34,000 public servants want 3.5% pay rise

DrumSteve

Pay Rise

Hmmm bad timing on the unions part I must say. Dont think they'll get it either.

Zardoz

It beggars belief.
After all the pay increases they have had over the last few years they want more.
Do these people understand basic economics ,even basic arithmetic ,that they are already grossly overpaid and that their greed could bankrupt the country.
The unions have become too strong now and all the increases splashed out during the boom are now unsustainable.

gar32

I understand that people want to be paid well in high cost country but the govenment should come out and explain basic maths to public workers. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2009/04/08/ireland-s-deficit-balloons-relative-to-gdp.aspx

20 Billion in reduction in spending a years. HELLLO people Cop on.

jimmmy

Give them a 30% cut ( on average ) instead. And then explain to them they are then lucky to be getting the same as what their counterparts in other countries are getting. Our public service is the highest paid in the known world : it cannot continue. The national sabotage by their unions must cease.

FlutterinBantam

These people don't seem to know about the economic situation.

Irrespective of who caused the debacle, needs must, and the Unions must be totally dumb or at best intellectually challenged to believe that this claim could be conceded.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Give them a 30% cut ( on average ) instead. And then explain to them they are then lucky to be getting the same as what their counterparts in other countries are getting.

Wonder what would happen if a householder told the bank to take a 30% cut in mortgage repayments?

pat kenny

It's the beginning of negotiation. They know they wont get the 3.5% , but they will use it during negotiations.
Say the government wants them to take a 5% pay cut, they will rabbit on about the 3.5% the government owes them and only stand by a 1.5% pay cut.

They are essentially using the 3.5% as a perceived buffer to the inevitable pay cut.

Drumpot

This just made me sick to my stomach . .

Its the unions SIMPLY JUSTIFYING THEIR EXISTENCE at the expense of us all . .

Their is no place for the unions right now if they are going to misinform their members so badly. Right now one of the biggest threat to the economy is that union members may very well be stupid enough to follow the unions into battle over something that's remarkably unjustifiable . . .

Who want Public V Private sector debates? The unions when it suits them . .

By being completely self absorbed the unions are making Public servants look out of touch with reality (if they follow them into strike) and only further strengthens the public v private divide . .

Aidric

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

These people don't seem to know about the economic situation.

Irrespective of who caused the debacle, needs must, and the Unions must be totally dumb or at best intellectually challenged to believe that this claim could be conceded.

Any union official I've ever encountered are militant mongoloids with little or no intelligence. They're hell bent on holding the country to random and that's a pitiful situation.

Poccington

Those folks are off their heads.

I can honestly say I'm thankful, as a Public Sector worker, that I'm working in a part of the Public Sector that can't threaten strikes or any other such ****e. Everyone is up to their knees in ****e with the economy the way it is, some more than others... To ask for a pay rise is just plain greed and stupidity.

jimmmy

jimmmy wrote: »

Give them a 30% cut ( on average ) instead. And then explain to them they are then lucky to be getting the same as what their counterparts in other countries are getting. Our public service is the highest paid in the known world : it cannot continue. The national sabotage by their unions must cease.

Source?

AARRRGH

This kind of stuff makes me wish we had a hardline leader. You know, some sort of semi-facist badass who would make hard decisions and make threats of prison to whoever talks nonsense about being entitled to 50k or whatever per year.

spank_inferno

Deleted User wrote: »

Source?

I think I remember reading something from the OECD backing that up.
Especially the highest in managerial grades and many health services.

As a previous poster said, its just the opening salvo in a pay negotiation.
They arent going to low-ball themselves straight away.

NewDubliner

AARRRGH wrote: »

This kind of stuff makes me wish we had a hardline leader. You know, some sort of semi-facist badass who would make hard decisions and make threats of prison to whoever talks nonsense about being entitled to 50k or whatever per year.

Give an example of a successful country where that works.

