Only 70% took pay cuts in the Private Sector?

K-9

Here's some statistical data on how the private sector is cutting pay. It is slightly more detailed than the IBEC survey so oft quoted!

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018498.shtml

I've read a poll from one of the recruitment companies I think, saying 69% took cuts, but I prefer this data over surveys by IBEC or recruitment companies.

Labour costs are coming down through redundancies, wages cuts, less overtime, cuts in hours and more productivity.

lmimmfn

still wont please the PS/CS as thats not them, but ill not paint everyone unfairly with the same brush, there are a lot of PS/CS out there who realise we need the current cuts, and i have the utmost respect for them.

Dannyboy83

Good post, Thanks.

Do we have any figures available for the set of all workers who have not taken a pay cut (30%), intersecting with the set of all workers who have a partner that took a 100% pay cut?

I imagine the set of people who have not been affected in some way; not taken some hit in some form by now, is very small indeed.

george67

Or maybe their office/workshop staff have been reduced by 10/20% leaving them with same pay more work .
Bonus' not payed this year amounts to a cut of sorts if they were given one every year for last decade or so.

K-9

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Good post, Thanks.

Do we have any figures available for the set of all workers who have not taken a pay cut (30%), intersecting with the set of all workers who have a partner that took a 100% pay cut?

I imagine the set of people who have not been affected in some way; not taken some hit in some form by now, is very small indeed.

Oh, doubt you'd have CSO stats on that but yes, definitely some Public Sector workers are being hit with a double whammy. Big cuts in pay plus partners losing jobs are big hits in income.

Overall, reduced labour hours cuts are being made by redundancies (about 10% in industry), less hours worked and more productivity.

Brian Devine, economist at NCB stockbrokers commented;
Ireland is becoming more competitive but the adjustment is more subtle than deep cuts in basic pay
Ireland is becoming more competitive relative to its Euro area counterparts by virtue of the fact that core CPI is falling by approximately -1% y/y versus a Euro-area core inflation rate of +1.1% but Ireland needs to improve and maintain a competitive advantage given the frailty of domestic demand. There is evidence in the long-awaited Q2 earnings data (albeit covering just 18% of the private sector workforce) to suggest that the private sector is reducing labour costs, albeit in a different way than is commonly presumed. An important consideration in this regard is the concept of Unit Labour Costs (ULCs) which is discussed below.
Ireland is becoming more competitive as ULCs fall. Increases in productivity (stemming from employee and hours cuts), sharp falls in irregular bonuses (as firms pare back margins) and steady hourly wages rather than deep cuts in basic hourly pay are the ways in which ULCs are falling in Industry and the Financial services sector.
The Q2 earnings data show that there was a large q/q% fall in hourly earnings in both Industry (-4.8%) and the Financial & Insurance sectors (-6.1% q/q). A large part of the fall was seasonal and related to irregular earnings declining. Average hourly earnings excluding irregular earnings were marginally down on a q/q% basis. On a y/y basis hourly earnings in Industry were still up +4.2% while they were down -11.6% in the Financial sector.


Labour costs are coming down, which considering we are now outside the top 20 economies to invest in, is encouraging. More needs to be done.


Interestingly, you can have wage rises and still a decrease in labour costs.



PS. the ESB would be included in the industry figures, might skew them a bit.

nesf

Hmm, the pay cuts issue can be fudged a bit too by counting people who've lost regular overtime hours as not as having gotten pay cuts because their basic pay rate is unchanged. I know of a few industry areas where regular overtime no longer exists because of falling demand and workers have seen substantial cuts in take home pay because of it but they wouldn't count as having taken a pay cut since their hourly pay rate is still the same.

What's interesting is the reports that the number of people paying tax at the higher rate has halved. This would indicate rather substantial changes in wages in the private sector.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Hmm, the pay cuts issue can be fudged a bit too by counting people who've lost regular overtime hours as not as having gotten pay cuts because their basic pay rate is unchanged. I know of a few industry areas where regular overtime no longer exists because of falling demand and workers have seen substantial cuts in take home pay because of it but they wouldn't count as having taken a pay cut since their hourly pay rate is still the same.

