Job losses in the public sector

Tim Robbins

I was just thinking of something today. Several times I have heard Union leaders berate people for suggesting there have been no job loses in the public service. They'll say: "there are have been thousand of temporary workers who have lost their jobs".

This has to be sophistry at its very best. By definition these jobs from the very beginning were "temporary" hence these are not loses in the usual meaning of the words "job loses" and "temporary". It is the equivalent of me saying something like: Poor me, I had to come from my holidays. But what really recks my head is the way the media don't pick up Jack O'Connor et al on their pathetic Robin Hood wannabe arguments. In fact, the Robin Hood wannabes want us all to believe the media is against them.

Discuss...

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was just thinking of something today. Several times I have heard Union leaders berate people for suggesting there have been no job loses in the public service. They'll say: "there are have been thousand of temporary workers who have lost their jobs".

Discuss...

its 'contract' staff that has been hit the hardest in this regard as oppossed to 'temporary'

while there are seasonal and short-term staff......'temporary' is often used to distinguish from 'permanent' but is not that accurate

some workers can be on contract, as oppossed to temporary, for long periods..years in many cases...without being made permanent

it is always easier to get rid of such staff than permanent ones

Head The Wall

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was just thinking of something today. Several times I have heard Union leaders berate people for suggesting there have been no job loses in the public service. They'll say: "there are have been thousand of temporary workers who have lost their jobs".

This has to be sophistry at its very best. By definition these jobs from the very beginning were "temporary" hence these are not loses in the usual meaning of the words "job loses" and "temporary". It is the equivalent of me saying something like: Poor me, I had to come from my holidays. But what really recks my head is the way the media don't pick up Jack O'Connor et al on their pathetic Robin Hood wannabe arguments. In fact, the Robin Hood wannabes want us all to believe the media is against them.

Discuss...

As per the CSo figures in another post the Permenant Job figures are seeing no noticeable difference either.

10,000 retired last year up from 2,000 in 2008 but the total employment is down (-0.5%)

Someone is doing their maths wrong somewhere.

Tim Robbins

Riskymove wrote: »

its 'contract' staff that has been hit the hardest in this regard as oppossed to 'temporary'

while there are seasonal and short-term staff......'temporary' is often used to distinguish from 'permanent' but is not that accurate

some workers can be on contract, as oppossed to temporary, for long periods..years in many cases...without being made permanent

it is always easier to get rid of such staff than permanent ones

Sure everyone is technically "contract". They use that word to disguise the fact that these are explictly "temporary contracts" as opposed to "permanent contracts". That's because the word "temporary" makes it clear that the job was intended as temporary and hence "thousands of temporary workers have lost their temporary jobs" doesn't sound as effective as "thousand of contract staff have been let go".

P. Breathnach

While some jobs in the public service are truly temporary, there are many others that are not. The jobs can be permanent (insofar as any job can be considered permanent) but they are filled by people who are given temporary contracts. This is done for a variety of reasons, such as

• the person appointed might not yet be fully qualified (e.g. A science teacher who has not yet taken the Irish oral -- a trivial loose end, but a loose end nevertheless)
• administrators might not yet have gone through all the steps in having the position established as a permanent one (they can be cumbersome)
• some permanent positions were filled on a temporary basis in anticipation of possible cutbacks
• some positions were created to address needs, but cautious administrators wanted to reserve to themselves the opportunity to close down an operation.

I know people who have been in "temporary" positions continuously for years (as much as ten years) and are now departing from the public service.

Riskymove

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I know people who have been in "temporary" positions continuously for years (as much as ten years) and are now departing from the public service.

yes thats the point.....people may not be permanent but they would not have been let go other than in the current circumstances

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

Someone is doing their maths wrong somewhere.

the problem is that the moratorium was relaxed in certain areas of health and education......so different areas are being affected differently.....the Civil service and gardai for example are apparantly being very badly hit by unfilled posts from early retirement

Tim Robbins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I know people who have been in "temporary" positions continuously for years (as much as ten years) and are now departing from the public service.

