"Sure, aren't we giving billions to the banks?"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is there no merit in highlighting unfairness?
Whatever about the bailout, the pay rises in Anglo and the u-turn of senior CS cuts is blatantly unfair.

And while I agree that people shouldn't use the line 'sure aren't we giving billions to the banks' as an excuse not to take cuts or to lobby for money for their specific cause it is legitimate to point out areas where that money may be used to better effect - other than throwing it in the hole that is Anglo. Job creation is one area or incentivising people to hire more people or start a new business or even spending it on infrastructural projects like broadband and energy and rail???

dean21

i would not give them a penny
But i would jail any banker that got a bigger bonus for getting irish people in to more debit

aoboa

An international financial crisis and a burst property bubble have resulted in falling tax take and rising unemployment causing stress on the public coffers.
The government pour borrowed money into the banks - private, profit making institutions. Then demand we all, public and private sector, take pay cuts and suck it up.
These same banks who won't lend to SMEs so they can invest in creating new business and jobs. The same banks you have reduced mortgage lending to a minimum. The same banks who've been taking pay rises.
And you complain about people being annoyed about it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dannyboy83

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nail.Hammer.Head.

Stark

Laminations wrote: »

Is there no merit in highlighting unfairness?
Whatever about the bailout, the pay rises in Anglo and the u-turn of senior CS cuts is blatantly unfair.

Definitely. And there are plenty of threads on the site highlighting the issues with the banks. But two wrongs don't make a right. Ireland had major issues with wastage of public money well before the economy suffered a correction, all paid for by people who are now in negative equity. Anger at bailouts should be directly at source, not used as an excuse to continue with wasteful boom time practices.

aoboa

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Anger is what is fuelling a huge amount of posts in this forum and most of it is misplaced and misinformed. The same argument can be applied to the majority of arguments on here in favour of pay cuts/privatising/sacking the cs/ps.

Laminations

Stark wrote: »

Definitely. And there are plenty of threads on the site highlighting the issues with the banks. But two wrongs don't make a right. Ireland had major issues with wastage of public money well before the economy suffered a correction, all paid for by people who are now in negative equity. Anger at bailouts should be directly at source, not used as an excuse to continue with wasteful boom time practices.

I agree with you.
So we are all f***ed, now you take a pay cut and I'll take a pay rise.

We either all live in reality and have the pretense of fairness or we treat people very differently and create industrial unrest

aoboa

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If the money was spent on infrastructure projects, the dole queues would shorten and the pressure of social welfare would ease. Putting the nation back to work is the priority. The vast majority of people on the dole are construction or related industries.

Laminations

Its not the bank bailout I'm p***ed at, its mainly just the Anglo part. Nationalising that bank hung a giant load of debt around this countrys head. We are pumping in money that could be used to ease unemployment like the above poster says.

Why should a PS worker take a pay cut because you have taken one in the private sector??

Because we have no money.

Having no money should mean that savings are made in an equitable fashion in the PS, i.e. no pay rises, no u-turns, no unvouched expenses, no plateauing pension levy for higher earners...

Its all about fairness

BlaasForRafa

aoboa wrote: »

Anger is what is fuelling a huge amount of posts in this forum and most of it is misplaced and misinformed. The same argument can be applied to the majority of arguments on here in favour of pay cuts/privatising/sacking the cs/ps.

Its not misplaced at all, the ps is in large part overpaid in comparison to private sector workers and is less productive. It is when this is pointed out in relation to cuts in pay and bonuses that the ps workers on here launched into the "well we're giving billions to the banks" diatribes.

aoboa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its not misplaced at all, the ps is in large part overpaid in comparison to private sector workers and is less productive. It is when this is pointed out in relation to cuts in pay and bonuses that the ps workers on here launched into the "well we're giving billions to the banks" diatribes.

The majority is misplaced. The majority are calling for sackings and privatisation, only a minority make fair and balanced points. The majority are also more annoyed with the unions than the government or the banks which is incredible.
What is needed is reform of the public service and social welfare, not the blood that the majority are screaming for here. Reform is something that the current government will not approach. So, yes, IMO it is misplaced and misinformed.

NinjaTruncs

Laminations wrote: »

Why should a PS worker take a pay cut because you have taken one in the private sector??

I believe it was sold as benchmarking in the boom years.

