Have public sector workers paid their full share of the cutbacks?

Godge

There is an interesting report on the Department of Finance website entitled "Analysis of Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill 2005-2010"

Link is http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6385&CatID=45&StartDate=1+January+2010&m=p

Some of the points made include:

• the pay bill has decreased from €17,097m in 2008 to €15,092 in 2010, a decrease of
11.7% (Table V);

• receipts in respect of the Pension Related Deduction were €831m in 2009 and are

expected to be €875m in 2010;


That means that in total terms adding the 875m to the 2,005m, the total decrease in the pay bill is 2,880m, which is 2.8 bn.

The percentage of GDP in 2008 taken up by the public sector pay and pensions is 10.4% (see table II). Taking out the pensions element (accounted for 8.8% of the pay bill in 2008) leaves a total of 9.48% of GDP being spent on public service pay in 2008. (leave aside the argument of GDP vs GNP for a minute).

So apart from the income levies and cuts in child benefit, increases in medical costs that everyone in the country has faced, that report suggests that those accounting for 9.48% of GDP have delivered €2.8 bn in savings already as a combination of pay cuts, pension levy and contracts not renewed.

If the other 90% of GDP contributed at an equivalent level there would be a saving/revenue increase of €25.2 bn., more than enough to eliminate the deficit.

That would suggest that the public sector has already contributed its fair share. Such a conclusion runs counter to the impression I have got from economic commentators, newspaper editorials and boards posters.

I am not interested in comments that suggest the public sector should pay more but would like to know whether the figures in the report and/or my understanding of them stand up to scrutiny. So please don't rant about the public sector/private sector but look at the report and the figures and analyse them accordingly.

WalterMitty

analysis flawed on so many levels.

Godge

WalterMitty wrote: »

analysis flawed on so many levels.

Explain, using verifiable statistics.

P. Breathnach

WalterMitty wrote: »

analysis flawed on so many levels.

Wow! Such perspicience. Could you share some of your observations with us, please?

deise blue

WalterMitty wrote: »

analysis flawed on so many levels.

Given this detailed analysis of the report allied to supporting facts I am convinced that the Department of Finance report is pure bunkum.

fergalr

Godge wrote: »

There is an interesting report on the Department of Finance website entitled "Analysis of Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill 2005-2010"

Link is http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6385&CatID=45&StartDate=1+January+2010&m=p

Some of the points made include:

•

the pay bill has decreased from €17,097m in 2008 to €15,092 in 2010, a decrease of
11.7% (Table V);

•

receipts in respect of the Pension Related Deduction were €831m in 2009 and are

expected to be €875m in 2010;


That means that in total terms adding the 875m to the 2,005m, the total decrease in the pay bill is 2,880m, which is 2.8 bn.

The percentage of GDP in 2008 taken up by the public sector pay and pensions is 10.4% (see table II). Taking out the pensions element (accounted for 8.8% of the pay bill in 2008) leaves a total of 9.48% of GDP being spent on public service pay in 2008. (leave aside the argument of GDP vs GNP for a minute).

So apart from the income levies and cuts in child benefit, increases in medical costs that everyone in the country has faced, that report suggests that those accounting for 9.48% of GDP have delivered €2.8 bn in savings already as a combination of pay cuts, pension levy and contracts not renewed.

If the other 90% of GDP contributed at an equivalent level there would be a saving/revenue increase of €25.2 bn., more than enough to eliminate the deficit.

That would suggest that the public sector has already contributed its fair share. Such a conclusion runs counter to the impression I have got from economic commentators, newspaper editorials and boards posters.

I am not interested in comments that suggest the public sector should pay more but would like to know whether the figures in the report and/or my understanding of them stand up to scrutiny. So please don't rant about the public sector/private sector but look at the report and the figures and analyse them accordingly.

Your argument seems very flawed to me, unless I'm much misunderstanding it.

By definition, the government pays the public sector wage bill.
They do not pay the private sector wage bill.