What's interesting is the reports that the number of people paying tax at the higher rate has halved. This would indicate rather substantial changes in wages in the private sector.

Yep, good point. The IBEC survey was a bit leading in that respect. People where asked "was pay cut?"
As you say, just like say Guards in the Public Sector, overtime was cut.

And yes, the drop in people paying higher rate taxes is telling. It is a big reason in why the the top 4% are paying 50% of the taxes. Obviously, people paying 20% tax are losing jobs too, but good point.

nesf

Thread stickied since the 70% haven't taken pay cuts soundbite is turning up a lot in threads and in interviews.

Head The Wall

We can also use the unions crap line about not getting a raise this year so thats a pay cut we have received also

gent9662

Question:
am I right in saying that in a round about way the private sector tax take goes to funding union officials wages?

conorhal

That 70% figure often quoted by the unions masks simple reality, many people, (and very, very few of them from public sector) are now unemployed and thus taking a 100% pay cut and all of that nonsense about 70% of the private sector not taking a cut just deliberately obfuscates a simple truth:

It doesn't matter how many people in the private sector took a pay cut (or got a pay raise for that matter) because such things are implemented on the basis of your employers financial health.

If you work in the public sector your employers financial health is poorly with a 50% chance of survival, you're employer is broke, out the back door and over the fence, whistling for pennies.
In such circumstances corrective action has to be taken, and screwing private sector workers to the wall for a bail out is not the corrective action necessary because business as usual is no longer an option, it's addressing the long term structural problems with the way the public sector spends and functions.
In private sector terms, it's time for a program of cost cutting and re-structuring. If my employer was in the state the public sector is in, I guarantee you that redundancies, pay cuts and an efficiency/flexibility drive would be on the cards and nobody in the rest of the private sector (nor the public) would be expected to bail out my financially irresponsible employer or suggest that we all collectively pay more into a social fund so that I can keep my job and current salary level. The fact is, no more is being asked of the public sector than has been expected of many private sector employees that work for companies in financial dificulty, so it seems to me that the public sector is behaving like the banks, they consider themselves too big to fail and thus expect everybody else to dig deep and bail them out.
It amazes me that the public sector unions can bellow about bank bail outs and then in the next sentence demand a 20 billion euro per annum bail out of an equally mismanaged, overpaid and corrupt institution, theirs, or whine about bankers pay and bonuses but see no irony in demanding that they keep their own automatic bumps regardless of competence or performance.
Time to take it on the chin chaps, the 'benchmarking ATM' is reporting 'insifficent funds'.

CoDy1

It wouldn't matter if there haven't been any paycuts in the private sector as far as I'm concerned.

Even if every private sector's pay was increased, there still would've had to have been cuts in Public Sector pay.

The company(government) they work for cannot afford to pay them the same wages anymore regardless.

GSF

What public sector people often forget is that the exporting sector has been under pressure since 2001-02 and has been very tight with wages. Those that didnt manage costs went to the wall. This was exasperated by other costs (rates, insurance, etc) rising quickly. When you are exporting and competing versus the rest of the world you cannot pass on higher wage cost in higher prices.

So why should these people take pay cuts now? The costs that need to come down are insurance, ESB, rates, etc NOT wages in exporting companies.

egan007

I got an 11.5% payrise -:)

ceret

Hang on, doesn't that statistics refer to 'industry', i.e. manufactoring, mining, etc. That page refers to about 200,000 people employed. But there are more than 200k people that make up 'the private sector'. What about people in the construction, retail, or other commerical sectors?

I think when you say "X% took a pay cut in sector Y in the last 12 months", you need to qualify if you include people who had a job 12 months ago, but now have no job, or if you're not including them.

