Cheque time

gurramok

SeanyM wrote: »

a "gold pension" that we are now paying for 100% ourselves. which basically means we put by a little each payday for 40yrs to get it paid back to us when we retire. Woo-frickin-hoo.

and you get better returns upon retirement than your private sector counterpart.

SeanyM wrote: »

yes we may have gathered a pitiful extra in our paypackets with benchmarking, but it has been taken back from us penny by penny over the last couple of yrs with reductions in pay.

Ye gathered hell of alot to be far overpaid for the role ye are in. Try getting a job in the private sector now at your wage. Oh wait, there are no jobs!

SeanyM wrote: »

no job is unsackable, but the only perk of this job is "job security". You all could have taken advantage of it, but didnt, and its too late to bitch about it now.

Proven decisively wrong in the Politics Forum. Take a gander over there and argue your case if you dare!

SeanyM wrote: »

Basically all the big boom big spenders out there are looking for a scapegoat, and childishly latched on to the medias way of thinking.

dont believe everything u read in the papers.

Huh? We pay your wages so have you been productive ?

SeanyM

bleg wrote: »

You get a grip. They aren't paid by cheque any more, so "cheque time" is being phased out. It's perfectly logical and reasonable.

I'm completely confused as to 1. why it still exists when cheques were phased out ages ago and 2. how people can argue for it remaining in place.

1. its not "cheque time", its "bank time". That does not specify whether the staff are paid by cheque, cash, or eft, it just entitles the staff to half an hour to go to the bank to avoid the lunch time queues when social welfare scroungers are lodging THEIR cheques.

2. I personally couldnt give a flying f*ck if i lost the bank time, im just personally sick of all the moaners out there. There are bigger problems in the world!

dvpower

SeanyM wrote: »

a "gold pension" that we are now paying for 100% ourselves. which basically means we put by a little each payday for 40yrs to get it paid back to us when we retire. Woo-frickin-hoo.

You have now left NonsenseLand and have arrived at DelusionVille.

Do the sums. Work out how much it would cost to buy a defined benefits pension that pays half a salary per annum and 1 1/2 salary as a tax free lump sum.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SeanyM wrote: »

Benchmarking - was retracted

5yrs service and still on 28k and even with 40 yrs service at the lower grade will not go past approx 33k.

during the boom i had a friend who worked for quinn direct and with bonuses was earning about 40k pa, doing the same hrs as myself, and was only in the door.

But he chose big wages over job stability, yet is now bitching about PS workers. He had many a chance, as did everyone else, to join the PS, but chose not to as it seemed a pathetic choice compared to potential earnings in the private sector back then.

Having worked in public and private sector, I'm not goign to get into that debate - there are pros and cons to every job - but I still don't see an answer the question as to why people should object to it being scrapped.

1. its not "cheque time", its "bank time". That does not specify whether the staff are paid by cheque, cash, or eft, it just entitles the staff to half an hour to go to the bank to avoid the lunch time queues when social welfare scroungers are lodging THEIR cheques.

... and that little dig was completely below the belt and unnessecary. Also, social welfare recepients get paid aty the post office in cash, not the bank.

RoadKillTs

LOUD NOISES

SeanyM

dvpower wrote: »

The boom is over. We can no longer afford your services at the levels you are charging.

We would like to keep as many of you on as we can; we recognise that you provide valuable services and we want to retain as many of these as we can, but the prices we are willing to pay for them are now changed utterly. We are currently borrowing nearly 20bn each year to keep afloat and some people want to retain an extra 1/2 hour pay per fortnight to cash a cheque they no longer get.

Get a grip.

Personally i havent heard one colleague object to the bank time being taken away. its not that big a deal. And life is not as simple as we needed your services but now we dont. These workers have families to support, mortgages/bills to pay. Its not as simple as bye bye! God how i wish your mother/father/sister/brother/son/daughter was a PS worker who got the scak.

Attitudes might change then eh?

SeanyM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Having worked in public and private sector, I'm not goign to get into that debate - there are pros and cons to every job - but I still don't see an answer the question as to why people should object to it being scrapped.



... and that little dig was completely below the belt and unnessecary. Also, social welfare recepients get paid aty the post office in cash, not the bank.

They lodge their huge Rent Supplement cheques in the bank, i know for a fact.

SeanyM

orourkeda wrote: »

I worked there. I can tell you that didnt last long

shoulda gone down the public sector route so.

SeanyM

gurramok wrote: »

and you get better returns upon retirement than your private sector counterpart.



Ye gathered hell of alot to be far overpaid for the role ye are in. Try getting a job in the private sector now at your wage. Oh wait, there are no jobs!



Proven decisively wrong in the Politics Forum. Take a gander over there and argue your case if you dare!



Huh? We pay your wages so have you been productive ?

This i cannot emphasise enough - the Ps cried out for workers during the boom, if we live in such a magical & fantastic world you should have come joined us!

gurramok

SeanyM wrote: »

This i cannot emphasise enough - the Ps cried out for workers during the boom, if we live in such a magical & fantastic world you should have come joined us!

