Spare a thought for Barry

WalterMitty

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0203/1224263647700.html

Madam, – I am a public servant. As a result of the December 2009 budget a cut of €3,200 has been applied to my annual pay. This is in addition to the pension levy cut that was applied to my pay in March 2009, which resulted in a €2,200 reduction to my net pay.
I am a low- to middle-ranking civil servant and I cannot afford these cuts to my remuneration.
I took out a mortgage on an apartment in Dublin in 2006 at a cost of €375,000, and it is largely unworkable to afford a mortgage of this level while sustaining pay cuts of this magnitude.
It is unfair, unjust and irresponsible to destroy my quality of life in two fell swoops of pay reductions in 10 months. I have worked tirelessly in the public service for the past eight years and I entered the public service on the back of a third-level qualification when other avenues were open to me because I wanted to pursue a meaningful career in the public interest.
This Government targeting of public sector pay has not only turned my quality of life on its head, it has demoralised thousands of honourable and dedicated public servants as a significant proportion of us teeter on the brink of perpetual indebtedness. – Yours, etc,
BARRY FULHAM,
Royal Canal Park,
Dublin 15.

Poor Barry, why dont you pay more taxes to keep him in the quality of life he has become used to. Sure being in one of the best paying public sector's in World is'nt good enough. Barry might even have to work longer hours in future for slightly less pay. Luckily Barry's shopping bill and many other expenses are falling but Barry doesnt mention this. Barry's neighbour who also bought his house in 2006 was not available for comment as he has lost his private sector job , is facing repossesion of the house and is actively seeking employment in Australia

ardmacha

Barry is a victim of the get rich quick merchants in the private sector whose rackets have collapsed, and who are now not contributing to the society whose public services they continue to make use of.

johnnyrotten

Barry has to pay for the mess and greed

MaceFace

ardmacha wrote: »

Barry is a victim of the get rich quick merchants in the private sector whose rackets have collapsed, and who are now not contributing to the society whose public services they continue to make use of.

What rackets were these?
Do you not think that there were people outside the private sector that also caused the problems we are in?

Barry is a fine example of how we are in this mess. Someone who decided that spending 375000 on an apartment was value and fed the bubble.

If he thinks its hard now, wait till interest rates really start going up at the end of the year.

SLUSK

Back in 2007 when I arrived to Ireland and I saw what people were paying for apartments of really poor standard I thought it was madness.

I don't feel sorry for Barry at all. I hope they cut the public sector salaries even further.

woodseb

johnnyrotten wrote: »

Barry has to pay for the mess and greed

including his own.....

Padraig Mor

So Barry is in "low- to middle-ranking" position for 8 years and was earning €53000 - sounds like a sweet deal to me.

gurramok

Barry made a poor decision to pay €375,000 for a luxury apartment. His salary is not the issue, its his poor financial decisions on what he has done with his net pay, that is not his employers problem.

Its funny how the public sector workers with mortgages seem to be the loudest objectors to the budget.

the_syco

gurramok wrote: »

Barry made a poor decision to pay €375,000 for a luxury apartment. His salary is not the issue, its his poor financial decisions on what he has done with his net pay, that is not his employers problem.

More like, it's thinking that his job & pay levels are untouchable.

dan_d

Hang on a second here - Barry's only done what thousands of others around the country did. The point is not whether or not he took out a mortgage. The point is that everyone else has had to take pay cuts, or lost their jobs, but for some reason the public sector seems to feel it should be immune to these cuts.

I'm the first to say that someone needs to take apart the PS and put it back together, pay scales included. But I don't see the point in saying "well it's your own fault for taking out a mortgage in the first place". What he did was totally stupid, but on the other hand, what he did is the same thing the public AND private sector workers did for the last 10 years. And we now have to try and find some way to solve. The difference being that when you lose your job in the private sector, you lose your job and you don't get the headlines. When they try to cut in PS it creates uproar, for reasons I have yet to fully understand.