Assuming there are circa 1mil private sector workers, and about 150k (~15%) have lost their job in the last year (source: CSO Live register figures), then that skews the 70% figure.

howtomake

george67 wrote: »

Or maybe their office/workshop staff have been reduced by 10/20% leaving them with same pay more work .
Bonus' not payed this year amounts to a cut of sorts if they were given one every year for last decade or so.

That's me. Same pay, more work, late nights, weekends (& more work because we are trying to develop new products to get into new areas so we can have a company next year while trying to keep legacy systems going), less resources, no bonuses and I'm not sure if I'll have a job coming Spring unless we can get 2-3 more clients. Our client list is actually dropping, so far one a month since Aug. Some people have taken pay cuts here, have been made part time and some redundancies. Could be much worse, but it ain't pretty. Funny thing we are shopping for office supplies on ebay.

peter_de_tool

You should bear in mind that large sections of the private sector earn the minimum wage (i.e. retail, hospitality). This certainly not the case in the public sector

irish_bob

an often overlooked fact is that a significant percentage of the private sector workforce are on minimum wage and it is not leggaly possible for this group to have taken pay cuts

also , employers ( unlike the goverment ) who are in a weak financial state more often than not simply let people go rather than just tinker around with pay cuts , the unions dont consider loosing ones job to constitute a pay cut it seems , the whole debate is a distraction anyhow

ronbyrne2005

PAy cuts can take a long time to happen in private sector as companies are reluctant to do this as staff have commitments and many staff can leave if wages are cut and go to other competitor. Also those who cut the wages in private sector themselves dont wanna have to take pay cuts so are reluctant to cut the pay of them under them instead prefering to reduce staff, reduce working week, reduce bonuses and OT etc. BUT eventually a private company will go bust if wages are too high and cant be cut and new firms that emerge with lower cost bases to replace the previous firm will only pay lower wages.
The collapse in income tax shows how much private sector is getting hit.

K-9

ceret wrote: »

Hang on, doesn't that statistics refer to 'industry', i.e. manufactoring, mining, etc. That page refers to about 200,000 people employed. But there are more than 200k people that make up 'the private sector'. What about people in the construction, retail, or other commerical sectors?

I think when you say "X% took a pay cut in sector Y in the last 12 months", you need to qualify if you include people who had a job 12 months ago, but now have no job, or if you're not including them.

Assuming there are circa 1mil private sector workers, and about 150k (~15%) have lost their job in the last year (source: CSO Live register figures), then that skews the 70% figure.

Industry and the financial sector. Unfortunately, for various reasons its difficult to get a more representative source.

It does say about 10% have lost jobs in industry, one of the main reasons costs have come down. Indeed, redundancies account for part of the reason wage costs went up!

AFAIK, the total labour market was 2 million or so, its closer to 1.5 million now. Unemployment and emigration would play a big part in that reduction.

irish_bob wrote: »

an often overlooked fact is that a significant percentage of the private sector workforce are on minimum wage and it is not leggaly possible for this group to have taken pay cuts

also , employers ( unlike the goverment ) who are in a weak financial state more often than not simply let people go rather than just tinker around with pay cuts , the unions dont consider loosing ones job to constitute a pay cut it seems , the whole debate is a distraction anyhow

In 07, it was about 3-4% on minimum wage. I posted a link a few days ago on another thread. Think it was maybe 10% on what would be the existing minimum wage. When people see the 50% or whatever it is pay no taxes figure, they assume a large part is minimum wage workers. Part time workers and married couples whose partner is a Stay at Home Parent would make up a lot of that 50%, more than the minimum wage percentage.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

PAy cuts can take a long time to happen in private sector as companies are reluctant to do this as staff have commitments and many staff can leave if wages are cut and go to other competitor. Also those who cut the wages in private sector themselves dont wanna have to take pay cuts so are reluctant to cut the pay of them under them instead prefering to reduce staff, reduce working week, reduce bonuses and OT etc. BUT eventually a private company will go bust if wages are too high and cant be cut and new firms that emerge with lower cost bases to replace the previous firm will only pay lower wages.
The collapse in income tax shows how much private sector is getting hit.

