more paycuts for ps workers in budget 2011

unit 1

OK, so croke park deal looks shaky. If it's rejected, (likely) what's the thinking on further paycuts in budget 2011 in december.

thebman

If its rejected, it gives the government the perfect platform to push through whatever they want in the way of reforms and pay cuts to the public sector citing that they tried to negotiate and they were refused.

It is about the only thing that seems to cause FF to rise in opinion polls ATM and they know they have the unions in a rock and a hard place which is why the deal wasn't fair to begin with.

The unions will reject it and most likely screw themselves over although if they accepted it they'd jus be slightly less screwed IMO.

PeakOutput

all the talk is that there will be a further 8% cut in th next budget if the deal is rejected plus whatever tax reforms are brought in for everyone

unit 1

PeakOutput wrote: »

all the talk is that there will be a further 8% cut in th next budget if the deal is rejected plus whatever tax reforms are brought in for everyone

I have "heard" this talk but wonder what the precise source is, as the unions don't seem to be giving it any legs one way or another.
To be honest as a coco employee many workers are totally demoralised, and quite frankly are likely to be led by the nose if this paycut rumour is confirmed.

PeakOutput

unit 1 wrote: »

I have "heard" this talk but wonder what the precise source is, as the unions don't seem to be giving it any legs one way or another.
To be honest as a coco employee many workers are totally demoralised, and quite frankly are likely to be led by the nose if this paycut rumour is confirmed.

if the unions reject the deal it really dosnt matter what they think all bets are off the goverment will make the necessary cuts and there will be widespread massive strikes that could last a very long time

luckily i believe the goverment have the stomach to hold out this time

changes

PeakOutput wrote: »

if the unions reject the deal it really dosnt matter what they think all bets are off the goverment will make the necessary cuts and there will be widespread massive strikes that could last a very long time

luckily i believe the goverment have the stomach to hold out this time

I think it will be passed.

If it isn't passed and the government cut another 8% then the resulting industrial action will be much better supported by the public servants. It would be a very messy 2011 and hopefully it would bring down fianna fail.

PeakOutput

changes wrote: »

I think it will be passed.

If it isn't passed and the government cut another 8% then the resulting industrial action will be much better supported by the public servants. It would be a very messy 2011 and hopefully it would bring down fianna fail.

at the moment it dosnt look like its eve close to being passed

fianna fail are gone anyway no matter what they do they will not be the next goverment. between now and then i do believe they will do their best to right the mess they have caused

if there are more cuts im sure the entire public sector will be striking but as i said the goverment and the general public will outlast them

IrishTonyO

If it's not passed, I would say the government has carte blanche to make any changes they want. The unions will oppose, and there may be strikes, but I honestly believe the strikes would be short lived as the unions do not have the funds for any long term action. Also when the normal unions members see the government is serious, they might change their attitude. I still think there are a majority of union members (the silent majority) who realise the situation already, and therefore I still think there is a reasonable chance that the deal will be accepted.

changes

If its not passed the first time it would take the following path imo:

• Government cuts pay again by 8% in december

• Public sector strike

• Government back track on new paycut

• PS vote again and accept the deal.

they may aswell accept it now!!!

Silvio.Dante

I'd say they'll go for a graded paycut..:

Up to 30K 3%

30-50K 5%

50-100K 7%

100K+ 10%

tunney

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'd say they'll go for a graded paycut..:

Up to 30K 3%

30-50K 5%

50-100K 7%

100K+ 10%

This would have nothing to do that you spend more time d!cking on boards than working and as such are still on < 30k?

Why should those with valuable skills be punished percentage wise more than those who, in all honesty, only skill was probably passing an entrance exam?

Silvio.Dante

tunney wrote: »

This would have nothing to do that you spend more time d!cking on boards than working

Same tired old rehash

Try and post from a position of knowledge eh?

By the way you forgot the interview. I charmed the pants off them Not literally :eek:

OMD

Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

Silvio.Dante

OMD wrote: »

Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

Thats a possibility.

Welease

OMD wrote: »

Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

Is that really feasable though? Cuts of 3 billion need to be found (1b capital). Freezing of increments would curtail future liabilities, but doesn't contribute to a reduction of existing expenditure to the levels required.

OMD

Welease wrote: »

Is that really feasable though? Cuts of 3 billion need to be found (1b capital). Freezing of increments would curtail future liabilities, but doesn't contribute to a reduction of existing expenditure to the levels required.

