Slashing Public Sector Pay

rodento

Just wondering what would happen to the false and actual ecomany if you slashed the public sector pay/pension including semi's and the social welfare by another 30%.

Thinking in terms of loan defaults, huge drop in tax take, collapse of feeder industries like creche's and resturants etc

Would it mean that people could no longer afford to work, how would they get rid of their cars if they could no longer afford to run them:eek:

Would utility companies survive with people no longer been able to afford to pay for heat/electricity...

Not forgeting the effects on rents and mortgages

gigino

If social welfare was cut by 30% it would still be higher than in the north.

If public service pay was cut by 30% gross the effect after tax would be a lot smaller.

Sure it would have an effect but even if gross average public sector pay was cut by 30%, it would still be higher than in our neighbours the UK....and they still have creches, restaurants, cars...

Cutting public sector pay by 30% here would bring it close to private sector pay, which is more like the norm in most countries.

When the IMF / EU do cut government expenditure, it will be those on 80,000 and more who will suffer most.

Public sector pensions should be capped at say 40 grand, given the state of the economy. If people in the public sector want a bigger pension than that, they should save for it themselves. Its absurd some public sector retirees getting an annual pension of 120,000 and more.

hmmm

I don't disagree that the rates have to be cut, but an immediate cut would be devastating both for individuals and the entire economy. You simply cannot cut the pay of hundreds of thousands by 30/40% overnight, and cut pensions and social welfare by 30/40% in the same way without massive social disruption.

It can (and should) be done over 4 or 5 years.

markpb

gigino wrote: »

Sure it would have an effect but

The crux of the problem with your post.

If you slash the wages of a big chunk of the country, mass defaults on mortgages will be the first outcome. We would end up with an even bigger hole in the banks balance sheets which means we would have to borrow more money to fill that hole. Then you'd have the sudden drop in overall market activity as people have nothing to spend.

I agree that government expenditure needs to fall a lot further but no-one has been able to suggest a realistic way of doing that.

RichardAnd

hmmm wrote: »

I don't disagree that the rates have to be cut, but an immediate cut would be devastating both for individuals and the entire economy. You simply cannot cut the pay of hundreds of thousands by 30/40% overnight, and cut pensions and social welfare by 30/40% in the same way without massive social disruption.

It can (and should) be done over 4 or 5 years.

I agree with this. OP, the problem here is that wages in Ireland (public AND private) were allowed to get out of control. When this was combined with the low taxes of the boom, it left alot of disposable income in people's pockets which led to one simple thing...inflation.

Even today, recession or nay, most people still earn a very decent wage so prices haven't dropped by any significant amount. Hence, we are left with a situiation where an immediate cut of 40% to public sector wages would be a disaster in that it would mean thousands of people would be unable to afford to live until prices re-adjusted, which wouldn't happen over night.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the belief that every public servant is 40-50% better off than private sector counter parts is misleading. I worked in the public sector myself and I'm familiar with the pay scales. At the lower end, at least, the pay isn't that much different than it would be for equivalent private sector jobs.

So what is the solution? Well there's no simple one other than an attempt to pull wages down over a few years. A single, swift cut to public wage might have to happen, I hope not, but if it does it will not be good for the economy at large but to be honest, it may be unavoidable.

gigino

markpb wrote: »

If you slash the wages of a big chunk of the country, mass defaults on mortgages will be the first outcome.

A very big chunk of the country is already on much lower wages than the cossetted public service. As I said "When the IMF / EU do cut government expenditure, it will be those on 80,000 and more who will suffer most.
Public sector pensions should be capped at say 40 grand, given the state of the economy. If people in the public sector want a bigger pension than that, they should save for it themselves. Its absurd some public sector retirees getting an annual pension of 120,000 and more. " Public servants higher up will ( rightfully) bear the brunt of the wage cuts. If those on 80, 100, 120k a year etc are cut most will not be defaulting on their mortgages of their principal residences. Some public servants with multiple homes may lose some - tough.

The current situation where the average retiring public servant gets a tax free gratuity of 18 months finishing salary - big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) , in addition to our pension, is not sustainable considering the state of the economy / the IMF here etc. Prices have fallem , public service pensions need to too.