Yeah poor Barry. Yeah he needs to get real. But the real problem is not that he took out a mortgage. It's that he thinks he, as a public servant, should be entitled to keep his pay while everyone around loses theirs.

OMD

MaceFace wrote: »

If he thinks its hard now, wait till interest rates really start going up at the end of the year.

Couldn't agree more with this part. If Barry is telling the truth and his take home pay has been cut by 3500 a year that is the same cost to him as a 1% increase in intrest rates. If Barry cannot afford his mortgage now when rates are historically low, how the hell did he afford it 4 years ago when interest rates were 3.5% higher?

gurramok

the_syco wrote: »

More like, it's thinking that his job & pay levels are untouchable.

Yes, but its the mortgage thats influencing his decision to resist any paycuts despite him earning a pretty good wage that 80%+ of the workforce could dream of having.
If he had a lower mortgage to affect his means properly, he probably wouldn't care much about a small paycut as his disposable income would be far much higher for neccessities and luxuries so he would be well off in that scenario.

Padraig Mor

OMD wrote: »

If Barry is telling the truth and his take home pay has been cut by 3500 a year

Of course it hasn't. All PS workers quote their paycuts before tax to make them seem worse off. Barry's actual take home cut is approx. €1700.

OMD

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Of course it hasn't. All PS workers quote their paycuts before tax to make them seem worse off. Barry's actual take home cut is approx. €1700.

They do (and quote their pay after tax) but is this case he did say the pension levy did cut his net pay by 2200

Communicationb

Boo hoo......:(

I am in the private sector. My wages have been cut from €769.16 net per week to €553.56 net per week since last April. That is net drop of €11,211.20 per annum.

I have no guarantee of a job and no pension.

Thankfully I have no mortgage or family to support.

murphaph

OMD wrote: »

Couldn't agree more with this part. If Barry is telling the truth and his take home pay has been cut by 3500 a year that is the same cost to him as a 1% increase in intrest rates. If Barry cannot afford his mortgage now when rates are historically low, how the hell did he afford it 4 years ago when interest rates were 3.5% higher?

...not forgetting also that the costs of other things in Barry's life have also fallen over the past 2 years as we have been experiencing serious deflation. Barry's food, clothing, energy, furniture etc. bills have come down along with his mortgage, yet he maintains he's in trouble with his mortgage.

Smells like a pack of lies from this particular public servant who won't just admit that he doesn't want a paycut and wants someone else to suffer increased taxes instead or better yet, just borrow it and let our grandkids repay Barry's wages to the Germans in 50 years when Barry doesn't have to worry about it. Selfish twat.

Communicationb

In fairness, he might have had a fixed mortgage for 5 years which was quiet normal for first time buyers who wanted to know the exact mortgage amount every month....

But he would have been stress tested for a 1% increase in rates and obviously passed that.

Sponge Bob

Barry should not have taken that mortgage out in 2006. It appears to be well over 5 times his gross income. Had Barry continued to rent or to live at home he would be OK, not happy mind but OK.

Ultimately what Barry found out was that the housing bubble was a giant national bookies shop where relatively few cashed out their winnings at any stage

Nobody will get their Gambling debts writen off by the state any more. The banks took the bailout funds for all of us and ran away.

Riskymove

WalterMitty wrote: »

Madam, – I am a public servant. As a result of the December 2009 budget a cut of €3,200 has been applied to my annual pay. This is in addition to the pension levy cut that was applied to my pay in March 2009, which resulted in a €2,200 reduction to my net pay.

I really do not understand what drives PS workers to do things like this (writing to paper, giving interview etc); it only weakens their position

sure, they must be finding it hard, but people like Barry (public and private sector) caused their own problems by over-extending themselves.

I know of a few friends/coleagues who would just not listen to reason when entering 40 year, 100% mortgages on a shoe-box!!