I didn't mean it was the only thing, I just meant in terms of the OPs question there wouldn't be more pay cuts. Obviously there will be job losses (natural), reduction in overtime and reductions for current and future pensioners (which really should have been done in last budget). Also the much talked about "efficiency savings"
There will also have to be tax changes mainly at lower end so probably a reduction in tax bands. Further cuts in social welfare and childrens allowance.

changes

OMD wrote: »

Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

The unions should be seeking assurances on both increments and pension levy before the vote if they don't then they have let their members down.

rightwingdub

Rumoured pay cuts of 8% are absolutely miserly if the financially illiterate public sector priveleged class reject the Croker deal.

There needs to be the following pay cuts made in the next budget.

<30,000 5%
30,001-€45,000 7%
€45,001- 80,000 9%
€80,001- €110,000 12%
€110,001- €140,000 15%
€140,001 onwards 18%

Thats whats required and needs to be done in Budget 2011 if public sector workers reject the Croke Park deal, for cyring out loud ps workers don't realise how lucky they are.

dvpower

OMD wrote: »

Much more likely is a freeze on all pay increments. Unions will be unable to claim their pay was cut, government holds the upper hand.

I was under the impression that increments were already frozen.
Is this not the case?

Sarn

dvpower wrote: »

I was under the impression that increments were already frozen.
Is this not the case?

Increments are not frozen. But not everybody gets them. This would affect the junior staff who would not be at the top of their scale.

danman

dvpower wrote: »

I was under the impression that increments were already frozen.
Is this not the case?

According to CO posters on this site, the take home pay (might as well use the usual PS payscale, net) for a clerical officer on the CS is €400/week.

With incriments and paycuts/pension levy, they have lost €9/week.
2 years ago (again, according to CO posters on this site), the take home pay was €409. Less than a 2% cut.

Sarn

I can't imagine the cut was that small. Speaking for myself, taking into account the increment I got, paycut, pension levy and all the other levies/taxes that came in for everyone I'm down just over 18%.

The fall out should be interesting to see if/when the deal is rejected. To be honest I was amazed that the government had offered that there would be no more pay cuts for the PS.

Powerhouse

PeakOutput wrote: »

all the talk is that there will be a further 8% cut in th next budget if the deal is rejected plus whatever tax reforms are brought in for everyone

What is the original source for this 'talk' I wonder? This was a front page story in a newspaper recently but then again so was a claim that the Icelandic volcano could go on spewing for years, which though possible presumably seems difficult to predict accurately.

It is hard to believe that the government would be thinking of a pay cut of another 8 per cent on top of what had gone on given that they sat down and thrashed out a deal with the unions to have no pay cuts for a few years.

If they feel another 8 per cent paycut is necessary (and God help us all if they do as it means they have given up all hope) then why on earth agree to no paycuts at Croke Park?

I would presume the source of this is a government official giving a journalist pal a bit of a juicy bone for his Sunday story while sending a "don't fcuk with us" message to the workers.

PeakOutput

Powerhouse wrote: »

If they feel another 8 per cent paycut is necessary (and God help us all if they do as it means they have given up all hope) then why on earth agree to no paycuts at Croke Park?

because savings can be made with reforms and efficiency improvements

the goverment have said all along if the unions can find the necessary savings elsewhere in the public service they will do it, they cant or wont so all thats left is pay

without the agreement there wont be any reforms or efficiency improvements so we have to get the savings somehow so its back to cutting wages

Powerhouse

PeakOutput wrote: »

the goverment have said all along if the unions can find the necessary savings elsewhere in the public service they will do it, they cant or wont so all thats left is pay

It is strange situation that the unions are the ones left to find the necessary savings elsewhere considering it's the government's gig.

It seems unlikely that the government could be so obsequious as you suggest in dealing with the unions on reform and savings elsewhere and then be prepared to come over all John Wayne on an 8 per cent paycut.

PeakOutput

Powerhouse wrote: »

It is strange situation that the unions are the ones left to find the necessary savings elsewhere considering it's the government's gig.