Personally, I think larger companies, multinationals, banks etc. prefer redundancies, smaller companies prefer pay and hour cuts.

ceret

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

PAy cuts can take a long time to happen in private sector as companies are reluctant to do this as staff have commitments and many staff can leave if wages are cut and go to other competitor. Also those who cut the wages in private sector themselves dont wanna have to take pay cuts so are reluctant to cut the pay of them under them instead prefering to reduce staff, reduce working week, reduce bonuses and OT etc. BUT eventually a private company will go bust if wages are too high and cant be cut and new firms that emerge with lower cost bases to replace the previous firm will only pay lower wages.
The collapse in income tax shows how much private sector is getting hit.

It can depend. In a SME people don't know what their collegues are on. It's not uncommon in my experience for more senior/skilled people to be on less or the same as a new start. Hence it wouldn't suprise me if managers gave the lower levels a pay cut and didn't cut their own pay.

RGS

This allegation is well and truely shown to be untrue by the results of a survey conducted by Mercer and published in the Irish Times today. The companies surveyed were from the multinational and large corporate sector.
Only 9% of private companies implemented pay cuts.
33% introduced pay freezes.
50% intend to implement pay freezes in 2010.
12% introduced unpaid leave---What private sector employers giving their employees more days off!!!!!!!!--
So the Public Sector wanted to implement a private sector scheme but the private sector didn't like it.

So cuts in basic pay in the private sector are not happening as previously alleged.

ceret

RGS wrote: »

This allegation is well and truely shown to be untrue by the results of a survey conducted by Mercer and published in the Irish Times today. The companies surveyed were from the multinational and large corporate sector.
Only 9% of private companies implemented pay cuts.
33% introduced pay freezes.
50% intend to implement pay freezes in 2010.
12% introduced unpaid leave---What private sector employers giving their employees more days off!!!!!!!!--
So the Public Sector wanted to implement a private sector scheme but the private sector didn't like it.

So cuts in basic pay in the private sector are not happening as previously alleged.

That article is a bit confusing. It referres to the Mercer Survey, and a Hays Survey, which quotes salary reductions of 10% - 30%. The Mercer study as you pointed out seems to tell a different story. So who is right?

I'm curious about the Mercer study (and have emailed them for more info). However they seem to be counting individual organisations, not workers, making the figures possibly misleading.

Imagine if there were 2 companies, e.g. Dell and HypoGlobalMegaCorp. HypoGlobalMegaCorp has a Dublin office and employes 7 people here. Dell (used to) employ 2,000. Dell closes it's Limerick plant and lets 2,000 people go. HypoGlobalMegaCorp has pay freeze. It is misleading to say "Only 50% of organisations have had staff loses, so it's not that bad!"

I can't find the Hays Survey anywhere, and I've asked them for it.

References: The Irish Times article, The Mercer Survey Summary

woodseb

RGS wrote: »

This allegation is well and truely shown to be untrue by the results of a survey conducted by Mercer and published in the Irish Times today. The companies surveyed were from the multinational and large corporate sector.
Only 9% of private companies implemented pay cuts.
33% introduced pay freezes.
50% intend to implement pay freezes in 2010.
12% introduced unpaid leave---What private sector employers giving their employees more days off!!!!!!!!--
So the Public Sector wanted to implement a private sector scheme but the private sector didn't like it.

So cuts in basic pay in the private sector are not happening as previously alleged.

why did you leave out the first line of the data?

70% of companies reduced payroll costs in 2009 by an average of 11%.

also, i assuming they could only survey the multinationals that are still here....

K-9

RGS wrote: »

So cuts in basic pay in the private sector are not happening as previously alleged.