Drumpot

spank_inferno wrote: »

I think I remember reading something from the OECD backing that up.
Especially the highest in managerial grades and many health services.

As a previous poster said, its just the opening salvo in a pay negotiation.
They arent going to low-ball themselves straight away.

I know its a union strategy to open negotiations, but there shouldnt be any negotiations . .

If a companys in trouble and needs to cut its costs, it tells the unions were to go and makes the changes it needs for the greater good . .

I actually believe that no FF leader in living history has such a fantastic opportunity to reform public finances as Cowan has. . His party are dead men walking anyways and know in the next elections they will be crucified no matter what he does. . He is perfectly placed to lockout the unions and do whats best for the country (not individual self absorbed sections of society).

Rob67

I feel this is all about brinksmanship, however it only comes off (to me) as nothing but arrogance and stupidity. Very bad judgement on behalf of the unions, as far as I'm concerned.

AARRRGH

NewDubliner wrote: »

Give an example of a successful country where that works.

China.

irish_bob

Aidric wrote: »

Any union official I've ever encountered are militant mongoloids with little or no intelligence. They're hell bent on holding the country to random and that's a pitiful situation.

most of theese dinasaurs like jack o connor are in a broader idealogical war , for them , this is about much more than pay cuts for nurses and guards , they see the country is in a mess , they have survived through years of prosperity since the berlin wall came down and believe thier time has come

irish_bob

Drumpot wrote: »

I know its a union strategy to open negotiations, but there shouldnt be any negotiations . .

If a companys in trouble and needs to cut its costs, it tells the unions were to go and makes the changes it needs for the greater good . .

I actually believe that no FF leader in living history has such a fantastic opportunity to reform public finances as Cowan has. . His party are dead men walking anyways and know in the next elections they will be crucified no matter what he does. . He is perfectly placed to lockout the unions and do whats best for the country (not individual self absorbed sections of society).

+1

cowen has absolutley nothing to loose , he is going to loose the next election anyhow so thier is nothing stopping him from going to war with the unions and representing the silent majority of private sector tax payers who have no voice at table talks , the man is so spineless , i dont know how he carrys that keg under his jumper

greendom

I'm sure not all 34,000 think this is a reasonable demand in the current climate.

mikemac

A negotiating tactic.
The Union wants an increase, the government wants a cut and some sort of agreement will be reached in the middle and the Union will claim it's a victory for the "ordinary working person"

The unions need to justify their existence and their subscription fees so they need to do something.
Though if my boss was borrowing 55 million a day, I'd have been let go over a year ago!

mikemac

greendom wrote: »

I'm sure not all 34,000 think this is a reasonable demand in the current climate.

True but if a ballot leads to a strike then realy you have no option but to strike.
If everyone in your office was on a picket line and you disagreed would you cross it?
Maybe, but I wouldn't be brave enough and I'd say most others wouldn't either.

So we'll have to see what the ballot result is. And it's pretty much guaranteed it'll lead to industrial action up to including strikes.

book smarts

NewDubliner wrote: »

Give an example of a successful country where that works.

Singapore. Lee Kwan Yew ruled for 31 years in a sham democracy as effectively a benign dictator. Unions were tightly controlled.

Peanut

Rob67 wrote: »

I feel this is all about brinksmanship, however it only comes off (to me) as nothing but arrogance and stupidity. Very bad judgement on behalf of the unions, as far as I'm concerned.

Completly agree that they have no intention of expecting the rise. It's a risky move though, the amount of ill-feeling it will undoubtedly generate could all blow up in their face.

Chris_533976

I have a feeling that this is the union LEADERS demanding this, and that 99% of the people in the union would find this quite ridiculous too. Noone in their right mind would expect a pay rise at the moment, except for the Union leaders.

The problem generally isnt the public service, its the public service UNIONS.

eoinbn

The government wants a 5% cut, the unions want a 3.5% increase, they will meet 1/2 way and agree on neither.