Which is a disgrace. Under EU law you have to be offered a permanent contract after 11 months. The state has managed to circumnavigate these and the Robin Hood wannabes 200K per year don't give two hoots.

galwaynative

That's because the word "temporary" makes it clear that the job was intended as temporary

mad and all as it sounds a high percentage of core roles in PS are filled on a contract basis, it seems to be some sort of hangover (where I work at least) from the last recruitment moritorium in the 80s. In my place of work over 30% of staff are on a contract basis and it is these jobs that are being lost as contracts come up for renewal. And the temporary staff who would normally be taken on for seasonal peaks (term time cover etc) are not being taken on at all.

Head The Wall

Riskymove wrote: »

the problem is that the moratorium was relaxed in certain areas of health and education......so different areas are being affected differently.....the Civil service and gardai for example are apparantly being very badly hit by unfilled posts from early retirement

When they are allowed to retire at 50 with a lump sum and further employment potential what did they expect to happen there.

If they are relaxing the moratorium to the extent that there is no difference well then there is no moratorium, so why do they keep going on about it.

More recent figures will be interesting when ever they appear

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

If they are relaxing the moratorium to the extent that there is no difference well then there is no moratorium, so why do they keep going on about it.

er...because many people work in the areas where the moratorium is being applied and they are being affected by it

as long as health and education are being protected for political reasons we are not going to get the big issues sorted

health and education make up the majority of the PS workers

Head The Wall

I'm on about the govt not the people affected by this

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

I'm on about the govt not the people affected by this

oh.....usual Govt spin


...and I am sure they'll have more to defend why the overall figures do not reflect it too

Tim Robbins

galwaynative wrote: »

mad and all as it sounds a high percentage of core roles in PS are filled on a contract basis, it seems to be some sort of hangover (where I work at least) from the last recruitment moritorium in the 80s. In my place of work over 30% of staff are on a contract basis and it is these jobs that are being lost as contracts come up for renewal. And the temporary staff who would normally be taken on for seasonal peaks (term time cover etc) are not being taken on at all.

And in your experience just as a matter of interest, who is working harder? temporary or permanent?

deise blue

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Which is a disgrace. Under EU law you have to be offered a permanent contract after 11 months. The state has managed to circumnavigate these and the Robin Hood wannabes 200K per year don't give two hoots.

Would you care to name the "Robin Hoods" and enumerate their salaries ?

ardmacha

as long as health and education are being protected for political reasons

The political reasons are that people still want to be cured and their children educated and expect other things to go first. Whatever about health, education has little enough administration and less people per students than other European countries, if numbers were reduced then class sizes would go back to 1950s levels. People rightly feel that quangos and other additions to the public service in the boom should go first, rather than basic education.

Head The Wall

If they are breaking the law well then the higher ups are directly responsible as there is no accountability of any sort in the public sector

Riskymove

ardmacha wrote: »

. Whatever about health, education has little enough administration and less people per students than other European countries, if numbers were reduced then class sizes would go back to 1950s levels. People rightly feel that quangos and other additions to the public service in the boom should go first, rather than basic education.

health and education make up the vast majority of the PS but there are plenty within that who are not teachers, doctors or nurses etc...tbf with regard to education I'd say most of the administrative issues are at third level

I completely agree that quangos need to be tackeld, but their proportion of the PS is still quite low....meangingful, long-term benefits will not arise without monoliths like the HSE being tackled

ardmacha

I have argued here before that there should be inventory of all PS employment in say 2000 and 2008, to see where the extra posts appeared. Some of these can be justified, e.g. more children in a certain area, but I imagine that many will be hard to justify and this would give a routemap for where cuts are appropriate. Policy at the moment is headless, penalising the efficient areas as these are expected to have the same cuts as the areas with lots of slack where cuts are easy.