Head The Wall

RichardAnd wrote: »

I worked in the public sector myself and I'm familiar with the pay scales. At the lower end, at least, the pay isn't that much different than it would be for equivalent private sector jobs.

You're wrong about that, the last ESRI report showed the greatest difference at the lowest paid end. It was around 35% at the bottom and 8-10% at the top end.

These so called lower paid paper shufflers are also the ones first in line to get their pay reinstated as per the CPA when they should be getting cut the most to bring them in line with their private sector counterparts

20Cent

If you cut the PS and welfare by 30% then society as we know it would come to an abrupt halt.

Slash the pensions.

RichardAnd

Head The Wall wrote: »

You're wrong about that, the last ESRI report showed the greatest difference at the lowest paid end. It was around 35% at the bottom and 8-10% at the top end.

These so called lower paid paper shufflers are also the ones first in line to get their pay reinstated as per the CPA when they should be getting cut the most to bring them in line with their private sector counterparts

A quill pusher, as you say, in the public service will get about 22k a year starting off. This isn't much different from what an administrator will get in the private sector. Granted, pay scales allow that to go up but 35% seems excessive.

Don't suppose you have a link to that report?

paddy0090

20Cent wrote: »

If you cut the PS and welfare by 30% then society as we know it would come to an abrupt halt.

Halt . Destructive as it would be society would adapt and get on with it. The second round effects would be hugely destabilizing particularly in rural areas because of decentralisation. But the cities(particularly Dublin) would manage.

Do you really think the effect would be much different if you did it over a 3 year period?

20Cent

paddy0090 wrote: »

Halt . Destructive as it would be society would adapt and get on with it. The second round effects would be hugely destabilizing particularly in rural areas because of decentralisation. But the cities(particularly Dublin) would manage.

Do you really think the effect would be much different if you did it over a 3 year period?

The cops would be out helping the PS and unemployed fire the petrol bombs at the Dail.

paddy0090

20Cent wrote: »

The cops would be out helping the PS and unemployed fire the petrol bombs at the Dail.

Only if the dish runs away with the spoon!

Head The Wall

RichardAnd wrote: »

A quill pusher, as you say, in the public service will get about 22k a year starting off. This isn't much different from what an administrator will get in the private sector. Granted, pay scales allow that to go up but 35% seems excessive.

Don't suppose you have a link to that report?

http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2864

eric hoone

gigino wrote: »

A very big chunk of the country is already on much lower wages than the cossetted public service. As I said "When the IMF / EU do cut government expenditure, it will be those on 80,000 and more who will suffer most.
Public sector pensions should be capped at say 40 grand, given the state of the economy. If people in the public sector want a bigger pension than that, they should save for it themselves. Its absurd some public sector retirees getting an annual pension of 120,000 and more. " Public servants higher up will ( rightfully) bear the brunt of the wage cuts. If those on 80, 100, 120k a year etc are cut most will not be defaulting on their mortgages of their principal residences. Some public servants with multiple homes may lose some - tough.

The current situation where the average retiring public servant gets a tax free gratuity of 18 months finishing salary - big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) , in addition to our pension, is not sustainable considering the state of the economy / the IMF here etc. Prices have fallem , public service pensions need to too.

There is a generation of policy makers and their peers making off like flynn with our euros, look at the previous cabinets' pay-offs- TAX FREE. Any prospect of the govt stopping his scandal? Turkeys and christmas come to mind. But it's urgent because younger public servants will pay for this with huge pay cuts in the near future.

bamboozle

I'd settle for a 50% pay cut on income over 100k for state employees or those earning state pensions and an complete overhaul of salaries and pensions for new entrants to the public sector.

ie if someone, lets just say a hapless former Financial Regulator called Pat is forced to retire as his inability to do the job he was paid for was badly exposed, is currently earning a state pension of €144k, this would be cut down to €122k

if a secretary general of a govt dept was earning €230k this would be cut to €165k

i'm sure those in the public sector on salaries lower than 100k would be quiet happy to see the higher earners being cut.