Indeed, the data in the OP points to that too. But Labour costs are still coming down!

RGS

Woodseb--The OP indicated 70% of private sector employees took pay cuts--this is patently untrue based on this Mercer survey.

Companies reducing payroll costs by various methods is not the same as implementing pay cuts.
Example---company employees agree to work 10% longer per week for same salary--pay roll costs reduced due to extra productivity but basic pay rate remains the same--not a pay cut in the strictist meaning of the word.

I work in the private sector and work longer hours for same pay rate--i do not consider this a pay cut, whereas my jobsharing wife, a nurse, has suffered an 11% pay cut in 9 months. She has always contributed to her pension since she commenced working, 25 yrs ago, at a rate of 6.5%.

irish_bob

RGS wrote: »

Woodseb--The OP indicated 70% of private sector employees took pay cuts--this is patently untrue based on this Mercer survey.

Companies reducing payroll costs by various methods is not the same as implementing pay cuts.
Example---company employees agree to work 10% longer per week for same salary--pay roll costs reduced due to extra productivity but basic pay rate remains the same--not a pay cut in the strictist meaning of the word.

I work in the private sector and work longer hours for same pay rate--i do not consider this a pay cut, whereas my jobsharing wife, a nurse, has suffered an 11% pay cut in 9 months. She has always contributed to her pension since she commenced working, 25 yrs ago, at a rate of 6.5%.

everything is relative , regardless of whether more public servants have taken pay cuts than private sector workers , public sector workers earn considerabley more than than in the private sector

ixoy

RGS wrote: »

Companies reducing payroll costs by various methods is not the same as implementing pay cuts.

We'd need more of a breakdown rather than hypothetical examples. For instance I haven't taken a pay cut - but that's at the expense of some of my fellow workers who took a 100% cut. It was by this means they were able to cut their pay roll costs down.

RGS

irish_bob wrote: »

everything is relative , regardless of whether more public servants have taken pay cuts than private sector workers , public sector workers earn considerabley more than than in the private sector

So the argument is now changing to cut the pay anyway not because its happening in the private sector but because they are paid more.

I reported the survey from mercers to counter the allegation that 70% of private ector workers took a pay cut.

K-9

RGS wrote: »

Woodseb--The OP indicated 70% of private sector employees took pay cuts--this is patently untrue based on this Mercer survey.

No it doesn't. Its a response to the often quoted "70% of the Private Sector haven't had pay cuts" line.

Bear in mind it just includes Industry and Financial Services.

GSF

RGS wrote: »

So the argument is now changing to cut the pay anyway not because its happening in the private sector but because they are paid more.

So you would prefer if the government had made 10% of the PS redundant and retained pay levels? Then that would be consistent with the majority of the private sector.

nesf

One crucial thing to bear in mind guys is the separation between companies here that primarily export their product and those that primarily serve the Irish market. The drop in demand has been much sharper here than in a lot of our target markets for exports and companies that primarily export goods and services will be under far less pressure than those serving the Irish market. By their nature companies serving the Irish market primarily will be smaller given the smaller size of the internal market and as such reviews of our largest companies which primarily deal in exports will not reflect the reality on the ground of the smaller companies that deal with the Irish market.

Edit: Sorry I forgot the particular quotation in the Mercer report that made me think of this:

The organisations in the survey are primarily subsidiaries of multinational corporations and large Irish companies and represent some of the largest private sector employers in Ireland.

Their sample is skewed towards large multinationals and similar Irish companies thus their study is skewed towards export based companies and suffers from the problem I outlined above.

ceret

ceret wrote: »

I'm curious about the Mercer study (and have emailed them for more info).

For the record I got a reply from Mercer, they wouldn't tell me the specifics, but

Patrick Robertson, Mercer wrote:

For information, the median number of employees within the organisations surveyed was 345. The organisation size ranges from 20 employees up to over 5000.[/url]

irish_bob

RGS wrote: »

So the argument is now changing to cut the pay anyway not because its happening in the private sector but because they are paid more.