Tipp Man

So let me get this straight in my own head

When people talk about 350-360k PS employees this is the level of permanent full time staff and on top of this there are thousands and thousands of contract staff?? Is this really the case or does the 350-360 include these contract staff??

Are we saying that in reality there may be nearly 400k PS employees?? (so the 360 full time permanent plus say 40k contract staff) Maybe more???

Head The Wall

413,000 Public sector employees at last count

galwaynative

When people talk about 350-360k PS employees this is the level of permanent full time staff and on top of this there are thousands and thousands of contract staff?? Is this really the case or does the 350-360 include these contract staff??

I can only speak of my own place of work but there headcount would include all permanent and contract staff. The necessary reductions in headcount are being achieved via early retirements and non renewal of contracts.

And in your experience just as a matter of interest, who is working harder? temporary or permanent?

Interesting question! I can honestly say that there are hard workers in both. But there are a few prize slackers as well, again in both but people on contracts are less obvious about it

Tim Robbins

deise blue wrote: »

Would you care to name the "Robin Hoods" and enumerate their salaries ?

Mr McLoone=€171,313
Mr Carr= €172,000
Blair Horan=€120,000
David Begg=€137,400
Jack O'Connor=€124,895
John White=€144,000
Peter MacMenamin=€131,748 <--> €150,712

Source:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1024/1224257392087.html

I am sure they wind up with plenty of expenses and pension contributions as well.

Tipp Man

Head The Wall wrote: »

413,000 Public sector employees at last count

Seriously?? WTF that means that about 21-22% of the workforce in this country is public sector, and we don't even have an army. This country has really lost the run of itself.

deise blue

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Mr McLoone=€171,313
Mr Carr= €172,000
Blair Horan=€120,000
David Begg=€137,400
Jack O'Connor=€124,895
John White=€144,000
Peter MacMenamin=€131,748 <--> €150,712

Source:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1024/1224257392087.html

I am sure they wind up with plenty of expenses and pension contributions as well.

Kindly now point out those who are receiving the 200k the figure that you initially posted .

ardmacha

Seriously?? WTF that means that about 21-22% of the workforce in this country is public sector, and we don't even have an army. This country has really lost the run of itself.

We do have an army. How many people do you think are needed? This proprtion is typical for European countries. One quarter of the population is in education, many of the rest are in poor health, pretty much all of these people would like to be protected from criminals and to drink public water supplies etc.

Tim Robbins

deise blue wrote: »

Kindly now point out those who are receiving the 200k the figure that you initially posted .

Kindly stick to the point I was making that these people act like Robin Hoods, fighting for the common man whose hard done by when the reality is these people are on extortionate salaries. 7 of them wouldn't even reveal their salaries ffs.

You can be pedantic all you want but it doesn't refute my point. It's the equivalent of trying to point out typos.

recedite

deise blue wrote: »

Kindly now point out those who are receiving the 200k the figure that you initially posted .

Well we had one member of the Seanad recently claiming €80K for travelling expenses alone, so I could easily see them topping €200K with the addition of a few discreet bonuses. I know the PS might not see that as "pay", but it all goes into the bank account together.

deise blue

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Kindly stick to the point I was making that these people act like Robin Hoods, fighting for the common man whose hard done by when the reality is these people are on extortionate salaries. 7 of them wouldn't even reveal their salaries ffs.

You can be pedantic all you want but it doesn't refute my point. It's the equivalent of trying to point out typos.

It's not a matter of being pedantic , it's a matter of fact.

You said that these people who you describe as " Robin Hoods" were on salaries of 200k and yet the figures you posted show that none of of the them earn that much , the nearest is the retired Mr. McLoone who earned 28k less than 200k , indeed Jack O'Connor earned 75k less than your illusionary figure.

When you think of it you'd get 24 Jack O'Connors for Brian Goggins final annual salary as CEO of Bank of Ireland !

