Spare a thought for Barry

Head The Wall

soden12 wrote: »

Oh yes and what part of the Public Service got a payrise in 2009 ? The Bankers.

Take out all the people that didn't get increments so in 2009. Going on stats posted previously 3 or 4 people a year in the public sector didn't get a pay rise

waster81

Head The Wall wrote: »

I was just highlighting your backtracking.



Maybe you missed this post, I have no problem with my pay and working conditions. Seems to be all the Public sector that have issues with their Pay and working conditions!!

I havent back tracked at all.

You did say this

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)

So when you said you seriously need to reconsider your career prospects, I presumed you were not happy with your pay and thought that the public service would be the way to go

soden12

Head The Wall wrote: »

Take out all the people that didn't get increments so in 2009. Going on stats posted previously 3 or 4 people a year in the public sector didn't get a pay rise

Dear boy, the bankers also have an incremental (turn up for work) scale and they got their payrise on top of that.

Egging the pudding, jam on it...

Head The Wall

waster81 wrote: »

I havent back tracked at all.

So when you said you seriously need to reconsider your career prospects, I presumed you were not happy or envious of the pulic service and wanted to change career.

That was Nidot's post and was directed at Stepbar, I quoted yourself in error (apologies) I included a link to his full post at the end to correct him on his 35k calculation

soden12 wrote: »

Dear boy, the bankers also have an incremental (turn up for work) scale and they got their payrise on top of that.

Egging the pudding, jam on it...

You obviously have some personal issue with the banks, don't worry I won't ask you about it.

Still doesn't change the fact about PS increments clawing back their paycuts and levy

stepbar

soden12 wrote: »

If only Barry had the benefit of a bank subsidised loan. Then imagine what ratios he would have got from the banks.

Actually what am I saying ? - we the taxpayer are now subsidising all those cheap loans and mortgages given to bankers.

Oh yes and what part of the Public Service got a payrise in 2009 ? The Bankers.

Folks, it's time we stopped targetting just the public service and remembered that the banks are also a major drain on our finances. At least with the public service we have documentation on salaries and budgets but the banks are such a mire of falsified documentation (best case) that none of us taxpayers can ever figure out how much they will actually screw us for.

Ah Mike.. back again I see.... have you not been pawned off to the board of a bank yet? Seriously I'd get on to that if I were you... the pension money must be running out fast considering the BOI pension is in deficit to the tune of 1.5 billion.....

Anyhow getting back to your little snipe about subsidised staff loans... yes I had one of them and do you know what? I got rid of it considering it was costing me money (in tax to the government) for the privilage. I took my business to the Credit Union! Shock horror!!!! But good try Mike on that one.

Regarding your comment on a "mire of falsified documentation" within the banks... you might want to comment a bit further on that. Considering you presided over the BOI for a number of years, I would have thought you would have first hand knowledge on that?

Mise le meas,

Stepbar

stepbar

soden12 wrote: »

Dear boy, the bankers also have an incremental (turn up for work) scale and they got their payrise on top of that.

Egging the pudding, jam on it...

An "incremental (turn up for work) scale"? LOL FCUKIN LOL....:rolleyes:

waster81

No worries head. Ah thought it was you that wanted a career change hands up


What percentage do the bank employees contribute to their pension was it somewhere that employees pre 2006 contribute 2.5%. Would this part of the reason why the pension deficit is so large?

Would the incrementals for public service not be for years service. Surely the private sector receive an increase in pay for years experience and service.

ynotdu

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

I see 'poor Barry' lives along the banks of the royal canal,perhaps if he was not caught up in the 'material world' he could jump into a whole new World,just outside where he lives!;)

stepbar

waster81 wrote: »

No worries head. Ah thought it was you that wanted a career change hands up


What percentage do the bank employees contribute to their pension was it somewhere that employees pre 2006 contribute 2.5%. Would this part of the reason why the pension deficit is so large?

Would the incrementals for public service not be for years service. Surely the private sector receive an increase in pay for years experience and service.