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

Barry is a victim of the get rich quick merchants in the private sector Trade Unions whose rackets have are collapseding, and who are now not contributing to the society whose public services they continue to make use of.

fixed that for you

the Trade Union beards with the 6 digit salaries are laughing all the way to the bank (mind you one of them works for the Central Bank who are partly responsible for this mess)

"poor" Barry is getting shafted by his own crowd

hiorta

If Barry's position is as stated, there should be a mechanism to reduce mortgage repayments pro rata. Tax rates adjust automatically.
Presumably Barry would not have qualified for such a mortgage had he been on his reduced earnings.

Dr. Greenthumb

ardmacha wrote: »

Barry is a victim of the get rich quick merchants in the private sector whose rackets have collapsed, and who are now not contributing to the society whose public services they continue to make use of.

Barry is a victim of the public sector planners who allowed the developers to build crazy high density housing developments and a public sector financial regulator that looked the other way when the banks were giving out massive loans with no real creditable security against.

But sorry we're not supposed to mention that the problems faced by the public sector can all inevitably be traced back to their own failings.... got to blame someone else or then the public sector would be accountable for something and we can't have that!! :cool:

woodseb

hiorta wrote: »

If Barry's position is as stated, there should be a mechanism to reduce mortgage repayments pro rata. Tax rates adjust automatically.
Presumably Barry would not have qualified for such a mortgage had he been on his reduced earnings.

He can still pay his mortgage on his wage - he is complaining that his quality of life is lower and he is domoralised working. It must be news to him that we are in a massive recession.

Let's pay more tax to reduce his mortgage payments so he can go out to the pub a bit more often and take a foreign holiday and have a bit of craic.

waffleman

Barry thought an apartment in Dublin (I'd bet its a 2 bed) was / is worth 375k? Barry is a mug - ZERO sympathy

In fact I'm annoyed that when Barry defaults on his mortgage I will probably have to pay more tax for the loss the bank writes off on it.

Sleepy

I wonder how long it'll take before Barry gets emailed a link to this thread?

gurramok

waffleman wrote: »

Barry thought an apartment in Dublin (I'd bet its a 2 bed) was / is worth 375k? Barry is a mug - ZERO sympathy.

His address is Royal Canal Park, D15.

Assuming this is where the apt is in question, paying 375k for a apt here rather than an upmarket area with the amount of money involved is indeed very stupid.

ei.sdraob

Sleepy wrote: »

I wonder how long it'll take before Barry gets emailed a link to this thread?

i sure hope someone does, along with this thread



anyways check this out people, pics inside

http://www.daft.ie/1496098

http://www.daft.ie/2585859

zootroid

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Barry should not have taken that mortgage out in 2006. It appears to be well over 5 times his gross income. Had Barry continued to rent or to live at home he would be OK, not happy mind but OK.

Ultimately what Barry found out was that the housing bubble was a giant national bookies shop where relatively few cashed out their winnings at any stage

Nobody will get their Gambling debts writen off by the state any more. The banks took the bailout funds for all of us and ran away.

Just out of curiosity, how are people calculating his gross income?

I know of a few friends/coleagues who would just not listen to reason when entering 40 year, 100% mortgages on a shoe-box!!

The woman on prime time last night illustrates this perfectly. At the age of 38, she takes out a 40 year mortgage in 2008. Can't quite remember the figure, but think it was above the 400k mark. But who in their right mind would take out a 40 year mortgage at that age? Especially in 2008 when prices were falling and it was obvious that property was overvalued?

People talk about the greed of the banks, but personal responsibility has to kick in somewhere. Essentially she wanted a life style she couldn't afford.