Really, what does it matter? 5% off the PS pay bill will save €600-700m after you factor in reductions in tax/vat due to the cuts. A 5% cut in welfare would amount to something similiar, plus another €1b in taxs from somewhere. We are still left with at least a €18b shortfall.

So i will repeat what I have been saying for the last 12 months. It's completely obvious that there is no solution so stop wasting time and call the IMF.

cfriel2002

"The government wants a 5% cut, the unions want a 3.5% increase, they will meet 1/2 way and agree on neither" ...... that would be consistent with performance to date !

....the muppets on the apprentice show are more qualified to run our little republic than the current "leaders" or the charismatic ones waiting in the wings

Dannyboy83

eoinbn wrote: »

The government wants a 5% cut, the unions want a 3.5% increase, they will meet 1/2 way and agree on neither.

Really, what does it matter? 5% off the PS pay bill will save €600-700m after you factor in reductions in tax/vat due to the cuts. A 5% cut in welfare would amount to something similiar, plus another €1b in taxs from somewhere. We are still left with at least a €18b shortfall.

So i will repeat what I have been saying for the last 12 months. It's completely obvious that there is no solution so stop wasting time and call the IMF.

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php
At the rate the debt is accumulating, it is set to DOUBLE by a moment in the month of May 2013. This is a measure of the legacy the Government of Ireland is in the process of bequeathing to the children of Ireland. For an indication of how the debt is growing, subtract the figure for August 31th 2009, published by the NTMA (€69,290 million) from the current 'debt clock' total on this page.


€ 70,859million
€69,290 million
============
01,569 million since 31st August 2009.

population

Eamonn Gilmore was saying today that he won't cut public sector pay, that there were 'other alternatives', strange he didnt seem to say what they were.........

Daragh101

jimmmy wrote: »

Give them a 30% cut ( on average ) instead. And then explain to them they are then lucky to be getting the same as what their counterparts in other countries are getting. Our public service is the highest paid in the known world : it cannot continue. The national sabotage by their unions must cease.

exactly and do the same in the private sector!.

some people in public sector defo deserve a pay cut, but not nurses or gardai..imo!... anyone that does a job like that especially a burse deserves more than they get....one of the toughest jobs i could imagine!

behan29

i work in the public sector and i think the unions in this country are parasites. I hate them with a passion, i think they have at times the intelligence of my dogs left testicle and he is nutless!!

Daragh101

NewDubliner wrote: »

Give an example of a successful country where that works.

china!

Theboinkmaster

Question - if the government announced in the budget PS cuts of 2-15% or whatever, effective 1 Jan and then thousands start going on strike and crippling the country.

Do they get paid while on strike? As in how strong is the government's hand, can they just stand by their cuts and wait for them to get fed up not getting paid?

If they do get paid while on official strike then what's to stop them all striking for 6 months and bankrupting the country? Why not then sign emergency legislation to be able to stop the pay of any striking PS employee (a bit drastic i know but these are unprecedented times).

Riskymove

eoinbn wrote: »

The government wants a 5% cut, the unions want a 3.5% increase, they will meet 1/2 way and agree on neither.

well, this is along the lines of what happened in the recent electricians strike so maybe they are hoping for something similar....however I dont think so...from what I hear they are simply trying to force the Governemnt into officially declaring the latest partnership deals dead

it seems that HSE staff are being pushed to do things agreed as part of the deal and their position now is "if the Government can ignore their commitments as employers, the staff are not gonna keep theirs"

i dont believe any of them expect an actual pay rise

Really, what does it matter? 5% off the PS pay bill will save €600-700m after you factor in reductions in tax/vat due to the cuts. A 5% cut in welfare would amount to something similiar, plus another €1b in taxs from somewhere. We are still left with at least a €18b shortfall.