I do of course realise that it is extremely tempting to post inflated figures to prove a point but let's try and stick to facts.

ardmacha

When you think of it you'd get 24 Jack O'Connors for Brian Goggins final annual salary as CEO of Bank of Ireland !

And Mr O'Connor has done a better job for those who pay him than Mr Goggins did for his shareholders.

Tipp Man

ardmacha wrote: »

And Mr O'Connor has done a better job for those who pay him than Mr Goggins did for his shareholders.

And both have contributed massively to bringing this country to its knees

deise blue

Tipp Man wrote: »

And both have contributed massively to bringing this country to its knees

In that it's Mr. O'Connor's remit to protect and if possible enhance the terms and conditions of his members he has done a reasonable job,

I would wager that the Bank's shareholders don't hold the same view with regard to Mr. Goggin's performance.

the_syco

Temporary is a lovely word.

Teachers can work up to 4 years before becoming permanent.

From what I've read here, a lot of nurses seem to be on rolling 6 month contracts, often in different parts of the country, and thus not permanent.

So it'd be interesting to see how many people who are not permanent, but have worked "permanent" hours for over 5 years, are getting the boot...

Tim Robbins

deise blue wrote: »

It's not a matter of being pedantic , it's a matter of fact.

It's a matter of fact you were being pedantic.

You said that these people who you describe as " Robin Hoods" were on salaries of 200k and yet the figures you posted show that none of of the them earn that much , the nearest is the retired Mr. McLoone who earned 28k less than 200k , indeed Jack O'Connor earned 75k less than your illusionary figure.

It doesn't refute my point that they are Robin Hood wannabes. They come out with all this rhetoric as if they are being opressed when the reality is they are loaded. There isn't much difference between 130K and 200K in my book.

Both are far higher than, average indsutrial wage and anyone I work with earns.

When you think of it you'd get 24 Jack O'Connors for Brian Goggins final annual salary as CEO of Bank of Ireland !

I do of course realise that it is extremely tempting to post inflated figures to prove a point but let's try and stick to facts.

According to this link, Goggins finished last year @ 2 million which would mean your maths is wrong.

24 Jack O'Connor's salary is 24 * 124,895 is 2,997,480.

But again, your point is really the ratio of salaries between the two is substantial which is still valid. It would be pointless getting pedantic.

deise blue

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's a matter of fact you were being pedantic.


It doesn't refute my point that they are Robin Hood wannabes. They come out with all this rhetoric as if they are being opressed when the reality is they are loaded. There isn't much difference between 130K and 200K in my book.

Both are far higher than, average indsutrial wage and anyone I work with earns.




According to this link, Goggins finished last year @ 2 million which would mean your maths is wrong.

24 Jack O'Connor's salary is 24 * 124,895 is 2,997,480.

But again, your point is really the ratio of salaries between the two is substantial which is still valid. It would be pointless getting pedantic.

Wrong again , figures really are'nt your strong point are they , still if you don't see much difference between 130,000 and 200,000 that's only to be expected.

In the last full year to December 2008 that Mr. Goggin worked he earned 2.97 million euro , the link you posted referred to his estimate of what he would earn in 2009 - rather optimistic as he retired in Feb. 2009.

This really shows who the robber barons really are I would have thought.

Of course the Union leadership earn excellent salaries commensurate with the responsible and onerous job they do - only fair I would have thought.

Tim Robbins

deise blue wrote: »

Wrong again , figures really are'nt your strong point are they , still if you don't see much difference between 130,000 and 200,000 that's only to be expected.

In the last full year to December 2008 that Mr. Goggin worked he earned 2.97 million euro , the link you posted referred to his estimate of what he would earn in 2009 - rather optimistic as he retired in Feb. 2009.

Going by your figures Mr. Gogin does earn not 24 times Jack O'Connor's salary.
2.97 Million < (24 * 124,895).

Could you please get your facts straight and stop exaggerating to make points?