At one stage early on in my career I was contributing 5% of my salary to the pension. As a result of a Labour Court ruling, I was accepted into the defined benefit scheme. At the moment (I think) I contribute c2.5% towards my pension. As far as I know some "lifers" contribute nothing!! Which is totally wrong IMO. I would have no problem doubling my contribution, but I have no control over that at present. One has to also remember that when the scheme was in surplus, the bank contributed nothing for the year in question. Something very wrong about that as well. At present the BOI are carrying out a review of the defined pension scheme and as employees we probably will be asked to contribute more (and rightly so). It should have never some to this in the first place.

Head The Wall

waster81 wrote: »

No worries head. Ah thought it was you that wanted a career change hands up


What percentage do the bank employees contribute to their pension was it somewhere that employees pre 2006 contribute 2.5%. Would this part of the reason why the pension deficit is so large?

A lot of private sector companies don't contribute anything to pensions, they may run the pension scheme on behalf of the employees but they are under no obligation to contribute towards it.


Most pensions in general are fecked at the moment, public and private included. The difference is the govt wouldn't do anything about the pension problem in Waterford Crystal but they didn't mind doing it for their own staff
This is where the private sector sees favouritism towards Public sector and rightly so feels bitter about it

Taxpayers forced to rescue underfunded public sector pensions

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taxpayers-forced-to-rescue-underfunded-public-sector-pensions-1786758.html

waster81 wrote: »

Would the incrementals for public service not be for years service. Surely the private sector receive an increase in pay for years experience and service.

Why would you pay someone more for doing the exact same job at the exact same pace. You get a payrise if you have improved your work rate or have improved something to the benefit of the company. The effect of an increment for doing nothing encourages lazy people to do nothing extra and for people with motivation going in to get demoralised and it all ends up a vicious lazy circle. There's no incentive to improve with the increment system

waster81

Head The Wall wrote: »

A lot of private sector companies don't contribute anything to pensions, they may run the pension scheme on behalf of the employees but they are under no obligation to contribute towards it.


Most pensions in general are fecked at the moment, public and private included. The difference is the govt wouldn't do anything about the pension problem in Waterford Crystal but they didn't mind doing it for their own staff
This is where the private sector sees favouritism towards Public sector and rightly so feels bitter about it

Taxpayers forced to rescue underfunded public sector pensions

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taxpayers-forced-to-rescue-underfunded-public-sector-pensions-1786758.html



Why would you pay someone more for doing the exact same job at the exact same pace. You get a payrise if you have improved your work rate or have improved something to the benefit of the company. The effect of an increment for doing nothing encourages lazy people to do nothing extra and for people with motivation going in to get demoralised and it all ends up a vicious lazy circle. There's no incentive to improve with the increment system

But everyone knows that when you enter the public service you receive that type of pension, again its down to choices.

Pensions will be a huge issue, the inadequate provisions been made in private sector is something that will need to be looked at.

Why should the government do something for a private company, the inadequacies in pension was down to the company.

Increments are paid for years of service, no matter how lazy people are they will gain experience from every situation encountered e.g. when a public servant starts taking social welfare claimant surely in year 2 and 3 the person will be able to complete more than he/she was in year 1.


Point totally off topic, within the Finance Bill the government have made provisions for Shariah law, would the reason be that maybe they are hoping some rich indivduals will invest in the banks, ensuring the government dont have to pump capital into the bank?

musiknonstop

waster81 wrote: »

You are free to enter the public service and earn such a salary.

Well you are not really. I do recall doing Civil Service exams many times in 2005, along with thousands of others, to be placed on a panel. I think it's fair to say that even at the height of the boom public sector job vacancies were over subscribed. Why is that?

waster81

musiknonstop wrote: »

Well you are not really. I do recall doing Civil Service exams many times in 2005, along with thousands of others, to be placed on a panel. I think it's fair to say that even at the height of the boom public sector job vacancies were over subscribed. Why is that?