It seems unlikely that the government could be so obsequious as you suggest in dealing with the unions on reform and savings elsewhere and then be prepared to come over all John Wayne on an 8 per cent paycut.

well i reckon its because they know that any reforms they come up with has to be approved by the unions anyway or there will be industrial

so there are 3 ways to procede

cut their pay and put up with industrial action

come up with reforms and put up with industrial action

or tell them to find the reforms and implement them or their pay will be cut and then put up with industrial action

at least the last way gives the appearance that they are giving the unions every opportunity necessary to work out a solution that they are happy with, so when the industrial action inevitably comes around (as it has) the goverment has maximum public support(which they do)

now thats just my reading of it but i think it makes sense

unit 1

What on earth are the government at? If as sugested they want savings from the unions or 8% paycut, then why are they making the running with this operation transformation thingy. How can unions make savings if they are'nt in control of the "reform" package, which seems to be a carte blanche for the government.
Yet again I ask where did this 8% figure come from and is it verifiable from any official government source, or is it a red herring to help nervous union leaders sell this non deal.

PeakOutput

unit 1 wrote: »

Yet again I ask where did this 8% figure come from and is it verifiable from any official government source

google is your friend

Powerhouse

PeakOutput wrote: »

well i reckon its because they know that any reforms they come up with has to be approved by the unions anyway or there will be industrial

so there are 3 ways to procede

cut their pay and put up with industrial action

come up with reforms and put up with industrial action

or tell them to find the reforms and implement them or their pay will be cut and then put up with industrial action

at least the last way gives the appearance that they are giving the unions every opportunity necessary to work out a solution that they are happy with, so when the industrial action inevitably comes around (as it has) the goverment has maximum public support(which they do)

now thats just my reading of it but i think it makes sense

But if the government is concerned about industrial action I would say the last thing they'll want to do is cut wages significantly.

And I would disagree on your last point. I'm not sure public support comes into it. I think the "public support" the government has a) does not give a rat's ass about apparent fair play to the unions and b) will not carry this support into an election anyway.

PeakOutput

Powerhouse wrote: »

But if the government is concerned about industrial action I would say the last thing they'll want to do is cut wages significantly.

my point was industrial action is inevitable no matter what happens how they set themselves up to succede in saving the country in the face of this industrial action is important

And I would disagree on your last point. I'm not sure public support comes into it. I think the "public support" the government has a) does not give a rat's ass about apparent fair play to the unions and b) will not carry this support into an election anyway.

fianna fail are gone int he next election(rightly so) and im pretty sure they realise this. i also believe that in the mean time they are making an honest effort to get the country back on track and part of this will be the public sector changes. to succede in these changes they need public support to face down the unions because at the end of the day its the public who are going to be affected by the strikes

EoghanRua

PeakOutput wrote: »

my point was industrial action is inevitable no matter what happens how they set themselves up to succede in saving the country in the face of this industrial action is important

Strikes are certainly not inevitable. Mind you if they do happen what good is public support for the government? They will inevitably have to sit down and renegotiate anyway in the end. This is the public service - by definition services which cannot be done without so facing down strikes is a theoretical option only.

And if the government is interested in saving the country then they need to reconsider the billions they are chucking away in other areas. But it's a bit late for that at this stage I suppose.

IrishTonyO

EoghanRua wrote: »

Strikes are certainly not inevitable. Mind you if they do happen what good is public support for the government? They will inevitably have to sit down and renegotiate anyway in the end. This is the public service - by definition services which cannot be done without so facing down strikes is a theoretical option only.

And if the government is interested in saving the country then they need to reconsider the billions they are chucking away in other areas. But it's a bit late for that at this stage I suppose.

The government does not have to sit down and renegotiate, it can say we negotiated,your leaders negotiated and accepted, you refused, so here are our reforms like them or lump them. It will give them carte blanche for public service reforms.

Liam Byrne

tunney wrote: »

This would have nothing to do that you spend more time d!cking on boards than working and as such are still on < 30k?

Why should those with valuable skills be punished percentage wise more than those who, in all honesty, only skill was probably passing an entrance exam?

Pretty condescending, tbh.....

Answer this....who could you live without - an Anglo CEO or the local dustbin man ?

I know which of those I'd consider worth their pay. :mad:

danman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Pretty condescending, tbh.....

Answer this....who could you live without - an Anglo CEO or the local dustbin man ?

I know which of those I'd consider worth their pay. :mad:

To be fair Liam, he was talking about the PS, not a PS worker and a private worker.