Stick to the facts please.

deise blue

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Going by your figures Mr. Gogin does earn not 24 times Jack O'Connor's salary.
2.97 Million < (24 * 124,895).

Could you please get your facts straight and stop exaggerating to make points?

Stick to the facts please.

Just rounding it up for you .

Seeing as you are so pedantic Brian Goggings salary was 2.972 million euro - a multiple of 23.795989 of Jack O'Connor's salary ( I rounded it up to take Mr Goggin's stock options into consideration )


Mr. Goggin earned 4 million in the previous year and what a cracking year that was for Irish Banking eh ?

He then exercised an early retirement clause in his contract and retired on a pension of 650,000 per year !

Let us be in doubt as to who the biggest chancers in Ireland are and who are most responsible for the depth of our depression - a cartel of bankers and developers with the Government's blessing , all others are in the ha'penny place.

Tim Robbins

deise blue wrote: »

Just rounding it up for you .

Seeing as you are so pedantic Brian Goggings salary was 2.972 million euro - a multiple of 23.795989 of Jack O'Connor's salary ( I rounded it up to take Mr Goggin's stock options into consideration )

"Rounding" the words glass houses and stones come to mind.

Let us be in doubt as to who the biggest chancers in Ireland are and who are most responsible for the depth of our depression - a cartel of bankers and developers with the Government's blessing , all others are in the ha'penny place.

And an over paid public service have nothing to with our massive budget deficit. Pull the other one.

We have Robin Hood Wannabe's holding our country back from recovery.

Godge

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Which is a disgrace. Under EU law you have to be offered a permanent contract after 11 months. The state has managed to circumnavigate these and the Robin Hood wannabes 200K per year don't give two hoots.

You are wrong.

Under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Act) an employee receives a contract of indefinite duration after four years of temporary employment (not 11 months) unless there are objective grounds justifying the continuation of the temporary contract.

Godge

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was just thinking of something today. Several times I have heard Union leaders berate people for suggesting there have been no job loses in the public service. They'll say: "there are have been thousand of temporary workers who have lost their jobs".

This has to be sophistry at its very best. By definition these jobs from the very beginning were "temporary" hence these are not loses in the usual meaning of the words "job loses" and "temporary". It is the equivalent of me saying something like: Poor me, I had to come from my holidays. But what really recks my head is the way the media don't pick up Jack O'Connor et al on their pathetic Robin Hood wannabe arguments. In fact, the Robin Hood wannabes want us all to believe the media is against them.

Discuss...

To go back to the original question, there was an article in the Irish Independent two or three weeks ago which stated that the universities and institutes of technology had met the target of reducing staff numbers by 6% since January 2009. It didn't get commented on Boards but credit should be given where it is due.

I am sure that the reduction was a combination of non-renewal of temporary contracts, permanent retirements and resignations etc.

deise blue

Tim Robbins wrote: »

"Rounding" the words glass houses and stones come to mind.


And an over paid public service have nothing to with our massive budget deficit. Pull the other one.

We have Robin Hood Wannabe's holding our country back from recovery.

You must be joking !

Among the people most responsible for our downturn were our Banks and yet in 2007 when things first went belly up in our financial institutions Brian Goggin was paid 4 million.

It is estimated that the Irish taxpayer will have paid 80 billion to buy out overpriced property via NAMA and to bail out the banks.

Any other contributions to our general malaise are dwarfed by these truly outrageous figures - let's lay the blame at the feet of those to whom it applies!

To return to the topic hopefully the question of those on temporary contracts will be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

The_Honeybadger

deise blue wrote: »

You must be joking !

Among the people most responsible for our downturn were our Banks and yet in 2007 when things first went belly up in our financial institutions Brian Goggin was paid 4 million.

It is estimated that the Irish taxpayer will have paid 80 billion to buy out overpriced property via NAMA and to bail out the banks.