You are free to have the opportunity to enter the public service, if you didnt get in that was probably down to the results you received.

musiknonstop

waster81 wrote: »

Surely the private sector receive an increase in pay for years experience and service.

Obviously it would vary from company to company, but in any of the companies I've worked in, the answer is no.

musiknonstop

waster81 wrote: »

You are free to have the opportunity to enter the public service, if you didnt get in that was probably down to the results you received.

The point being that lots of people did apply for public service jobs in the good times. The argument that no one bothered is a false one.

waster81

musiknonstop wrote: »

The point being that lots of people did apply for public service jobs in the good times. The argument that no one bothered is a false one.

Who said that no one bothered?

Of course people applied to the public service, but its supply and demand. The point been made is that people in private sector are saying that public servants have fantastic salary, they had the choice to apply if they did and didnt get into the public service either because they didnt get required results or other factors then why turn against those who madeit into public service.

Head The Wall

waster81 wrote: »

Why should the government do something for a private company, the inadequacies in pension was down to the company.

The pensions in the companies that they rescued were privately funded and in deficit. Did you read the link? But yes you are correct their pension scheme should have been left in their hands but the govt didn't mind changing the law and making the exception for them. Again it stinks of a lack of accountability

waster81 wrote: »

Increments are paid for years of service, no matter how lazy people are they will gain experience from every situation encountered e.g. when a public servant starts taking social welfare claimant surely in year 2 and 3 the person will be able to complete more than he/she was in year 1.

The point is their Specific Job role would not have changed. Increments are given on top of Inflationary pay raises and wage agreements. Wage agreements are supposed to apply to all workers but increments are purely a PS gimmick. They are still being paid when there are paycuts and payfreezes happening. This is what is maddening about it all

We should have a very efficient PS if they are all improving so much every year thanks to their increments. I think you will find thats not the case

waster81 wrote: »

Point totally off topic, within the Finance Bill the government have made provisions for Shariah law, would the reason be that maybe they are hoping some rich indivduals will invest in the banks, ensuring the government dont have to pump capital into the bank?

I'll have to look up shariah Law and get back to ya on it. Probably just passports for payment in a different generation

waster81

Head The Wall wrote: »

The pensions in the companies that they rescued were privately funded and in deficit. Did you read the link? But yes you are correct their pension scheme should have been left in their hands but the govt didn't mind changing the law and making the exception for them. Again it stinks of a lack of accountability





The point is their Specific Job role would not have changed. Increments
are given on top of Inflationary pay raises and wage agreements. Wage agreements are supposed to apply to all workers but increments are purely a PS gimmick. They are still being paid when there are paycuts and payfreezes happening. This is what is maddening about it all

We should have a very efficient PS if they are all improving so much every year thanks to their increments. I think you will find thats not the case




I'll have to look up shariah Law and get back to ya on it. Probably just passports for payment in a different generation

No will look at the link now.

How would a guard, teacher, nurse job role change ( they adapt to changes in scoiety) they will be doing the same job for their entirity in public service.

Cant comment on inflationary pay rise, dont know whether or not nurses, guards teachers receive pay increase or whether they just recieve increase in pay through increments. How else can their pay rise other than through increments, or should we just keep them on their starting salaries for life.

You can have same arguments in private sector, do we say that every private sector employee is improving their standard of service, level of customer care I feel has dropped, you can see that when you cross the border and the difference in customer care is black and white.

The government will be looking for anyone to invest in the banks other than themselves. Is it the end of thie month or next that the banks have to pay the interest on the capital already invested in preference shares. Come then the government will probably if no other capital has been located transfer the preference into ordinary shares. At looking at the valuation of the bansk at the present time €2.5-€3 billion would we not effectively be nationalising them?

I think whats maddening is the lending policies of banks both to individuals who if properly stressed tested should never have been given a mortgage and then to developers who were it seems given loans to buy development land over the phone!

SkepticOne

waster81 wrote: »

Who said that no one bothered?