A better example would be the dustman and a surgeon.

murphaph

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Pretty condescending, tbh.....

Answer this....who could you live without - an Anglo CEO or the local dustbin man ?

I know which of those I'd consider worth their pay. :mad:

Ridiculous comparison.

Why do the PS supporters always assume an "Anglo CEO" is somehow representative of the private sector.

The truth is that the Anglo CEO was clearly overpaid but that doesn't mean the binman isn't overpaid too Liam!! We can only afford what we can afford, NO MORE! Borrowing money to pay wages is not an acceptable legacy to hand on to my kids. We are already lumbering them with the possibility of NAMA liabilities. We've done enough potential damage to future generations by overpaying ourselves and wasting money on flash cars, sh!tty houses and plasma TVs. Enough is enough, time to get back to basics at realistic pay levels which compare with Eurozone and UK averages at most.

Count Dooku

rightwingdub wrote: »

Rumoured pay cuts of 8% are absolutely miserly if the financially illiterate public sector priveleged class reject the Croker deal.

There needs to be the following pay cuts made in the next budget.

<30,000 5%
30,001-€45,000 7%
€45,001- 80,000 9%
€80,001- €110,000 12%
€110,001- €140,000 15%
€140,001 onwards 18%

Thats whats required and needs to be done in Budget 2011 if public sector workers reject the Croke Park deal, for cyring out loud ps workers don't realise how lucky they are.

There is no reason to touch low paid workers and would leave <30K without any cuts
It make more sense to double cuts on higher scale, because managers or senior staff strikes will not affect anybody

granturismo

unit 1 wrote: »

Yet again I ask where did this 8% figure come from and is it verifiable from any official government source, or is it a red herring to help nervous union leaders sell this non deal.

The first time I saw it was on the front page of the Sunday Times, 10 April and it was attributed to an 'unnamed government source'. Later that week Cowan didnt confirm it but wouldnt deny it either.

iIts just more sabre rattling from both sides, if the union members reject the deal, then the government will be able to argue that they have no choice but to cut salaries. I cant see how reform will have the same saving as 8% pay cut in 2011.

PeakOutput wrote: »

google is your friend

Very helpful.

P. Breathnach

Count Dooku wrote: »

There is no reason to touch low paid workers and would leave <30K without any cuts

The same reason exists to cut pay for the low-paid as for everybody else: the budgetary problem. Further, it has been pointed out a number of times in this forum that the "public service premium" is greater at the lower end of the pay scales than at the upper end.

It make more sense to double cuts on higher scale,

A case for imposing more severe cuts on of those who are highly paid can be considered, but it should be on its own merits rather than as a transfer of pain from one group of workers to another.

because managers or senior staff strikes will not affect anybody

First, I don't think that's true. Second, it's an unjust basis on which to make decisions.

PeakOutput

Count Dooku wrote: »

There is no reason to touch low paid workers and would leave <30K without any cuts
It make more sense to double cuts on higher scale, because managers or senior staff strikes will not affect anybody

thats simply not true

first of all there is plenty of reason to touch lower paid workers,there are not enough higher paid workers for them to be the only ones affected

secondly people respond to incentives, boss is on strike = im not gonna do as much work as there is no consequence to it but even if it that wasnt the case the first point stands

Liam Byrne

murphaph wrote: »

Ridiculous comparison.

Why do the PS supporters always assume an "Anglo CEO" is somehow representative of the private sector.

I am not a "PS supporter". I comment on things as I see them with no agenda or bias.

murphaph wrote: »

The truth is that the Anglo CEO was clearly overpaid but that doesn't mean the binman isn't overpaid too Liam!! We can only afford what we can afford, NO MORE! Borrowing money to pay wages is not an acceptable legacy to hand on to my kids. We are already lumbering them with the possibility of NAMA liabilities. We've done enough potential damage to future generations by overpaying ourselves and wasting money on flash cars, sh!tty houses and plasma TVs. Enough is enough, time to get back to basics at realistic pay levels which compare with Eurozone and UK averages at most.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you.

The reason that I replied like that was the snide comment that someone assumed that the PS worker was on boards all day, and also the fact that no-one was worth the money that the Anglo worker was on.

danman wrote: »

To be fair Liam, he was talking about the PS, not a PS worker and a private worker.