Haha funny man. As proven in the Politics forum there were countless entrants to the PS year on year.

Face the fact, the Irish state cannot afford you and welcome to cutbacks as none of you lost yer jobs, only temps did.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SeanyM wrote: »

They lodge their huge Rent Supplement cheques in the bank, i know for a fact.

Doesn't explain the worthless dig, especially considering one of your benefits is job security.

One thing i would honestly like to know (because the thread source is vague): IS there actually any objection amongst public sector works to the scrapping of the rule, or is that just AH/journalistic ****stirring? I know one of the unions was against it, but no reasons were given.

SeanyM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Doesn't explain the worthless dig, especially considering one of your benefits is job security.

One thing i would honestly like to know (because the thread source is vague): IS there actually any objection amongst public sector works to the scrapping of the rule, or is that just AH/journalistic ****stirring? I know one of the unions was against it, but no reasons were given.

you vent your anger, i vent mine. im sick of hearing that we are responsible for the destruction of this country when there are scroungers sittin on their ass taking advantage of this country, i for one will be the first to stand up for people in a difficult situation with no choice other than to rely on benefits to get them through a tough time. If they've lost their job then by all means take every single benefit that you are entitled to, because in so many cases these people have paid their taxes for that very reason. and in the case of people who have any sort of disability then of course the state should do absolutely everything in its power to help these people. But in my line of work i see people day in day out living off benefits simply because they can. And it sickens me that im am being personally attacked, despite the fact that i got off my ass and got a job and do a full weeks work week in week out, breaking my balls only to be hit with criticism everytime i open a bloody newspaper.

dvpower

SeanyM wrote: »

Personally i havent heard one colleague object to the bank time being taken away. its not that big a deal. And life is not as simple as we needed your services but now we dont. These workers have families to support, mortgages/bills to pay. Its not as simple as bye bye! God how i wish your mother/father/sister/brother/son/daughter was a PS worker who got the scak.

Attitudes might change then eh?

The CPSU are objecting. I posted a link earlier in the thread.

I have a lot of family members working in the PS and I worked in the civil service both here and abroad for a good number of years. I've got a lot of respect for the work that they do but there are are realities here. WE CANT AFFORD THESE SERVICES. We need to have a much cheaper public service.

In other industries getting the sack is a reality of life. the company where I work, we made 1/3 of the staff redundant around the start of the recession. We didn't have the luxury of an unlimited taxpayer bailout. why should you?

ejmaztec

People give me cheques and I have to have Elastoplast Time to recover from paper-cuts. I'm glad I'm not a Haemopheliac, I'd never get any work done at all.

SeanyM

SeanyM wrote: »

you vent your anger, i vent mine. im sick of hearing that we are responsible for the destruction of this country when there are scroungers sittin on their ass taking advantage of this country, i for one will be the first to stand up for people in a difficult situation with no choice other than to rely on benefits to get them through a tough time. If they've lost their job then by all means take every single benefit that you are entitled to, because in so many cases these people have paid their taxes for that very reason. and in the case of people who have any sort of disability then of course the state should do absolutely everything in its power to help these people. But in my line of work i see people day in day out living off benefits simply because they can. And it sickens me that im am being personally attacked, despite the fact that i got off my ass and got a job and do a full weeks work week in week out, breaking my balls only to be hit with criticism everytime i open a bloody newspaper.

oh sorry i forgot to reply to your other question, no i honestly have not heard any objection to the retraction of bank time. it really isnt that big a deal, i think that yet again the media are putting it out there to turn the public against us yet again. I have had so many paycuts, and like everyone else the income levy, but i honestly dont mind, if that is what is needed to fix this country then so be it. What i dont agree with is the pblic lynching of PS workers. We are just people like yourselves, tying to get by and pay the bills.

dvpower

SeanyM wrote: »

shoulda gone down the public sector route so.

This is the most dumb PS argument ever.
Its made by people who haven't yet faced the reality (I hope) of the impending change in the public service.

dxhound2005

Below is part of the statement from the CPSU. Given that the population of the country increased from 3.705 to 4.47 million in the period the 22% increase in junior ranks could be justified. However the others are just evidence of empire building and could surely be pruned to provide some savings. This is not an argument for keeping the cheque thing but you wouldn't expect the union to roll over straight away. Everyone wants to keep what they have, the bankers mega pay and bonuses, electricians special pay rates etc etc.

The CPSU General Secretary points to the disproportionate increase in higher management grades in the civil service.
Between 1998 and 2009 there was a 60% increase in the number of Assistant Secretaries General.
There was a 462% increase in the number of Higher Principal Officers, with a 43% increase in the number of Principal Officers.
The number of Higher Assistant Principals soared by 339%, the number of Assistant Principals rose by 61%, and the number of Higher Executive officers by 72%.
Executive officers rose by just over 100%.
However, at the lower end of the pay scales, staff officer numbers were up by just 22%, and the ranks of clerical officers only increased by 14%.

starbelgrade

SeanyM wrote: »

1. its not "cheque time", its "bank time". That does not specify whether the staff are paid by cheque, cash, or eft, it just entitles the staff to half an hour to go to the bank to avoid the lunch time queues when social welfare scroungers are lodging THEIR cheques.