Of course people applied to the public service, but its supply and demand. The point been made is that people in private sector are saying that public servants have fantastic salary, they had the choice to apply if they did and didnt get into the public service either because they didnt get required results or other factors then why turn against those who madeit into public service.

Justifications for over the odds pay:

Public sector argument number 1: Public sector jobs were open to everyone. If you didn't get one you are have only yourself to blame.

Public sector argument number 2: Boo hoo I bought a luxury apartment for several hundred thousand and now can't afford it without cutting down on other aspects of my lifestyle. Oh woe is me.

waster81

SkepticOne wrote: »

Justifications for over the odds pay:

Public sector argument number 1: Public sector jobs were open to everyone. If you didn't get one you are have only yourself to blame.

Public sector argument number 2: Boo hoo I bought a luxury apartment for several hundred thousand and now can't afford it without cutting down on other aspects of my lifestyle. Oh woe is me.

So who's fault is it if you didnt get a job in the public service or chose to enter it? Who do you want to take responsibility?

so it was only public servants who bought over priced housing and cant afford it?

musiknonstop

waster81 wrote: »

Who said that no one bothered?

Of course people applied to the public service, but its supply and demand. The point been made is that people in private sector are saying that public servants have fantastic salary, they had the choice to apply if they did and didnt get into the public service either because they didnt get required results or other factors then why turn against those who madeit into public service.

I think we're saying "Barry" has a fantastic salary and job security and still moans at having to make a relatively small sacrifice (because his employer is broke). Flag waving supporters of the public service shouldn't really be bringing supply and demand into the argument, as it's this fundamental economic principle they seem to not understand.

waster81

musiknonstop wrote: »

I think we're saying "Barry" has a fantastic salary and job security and still moans at having to make a relatively small sacrifice (because his employer is broke). Flag waving supporters of the public service shouldn't really be bringing supply and demand into the argument, as it's this fundamental economic principle they seem to not understand.

His employer is not broke down to the actions of the public service,its down to the actions of private sector.

Eh obviously the private sector dont understand supply and demand, why have they built so many houses??

SkepticOne

On the one hand they want sympathy because they overpaid for houses during the bubble. On they other hand they justify their premium pay on the basis that it was open to anyone to apply and its your own fault if you didn't get a lucrative job in the public sector.

waster81

SkepticOne wrote: »

On the one hand they want sympathy because they overpaid for houses during the bubble. On they other hand they justify their premium pay on the basis that it was open to anyone to apply and its your own fault if you didn't get a lucrative job in the public sector.

So its only the public service who want sympathy for overpaying for houses during the bubble?

Who do you want to blame?

View

waster81 wrote: »

His employer is not broke down to the actions of the public service,its down to the actions of private sector.

Barry's employer is broke due to its own actions and inactions. The State makes the laws, sets the taxes, regulatory framework and enforces rules related to all of the above. The private sector does not do this and cannot do this. So please stop trying to make out that the private sector is to blame for the actions and inactions of the Government and Public (and/or Civil) Service(s).

waster81

View wrote: »

Barry's employer is broke due to its own actions and inactions. The State makes the laws, sets the taxes, regulatory framework and enforces rules related to all of the above. The private sector does not do this and cannot do this. So please stop trying to make out that the private sector is to blame for the actions and inactions of the Government and Public (and/or Civil) Service(s).

Oh so the private sector had nothing got to do with the crisis, gotcha all the public service fault.

SkepticOne

waster81 wrote: »

Oh so the private sector had nothing got to do with the crisis, gotcha all the public service fault.

Can you see that saying that members of the private sector have only themselves to blame for not being good enough to get a job in the public sector is not going to garner sympathy when members of the same public sector overpay for houses?

waster81

Not looking to garner sympathy for anyone.

SkepticOne

waster81 wrote: »

Not looking to garner sympathy for anyone.

Unlike Barry here:

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.

waster81

SkepticOne wrote: »

Unlike Barry here: [/I]

IM sure you could find someone in the private service who feels the same, maybe even a bank employee who received a pay increase.