If both public sector workers and private sector workers have their wages cut by 10%, the government only saves money on the public sector workers.


But, by your logic, even though all workers, in all sectors, experience a 10% pay cut, the private sector hasn't 'done anything to help'.


You seem to be proposing that each worker should contribute the same amount. So private sector workers should pay in taxes what public sector workers pay in reduced wages.
Lets say private sector workers a priori pay 30% average tax.
So, in the situation described, on top of their 10% paycut, private sector workers should also have to each pay 40% tax instead of 30%. Thats an increase in tax of 33%.


This seems a very flawed way of looking at it.
Heres a better way of looking at it: The private sector pays for the public sector. When tax takings fall from the private sector, we would expect that the government spending decreases by the same amount.
Otherwise, clearly, the economy will be losing money.
Considering a lot of government expenditure is on salaries, salaries will probably have to be cut.

cyclopath2001

fergalr wrote: »

If both public sector workers and private sector workers have their wages cut by 10%, the government only saves money on the public sector workers.

The government consumes many expensive private sector services, if private sector salaries were reduced, would this not lead to a reduction in costs to the government?

And, if salaries were reduced in the banks, would this not leave the banks more money to cover their own debts?

dan_d

Possibly....but the fact still stands that we are operating with a massive public service while the tax take is at a level of early 2000's. There's a serious lack of efficiency and it's overburdened with administration and management.

No more pay cuts, fine, but a few redundancies wouldn't go amiss.

Citizen_Cutback

Godge wrote: »

There is an interesting report on the Department of Finance website entitled "Analysis of Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill 2005-2010"

Link is http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6385&CatID=45&StartDate=1+January+2010&m=p

Some of the points made include:

• the pay bill has decreased from €17,097m in 2008 to €15,092 in 2010, a decrease of
11.7% (Table V);

That would suggest that the public sector has already contributed its fair share. Such a conclusion runs counter to the impression I have got from economic commentators, newspaper editorials and boards posters.

Constantin Gurdgiev is one commentator you might be thinking of...

Despite being questioned and corrected on his blog, he has not changed his spin that Public Servant Pay and Pensions are €4 billion greater than they actually are this year at €15.09 billion; His figure is €19 billion!

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/10/economics-71010-irish-government.html

Poor show Constantin.

Cookie_Monster

what has GDP % got to do with Public sector pay %?

The percentage of GDP in 2008 taken up by the public sector pay and pensions is 10.4%

Thats a scary figure tbh

deise blue

dan_d wrote: »

Possibly....but the fact still stands that we are operating with a massive public service while the tax take is at a level of early 2000's. There's a serious lack of efficiency and it's overburdened with administration and management.

No more pay cuts, fine, but a few redundancies wouldn't go amiss.

The Croke Park agreement allows for voluntary redundancies and I'm quite sure we will see thousands applying.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Citizen_Cutback

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some references would help your argument. Do you have any?

Count Dooku

Godge wrote: »

The percentage of GDP in 2008 taken up by the public sector pay and pensions is 10.4% (see table II). Taking out the pensions element (accounted for 8.8% of the pay bill in 2008) leaves a total of 9.48% of GDP being spent on public service pay in 2008. (leave aside the argument of GDP vs GNP for a minute).

Why?

Pay & Pensions Bill as a % of GNP
2005 10.8%
2006 10.5%
2007 10.8%
2008 12.1%
2009 14.1%
2010 13.4%

Tim Robbins

In my humble opinion it is very difficult to get information on public service wages and to be able to compare them to anything. It is also impossible to get any sort of information on the worth of some of this work.
For example, let's say some IT heads are getting 70K a year but are brilliant at their jobs and made it much more efficient for people to do tax returns. Well then they are worth their money. Or say they are useless and the private sector wouldn't even give them 20K a year then they are being over paid.

Say Gardaí are getting 50K a year but if the EU average is 55K a year or 25K a year - I don't know?

Any rational economic decision comes down to cost benefit analysis but we need a lot more information before we can decide what should be cut.