Nidot

WalterMitty wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0203/1224263647700.html

Madam, – I am a public servant. As a result of the December 2009 budget a cut of €3,200 has been applied to my annual pay. This is in addition to the pension levy cut that was applied to my pay in March 2009, which resulted in a €2,200 reduction to my net pay.
I am a low- to middle-ranking civil servant and I cannot afford these cuts to my remuneration.
I took out a mortgage on an apartment in Dublin in 2006 at a cost of €375,000, and it is largely unworkable to afford a mortgage of this level while sustaining pay cuts of this magnitude.
It is unfair, unjust and irresponsible to destroy my quality of life in two fell swoops of pay reductions in 10 months. I have worked tirelessly in the public service for the past eight years and I entered the public service on the back of a third-level qualification when other avenues were open to me because I wanted to pursue a meaningful career in the public interest.
This Government targeting of public sector pay has not only turned my quality of life on its head, it has demoralised thousands of honourable and dedicated public servants as a significant proportion of us teeter on the brink of perpetual indebtedness. – Yours, etc,
BARRY FULHAM,
Royal Canal Park,
Dublin 15.

Lets work through Barrys circumstances for a moment:

1. Net Pay down down 2,200:

- Now assuming that Barry was paying tax at the higher level i.e. 41% and was paying health levy at 2% and income levy at 2% in addition to PRSI at 4% then Barry had a effective tax rate at the margin at 49% so that means Barry took an overall paycut of 4,313 (2,200 / .51)

- This means that pre pension levy we can assume that Barry was earning 55,000 annually (56,000 * 7.7% = 4,312)

2. Annual income reduced by 3,200:

- This is a much easier calculation now, if Barry was, as I calculated, earning 56,000 based on his own admission of pension levy leaving him down 2,200 then his paycut as a percentage pay is only down 5.7% (3,200 / 56,000).

- Now this is a much lower cut in gross earnings than the amount I suspect he has taken but we'll move on.

3. Low to Middle Ranking Public Servant after 8 years leaving college

- If it is the case that Barry is earning 56,000 8 years after leaving college and he still considers himself to be below average then I seriously need to reconsider my careers prospects as this would put him 49% higher earnings then the average industrial wage (56,000 / 37,500)

- This type of wage would I am sure be considered a very good wage by most people

- His post paycut wage of 52,800 (based on my own calculations) is still 40% higher than the average industrial wage ( 52,800 / 37,500)

4. Mortgage of 375,000

- Well Barrys decision to take out his mortgage was his own decision

- Yes we can say that alot of smart marketing people in the private sector convinced Barry to purchase but Barry was under no direct pressure to purchase his property

- Barry also finds himself in the same position as many private sector workers who took out large mortgages during the housing boom in order to fund the purchase of what now may be considered a poor property

5. Destroy his quality of Life

- So with Barrys gross income still above 50,000 and from what we can gather no dependents he feels his quality of life is nil, this should be considered, in that Barry was potentially living beyond his means so a reduction in his income is having a dissproportionate impact on his lifestyle.

- But then again people have to realise that their lifestyle is to be based on their ability to pay for it, not their aspirations as to what lifestyle they would like.

Anyway I thought having a proper look at the figures Barry has produced may put his claims in a clearer light.

I myself have suffered dissproportionately high due to the recession. For my level, experience and position I occupy with my employer I have taken a 15% cut in my take home pay and am now completing work outside pay hours for which I receive no overtime payment or time in lieu so it is actually impossible to calculate my total paycut.

But anyway my figures above may be wrong and I am open to correction on any of the figures provided/worked out.

Regards

Surveyor11

As you can see from my username, I work in construction. I was laid off in April 2009 - no surprise really, as rthe economy had pretty much fallen off a cliff at that stage. The way it went was very simple - me and 2 others for the chop called to a meeting with MD at 9am, dismissed on the spot, clear desk and home by lunch time. Keys to office, mobile phone, email account suspended and other company property taken off me and escorted from the office, in front of my colleagues, like I was some sort of common thief and the office door locked behind us. I never had a bad word with my boss, in fact we had won a big contract on the back of some networking on my behalf that I thought might have saved my bacon. That's it, not hard feelings, good bye.