My example was intended to show two private sector workers (binmen are private sector as we have to pay private companies to collect bins) and was more a reply to the "Why should those with valuable skills be punished " part of the post - a binman is far more valuable / essential than a self-important CEO, and many, many jobs are more essential but not paid as such.

All that clarification aside, there is a fact that we don't have the money. This, however, isn't a PS vs private issue.......it applies to EVERYONE and applies to everything from insurance to bank interest rates to groceries and fuel prices - even to taxes, and EVERYONE needs to cop themselves on and work together to find a fair and sustainable level.....something that has been sadly lacking in this country for the last 10 years due to greed and profit hunting.

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

and also the fact that no-one was worth the money that the Anglo worker was on.

is that your opinion or you were responding to that assertion?

if its the former first of all like everything in a market economy what someone is worth is decided by the market not you. in the vast majority of cases these highly highly paid executives create so much more value then they are paid (employment / profits / investment returns / taxes on all of the above)

take the ceo of goldman sachs for example(and if you forget about the alleged fraud for just a moment as thats a seperate issue) if you add up the amount of value he has added to his company / his employees / his shareholders / the state they are based in and the countries they are based in all of a suddent their massive salary pales in signifigance.

did bill gates not deserve his massive salary and perks after creating the most successful software company in the world? in a world were he didnt deserve these things and therefore wasnt going to be paid them we would still be back in the days of using dos with no graphical interface becasue once again people respond to incentives, no incentives = no work = no economy. also using the same example we wouldnt have two billionaire philanthropists giving their entire wealth to the benefit of humanity(gates and buffet) as they would have no wealth to give

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The same reason exists to cut pay for the low-paid as for everybody else: the budgetary problem. Further, it has been pointed out a number of times in this forum that the "public service premium" is greater at the lower end of the pay scales than at the upper end.

A case for imposing more severe cuts on of those who are highly paid can be considered, but it should be on its own merits rather than as a transfer of pain from one group of workers to another.

First, I don't think that's true. Second, it's an unjust basis on which to make decisions.

Agreed with all that. If there is a greater premium for lower paid workers, then thy should see greater percentage cuts...that is perfectly fair. There are obviously highly skilled people working in the PS for 100k (not all of them I'm quite sure) and many of these could indeed leave (accountants etc.) for the private sector if their wages fell too much. The wasters who are on 100k just because they have been promoted up the ranks of course should just be let go.

I just want a PS that earns the same as the private sector (if the tax reneues are there to pay it), when all perks (including the pension) are factored into the equation. I don't want a poorly paid PS just for the craic, just a fairly paid one. I believe until the pension is made a defined contribution scheme it will always be hard to compare the compensation packages between the two sectors, but I believe it will come. When it comes, comparisons will be much easier.

Drumpot

Firstly . . Im not a public servant so admit its easy for me to say what cuts should or should not happen (in essence it doesnt take money directly from my pocket). . However, my own belief on this topic is asking a public servant to accept a paycut of any sort is like asking for turkeys to vote for christmas . I understand why public servants would be upset with all these cuts, but it doesnt change the fact that our books dont balance and we need to reduce our costs. .

Secondly . . I would personally prefer if most of the savings were made from public service reform, but this will take time . . Unfortunatley the longer we delay making appropriate savings, the more it will cost us and the longer it will take us to get out of this mess. Put simply, the tougher things are today, the quicker we will get out of this mess. . If that means severe cuts in public service costs and increased tax, then so be it. I would prefer that cuts happen now and while public service reforms trys to weed out the slackers of employment and eventually the hard working public servants would share in fair and deserved rewards down the road when things are back on track. . Put simply, any public servant who works hard for less now, should be well rewarded when the country gets back to its feet.

I think we have a superb opportunity to get out of this crisis quicker, but it will take combined , harsh pain on everybodys part. . Overpaid people in the private sector cannot be used to judge whats fair as that is the world we live in (capitalism) and while most of us can only look up at those in their ivory towers, it should not mean we should lose focus on the greater good of the country.

Once things are moving better, then we need to focus on getting jobs for the thousands of unemployed people. Couple that with finally demanding accountability (and heads to roll) in private and public service positions that let us all down. . Councellors, former head of financial regulator and Bankers/builders who were involved in fraudulent activities that led to the massive debts. Change the laws if people would potentially get off on technicalities.