Any other contributions to our general malaise are dwarfed by these truly outrageous figures - let's lay the blame at the feet of those to whom it applies!

To return to the topic hopefully the question of those on temporary contracts will be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

He said "budget deficit", banks have very little to do with this. The reason we have such a gaping deficit is that we spend way more on current spending such as PS wages, Social Welfare, Health and other areas than we take in. Even if the banks were perfectly healthy we'd still have a very serious problem, and would need to make big adjustments in spending, the banks exacerbate the problem but did not cause it, as convenient as it is to blame them for everything.

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

You must be joking !

Among the people most responsible for our downturn were our Banks and yet in 2007 when things first went belly up in our financial institutions Brian Goggin was paid 4 million.

And in the same breath we are still giving pay increases to Public Sector workers 3 years later and no sign of it stopping.

NAMA may cost us say 60Bn over 10-15 years, the budget deficit is costing us 20Bn every year as well as a 100Bn Public Pension Deficit.

Open your eyes bud and look at the elephant in the room

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

And in the same breath we are still giving pay increases to Public Sector workers 3 years later and no sign of it stopping.

NAMA may cost us say 60Bn over 10-15 years, the budget deficit is costing us 20Bn every year as well as a 100Bn Public Pension Deficit.

Open your eyes bud and look at the elephant in the room

No bud of yours pal !

NAMA and the Bank bail out will cost us 80bn.

The cost of providing the extra capital to Anglo and Irish Nationwide will now per the ESRI have to be included in the Government deficit.

Pay rises in the Public Sector !, what planet are you on and please don't give me the increments argument as such increments are contractual obligations.

Thankfully the Government have agreed that there will be no further pay cuts or pension reformation until at least 2014 , nor will there be any compulsory redundancies of full time staff so really the arguments on compulsory job cuts/further pay cuts are currently academic.


The issue of redundancies amongst temporary staff is surely heading to the Labour Court.

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

No bud of yours pal !

NAMA and the Bank bail out will cost us 80bn.

The cost of providing the extra capital to Anglo and Irish Nationwide will now per the ESRI have to be included in the Government deficit.

Pay rises in the Public Sector !, what planet are you on and please don't give me the increments argument as such increments are contractual obligations.

Thankfully the Government have agreed that there will be no further pay cuts or pension reformation until at least 2014 , nor will there be any compulsory redundancies of full time staff so really the arguments on compulsory job cuts/further pay cuts are currently academic.


The issue of redundancies amongst temporary staff is surely heading to the Labour Court.

Yes it will cost us that over 10-15 years.
It's going to be paid back whether it's included in the deficit or not.
Budget deficit is 20Bn annually
Public Pension Deficit is over 100Bn

Oh so an increase in pay is not an increase in pay according to you, could you repeat that again just to confirm that you think it is true.A contractual agreement to increase pay is what I am seeing.

If there aren't the correct savings made the CP agreement is off and then the pay cuts and layoffs will start. I for one don't believe that the PS have the mentality to make the savings, they will cut off their nose to spite their face.

Believe that PS pay and jobs are off limits if you want, same way people believed the tiger wouldn't end

The_Honeybadger

deise blue wrote: »

No bud of yours pal !

NAMA and the Bank bail out will cost us 80bn.

The cost of providing the extra capital to Anglo and Irish Nationwide will now per the ESRI have to be included in the Government deficit.

Pay rises in the Public Sector !, what planet are you on and please don't give me the increments argument as such increments are contractual obligations.

Thankfully the Government have agreed that there will be no further pay cuts or pension reformation until at least 2014 , nor will there be any compulsory redundancies of full time staff so really the arguments on compulsory job cuts/further pay cuts are currently academic.


The issue of redundancies amongst temporary staff is surely heading to the Labour Court.