Tipp Man

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

top post fella

I said this ages ago on here and it fell on deaf ears, its a nice phrase for the unions to use, the public servants lap it up, but completly misses the state of our finances

The key thing for me is this:

even if we were spending nothing whatsoever on the financial system, we still would be unable to afford our €20 billion+ welfare system, our €20 billion+ public sector, and an enormous raft of other expensive projectsa

This is what needs to be highlighted every single time that phrase is usd

Tipp Man

Laminations wrote: »

Why should a PS worker take a pay cut because you have taken one in the private sector??

Because we have no money.

Having no money should mean that savings are made in an equitable fashion in the PS, i.e. no pay rises, no u-turns, no unvouched expenses, no plateauing pension levy for higher earners...

Its all about fairness

This is your answer

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

I believe it was sold as benchmarking in the boom years.

coupled with the fact that the state is broke. Ye received fine payrise in the 2000's to bring about PS reform, it wasn't done, now we can't afford not to do the reform

MilanPan!c

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If we had an infinite supply of money then yes, these things wouldn't be connected, but when you can't spend on one thing because you've spent it on another, the two things are related.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

me_right_one

aoboa wrote: »

The majority is misplaced. The majority are calling for sackings and privatisation, only a minority make fair and balanced points. The majority are also more annoyed with the unions than the government or the banks which is incredible.

Whats so incredible about it? The govt fcuked up, then screwed us all (private and ps workers) to pay for their mistakes. Then, as if that wasnt bad enough, the ones who are getting away the lightest, the PS and their unions, refuse to muck in and help get things back on track while the house burns down. THATS whats incredible!

aoboa

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What makes you think I'm PS/CS? I'm not.
I was against benchmarking at the time BUT:
Let me ask you this:
Who was responsible for checking up on the implimentation of reforms promised under benchmarking?
Also, what exactly were the reforms you mention that were promised under benchmarking?
Who is responsible for the failure to impliment or indeed ask for these reforms promised?
Hint 1: the answer isn't the demonised unions or PS/CS.

aoboa

me_right_one wrote: »

Whats so incredible about it? The govt fcuked up, then screwed us all (private and ps workers) to pay for their mistakes. Then, as if that wasnt bad enough, the ones who are getting away the lightest, the PS and their unions, refuse to muck in and help get things back on track while the house burns down. THATS whats incredible!

Refuse to muck in? Levy, pension levy, pay cut, prsi increase and health levy?
Where have you been?

NinjaTruncs

MilanPan!c wrote: »

If we had an infinite supply of money then yes, these things wouldn't be connected, but when you can't spend on one thing because you've spent it on another, the two things are related.

Not quite true, it's not that we can't spend on both, it's we can't borrow for both. Our spending has become bloated and as pointed out even if we hadn't bailed out the banks we would still have a 20Bn + deficit that would need to be resolved.

During the pseudo-boom years (i don't consider it to be a real boom) whenever we had a surplus we spent it, increasing PS wages, SW payments and so on, now that we don't have the money everything that was given needs to be taken back, at least to some extent.

Gigiwagga

Tipp Man wrote: »

top post fella

I said this ages ago on here and it fell on deaf ears, its a nice phrase for the unions to use, the public servants lap it up, but completly misses the state of our finances

The key thing for me is this:

even if we were spending nothing whatsoever on the financial system, we still would be unable to afford our €20 billion+ welfare system, our €20 billion+ public sector, and an enormous raft of other expensive projectsa

This is what needs to be highlighted every single time that phrase is usd

I agree with this understanding of the situation. But I would go a good bit further again. Yes we need major cut backs in all the areas mentioned but we need other massive changes. Firstly legislation needs to be put in place that removes the 'Civil servant jobs for life' scenario all people employed by the state (us) should be employed on a performance basis, which would be under annual review by the state (us), as any other employer would require.
Secondly regarding the banks, I consider banks to be middlemen and I don't really understand why the middleman should be of greater priority than the producer or consumer as without the first and third no business can take place. All the banks do is facilitate the business between the producer and the consumer, nothing else when you strip the layers away. Brians Cowan and Lenihan repeatedly state how important it is to save the bank first, since business can't function without them, this is not true, business will always function, people will always trade. However Banks CANNOT function without producers and consumers EVER. They facilitate our business and that is all.
I think it is bloody daft to throw such vast amounts of money to the banks.
Alan Dukes is very much mistaken, and, I think misjudging the situation at Anglo.
With the current state of things and the direction of the government, I think we are deeply ******. Eventually people will take to the streets, they will have no other choice. The drill needs to go down a couple more feet, before even the optimists on threads like this start feeling the pain, the big pain, not the 10% paycuts they've suffered. Hundreds of businesses have gone in this country, all that hard won goodwill with it, a far more valuable asset to any nation than a corrupt financial sector.