I tell this to people in the public sector and they cannot believe it, but it's been repeated 435,000 odd times (or what ever the live register has been fudged at) over the last few years. Brings the pension levy and whatever else they're moaning on about in the public sector into perspective.

Like Barry, I bought a house in 2005 (I'm married with kids). I spent 6 months on the dole, trying everything to try and get a job. As you can imagine, my quality of life suffered somewhat and trying to pay the mortgage and protect our home became the main focus in life. Eventually found a job, paying less than the average industrial wage cited above. It works out as a 50% pay cut. I'm on a 6 month contract with no security hoping it will be renewed so I can continue what is a very meager existence month by month.

Now, I think the whole public versus private thing is just a smokescreen orchestrated by the government to try hide the bigger malaise out there, but I find it hard to take people in the public sector cribbing because they have taken some pain (I think the pay cuts were, BTW, very modest although I do feel sorry for the lower end PS workers who seem to be bearing the brunt). Everyone who works hard should be entitled to a career and a decent standard of living, whether in the public or private sector, but I would ask those in the public sector to spare a thought for the harsh realities, far harsher than anything you will see in the PS, that are playing out in Ireland today. BTW, not looking for any sympathy, and I don't think people should be bailed out of poor choices they took when taking out their mortgages.

dearg lady

As a public sector worker, I wasn't exactly overjoyed with the pension levy and pay cuts but some things just have to be accepted. Letters like Barrys really bother me, because I worry people will turn against the whole public sector based on this. There's a lot of people making a lot of money within the public sector but not everyone.

I suppose I would be at the lower end of the payscales within the public sector but tbh I live a good life. I'll be totally honest here, post pay cut my gross salary is 29,337 pa, net per month(after tax and pension) I earn 1910. To me this is pretty good. I do have a mortgage which at times feels like a noose around my neck(bought at a bad time) if I had my time over would probably not do it, but still we bought well within our means, I can easily afford the mortgage and will still be able to be comfortable if interest rates go up a few %

I'm a contracted employee so trying not to worry too much about what happens when I finish up, it will be extremely difficult I know. Now I can still do nice things, go out, go on holidays, get take aways, buy clothes the odd time, I know all of that will have to stop.

But here in work, I hear people complaining they 'can't survive' the pay cuts and in the next breath tell me about the many holidays they have planned. It's kind of upsetting to hear, when I know plenty of people who are genuinely struggling on social welfare.

I'm quite good with money naturally (a saver ) so I know this stands to me, but sometimes I want to shake people and remind them just how lucky they are!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Riskymove

Nidot wrote: »

3. Low to Middle Ranking Public Servant after 8 years leaving college


- His post paycut wage of 52,800 (based on my own calculations) is still 40% higher than the average industrial wage ( 52,800 / 37,500)

I generally agree with you but one small point

I dont agree that the average industrial wage is the correct comparator for salary of college graduates...I would personally expect their average earnings to have been in excess of that over the last period

Nidot

Riskymove wrote: »

I generally agree with you but one small point

I dont agree that the average industrial wage is the correct comparator for salary of college graduates...I would personally expect their average earnings to have been in excess of that over the last period

Yes I can see your point but I used the average industrial wage more as barometer of where Barry stands in relation to the majority or the country.

I am sure that given that Barry has a college degree would result in a higher salary, but we don't have any information about the education qualifications which Barry has or what sector/role Barry fills, if this information was available then this would make it a more interesting comparisson.

SLUSK

Nidot wrote: »

Yes I can see your point but I used the average industrial wage more as barometer of where Barry stands in relation to the majority or the country.

I am sure that given that Barry has a college degree would result in a higher salary, but we don't have any information about the education qualifications which Barry has or what sector/role Barry fills, if this information was available then this would make it a more interesting comparisson.

I don't agree that a college degre should automatically result in a higher salary. What can a guy with a degree in history offer the market which means he should get pay above the industrial average?

The_Honeybadger

SLUSK wrote: »

I don't agree that a college degre should automatically result in a higher salary. What can a guy with a degree in history offer the market which means he should get pay above the industrial average?