So i will repeat what I have been saying for the last 12 months. It's completely obvious that there is no solution so stop wasting time and call the IMF.

very defeatist, lets just keep spending and bankrupt the place?

you seem to think we need to fully close the gap between expenditure and revenue, we do not, this country and generally every other one has borrowed some amount; the problem here now is that the gao is too large and is unsustainable...

...but we do not need to come up with savings of €20 billion to stabilise the situation...the plan agreed with EU is far less than that

Riskymove

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Do they get paid while on strike? As in how strong is the government's hand, can they just stand by their cuts and wait for them to get fed up not getting paid?

no they dont get paid if "on strike" (unless their union has a strike fund...but there is nio way any union could pay all staff an equivalent wage)

however there are other forms of industrial action below that which are far more likely than all out strikes

Long Onion

There would be no need to look at public sector pay cuts if successive govenments had not failed miserably to tackle the productivity issues. I regularly see hospital 'admin' staff sit around chatting for long periods of time (over an hour is quite common) whilst patients queue for services.

Most front line clerical staff (Revenue, tax, county councils etc) are just plain rude and uncaring. Working hours for hospital staff are shambolic (you cannot run hospital services based on 9-5 hours with everything else classed as overtime)

These are all strong indicators of poor management. Cut the staff headcount, I have no issue with paying over the odds if the service granted deserves it. As for the argument that nurses, gardai, fire service etc deserve whatever wages they get due to the nature of the work, I disagree. I realise that they perform tough jobs and essential ones but they know what they are signing up to. If you believe that the job is a nightmare, quit.

Diarmuid

population wrote: »

Eamonn Gilmore was saying today that he won't cut public sector pay, that there were 'other alternatives', strange he didnt seem to say what they were.........

The more I hear of Gilmore and Joan Burtons proposed "solutions" to our deficit the clearer it becomes to me, that they would make an even bigger balls of the situation than even ZanuFF. It beggars belief that they will have a major say in the next government.

timbel

Drumpot wrote: »

If a companys in trouble and needs to cut its costs, it tells the unions were to go and makes the changes it needs for the greater good . .

The problem with the above is that companys will take advantage of the recessionary period to attack the terms and conditions of employees whether they need to or not (funnily enough mgmt rarely see a reason to cutback their own renumeration).

I think if the govt came out and said 10% pay cut for all public service staff, and to show our solidarity, we (the politicians) and all top level public staff (secretary generals/judges/directors of state boards etc.) will take a 20% cut, there could be no argument from the majority.

Likelyhood of this happening (ie. politicans cutting there own bloated wages) - 0% unfortunately.

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

...but we do not need to come up with savings of €20 billion to stabilise the situation...the plan agreed with EU is far less than that

As i stated in the other thread

"Its supposed to be a €4bn gap per year that has to be plugged every budget per year. All agreed with the EU as part of a 5yr plan"

Direct tax rises were ruled out, they chickened out of a indirect tax(property) etc so its common sense its going to be cutbacks every year of maybe €4bn agreed with the EU.

If we don't get the €4bn in 2009...it will be interesting what happens.

deise blue

The Government really are in a difficult situation , if they introduce an across the board pay cut of 5% they will face hugely damaging strikes and the unions will refuse to negotiate public sector reform ( such reform being an area that could yield savings far in excess of a 5% pay cut )
As another poster has pointed out it is unlikely to be be a case of the Government facing down an all out strike , the Unions are far smarter than that tactically these days and it will be far more likely that we will see a series of 1/2 day rolling stikes by different areas of the sector which will impact pay less severely than an all out strike !
Quite a good move by SIPTU pushing for the rise at this time in a bid to stave off any pay cuts down the road.

NewDubliner

NewDubliner wrote: »

Wonder what would happen if a householder told the bank to take a 30% cut in mortgage repayments?

That's not a good example, householders owe the bank money, the public servents are owed f all.

jimmmy

Daragh101 wrote: »

some people in public sector defo deserve a pay cut, but not nurses or gardai..imo!...