I'm waiting for the first Nationwide WTF Protest.

And Enda can go take a flying ****.

me_right_one

aoboa wrote: »

Refuse to muck in? Levy, pension levy, pay cut, prsi increase and health levy?
Where have you been?

Ireland. Where have YOU been? What PLANET specifically?

I dont know whether your attitude is more "let them eat cake" or " please sir, can I have some more"? A dispicable bit of both I think.


Lets just compare.

Year, 1975.
Pat leaves school. Family cant afford secondary. Gets labourer job on buildings in dublin.
Risteard put through college, Daddy knows someone in FF, gets him into civil service.

Year, 1980.
Pat, carpenter, takes whatever work he can, survival lifestyle. Emigrates.
Risteard, revenue inspector. Guaranteed job, steady incrementing wage.

Year 1990.
Pat gathers enough to come home and take out 25 yr mtge, more work available here. Earns middling amount, builds bungalow.
Risteard got promoted, pension increase, benchmarking etc. Takes foreign hol every year. Gets 25 yr mtge and buys house in castleknock, dublin.

Year 2000.
Pat cant believe his luck. After 20 years, he finally earns decent wage, something along the lines of Risteards'. Actually has to compete with emmigrants in Ireland!!!
Risteard has another promo, pension getting fatter, early retirment on the horizon. Decides to stay on either way.

Year 2010.
Oh dear. Pats good wage didnt last too long. Back to reality with a bang. 400,000 younger, more qualified people to compete with in a defunkt "construction:rolleyes:" sector. Levy, pay cut, and prsi increase applied. Pat has no pension, so no pension levy, and no health levy. Finally job folds. Too old now to ever be employed again. Will be on the dole for his remaining working years. 5 years left on mtge.
Risteard has exact same as Pat applied, income levy, pension levy (cos Risteard has a pension), pay cut, prsi increase and health levy, and still has his GUARANTEED job. Wipes mtge out before inevitable intrest-rate hike, no debt.



Now, granting you the enormous liberty of putting all that aside, and just working off a snapshot of the present, here's the situation:

Year 2010
Pat: No income, no hope of getting job, 5 years of mtge left to pay, no savings, no pension. Gray-man syndrome. 400,000 in same boat.
Risteard: Guaranteed job, good wage (even with recent cuts), pension accumilating, no debt. Decides this is not enough for him, and goes on a "work-to-rule":mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


Now tell me who's refusing to "muck in"!!!

Laminations

me_right_one wrote: »

Ireland. Where have YOU been? What PLANET specifically?

I dont know whether your attitude is more "let them eat cake" or " please sir, can I have some more"? A dispicable bit of both I think.


Lets just compare.

Year, 1975.
Pat leaves school. Family cant afford secondary. Gets labourer job on buildings in dublin.
Risteard put through college, Daddy knows someone in FF, gets him into civil service.

Year, 1980.
Pat, carpenter, takes whatever work he can, survival lifestyle. Emigrates.
Risteard, revenue inspector. Guaranteed job, steady incrementing wage.

Year 1990.
Pat gathers enough to come home and take out 25 yr mtge, more work available here. Earns middling amount, builds bungalow.
Risteard got promoted, pension increase, benchmarking etc. Takes foreign hol every year. Gets 25 yr mtge and buys house in castleknock, dublin.

Year 2000.
Pat cant believe his luck. After 20 years, he finally earns decent wage, something along the lines of Risteards'. Actually has to compete with emmigrants in Ireland!!!
Risteard has another promo, pension getting fatter, early retirment on the horizon. Decides to stay on either way.

Year 2010.
Oh dear. Pats good wage didnt last too long. Back to reality with a bang. 400,000 younger, more qualified people to compete with in a defunkt "construction:rolleyes:" sector. Levy, pay cut, and prsi increase applied. Pat has no pension, so no pension levy, and no health levy. Finally job folds. Too old now to ever be employed again. Will be on the dole for his remaining working years. 5 years left on mtge.
Risteard has exact same as Pat applied, income levy, pension levy (cos Risteard has a pension), pay cut, prsi increase and health levy, and still has his GUARANTEED job. Wipes mtge out before inevitable intrest-rate hike, no debt.