Perhaps something like bench marking needs to be brought back.

Pharaoh1

Agree broadly with Tim
The issue of what has or has not been cut to date is not really relevant any longer.
The real question now should be - Are public sector workers appropriately/properly paid for the work they do.
Factors to take into account could be
- equivalent private sector pay where comparisons are available and valid
- salaries in similar sized competitor economies lets say countries like Belgium or Denmark.
- taking into account that we are much more bust than most similar sized economies logic would dictate that we should pay ourselves below their averages for the moment.
The idea that we should pay more because we have a higher cost of living is not really a runner as the differential will be a part of the "pain" as a result of our incompetent economic management.

The other relevant question is - Are public sector workers contributing an appropriate amount to the pension scheme from which they will benefit?

If we were to establish that the average employer pension contribution in the private sector is say 5%. Would a PRSI contribution (where it is paid) added to superannuation added to the pension levy plus the 5% (from the employer/taxpayer) buy a pension and gratuity which a public sector retiree is currently entitled.
The value of the state pension (where full PRSI is paid) would have to be taken into account. This actuarial calculation could be easily done for each category and a fair proposal would probably be to give the employee the option of paying the full amount necessary or opt out, take the state pension and make their own arrangements.
I suspect in the current situation a lower paid post 95 public servant may well be overpaying for their pension package as the state pension equivalent would make up a larger portion of their package (although the gratuity needs to be factored in)
Those towards the middle and the top are probably underpaying especially those that pay reduced PRSI and the semi state group of course who may pay neither full PRSI nor pension levy.

I don't believe any exercise like this will ever happen though even though it seems to be fair and reasonable. It would expose massive anomalies at the top (politicians and senior civil servants for starters) which would not be acceptable.

fergalr

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If both public sector workers and private sector workers have their wages cut by 10%, the government only saves money on the public sector workers.

The government consumes many expensive private sector services, if private sector salaries were reduced, would this not lead to a reduction in costs to the government?

Yeah, sure it would, but fundamentally, the private sector jobs the government pays for are a very small % of the private and public sector.
You could then also say the government receives less tax on the salaries they pay, etc.

There are many second, third, n order effects here - its impossible to list them all - the point is that in the large, the government saves money when the public sector wages are cut, and pretty much loses money when the private sector wages are cut.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

And, if salaries were reduced in the banks, would this not leave the banks more money to cover their own debts?

Probably...
But there's a couple of things here. First is that the banks that are effectively nationalised, are effectively public sector institutions at this point - in that the government almost directly pays their pay bill - and should be thought of as such in the context of this argument.
Secondly, you do need - at the top end at least - to make sure that reducing the salaries doesn't result in a worse job being done, and more money being lost. This isn't really what we are arguing here, but saving executive salaries, while they seem expensive, will sometimes be a false economy. Other times, it's just an exorbitant expense, but its a factor to consider.

fergalr

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

Agree broadly with Tim
The issue of what has or has not been cut to date is not really relevant any longer.
The real question now should be - Are public sector workers appropriately/properly paid for the work they do.

While I do agree broadly with your post, I have to jump in on this point.

Sadly, the real question now is what the state can afford to pay, rather than various people's arguments over what is appropriate or proper.

This sounds so abstract, but the government has withdrawn from the bond markets because yields are too high. The state might be fine; but we could definitely end up in a situation, in a short few years, where people wistfully look back at the already cut wages they are getting today.

Gumbo

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

The other relevant question is - Are public sector workers contributing an appropriate amount to the pension scheme from which they will benefit?