2. I personally couldnt give a flying f*ck if i lost the bank time, im just personally sick of all the moaners out there. There are bigger problems in the world!

How can you say that you are sick of moaners & also call people on the dole "social welfare scroungers" in the same post?

And as far as I know, SW recipients don't get paid by cheque & they get paid in the Post Office & not the bank.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SeanyM wrote: »

you vent your anger, i vent mine. im sick of hearing that we are responsible for the destruction of this country when there are scroungers sittin on their ass taking advantage of this country, i for one will be the first to stand up for people in a difficult situation with no choice other than to rely on benefits to get them through a tough time. If they've lost their job then by all means take every single benefit that you are entitled to, because in so many cases these people have paid their taxes for that very reason. and in the case of people who have any sort of disability then of course the state should do absolutely everything in its power to help these people. But in my line of work i see people day in day out living off benefits simply because they can. And it sickens me that im am being personally attacked, despite the fact that i got off my ass and got a job and do a full weeks work week in week out, breaking my balls only to be hit with criticism everytime i open a bloody newspaper.

Chill. You'll live longer. This public sector v private sector thing really needs to be ****ing put to bed. Not aimed at you personally, aimed at people from both sides. Never went in much for schadenfreude. Everyone's suffering, and yet peope are trying to make others suffer more.

SeanyM wrote: »

oh sorry i forgot to reply to your other question, no i honestly have not heard any objection to the retraction of bank time. it really isnt that big a deal, i think that yet again the media are putting it out there to turn the public against us yet again.

Fair enough. I though as much, to be honest.

SeanyM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Chill. You'll live longer. This public sector v private sector thing really needs to be ****ing put to bed. Not aimed at you personally, aimed at people from both sides. Never went in much for schadenfreude. Everyone's suffering, and yet peope are trying to make others suffer more.

Could not agree with you more. You seem like a reasonable person if only we'd put YOU in government! i know i seem to have got caught up in the whole public v private sector but to be honest i respect anybody who gets out and earns a living, i do agree that there are people out there on ridiculous wages, both public and private sector, but it just seems like the whole country is turning on themselves, and thats not gonna get us anywhere.

Fair enough. I though as much, to be honest.

.

SeanyM

starbelgrade wrote: »

How can you say that you are sick of moaners & also call people on the dole "social welfare scroungers" in the same post?

And as far as I know, SW recipients don't get paid by cheque & they get paid in the Post Office & not the bank.

i believe i have explained my position on both points further on in this debate.

SeanyM

dvpower wrote: »

This is the most dumb PS argument ever.
Its made by people who haven't yet faced the reality (I hope) of the impending change in the public service.

Suck my big fat PS b*lls.

Mod note, user banned for this comment

starbelgrade

SeanyM wrote: »

i believe i have explained my position on both points further on in this debate.

Hmm. You registered in 2008 & posted in the Airsoft forum at 15:41 on Christmas Eve. That was your one & only post.... until today, when this thread started, almost 2 years later.

Odd.

My guess is that you are a regular poster here - but under a different username.

So, the question is.... are you ashamed to admit you are a PS worker as your normal username? And if so... why?

gurramok

SeanyM wrote: »

Suck my big fat PS b*lls.

:eek:

Is this the voice of the public sector?

starbelgrade

SeanyM wrote: »

Suck my big fat PS b*lls.

Aha... so the PS bills are big & fat!

SeanyM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Aha... so the PS bills are big & fat!

hahahaha they sure are

dvpower

SeanyM wrote: »

Suck my big fat PS b*lls.

See. Services that are of no use to anyone.

SeanyM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Hmm. You registered in 2008 & posted in the Airsoft forum at 15:41 on Christmas Eve. That was your one & only post.... until today, when this thread started, almost 2 years later.

Odd.

My guess is that you are a regular poster here - but under a different username.

So, the question is.... are you ashamed to admit you are a PS worker as your normal username? And if so... why?

Yes i am because my wages are so measly

No but seriously, get a life. Im using my bf's username because i was BORED and felt strongly about this particular subject. But seriously man, come join us in the PS and use the WHOPPER WAGES to get yourself some sort of social life.

starbelgrade

SeanyM wrote: »

Yes i am because my wages are so measly

No but seriously, get a life. Im using my bf's username because i was BORED and felt strongly about this particular subject. But seriously man, come join us in the PS and use the WHOPPER WAGES to get yourself some sort of social life.

No thanks. I enjoy working.

SeanyM

dvpower wrote: »

See. Services that are of no use to anyone.

Oh ****! please dont tell my boss i enacted my "sense of humour" mode outside of work hours or i'll be sacked