Now, granting you the enormous liberty of putting all that aside, and just working off a snapshot of the present, here's the situation:

Year 2010
Pat: No income, no hope of getting job, 5 years of mtge left to pay, no savings, no pension. Gray-man syndrome. 400,000 in same boat.
Risteard: Guaranteed job, good wage (even with recent cuts), pension accumilating, no debt. Decides this is not enough for him, and goes on a "work-to-rule":mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


Now tell me who's refusing to "muck in"!!!

you make out like there is a class divide between public and private sector workers? Pat, in your example had choices all the way along, as did Risteard. The reason public service jobs are guaranteed is because we need public services. They've always been jobs for life, Pat would have known this since the 70s even if he did drop out of school. Your argument makes you sound bitter.

PS workers should take pay cuts as a sort of reverse benchmarking and because their employer, like private employers, dont have the money. Why should anyone (public or private) pay up now for the reason you give, to placate someone who dropped out of school in the 70s?

aoboa

me_right_one wrote: »

Ireland. Where have YOU been? What PLANET specifically?

I dont know whether your attitude is more "let them eat cake" or " please sir, can I have some more"? A dispicable bit of both I think.


Lets just compare.

Year, 1975.
Pat leaves school. Family cant afford secondary. Gets labourer job on buildings in dublin.
Risteard put through college, Daddy knows someone in FF, gets him into civil service.

Year, 1980.
Pat, carpenter, takes whatever work he can, survival lifestyle. Emigrates.
Risteard, revenue inspector. Guaranteed job, steady incrementing wage.

Year 1990.
Pat gathers enough to come home and take out 25 yr mtge, more work available here. Earns middling amount, builds bungalow.
Risteard got promoted, pension increase, benchmarking etc. Takes foreign hol every year. Gets 25 yr mtge and buys house in castleknock, dublin.

Year 2000.
Pat cant believe his luck. After 20 years, he finally earns decent wage, something along the lines of Risteards'. Actually has to compete with emmigrants in Ireland!!!
Risteard has another promo, pension getting fatter, early retirment on the horizon. Decides to stay on either way.

Year 2010.
Oh dear. Pats good wage didnt last too long. Back to reality with a bang. 400,000 younger, more qualified people to compete with in a defunkt "construction:rolleyes:" sector. Levy, pay cut, and prsi increase applied. Pat has no pension, so no pension levy, and no health levy. Finally job folds. Too old now to ever be employed again. Will be on the dole for his remaining working years. 5 years left on mtge.
Risteard has exact same as Pat applied, income levy, pension levy (cos Risteard has a pension), pay cut, prsi increase and health levy, and still has his GUARANTEED job. Wipes mtge out before inevitable intrest-rate hike, no debt.



Now, granting you the enormous liberty of putting all that aside, and just working off a snapshot of the present, here's the situation:

Year 2010
Pat: No income, no hope of getting job, 5 years of mtge left to pay, no savings, no pension. Gray-man syndrome. 400,000 in same boat.
Risteard: Guaranteed job, good wage (even with recent cuts), pension accumilating, no debt. Decides this is not enough for him, and goes on a "work-to-rule":mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


Now tell me who's refusing to "muck in"!!!

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
Too much wrong with that to bother with e.g. your bizarre class divide suggesting that the PS/CS is at least middle class and that benchmarking happened in 1990's (2002 actually) - just 2 things.
Replace Risteard with Tomo who got a job in a bank at the same time to see the absurdity of it.

aoboa

And once again, I'm a private sector employee.

Elevator

why don't we consider lagalising and taxing cannibas like they are in california, would throw a lot of money into the econemy very fast and cheers a lot of us up in the process

oppenheimer1

Laminations wrote: »

Is there no merit in highlighting unfairness?
Whatever about the bailout, the pay rises in Anglo and the u-turn of senior CS cuts is blatantly unfair.

And while I agree that people shouldn't use the line 'sure aren't we giving billions to the banks' as an excuse not to take cuts or to lobby for money for their specific cause it is legitimate to point out areas where that money may be used to better effect - other than throwing it in the hole that is Anglo. Job creation is one area or incentivising people to hire more people or start a new business or even spending it on infrastructural projects like broadband and energy and rail???

Would it be fair if those who were in a more junior position than you were getting paid more. The cuts to senior staff were reversed due to the way the reductions were structured some grades at the upper end, near the thresholds were getting paid less than those below them. Or so I believe.

danman

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Would it be fair if those who were in a more junior position than you were getting paid more. The cuts to senior staff were reversed due to the way the reductions were structured some grades at the upper end, near the thresholds were getting paid less than those below them. Or so I believe.

No, I think, they were being paid a bonus before and that was cut. So they counted this as part of their salary. When the bonus and the eventual paycut were taken, it was in line with the budget paycut.