If we were to establish that the average employer pension contribution in the private sector is say 5%. Would a PRSI contribution (where it is paid) added to superannuation added to the pension levy plus the 5% (from the employer/taxpayer) buy a pension and gratuity which a public sector retiree is currently entitled.
The value of the state pension (where full PRSI is paid) would have to be taken into account. This actuarial calculation could be easily done for each category and a fair proposal would probably be to give the employee the option of paying the full amount necessary or opt out, take the state pension and make their own arrangements.
I suspect in the current situation a lower paid post 95 public servant may well be overpaying for their pension package as the state pension equivalent would make up a larger portion of their package (although the gratuity needs to be factored in)
Those towards the middle and the top are probably underpaying especially those that pay reduced PRSI and the semi state group of course who may pay neither full PRSI nor pension levy.

somebody posted up Microsoft Excel Data sheets a while back showing that PS employess are over paying their pension contributions up to approx 50k. from 50k onwards you are breaking even and then obviously as the salary increases the benefits increases as in underpaying their pension.

i havent got a payslip with me but my take home pay is approx 65% of my initial salary.
(current salary 38k - Ordinary Degree qualified Civil/structural engineer working as a Technician.)

jdivision

ESRI said public pay was 20% more than private sector, therefore no, they haven't taken enough pain already

Gumbo

jdivision wrote: »

ESRI said public pay was 20% more than private sector, therefore no, they haven't taken enough pain already

is that current?
have you got a link to it or to when the report/research was carried out?

P. Breathnach

jdivision wrote: »

ESRI said public pay was 20% more than private sector, therefore no, they haven't taken enough pain already

Since which time they have had two bites taken out of their pay amounting to 20%+.

Pharaoh1

fergalr wrote: »

While I do agree broadly with your post, I have to jump in on this point.

Sadly, the real question now is what the state can afford to pay, rather than various people's arguments over what is appropriate or proper.

This sounds so abstract, but the government has withdrawn from the bond markets because yields are too high. The state might be fine; but we could definitely end up in a situation, in a short few years, where people wistfully look back at the already cut wages they are getting today.

I agree completely and did say much the same thing in my original post quote below.

"taking into account that we are much more bust than most similar sized economies logic would dictate that we should pay ourselves below their averages for the moment."
In effect we pay the salaries we can afford to pay. It may well lead to additional mortgage arrears/default but we will have to deal with that separately.

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Since which time they have had two bites taken out of their pay amounting to 20%+.

And even after that PS payroll bill is 4 Bn more the country can afford

Pay & Pensions Bill as a % of GNP
2005 10.8%
2006 10.5%
2007 10.8%
2008 12.1%
2009 14.1%
2010 13.4%

Pharaoh1

kceire wrote: »

somebody posted up Microsoft Excel Data sheets a while back showing that PS employess are over paying their pension contributions up to approx 50k. from 50k onwards you are breaking even and then obviously as the salary increases the benefits increases as in underpaying their pension.

i havent got a payslip with me but my take home pay is approx 65% of my initial salary.
(current salary 38k - Ordinary Degree qualified Civil/structural engineer working as a Technician.)

You could be right but pension levy at 50k is around 7.5% and superannuation 6.5% totalling 14% which seems a small enough percentage to make up the difference between the state pension and the PS pension especially when you include the gratuity lump sum.

cyclopath2001

Count Dooku wrote: »

And even after that PS payroll bill is 4 Bn more the country can afford

But we can afford to pay off Anglo's & Irish Nationwide bond holders, right?

It seems that it's OK to break agreements with employees but you must not default on mega-rich bond-holders.

Gumbo

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

You could be right but pension levy at 50k is around 7.5% and superannuation 6.5% totalling 14% which seems a small enough percentage to make up the difference between the state pension and the PS pension especially when you include the gratuity lump sum.

providing you have 40 years of service and retire on 50k :

lump sum = 75,000
pension = 25,000 per year - state pension of 11,960 = 13,040 (pension from PS contributions)

averagle life after retirement = 13 years (78 years old)*

13 years x 13,040 = 169,520

so total pension payment to employee = 169,520+75,000 = 244,520

PS employee contributions = 50,000x14% = 7,000
7,000 x 40 = 280,000

state pension is already paid for by the employees PRSI contributions.
*13 years average life is a guess from me, im prepared to be shown otherwise.
PS pensions are paid out of current revenue, not from a pension pot and in the case of Dublin City Council, self funded through the Councils income. also assuming that the PS employess will pay the 14% for the 40 years, say like me, ive started in the last 2 years so came in with all the levies etc but will never have 40 years service tbh.