+1 but I think it is a trend that they earn more, and probably shows they can finish a large project that they start. If I was employing somebody and the job didn't require a degree as such, but had a guy with a degree and without who had similar experience i'd almost certainly employ the one with the degree.

Riskymove

SLUSK wrote: »

I don't agree that a college degre should automatically result in a higher salary. What can a guy with a degree in history offer the market which means he should get pay above the industrial average?

my point is that you would not have expected too many college graduates to be working in the industrial sector (other than as engineers, technicians etc who would be paid more than line staff) over the last period

obviously the type of degree does matter to a point

Nidot

Riskymove wrote: »

my point is that you would not have expected too many college graduates to be working in the industrial sector (other than as engineers, technicians etc who would be paid more than line staff) over the last period

obviously the type of degree does matter to a point

Yes that is certainly true. In my profession a degree to a high standard is necessary. This does in my opinion equate to a higher average pay as it is necessary to forego wages earned to achieve this degree.

What sort of premium is attached to a degree though is another point for discussion. For instance, Barry states he has a degree but if ths degree was an Arts degree, with lets say a joint major in History and Philosophy, then the premium attached to that degree would be lower than lets say the premium attached to an engineering degree, on the premise that they're working in a technical field or a field requiring high standards of computation.

ei.sdraob

SLUSK wrote: »

What can a guy with a degree in history offer the market which means he should get pay above the industrial average?

changes

dearg lady wrote: »

As a public sector worker, I wasn't exactly overjoyed with the pension levy and pay cuts but some things just have to be accepted. Letters like Barrys really bother me, because I worry people will turn against the whole public sector based on this. There's a lot of people making a lot of money within the public sector but not everyone.

I suppose I would be at the lower end of the payscales within the public sector but tbh I live a good life. I'll be totally honest here, post pay cut my gross salary is 29,337 pa, net per month(after tax and pension) I earn 1910. To me this is pretty good. I do have a mortgage which at times feels like a noose around my neck(bought at a bad time) if I had my time over would probably not do it, but still we bought well within our means, I can easily afford the mortgage and will still be able to be comfortable if interest rates go up a few %

I'm a contracted employee so trying not to worry too much about what happens when I finish up, it will be extremely difficult I know. Now I can still do nice things, go out, go on holidays, get take aways, buy clothes the odd time, I know all of that will have to stop.

But here in work, I hear people complaining they 'can't survive' the pay cuts and in the next breath tell me about the many holidays they have planned. It's kind of upsetting to hear, when I know plenty of people who are genuinely struggling on social welfare.

I'm quite good with money naturally (a saver ) so I know this stands to me, but sometimes I want to shake people and remind them just how lucky they are!

You don't say what your other half is paid. Your combined income is obviously enough to pay the bills and keep you comfortable.

Some are not so lucky. If you were the sole breadwinner on 29K and you might feel a little different about the income levy, pension levy, paycuts.

Someone posted on another thread that there is a base amount of money each family needs to provide a roof over their head, put food on the table, pay travel costs to work, buy clothing etc.
A family bringing in 29K is closer to that figure than someone on 70K.

I think hitting PS workers on less than 30K with the levies and paycuts was a bit harsh particurlarly when so much concern/consideration was shown to the higher paid civil servants with regard to their paycuts (regular bonus included).

Nidot

changes wrote: »

I think hitting PS workers on less than 30K with the levies and paycuts was a bit harsh particurlarly when so much concern/consideration was shown to the higher paid civil servants with regard to their paycuts (regular bonus included).

I don't think you'll find any disagreement that the decision to overturn the paycuts for the higher paid civil servants was a joke. A complete fudge by the government to allow their closest advisors avoid a paycut.

How they expect people to believe that including a bonus is right is beyond me. A bonus is paid for above average performance when the company is doing well. In the case of these civil servants, they did not show above average performance (i.e. if they had many of the issues in the current recession would not exist) and their employer (i.e. the government) is not performing well.

