant. The 'average wage' people know about is taking into account the huge salaries top public servants are on - there is a huge disparity between this and the middle to lower paid staff who make up most of the public workforce.

jimmmy

mellyzeb wrote: »

Wake up folks - the average public servant doesn't earn more than their private sector equivilant.

Rubbish. Every survey, study etc says otherwise. Even public service security guards get paid almost double their private sector equivalent, per hour. Compare the pay + pensions of our politicians, nurses, police, teachers with other countries....it is considerably more.

ronbyrne2005

jimmmy wrote: »

Rubbish. Every survey, study etc says otherwise. Even public service security guards get paid almost double their private sector equivalent, per hour. Compare the pay + pensions of our politicians, nurses, police, teachers with other countries....it is considerably more.

You're right. All the stats from CSO, ESRI, Eurostat etc proves it but the self preservation society that is the PS doesnt want to hear it and odesnt want benchmarking to work in reverse or to include pensions and other benefits.

merlynthewizard

25% wage drop and 15% of jobs to go.

That would be fair.

meath commuter

All very interesting. I think most are agreed that we have a somewhat bloated public sector - especially with the black hole that is the HSE.

However, does no-one wish to comment on the issue of tackling the black economy? Is it not relevant to this discussion??

jimmmy

meath commuter wrote: »

All very interesting. I think most are agreed that we have a somewhat bloated public sector

understatement of the century

meath commuter wrote: »

- especially with the black hole that is the HSE.

start a seperate thread on the HSE if you want to discuss the HSE in detail, rather than the overpayment of the public service in general

meath commuter wrote: »

However, does no-one wish to comment on the issue of tackling the black economy? Is it not relevant to this discussion??

Is there a black economy bleeding the public finances dry the same as govt expenditure is ? If you think so, feel free to set up a new thread and discuss that .

amacca

merlynthewizard wrote: »

25% wage drop and 15% of jobs to go.

That would be fair.

O.K. then, that's that one solved. I'm glad we had this little chat.

Tks v.much Merlyn old boy/girl. Perhaps you could now wave your staff or wand in the general direction Leinster House and the Revenue Commissioners and sort those mofos out as well.

It was all so simple in the end...who knew. Thankfully I can now go back to using the interweb for looking at dirty pictures, reading frivolous joke emails and sending money to prince membabwe in nigeria so he can send me some conflict diamonds from his own personal mine.

Lemming

amacca wrote: »

It was all so simple in the end...who knew.

TBH, unless public finances are put in some semblance of order the IMF will most likely be invited in. And when the IMF come in, they will make the above and other things "all so simple". I would hope to see nobody lose jobs, but tbh, wishing away fiscal reality and the reality that a severe scalpel is most likely in need of public expenditure control wont help matters. A token 5% (to pick figures I've seen mention by folks here as to what they consider acceptable reduction) and a pension levy whilst drinking coffee on your mid-morning break and reading about the live register nearing 500,000 really wont pass muster I feel.

amacca

TBH it may in some senses be better if they were. (obviously not all).
The much talked about "PAIN" might get spread more evenly on the toast that is our economy.

At least no vested interests could influence their decisions, at least I presume they would simply be interested in getting their money back and unlikely to listen to or bend to pressure from

the vocal poor and unemployed careerists(not the actual hard luck cases and people who have genuinely lost their jobs or are in need of social welfare, have contributed etc)

unions

the very wealthy (and influential)

Big business lobby groups.
.
.
.
.

I do however find some poster stating that x% reduction in wages and y% reduction in numbers is fair a little laughable without back up.

Why not z% in wages and q% in numbers?

And while were at it lets get Yogi Bear in to head up the CSO, he is after all smarter than the average bear.


On the otherhand the above tug of war will be interesting to the neutral (more or less) onlooker in the coming months if the IMF don't come in.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

R Even public service security guards get paid almost double their private sector equivalent, per hour.

Where are the public-sector securiyty guards? Any public sector I've ever visited employs private sector security companies and guards. Like, cleaners, they're outsourced.

kippy

A somewhat decent thread has descended again into a them versus us.
The usual suspects have rowed in with their usual "ideas", nothing solid, concrete or workable, just very one sided.

I've outlined countless times on a few threads at this stage how costs can be saved across all areas of the public service without hitting take home pay. And so long as costs were saved elsewhere across the public sector (not just wages) I would have no problem taking another 5-10% in the next 24 months or so. I'd also echo amaccas first post above. It would make it that bit easier to take a cut if other things outside of the public sector paid their way.
As well, as that, and also highlighted by me on other threads, theres a serious lack of foresight in creating jobs in this economy. There's the usual retoric from the politicians but feck all money has been set aside for "stimulus" or help for people without work, despite untold billions being bandied about for the "toxic debt". This to be honest is one of the hardest things to take in all of this melee. We can throw undefined BILLIONS gambling with NAMA and not spend a few million on grants schemes, research grants, other schemes to get the economy moving again.
Again probably outside the realms of this post but I daresay by the end of this thread,
public sector being paid significantly more than any public sector in the whole wide world, pensions we dont pay for, flex time we dont deserve, 30 days holiday a year, etc etc will all have been thrown in there.

If that 10% does happen in the next while, my take home after all is said and done, will be approximately half my gross, and my gross isnt significant, and that is without all the other stealth taxes, levies, carbon taxes that will also come in in the next budget.
We all have hard luck stories to tell, some far worse than others, but the way this country is going one really has to ask is the PS a "job for life" at all? I'll soon be considering a jump back into the private sector solely because of wages and I hate being forced into career decisions based purely on money.

ixoy

Whatever else about the cuts, I had to laugh at the INO union head claiming the McCarthy economists were on a:
"'cosy platform detached from reality'."