I reported the survey from mercers to counter the allegation that 70% of private ector workers took a pay cut.

you dont think the large pay differential is a big deal then ??

Ronando

It's not a surprise to anyone who's studied macroeconomics that:
(a) even in the toughest recession in a long-time, private sector companies are not cutting core salaries (they are cutting bonuses and the numbers they employ instead)
(b) it doesn't matter who's earning what in the private sector, if a relatively normal tax system leads to a huge public sector deficit, due to very high rates of public sector pay.

Ireland's combined manufacturing and finance sectors, whose total wage bill is about the same as the public sector, has delivered 12% savings on its pay bill over the past year, while the public sector pay bill has increased. For those interested, this link might be of interest.

Much much better statistics from the CSO on earnings across the economy has to be a priority, so that a much better standard of debate can be had.

nesf

So finally a detailed wage report by the CSO: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

galway2007

Looks like the government is going to bring in legislation so that companies can opt out of paying min wage.
The unions warned about this and now it is going to happen
People who are low payed are going to be shafteed now

seamus

galway2007 wrote: »

Looks like the government is going to bring in legislation so that companies can opt out of paying min wage.
The unions warned about this and now it is going to happen
People who are low payed are going to be shafteed now

It's only under consideration at present and it's only in certain industries and where the employer can show that it's either pay less or lose your job.

Assuming that it's implemented properly and with no room for abuse (which is a stupid assumption to make), I think most people on minimum wage would rather keep a lower-paying job than lose it altogether.

Smiegal

galway2007 wrote: »

People who are low payed are going to be shafteed now

Haha.... this whole argument is so patheticly agenda driven that people have become completely blinded by there own arguments!!!

"people who are low payed are going to be shafted now"... this comment really sums up the anti public sector crap some of you guys and lassies in the private sector have engaged in!!!

Did you ever stop to think about those in the civil/public/emergency services who are on the lower end of there pay scales who have also been cut by pretty much the same amount as there more well off colleagues??? Did you???? Or does a person have to be low paid in the private sector to qualify for your term "shafted"????

Grow up!!!! For Gods sake, this is problem for workers in general!!!

There was huge support within the private sector for public sector pay cuts irregardless of how much he/she in the public sector earned. I for one could see the governments plan to make an example of the public sector with the dogged support of the private sector.

Now it's the privates sectors turn. It will be interesting to see how many come out and say "lower paid workers should not be cut".... as long as they're not in the public sector

hmmm

Smiegal wrote: »

Or does a person have to be low paid in the private sector to qualify for your term "shafted"????

You're comparing low paid public sector workers on 30k with someone on the minimum wage?! Wow.

Smiegal

hmmm wrote: »

You're comparing low paid public sector workers on 30k with someone on the minimum wage?! Wow.

Tell ya what... Why don't I just give you my username and password so that you can do my posting for me seeing as your going to decide what I'm saying....

Or perhaps instead you will actually read my post. I never said anything about public sector workers on 30k. I never mentioned any number. I said low paid workers. Simple. The lower paid workers need to be protected. Simple. Those in the private sector who's ignorance assumes everyone in the public sector ise well paid are nothing but media and government driven fodder!!!!

It has reached the point now where those in the public sector on the lower end of the payscale who have suffered the same cuts as those on 30k are genuinely better off packing In there job giving there keys back to the bank and living on social welfare. With the dole, helpfull handouts, social housing, FIS, medical card etc...