Tigger

that assumes that you were on 50,000 for 40 years
if you assume 3% pay rise every year to get to a final 50k then the payment is 165K

Gumbo

Tigger wrote: »

that assumes that you were on 50,000 for 40 years
if you assume 3% pay rise every year to get to a final 50k then the payment is 165K

yes it does, but the ratio's of contributions against salary stay the same.

Tigger

?
but the final figures are on your final salary not your salary over 40 years

sarumite

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Since which time they have had two bites taken out of their pay amounting to 20%+.

Closer to 10-15%.

Gumbo

Tigger wrote: »

?
but the final figures are on your final salary not your salary over 40 years

yeah i suppose thats where the excell sheet worked it out better.
but bear in mind, once you hit the top of your scale, your there for life, theres no more 3% increases.

ParkRunner

Pensions for new entrants will be worked out over a career average of salary also not the final salary. Yet another way public sector costs will be falling. If pensions were more stable I would be all in favour of the State completely scrapping public sector pensions and State pensions but because of the possibility of the entire nation being left without a pension due to poor regulation, greed, finacial fraud etc State pensions will always be necessary

Tigger

kceire wrote: »

yeah i suppose thats where the excell sheet worked it out better.
but bear in mind, once you hit the top of your scale, your there for life, theres no more 3% increases.

well at least that rewards those who progress the most start-finish

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

The Croke Park agreement allows for voluntary redundancies and I'm quite sure we will see thousands applying.

That's not going to be relevant when it gets hoofed out the door, and you can be sure it will be people near retirement age that will be the majority leaving so they will get their lump sum and pension. That will save damn all money in the long run

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Since which time they have had two bites taken out of their pay amounting to 20%+.

The 20% difference was more prevelant at the (cough) lower paid PS worker and they didn't pay any thing near 20+%

EF wrote: »

Pensions for new entrants will be worked out over a career average of salary also not the final salary. Yet another way public sector costs will be falling. If pensions were more stable I would be all in favour of the State completely scrapping public sector pensions and State pensions but because of the possibility of the entire nation being left without a pension due to poor regulation, greed, finacial fraud etc State pensions will always be necessary

Changing pensions for new entrants is just the govt trying to detract attention away from the current PS pensions not getting cut and the fact they got above inflation rate increases in the boom years and still have them.

How about they implement some legislation to get rid of staff and not be arseing about on new entrants pension provisions.

When are there going to be any significant new entrants to the PS and if there are some can't their pension situation be changed in every budget anyway. Focus on current costs not a new entrants pension in 30 years tiem

ParkRunner

Head The Wall wrote: »

Changing pensions for new entrants is just the govt trying to detract attention away from the current PS pensions not getting cut and the fact they got above inflation rate increases in the boom years and still have them.

How about they implement some legislation to get rid of staff and not be arseing about on new entrants pension provisions.

When are there going to be any significant new entrants to the PS and if there are some can't their pension situation be changed in every budget anyway. Focus on current costs not a new entrants pension in 30 years tiem

So you are saying you want legislation to get rid of staff currently working in the public sector and thus adversly affecting services further? I'm all in favour of equating public sector pensions with the reduced pay rates to start with but apparently pensions attract property rights protected by our constitution. Also do you want new entrants to be on a career averaging pension or a pension based on final salary?

Tigger

EF wrote: »

So you are saying you want legislation to get rid of staff currently working in the public sector and thus adversly affecting services further? I'm all in favour of equating public sector pensions with the reduced pay rates to start with but apparently pensions attract property rights protected by our constitution. Also do you want new entrants to be on a career averaging pension or a pension based on final salary?

the future is a different country
i dont think that the model we use now will be relevant in 40 odd years

Head The Wall

EF wrote: »

So you are saying you want legislation to get rid of staff currently working in the public sector and thus adversly affecting services further? I'm all in favour of equating public sector pensions with the reduced pay rates to start with but apparently pensions attract property rights protected by our constitution. Also do you want new entrants to be on a career averaging pension or a pension based on final salary?