The idea of including the bonus as part of basic pay is terrible.

dearg lady

changes wrote: »

You don't say what your other half is paid. Your combined income is obviously enough to pay the bills and keep you comfortable.

Some are not so lucky. If you were the sole breadwinner on 29K and you might feel a little different about the income levy, pension levy, paycuts.

Someone posted on another thread that there is a base amount of money each family needs to provide a roof over their head, put food on the table, pay travel costs to work, buy clothing etc.
A family bringing in 29K is closer to that figure than someone on 70K.

I think hitting PS workers on less than 30K with the levies and paycuts was a bit harsh particurlarly when so much concern/consideration was shown to the higher paid civil servants with regard to their paycuts (regular bonus included).

It's not my other half I live with, so what I earn covers all my own costs, and allows me to save also. Perhaps the govt should have hit higher paid civil servants, I am only looking at my own personal situation and saying I can manage and more than that, I can be comfortable.

The_Honeybadger

dearg lady wrote: »

It's not my other half I live with, so what I earn covers all my own costs, and allows me to save also. Perhaps the govt should have hit higher paid civil servants, I am only looking at my own personal situation and saying I can manage and more than that, I can be comfortable.

Really appreciate the honesty good luck when the contract expires hope it is renewed.

Bonzo1970

WalterMitty wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0203/1224263647700.html

Madam, – I am a public servant. As a result of the December 2009 budget a cut of €3,200 has been applied to my annual pay. This is in addition to the pension levy cut that was applied to my pay in March 2009, which resulted in a €2,200 reduction to my net pay.
I am a low- to middle-ranking civil servant and I cannot afford these cuts to my remuneration.
I took out a mortgage on an apartment in Dublin in 2006 at a cost of €375,000, and it is largely unworkable to afford a mortgage of this level while sustaining pay cuts of this magnitude.
It is unfair, unjust and irresponsible to destroy my quality of life in two fell swoops of pay reductions in 10 months. I have worked tirelessly in the public service for the past eight years and I entered the public service on the back of a third-level qualification when other avenues were open to me because I wanted to pursue a meaningful career in the public interest.
This Government targeting of public sector pay has not only turned my quality of life on its head, it has demoralised thousands of honourable and dedicated public servants as a significant proportion of us teeter on the brink of perpetual indebtedness. – Yours, etc,
BARRY FULHAM,
Royal Canal Park,
Dublin 15.

Poor Barry, why dont you pay more taxes to keep him in the quality of life he has become used to. Sure being in one of the best paying public sector's in World is'nt good enough. Barry might even have to work longer hours in future for slightly less pay. Luckily Barry's shopping bill and many other expenses are falling but Barry doesnt mention this. Barry's neighbour who also bought his house in 2006 was not available for comment as he has lost his private sector job , is facing repossesion of the house and is actively seeking employment in Australia

Im not sure what the point of this thread is? Is it to simply snigger? Its a bit simplistic to use the private sector losing jobs jibe when the vast majority in private sector have not or will not lose jobs. We have a huge amounts of temp staff(one of highest in EU) in teaching many of which have lost their jobs. Was cutting Public pay necessary-yes it was. How much it should have been cut is debatable.
What makes the pay cuts hard to stomach is the incessant black propaganda war as lately seen in the ludicrous leading article in Last Sundays Indo. A public sector worker was personally attacked because she "failed" to mention she lost her house when her husband lost his job and not as a result of pay cut. Boot boys.

Stick to budget based arguments and stop creating threads like these, whose sole purpose seems to be that of sniggering.

ixoy

Bonzo1970 wrote: »

Stick to budget based arguments and stop creating threads like these, whose sole purpose seems to be that of sniggering.