Do you know how sickening it must be to work
in a social welfare office handing out all this money to people in the knowledge that while you sit there working away for ****e money that the people your dealing with who are meant to be the "disadvantaged" are infact better off then you...

woodseb

Smiegal wrote: »

Do you know how sickening it must be to work
in a social welfare office handing out all this money to people in the knowledge that while you sit there working away for ****e money that the people your dealing with who are meant to be the "disadvantaged" are infact better off then you...

while you may have a point about the over-generous welfare system, i'd bet there are hundreds of thousands of ex-private sector workers who turn up at the welfare office every week would gladly swap places with the person on the other side of the counter who is 'sickened'

get a grip

Smiegal

Also, whilst I am very much against public worker v private worker argument, I do believe its worth noting that whilst the vast majority of public sector workers have, at some stage worked in the private sector, the same cannot be said for private sector workers having the same insight into how the public sector works (or doesn't work in SOME cases). This essentially means that those in the Public Sector whilst very much aware of the inefficiencies within there own sector are still and were aware of the same inefficiencies in the private sector. Those inefficiencies and greed within the private sector played a monumental role (in my view) in causing this recession!!!

On the other hand, those who don’t work in the public sector depend on isolated incidents of complete cock-ups within the public sector + very unfair media coverage to tarnish the entire public sector as a completely inefficient and over paid service.

I work within this service and I acknowledge that there are huge problems (most of which are never highlighted be the media simply because they are not glamorous enough). That said, the frontline service that I provide is in general a very professional one. That is despite the complete lack of funding (not pay) by this disaster of a gOVERNMENT!!!

Rant over… for now… J

Smiegal

woodseb wrote: »

while you may have a point about the over-generous welfare system, i'd bet there are hundreds of thousands of ex-private sector workers who turn up at the welfare office every week would gladly swap places with the person on the other side of the counter who is 'sickened'

get a grip

Thats my point!!! Those in the private sector believe that once you are BRANDED as being a public sector worker it immiediatly qualifies you to being over paid!!!

Put it this way... If you had a choice to work in a low paid job and scrape by every week or go unemployed claim everything your entitled too claim and earn a few extra bucks on the black ecomomy and generally be better off for it..... What would you choose???

I'm not blaming the people who are claiming this of course, but the system that allows a worker (public or private) to be less well off then his/her neigbour who is APPARENTLY unemployed.

If you would take that seat then its you who needs to get a grip!!!

A valid point!!!

K-9

Smiegal wrote: »

Tell ya what... Why don't I just give you my username and password so that you can do my posting for me seeing as your going to decide what I'm saying....

Or perhaps instead you will actually read my post. I never said anything about public sector workers on 30k. I never mentioned any number. I said low paid workers. Simple. The lower paid workers need to be protected. Simple. Those in the private sector who's ignorance assumes everyone in the public sector ise well paid are nothing but media and government driven fodder!!!!

It has reached the point now where those in the public sector on the lower end of the payscale who have suffered the same cuts as those on 30k are genuinely better off packing In there job giving there keys back to the bank and living on social welfare. With the dole, helpfull handouts, social housing, FIS, medical card etc...

Do you know how sickening it must be to work
in a social welfare office handing out all this money to people in the knowledge that while you sit there working away for ****e money that the people your dealing with who are meant to be the "disadvantaged" are infact better off then you...

I think most people wanted those on lower wages to take no or a lesser hit. FG had that proposal too. Indeed I pointed out a few times that the lower paid would be hit more as most pay 20% or indeed no tax.

woodseb

Smiegal wrote: »

A valid point!!!

...only in your opinion....

if many other public sector workers agree with you i hope they do give up their jobs and are replaced by someone who appreciates their guaranteed employment, increments, pension etc....

Smiegal

K-9 wrote: »

I think most people wanted those on lower wages to take no or a lesser hit. FG had that proposal too. Indeed I pointed out a few times that the lower paid would be hit more as most pay 20% or indeed no tax.

Its a joke. I've never been affiliated to any party but I do know now who I am certainly not affiliated to… problem is… Are the rest any better??? It’s surly time to find out at this stage… is it???

What was FF's campaign slogan again... "We're not there yet... and there's sure as hell no chance we'll be there anytime soon either...