If you can just point me in the direction of a report that says we should be hiring more staff to make the service better. I meanwhile can point you to reports saying the PS is overstaffed are.

We tried that option and look where we are now, overpaid, overstaffed and crap services, so yes we need to fire people and start from scratch. Look what happened the health boards, do you want it happeneing again.


PS staff should be sorting out their own pensions, it's painfully obvious that DB pensions are not affordable. I have no problems paying my taxes to pay for the OAP from the government but I don't see why I should pay taxes, my own pension and make up the shortfall in the pensions for PS staff

ParkRunner

Head The Wall wrote: »

If you can just point me in the direction of a report that says we should be hiring more staff to make the service better. I meanwhile can point you to reports saying the PS is overstaffed are.

We tried that option and look where we are now, overpaid, overstaffed and crap services, so yes we need to fire people and start from scratch. Look what happened the health boards, do you want it happeneing again.


PS staff should be sorting out their own pensions, it's painfully obvious that DB pensions are not affordable. I have no problems paying my taxes to pay for the OAP from the government but I don't see why I should pay taxes, my own pension and make up the shortfall in the pensions for PS staff

I never said we should be hiring more staff but as staff numbers are being reduced due to retirements and non-replacement of contract workers it is not as simple as just firing a large swathe of current permanent staff I'm afraid. Those areas that were previously overstaffed are being targetted for redeployment to Departments that have a shortfall of staff e.g. in Social Welfare due to rising unemployment.

To fire people don't forget you need to pay redundancy, social welfare (unless immediate private sector emplyment is found), and yet still meet demand for services.

The pensions system is unaffordable for sure but the system was there in the past and can't simply be scrapped at the stoke of a pen. Those contributions made to date will all have to be paid. It is all well and good to say public sector pensions must be scrapped but cost it out fully and come back with a proper answer

Head The Wall

EF wrote: »

I never said we should be hiring more staff but as staff numbers are being reduced due to retirements and non-replacement of contract workers it is not as simple as just firing a large swathe of current permanent staff I'm afraid. Those areas that were previously overstaffed are being targetted for redeployment to Departments that have a shortfall of staff e.g. in Social Welfare due to rising unemployment.

Redeploying people and paying lump sums and pensions to those who retire will not save us anything. We are supposed to be tackling our deficit which will never happen while the CP deal is in place. We now will have the education and healthcare sectors where 70% of the budget will be pay which can't be touched. Where will "Fair and Equal" cuts come from?

EF wrote: »

To fire people don't forget you need to pay redundancy, social welfare (unless immediate private sector emplyment is found), and yet still meet demand for services.

It's called statutory redundancy, a lot of the current unemployed didn't get any. The govt isn't really in a position to be giving out any more than that anyway. Dole is €10k a year and it will be dropping , that's a lot less than the average wage in the PS.

EF wrote: »

The pensions system is unaffordable for sure but the system was there in the past and can't simply be scrapped at the stoke of a pen. Those contributions made to date will all have to be paid. It is all well and good to say public sector pensions must be scrapped but cost it out fully and come back with a proper answer

Her's your answer - I'm sure the country can easily afford to pay back whatever contributions employees have paid towards their pensions. It's the 70-90% they don't contribute that I and this country have the problem with

rumour

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The government consumes many expensive private sector services,?

This is a very good point and a subject many are brushing under the carpet at the minute. Fundamentally I think government should be small but I do know the country needs services. If they are provided by the private sector this is in theory good because it provides the government with a quick means to cut costs and demand better service. However in the current mess we cannot see the wood from the trees in terms of where the money goes. In the interests of clarity and fixing problems a cull of all private sector services should be enacted. We will then see what are public services do or don't do and the value for money. Its a bit radical and will probably see many of the usual public sector bashers become a little quieter.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

if private sector salaries were reduced, would this not lead to a reduction in costs to the government?