How closely did you read this thread? Look at nodit's post - it's very strictly budget related using hard facts and figures. It's nothing to do with sniggering but more to do with putting Barry's cuts into perspective and pointing out that the raw data that we're presented with indicates Barry was in a decent financial position.

Nidot

Also if a complete comparisson was to be made it would have to only include full time staff as contract workers losing their jobs cannot be judged in the same way. The idea of the contract being that at its completion the person is not guaranteed continued employment.

MaceFace

Bonzo1970 wrote: »

Im not sure what the point of this thread is? Is it to simply snigger? Its a bit simplistic to use the private sector losing jobs jibe when the vast majority in private sector have not or will not lose jobs. We have a huge amounts of temp staff(one of highest in EU) in teaching many of which have lost their jobs. Was cutting Public pay necessary-yes it was. How much it should have been cut is debatable.
What makes the pay cuts hard to stomach is the incessant black propaganda war as lately seen in the ludicrous leading article in Last Sundays Indo. A public sector worker was personally attacked because she "failed" to mention she lost her house when her husband lost his job and not as a result of pay cut. Boot boys.

Stick to budget based arguments and stop creating threads like these, whose sole purpose seems to be that of sniggering.

I don't think there is any sniggering. This lady put herself in the public eye by allowing herself to be used as a propaganda tool.

I am angry that I am paying money I earned towards the salaries of people who want to be immune from the pain of recession.

All I ask is that we have equality across the board - no jobs for life, no guaranteed pensions, no pay increases for modernisation.

P. Breathnach

If this thread is about Barry, then I don't think it is a political discussion.

If it is regarded by some as another opportunity to have a go at public servants, then I think it is nothing more than adding to the unpleasantness that we have already encountered here -- ad nauseam.

Bonzo1970

Poor Barry, why dont you pay more taxes to keep him in the quality of life he has become used to. Sure being in one of the best paying public sector's in World is'nt good enough. Barry might even have to work longer hours in future for slightly less pay. Luckily Barry's shopping bill and many other expenses are falling but Barry doesnt mention this. Barry's neighbour who also bought his house in 2006 was not available for comment as he has lost his private sector job , is facing repossesion of the house and is actively seeking employment in Australia

This is sniggering to my mind. I go back to my main point-this next door neighbour that is conjured up -he is statically unlikely to have lost his job. he is 90% unlikely to have lost his job or emigrated. Perhaps Sniggering is wrong word-hyperbole perhaps? Highest paid public servants in the world? A lie.Give me a break. Headline figures are always easy to latch onto like comparing welfare rates. Headline figures compared to UK are high but our social provision is overall is much lower. I have to pay sixty euro's every time I go to a doctor just to cite one difference. Facts not lies please and broaden debate beyond headline figures.

Bonzo1970

MaceFace wrote: »

I don't think there is any sniggering. This lady put herself in the public eye by allowing herself to be used as a propaganda tool.

I am angry that I am paying money I earned towards the salaries of people who want to be immune from the pain of recession.

All I ask is that we have equality across the board - no jobs for life, no guaranteed pensions, no pay increases for modernisation.

Sign me up for all that as a teacher, but then allow me to operate as a private sector worker. Bonuses?Have that please. Can I get rid of pupils who wont perform tasks assigned (well within their ability levels) because if I dont my performance is effected. Im not saying its impossible to have a markets sys within the public sector but it aint straightforward as you seem to think.

Nidot

Bonzo1970 wrote: »

Sign me up for all that as a teacher, but then allow me to operate as a private sector worker. Bonuses?Have that please. Can I get rid of pupils who wont perform tasks assigned (well within their ability levels) because if I dont my performance is effected. Im not saying its impossible to have a markets sys within the public sector but it aint straightforward as you seem to think.

I don't really understand this. This perception that everybody in the private sector receives bonuses.

I work for a very prestigous international financial services company. All the staff employed here have 3rd level degrees to start with and then pursue further qualifications once we start.

None of us receive a bonus neither do any of our competitors. And this would apply to the majority of the staff below management level.