Why are nurses and police in any other government in the world not as well paid as ours so ? Is Mullingar more dangerous than Manchester or Munich or Madrid ?
As Eddie Hobbs pointed out on the tv the other night, our Gardai s pension is equivalent to them contributing 48% of their salary if they had to pay the full economic cost. What a huge perk that is, and to be able to retire on full pension ( with a big tax free lump sum of 1.5 years salary ) after only 30 years service. Many can expect to live another 30 years or more on their pension after that.

kmick

There are two scenarios here.

1) Picture 10 union heads sitting in a room laughing their heads off and congratulating themselves on such a clever strategy. Lets totally piss of Cowen and everyone else in Ireland and ask for a pay rise ha ha ha.
2) 10 union heads sitting in a room and convincing themselves that now is the time to ask for a rise because like the shampoo ads "were worth it".

Neither gives me much confidence in the viability of these groups going forward.

Soldie

If only we had our own Maggie.

mickoneill30

Daragh101 wrote: »

exactly and do the same in the private sector!.

Why? If your employer is making profit would you expect employees to take a pay cut? The point is the pay in the public sector is more than the employer can afford. If it was a private sector employer they'd be bankrupt and the employees would be taking a 100% pay cut. If the employer is not making a profit then absolutely the employees should take a pay cut. That's the way it normally works. My company is making SFA this year. They've let people go, we've taken a pay cut and services have been cut back. That's what the government need to do but instead you read that unions are looking for a pay rise.

Daragh101 wrote: »

some people in public sector defo deserve a pay cut, but not nurses or gardai..imo!... anyone that does a job like that especially a burse deserves more than they get....one of the toughest jobs i could imagine!

Do you know how much a nurse or a Gard gets paid? Is a nurse in Ireland a tougher job than a nurse in the UK or elsewhere?

Long Onion

timbel wrote: »

The problem with the above is that companys will take advantage of the recessionary period to attack the terms and conditions of employees whether they need to or not (funnily enough mgmt rarely see a reason to cutback their own renumeration).

I think if the govt came out and said 10% pay cut for all public service staff, and to show our solidarity, we (the politicians) and all top level public staff (secretary generals/judges/directors of state boards etc.) will take a 20% cut, there could be no argument from the majority.

Likelyhood of this happening (ie. politicans cutting there own bloated wages) - 0% unfortunately.

The problem with the above post is that it smacks of the same Marxist drivel which is losing the Unions the support of many members of the public. Are you really saying that all employers are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a recession because it finally affords them the chance to cut pay and conditions? THis is an absurd stance. With regards to the management point, I personally know quite a few small and medium sized business owners, some of them have pared back their own remuneration to the bare minimum and increased lines of credit in order to avoid having to lay off staff members.

Secondly, you seem to be asserting the fact that the unions would be glad for their members to take a 10% pay cut provided the government take 20% - Mssrs Mr O'Connor, Beegs & McLoone if this is so. I suspect you will find otherwise.

Thirdly, you speak of the politicians on their bloated salaries - look at the salaries that the three aforementioned union heads are drawing (paid for by the very workers they say are in dire need). Why should these 'champions of the downtrodden' not be the first to lead by example?

As long as the unions and their supporters keep referring the argument back to the premise that employers exist soley to screw the workers, there will never be any meaningful progress made.

population

Soldie wrote: »

If only we had our own Maggie.

Yeah coz we really don't have enough deluded corrupt self serving politicians in Ireland.

optocynic

population wrote: »

Yeah coz we really don't have enough deluded corrupt self serving politicians in Ireland.

Maggie was not deluded. She was just ruthless. And would not be held to ransom by marxist half-wits!..

She was pro-business, and recognised the immeasurable value of entrepeneurs to an economy.

Unfortunately, we are a nation of narrow-minded, self-serving, short-sighted, childish, begrudgers... we hate successful people... we sneer ar the 'rich'...