In time it would, but you have to dismantle the whole benchmark fudge. These services if they are required need to be at internationally competitive rates.

nice_guy80

deise blue wrote: »

The Croke Park agreement allows for voluntary redundancies and I'm quite sure we will see thousands applying.

doubtful.

Most people at the top of the PS might go as their pensions are generous

those at other levels will stay in work as long as they can

cyclopath2001

Head The Wall wrote: »

I have no problems paying my taxes to pay for the OAP from the government

But will what you pay in PRSI cover the cost of your state (OAP) pension? It's paid out of current expenditure just like CS pensions.

deise blue

Head the Wall - Croke park agreement to be hoofed out , surely not ?

I was sure I heard David Begg on morning Ireland this a.m. saying that Brian Cowen called the PS unions into his office last week to reassure them that the Croke park agreement would be honoured.

Did I not hear Mary Harney say that PS pay was ringfenced and that savings in the HSE would have to be found elsewhere ?

Did I not hear Dara Calleary , the Minister responsible for PS reform say on Newstalk that PS pay and pensions are vouchsaved until 2014 ?

Head The Wall

You're so gullible, they also said lots of other things that have turned out to be lies.

What fool in there right mind believes politicians?

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

You're so gullible, they also said lots of other things that have turned out to be lies.

What fool in there right mind believes politicians?

You will excuse me if I put my faith in the architects of the Croke Park agreement rather than your goodself ? - I ain 't that bleeding gullible !

Just because it is obviously your fervent wish that the CP agreement is abandoned does not mean that this will happen as your conclusion seems to be based on supposition rather than current political and union comment.

I look forward to resuming our discussion after the deal concludes in 2014.

murphaph

deise blue wrote: »

Just because it is obviously your fervent wish that the CP agreement is abandoned does not mean that this will happen as your conclusion seems to be based on supposition rather than current political and union comment.

The political and union elite can only ignore the state of our national finances for so long, then the tap will be turned off and there will be NO WAGES for anyone. It may take this to happen before the REALITY of how deep in the sh!t we are as a nation sinks in with some PS workers and OAPs who insist they can't take a single penny of a cut (despite the cost of living falling dramatically in the past 3 years).

ardmacha

then the tap will be turned off and there will be NO WAGES for anyone.

Ah sure we can all go to Germany.

some PS workers and OAPs who insist they can't take a single penny of a cut (despite the cost of living falling dramatically in the past 3 years).

The difference is that the workers have already had a cut of about 10% more than deflation while the OAP has not had anything. Whatever about OAPs generally (who should be adjusted by deflation in my view) there is no justification for people actually working in the PS to be further cut until pensioners at the same income level have had the cut that workers have already had.

deise blue

murphaph wrote: »

The political and union elite can only ignore the state of our national finances for so long, then the tap will be turned off and there will be NO WAGES for anyone. It may take this to happen before the REALITY of how deep in the sh!t we are as a nation sinks in with some PS workers and OAPs who insist they can't take a single penny of a cut (despite the cost of living falling dramatically in the past 3 years).

I hate to be the one to break this to you but PS workers have suffered two pay cuts in recent years and the double Christmas payment to many including OAP's has been stopped.

Everyone is going to be hammered in the budget , at least this time it won't only hit PS workers and Social Welfare recipients .

Good to see that Ned O'Keeffe has received an assurance that OAP willnot be hit.

doc_17

We have no money folks.

We're in denial if we think the Croke Park deal isn't/shouldn't be on the table.

It hasn't delivered a single penny in savings so far despite being signed 5 months ago.

Shows how quick the sytem works

Gumbo

doc_17 wrote: »

It hasn't delivered a single penny in savings so far despite being signed 5 months ago.

any links to back this up?