Smiegal

woodseb wrote: »

...only in your opinion....

if many other public sector workers agree with you i hope they do give up their jobs and are replaced by someone who appreciates their guaranteed employment, increments, pension etc....

Let me remind you of a few years back. Granted this is my story and you are more then entitled to say I have slanted it to suit my argment, all I can tell you is I'm keeping it as honest as a the day is long.

In 2003 I was working in the private sector. Things were good money was great. I decided to apply for a job in the ES. Partly because I was interested in the job and yes, partly because it was a steady job with a good pention. No apologys. It was a risk.

I never saw 2008 coming at that stage, or at least not as bad as it happened.

My income took a bad hit, but I was doing what I wanted to do, so happy days. Everyone around me (all private sector) were saying are you off your head, why in Gods name would I take a lower paid job and have to deal with absolute s****e. I remember on numerous occasions whilst at work being looked down upon by those more well off and getting the usual one "we pay your wages"... How times have changed lads...

Times have changed and the tables have turned. Yes the public sector have safe jobs and yes they (did) have a good pention. But the Private sector had the boom and I for one saw nothing of it except drunken fools waving there money about as if it would last for ever.... Well it didn't!!! And now that the private sector has detroyed its own economy its coming crying back saying well if we've been stung so must everyone else.... Funny how the same wasn't said in the boom years.... Isn't it...

Another Valid point by Smiegal...;-)

I reiterate that I do believe we need reform. But reform does not mean pay cuts to everyone accross the board

K-9

Smiegal wrote: »

Let me remind you of a few years back. Granted this is my story and you are more then entitled to say I have slanted it to suit my argment, all I can tell you is I'm keeping it as honest as a the day is long.

In 2003 I was working in the private sector. Things were good money was great. I decided to apply for a job in the ES. Partly because I was interested in the job and yes, partly because it was a steady job with a good pention. No apologys. It was a risk.

I never saw 2008 coming at that stage, or at least not as bad as it happened.

My income took a bad hit, but I was doing what I wanted to do, so happy days. Everyone around me (all private sector) were saying are you off your head, why in Gods name would I take a lower paid job and have to deal with absolute s****e. I remember on numerous occasions whilst at work being looked down upon by those more well off and getting the usual one "we pay your wages"... How times have changed lads...

Times have changed and the tables have turned. Yes the public sector have safe jobs and yes they (did) have a good pention. But the Private sector had the boom and I for one saw nothing of it except drunken fools waving there money about as if it would last for ever.... Well it didn't!!! And now that the private sector has detroyed its own economy its coming crying back saying well if we've been stung so must everyone else.... Funny how the same wasn't said in the boom years.... Isn't it...

Another Valid point by Smiegal...;-)

I reiterate that I do believe we need reform. But reform does not mean pay cuts to everyone accross the board

It's valid for some in the private sector who hold that opinion.

Personally, tax revenues of €32 Billion and about €20 Billion each on pay and SW inform my opinion.

NOGMaxpower

RGS wrote: »

This allegation is well and truely shown to be untrue by the results of a survey conducted by Mercer and published in the Irish Times today. The companies surveyed were from the multinational and large corporate sector.
Only 9% of private companies implemented pay cuts.
33% introduced pay freezes.
50% intend to implement pay freezes in 2010.
12% introduced unpaid leave---What private sector employers giving their employees more days off!!!!!!!!--
So the Public Sector wanted to implement a private sector scheme but the private sector didn't like it.

So cuts in basic pay in the private sector are not happening as previously alleged.

Public sector workers seem to be clutching at straws these days.

Smiegal

K-9 wrote: »

It's valid for some in the private sector who hold that opinion.

Personally, tax revenues of €32 Billion and about €20 Billion each on pay and SW inform my opinion.

Hi K-9,

could you please clarify "SW", sorry for my ignorance but am new to the thread and just getting used to the abbreviations.

cheers.