Why?

timbel

Long Onion wrote: »

The problem with the above post is that it smacks of the same Marxist drivel which is losing the Unions the support of many members of the public. Are you really saying that all employers are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a recession because it finally affords them the chance to cut pay and conditions? THis is an absurd stance. With regards to the management point, I personally know quite a few small and medium sized business owners, some of them have pared back their own remuneration to the bare minimum and increased lines of credit in order to avoid having to lay off staff members. .

Sorry, Maxist drivel? I am talking about my own experience with mgmt in the company I work for. Mgmt will not take any reductions, but staff are expected to (and are, by the way). Obviously, you have a different experience

Long Onion wrote: »

Secondly, you seem to be asserting the fact that the unions would be glad for their members to take a 10% pay cut provided the government take 20% - Mssrs Mr O'Connor, Beegs & McLoone if this is so. I suspect you will find otherwise.
.

I don't give a toss about the heads of unions - to me they are as complicit in the state of the country as the govt. I am talking about the ordinary people in the country, be they be in a union or not.

Long Onion wrote: »

Thirdly, you speak of the politicians on their bloated salaries - look at the salaries that the three aforementioned union heads are drawing (paid for by the very workers they say are in dire need). Why should these 'champions of the downtrodden' not be the first to lead by example?
.

As I stated above, I include the union leaders as being complicit with the govt.

Overall, what I am saying is that the leaders of our country/unions/companys felt the need to renumerate themselves too much in my opinion during the boom.
The ordinary joe soaps were given scraps of the table.
I would like to see all these "captains of industry"/union leaders/govts lead the way in accepting a bigger cut.
If they do, I feel ordinary worker will follow.

Long Onion

timbel wrote: »

Sorry, Maxist drivel? I am talking about my own experience with mgmt in the company I work for. Mgmt will not take any reductions, but staff are expected to (and are, by the way). Obviously, you have a different experience

Your post was not company specific, but general and how certain are you that management did not take a cut, did they disclose their salary arrangements to you?.

timbel wrote: »

I don't give a toss about the heads of unions - to me they are as complicit in the state of the country as the govt ... As I stated above, I include the union leaders as being complicit with the govt.

Fair enough, good choice (in my mind anyway)

timbel wrote: »

I am talking about the ordinary people in the country, be they be in a union or not.

Who are the ordinary people, is the middle manager who turns up from 9-5 to do his job for his salary included here? What about the senior manager who runs a dept for is superiors in exchange for salary? At what point does one cease to be an ordinay worker? Is it when you reach a certain level of salary, perhaps its educational level, no-one can explain who is ordinary and who is not

timbel wrote: »

The ordinary joe soaps were given scraps of the table.

I would class this as Marxist drivel - others may disagree.

timbel wrote: »

I would like to see all these "captains of industry"/union leaders/govts lead the way in accepting a bigger cut.
If they do, I feel ordinary worker will follow.

Experience would lead me to disagree here. Most people are ultimately self serving. If we are unwilling to pay increased taxes in order to improve the provision of services to the ill, elderly and volnerable, why would you think that we would be willing to lessen our lot just because the 'extra-ordinary' are willing to do so?

deise blue

optocynic wrote: »

Maggie was not deluded. She was just ruthless. And would not be held to ransom by marxist half-wits!..

She was pro-business, and recognised the immeasurable value of entrepeneurs to an economy.

Unfortunately, we are a nation of narrow-minded, self-serving, short-sighted, childish, begrudgers... we hate successful people... we sneer ar the 'rich'...

Why?

Reminds me of an interview with Ricky Tomlinson of Royle family fame.
Ricky was jailed for union " activities " in his youth and held an abiding hatred for Maggie Thatcher.
The interviewer asked him that if with the passing of the years and in view of changes in the UK and in his own circumstances would he attend Maggie's funeral , Ricky replied " Yes certainly

---

as long as the funeral was tomorrow "