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The same reason exists to cut pay for the low-paid as for everybody else: the budgetary problem. Further, it has been pointed out a number of times in this forum that the "public service premium" is greater at the lower end of the pay scales than at the upper end.

Taxpayer will not gain anything, because a lot of low paid PS workers will apply for FIS

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Second, it's an unjust basis on which to make decisions.

Question is not how to impose cuts in fair way, because fairness never will work on this selfish island, question is how to find solution, which will not affect much functioning of state bodies

PeakOutput wrote: »

secondly people respond to incentives, boss is on strike = im not gonna do as much work as there is no consequence to it but even if it that wasnt the case the first point stands

If low paid workers will decide do nothing, they will call it go-slow, work-to-rule and bosses will be not able to do anything against it
Passport office is good example

PeakOutput

Count Dooku wrote: »

Taxpayer will not gain anything, because a lot of low paid PS workers will apply for FIS

whats fis?

Question is not how to impose cuts in fair way, because fairness never will work on this selfish island, question is how to find solution, which will not affect much functioning of state bodies

emm i disagree the question is how to affect the funcitoning of the state bodies for the better in the long run. pay cuts in the short term and wide ranging reforms and improvements in the medium to long term sound like the way to do this to me

If low paid workers will decide do nothing, they will call it go-slow, work-to-rule and bosses will be not able to do anything against it
Passport office is good example

i was saying that your assertion that managers going on strike not having any affect on service and therefore your implication that these people play no role is completely wrong

MaceFace

Count Dooku wrote: »

There is no reason to touch low paid workers and would leave <30K without any cuts
It make more sense to double cuts on higher scale, because managers or senior staff strikes will not affect anybody

I will be honest in my opinion and not very PC about it, but every country needs poor people. That is, people who will do the crap jobs with low pay such as road sweepers, burger flippers, shop assistants, security guards, cleaners, janitors, hospital porters.

If you pay unskilled people 30k to do these jobs, it puts pressure right up through the chain on every other pay grade to keep them "in line" with the starting wage.

If we started being honest and accepted that someone who hangs off the back of a lorry and jumps off only to line up plastic containers with wheels to a lifting devide is no more skilled than my 15 year old nephew, then we can start paying them a fair wage, and that fair wage is not much higher than minimum. At least then, the overall costs in this country will come down and future generations will at least be able to get back to a place where they realise how rich or poor they are rather than what we had two years ago where everyone had the illusion of being well off because they owed the bank only a quarter of a million euro (if they are lucky).

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

... If there is a greater premium for lower paid workers, then thy should see greater percentage cuts...that is perfectly fair....

Nothing in life is perfectly fair. I was making the point that lower paid public servants should not be exempted from cuts without question.

I believe that, so far as it is feasible (which is not very far), any cuts should be imposed with as much consideration for people's difficulties as can be managed. If that means not wiping out the public service premium in one go, that's okay with me.

The reason why the public service premium is lower for those in senior positions is there are wide differentials between pay rates for junior and senior staff in the private sector (remember that the public service premium is based on comparing public sector pay to the nearest private sector equivalents). It can be argued that such wide differentials are unjust, and I would have some sympathy for such an argument. Accordingly, I think there might be merit in closing the gap between top pay in the public service and pay at entry-level grades (this was actually done both in the structuring of the pension levy and in the pay reductions).

changes

Aparrently 25 Billion is manageable now but the one billion taken from Public Servants is not..... what exactly is going on???


http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0413/esri.html

IrishTonyO

You leave out the bit where they say

"The ESRI also says the cost of saving the banking system is manageable, and it warns that a rejection of the Croke Park agreement by the public service unions could lead to higher borrowing costs for the Government."

PeakOutput

changes wrote: »

Aparrently 25 Billion is manageable now but the one billion taken from Public Servants is not..... what exactly is going on???


http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0413/esri.html

do you understand the concepts behind capital payments and running costs?

changes

PeakOutput wrote: »

do you understand the concepts behind capital payments and running costs?

I do,

But our 1 billion would probably have been 'manageable' also in the grand scheme of things after all most of that one billion would be spent in the economy. Where will this 25 billion go... a sizable chunk will rest comfortably in a vault somewhere i'd imagine!

Anyway i'm not one of the PS looking for paycut reversal, the one billion is gone. But I am dead against anymore paycuts, increases in pension levies or freezing of increments.