This doesn't excuse the reversal, it should have stood.
A bonus should not be seen as a part of a salary, but exactly that, a bonus for aims achieved on top of your salary.

Stark

There was an issue on top of that with the higher rate cuts being flat cuts across all of salary, whereas the lower rate cuts were graduated: 5% on first portion of income, 7.5% on next portion, 10% on the next. That meant that people just above the high salary threshold were having their pay reduced to levels lower than more junior employees.

The mechanism of cuts has been very badly handled, but when you take into account the removal of the 10% annual bonus (granted, it shouldn't have been there in the first place without conditions attached), it does work out to an effective take home pay cut as promised in the budget. (Ideally in my view, they should have taken a paycut and have had performance targets attached to their bonuses).

danman

That makes perfect sense to me now that you put it that way.

I suppose it's a PR disaster though.
I can understand why they wouldn't want to have a cut, ending with them having less of a salary than their subordinates.

But it goes to show, how badly this was thought out.

When the cuts were announced in the budget, I felt it was fair, the higher earners had a bigger %. I know the first thing I did was work out my wifes cut.
I realised that it could have been much worse.

sorry, I've gone off topic.

irishh_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you have to realise , public servants were briefed by their unions on what slogans to use when confronted with the issue of pay cuts

WE DIDNT CAUSE THIS MESS
PRIVATE SECTOR CREAMED IT DURING THE BOOM WHILE WE WERE LAUGHED AT
THE MEDIA HAVE THIER HAND UP THE ENTIRE POPULATIONS ASS , THATS THE ONLY REASON YOU,S THINK WE ARE OVER PAID AND OVER STAFFED

THE BANKS

its all recycled union rhetoric , very little independant thought at work

danman

Bob,
I don't think they were briefed by anyone, but they believe the spin because it suits their agenda.

My wife voted against industrial action because she see the bigger picture. She was pished off, of course, with the cuts, but we had expected worse to be honest.

irishh_bob

danman wrote: »

Bob,
I don't think they were briefed by anyone, but they believe the spin because it suits their agenda.

My wife voted against industrial action because she see the bigger picture. She was pished off, of course, with the cuts, but we had expected worse to be honest.

if you read internet forums , watch tv or listen to radio , to the last man and woman like clones , public sector workers come out with the same lines every time on Q , unions hold meetings all the time , im convinced they held tuition camps this past year though

murf313

irishh_bob wrote: »

if you read internet forums , watch tv or listen to radio , to the last man and woman like clones , public sector workers come out with the same lines every time on Q , unions hold meetings all the time , im convinced they held tuition camps this past year though

in fairness, its the same for the other side. anti ps rants about laziness, 10 tea breaks a day, gold plated pensions, the country cant afford it etc etc.

kettle, pot, black

its stupid to think that there were tuition camps btw....

danman

murf313 wrote: »

its stupid to think that there were tuition camps btw....

Ah, it'd be funny though.

Imagine the timetable.....

10.30 am - beard trimming classes.

11.00 am - slogan training.

11.30 am - tea break.

12.00 pm - ...........

aoboa

murf313 wrote: »

in fairness, its the same for the other side. anti ps rants about laziness, 10 tea breaks a day, gold plated pensions, the country cant afford it etc etc.

kettle, pot, black

its stupid to think that there were tuition camps btw....

Absolutely.

ParkRunner

If the banks can't meet their liabilities who will pay the banks debts?

aoboa

EF wrote: »

If the banks can't meet their liabilities who will pay the banks debts?

Why are the banks different from every other industry or person for that matter?
Why do we even need banks in their current form? A bank account being a necessity is only a recent development - last 20 years. Why do you need one?

ParkRunner

aoboa wrote: »

Why are the banks different from every other industry or person for that matter?
Why do we even need banks in their current form? A bank account being a necessity is only a recent development - last 20 years. Why do you need one?

The problem is we have the bank guarantee in place so someone is going to have to pay the debts

waster81

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I suppose its no more logical than the amount of posts derising every single public servant as lazy, incompetent.
Lost count the amount of posts about that.

aoboa

EF wrote: »

The problem is we have the bank guarantee in place so someone is going to have to pay the debts

Not for long though. It runs out soon enough doesn;t it?

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

you make out like there is a class divide between public and private sector workers?

yes a 30% divide to be exact

weren't you the one harping on about class divides in that recent long thread in politics forum about socialism/liberalism/communism etc

ParkRunner

aoboa wrote: »

Not for long though. It runs out soon enough doesn;t it?

True but what happens then? Let the banking system fail? I doubt they will