The ironing is delicious.

gerry28

There is generally sympathy for people who lose their jobs.

But it seems there is a baying mob calling for thousands of public sector workers to lose theirs (some posters here included). As in 'they deserve all they get' sort of thinking.

Were ordinary people who go to work every day to do a job. Tone down the contempt a little??

irish_bob

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Listening to economic commentators and people close to power they are likely to benchmark public sector to average rates in public sectors across Europe which would mean substantial pay cuts as PS here are paid a lot more than EU average. I cant really see any justification for complaints against such a process, as we are part of EU and in competition with other EU countries. Maybe the PS could be cut to average EU levels plus a bit extra to cover for higher cost of living here relative to EU average. We are no more than an average EU country now so can only afford to pay average EU payrates.

if public sector wages and social wellfare levels dropped by 30% in the morning , by next monday the cost of living would have also dropped a huge amount , the market responds quickly but wages have to go down before the cost of living goes down

irish_bob

mellyzeb wrote: »

Wake up folks - the average public servant doesn't earn more than their private sector equivilant. The 'average wage' people know about is taking into account the huge salaries top public servants are on - there is a huge disparity between this and the middle to lower paid staff who make up most of the public workforce.

not true and disprooved my numerous reports

kippy

irish_bob wrote: »

not true and disprooved my numerous reports

Indeed, however I wouldnt say "numerous reports" prove or disprove anything. (for either side)
What they generally do is put forward a load of statistics sometimes without actually looking a bit deeper into it.
There are numerous reports out there stating that the average Public Sector wage equates to circa 48K PA, Gross.
The only other "average" people have to weigh this against is the "average industrial wage" which I believe stood at approximately 35k PA.
People on the street get very peeved off at the disparity, however when you analyse it a bit more you can see a number of reasons why these averages may be so far apart.
1. The number of highly qualified, skilled workers in the Public Service (pushing the average wage up)
2. The number of low skilled (no need for college education etc) jobs in the private sector, pulling the average down.

Not making excuses/disagreeing with you, just asking people to keep a relatively open mind on the various figures/percentages/perks being put out there as fact in these recent times.

Stark

I agree on points 1 and 2. However I also notice that when public servants look at the benchmarking process, they take the example of a top performer doing a similar job to theirs in the private sector and say "I want his salary". When the performance requirements of their job only entitle them to the equivalent pay of a low to average performer in the private sector. If there was a meaningful performance evaluation process in the public sector, then I would say yes of course your top performers are entitled to the same pay as top performers in the private sector. As far as I'm aware, Ireland is in a minority of countries when it comes to paying its public sector workers more than its private sector workers.

For one thing, they need to get rid of this collective bargaining bull****. If you want a higher salary, you should be able to justify to your employer that it's worth more to them to keep you and pay you more than to take the risk of getting poor performance from someone cheaper. If your employer still doesn't pay you what you feel you deserve, leave and go private sector. Don't hold your employer (the taxpayer) to ransom in order to earn your keep.

boodlesdoodles

merlynthewizard wrote: »

25% wage drop and 15% of jobs to go.

That would be fair.

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages. Hey while you're at it, lets just cut all public funding and see what happens.

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

efb

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages. Hey while you're at it, lets just cut all public funding and see what happens.

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

I'd say most of the builders and subcontractors have had a reduction in wages far greater than 25%

ixoy

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

Great idea - that'd help hugely to reduce the debt

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages.

People are very annoyed with the bankers. However, why would you suggest cutting the wages of anyone above the average wage? That's not going to help balance the debt. Cutting into the public sector cost would have far more of a effect (rightly or wrongly).

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

Well a tiny minority are partially responsible (advisors, financial regulator, etc) but the fact is that the pay bill is just unsustainable. Many other sectors have had to re-adjust their pay and numbers and now so too does the PS. There can no longer be an "only way is up" mentality to wages and that's unfortunate but a sad reality. You just cannot be paid in the same volume at the same level.

Stark

We were getting by fine on tax yields similar to our current tax yields in 2002/2003 and we were considered wealthy then. Between 2003 and 2009, spending rose to crazy levels as interest groups started salivating at the incoming revenue generated by the property bubble, which should have been going into infrastructure to provide us with a soft landing when the bubble burst. Like it our not, the public sector was one of the biggest benefactors of this unsustainable spending binge.

hobochris

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

Hey why not ask the public sector to work for nothing altogether?

In no other part of the economy is the backlash so great? How about all the builders and sub-contractors who made money hand over fist during the boom but didn't budget for the bust and those that get well above the average wage why not ask them to take a 25% reduction in wages. Hey while you're at it, lets just cut all public funding and see what happens.

The public sector aren't responsible for the situation the economy is in, they're just an easy target.

Same tired public service argument over and over...

Builders and Sub-contractors are in the private sector and take risks to make money, as a consumer and tax payer you have a choice as to weather you want to solicit their services. Many builders and sub-contractors are feeling "the pain" right now as people are not soliciting their services and many are on the dole.

The public sector however don't have to take risks to make more money, over the past few years If they wanted more money they've just cried to their unions that they want more and FF went along with their demands through Benchmarking to buy votes.

Also on the other hand PAYE workers through out the country have no choice but to pay for the public sector wage bill through taxes.. a lot of these "services" provided by the public sector,most of us will never use, Also if a builder or sub-contractor makes a mistake they are held accountable, wheres the accountability in the public service???