The most pessimistic estimate I have seen from independent commentators is 30bn, what is your 80bn figure based on? BTW I'm not some NAMA apologist, I was against it from the start but lets not blow it out of proportion entirely, 80bn is alot worse than 30-40bn, even though thats 30-40bn too much. As Head the Wall says, the deficit is a much bigger issue, pointing fingers at banks may make people feel blameless but it won't solve anything.

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

Yes it will cost us that over 10-15 years.
It's going to be paid back whether it's included in the deficit or not.
Budget deficit is 20Bn annually
Public Pension Deficit is over 100Bn

Oh so an increase in pay is not an increase in pay according to you, could you repeat that again just to confirm that you think it is true.A contractual agreement to increase pay is what I am seeing.

If there aren't the correct savings made the CP agreement is off and then the pay cuts and layoffs will start. I for one don't believe that the PS have the mentality to make the savings, they will cut off their nose to spite their face.

Believe that PS pay and jobs are off limits if you want, same way people believed the tiger wouldn't end

Such naivety !

This Government is not going to tackle the question of pay or pension reform for the rest of their Government tenure , indeed I suspect that part reversal of pay cuts for the less well PS worker will form part of any pre election stategy.

The likliehood that the next Government will have a large Labour rump , will we see further pay cuts then ? - no chance.

Increments are only paid to a minority of PS workers and only go a small way to offsetting pay cuts.

Save yourself some grief and take a diary note to revisit this matter in mid 2014 when there is a miniscule chance that pay cuts and pension reform will be back on the agenda.

Until then just suck it up !

Scarab80

deise blue wrote: »

No bud of yours pal !

NAMA and the Bank bail out will cost us 80bn.

The cost of providing the extra capital to Anglo and Irish Nationwide will now per the ESRI have to be included in the Government deficit.

Hold on, you go to town on someone for overstating union leaders pay by €75,000 and then you overstate the estimated cost of the bailout about €57,000,000,000.

Anglo - 22bn
INBS - 2.7

EBS - Private sector investment still not ruled out, in any case the society is solvent so any monies put in will most likely be returned - cost neutral

BOI - 527m gain on investment at todays market prices
AIIB - 262m gain on investment at todays market prices

Guarantee Fee - 1bn to be received later this year.

NAMA - Worst case scenario in business plan shows a loss of 800m and that is after applying a 5.5% discount rate based on 10-year yields at the time. Yields are now 5% so it would probably push the worst case to cost neutral.

Total cost - 22.9bn over 10 - 15 years

Since the start of the banking crisis in October 2008 the deficit excluding any bank costs has been 32.3bn.

Hmmmmm........

The inclusion of the entire promissory amount in this years national debt does nothing but flatter our real deficits in subsequent years when we actually have to borrow to fund these notes. I'm sure when that happens the unions won't be shouting about the banking bailout but will be pushing the government to borrow to the limit of the stability and growth pact to fund wages.

Head The Wall

Blaa, Blaa, Blaa all you want it won't block out reality.

I urge you to carefully look over the finer points of the CP agreement. You seem to think it's just a blanket guarantee for no job losses or pay cuts. How wrong you are!!!!

You now seem to be aware that an increment is in fact a pay increase. Good we are getting some where, whats that only a minority receive it!!! Cost us €250 Million last year, hardly loose change is it.

€250m pay bonanza for 340,000 in civil service

I would love to see Labour come in just so they can fall flat on their faces when they implement their so called "rich" tax to pay the PS more. They'll be scratching their heads when the sums don't add up.

Don't forget it will be very easy for FF and FG to convince voters that Labours maths just won't work out.

Read up on the CP agreement so you can find out what you're trying to talk about

And you can suck off

The_Thing

You seem to think it's just a blanket guarantee for no job losses or pay cuts. How wrong you are!!!!

How would this affect a pre-1995'er such as myself who is for all intents and purposes un-sackable?

cyclopath2001

The_Thing wrote: »

How would this affect a pre-1995'er such as myself who is for all intents and purposes un-sackable?

Except for disciplinary offences such as participating in public political discussions?