Riskymove

bamboozle wrote: »

I'd settle for a 50% pay cut on income over 100k for state employees or those earning state pensions and an complete overhaul of salaries and pensions for new entrants to the public sector.

......i'm sure those in the public sector on salaries lower than 100k would be quiet happy to see the higher earners being cut.

so someone on 95k gets no cut?

most public servants are at the other end of the spectrum so i really dont think much be achieved, especially taking into account taxation etc

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2864

That report would appear to be out of date as it covers the 3 year period to 2006 & as such does not include the unilateral pay cuts imposed more recently.

Is there no more recent , relevant report ?

gigino

Riskymove wrote: »

most public servants are at the other end of the spectrum so i really dont think much be achieved, especially taking into account taxation etc

Public sector pay has doubled over the past 10 years, so there is room and considerable savings to be made by meaningful cuts. ...not just in pay but in pensions too. As said brefore, The current situation where the average retiring public servant gets a tax free gratuity of 18 months finishing salary - big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) , in addition to our normal public service annual pension, is not moral, decent or sustainable considering the state of the economy / the IMF here etc.

Laminations

Could someone please post 3 very simple descriptive stats:

The mean, median and mode of pay in the public sector.

Riskymove

gigino wrote: »

Public sector pay has doubled over the past 10 years, so there is room and considerable savings to be made by meaningful cuts. ...not just in pay but in pensions too. As said brefore, The current situation where the average retiring public servant gets a tax free gratuity of 18 months finishing salary - big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) , in addition to our normal public service annual pension, is not moral, decent or sustainable considering the state of the economy / the IMF here etc.

hmmm, something very familiar about this

anyway I was responding to someone else

gigino

Riskymove wrote: »

anyway I was responding to someone else

you had a paragraph statement
"most public servants are at the other end of the spectrum so i really dont think much be achieved, especially taking into account taxation etc "

My point is a lot could be achieved. Despite the cuts over the past year or two the public sector pay bill has doubled for the taxpayer over the past ten years.

Riskymove

gigino wrote: »

you had a paragraph statement
"most public servants are at the other end of the spectrum so i really dont think much be achieved, especially taking into account taxation etc "

and that was in response to an idea that cuts only happen above €100k

I dont think that would achieve much

Despite the cuts over the past year or two the public sector pay bill has doubled for the taxpayer over the past ten years.

the pay bill doubled, wages did not neccessarily double

also I would argue about 'despite'

the pay bill doubled but has been and is coming down over the last couple of years, and other measures (e.g. levies, taxes) dont affect the gross pay bill so are often overlooked

Riskymove

Laminations wrote: »

Could someone please post 3 very simple descriptive stats:

The mean, median and mode of pay in the public sector.

the only published stat is the average released by CSO

I think its around €45k following the paycuts

Its also been mentioned a few times that a third of PS earn 40k or less and two thirds €60 or less (before paycuts)

gigino

Riskymove wrote: »

I think its around €45k following the paycuts

average public sector pay is actually 47k per year www.cso.ie


pay in the semi-states, which are really part of the government anyway you could say, is considerably higher, as was highlighted a week or 2 ago , both in the national media as well as on boards.ie

north of the border average public sector pay is between 22 and 23 k per year stg.

Riskymove

gigino wrote: »

average public sector pay is actually 47k per year www.cso.ie

thanks, obviously I was miles off:rolleyes:

pay in the semi-states, which are really part of the government anyway you could say,

you can argue that they are 'part of govt' if you like, what is important in these threads is that they dont form part of the PS pay bill

Dinge

The pension levy's not included in those figures though, is it?

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

That report would appear to be out of date as it covers the 3 year period to 2006 & as such does not include the unilateral pay cuts imposed more recently.

Is there no more recent , relevant report ?

There has been one paycut not paycuts. It was only a few percent and the PS have continued receiving increments since then.

Laminations wrote: »

Could someone please post 3 very simple descriptive stats:

The mean, median and mode of pay in the public sector.

I can't provide reports and data that isn't there. It's essentially up to the CSO, ESRI or whatever useless govt body to do so. When they can't even come together and have a shared database there is zero chance of ever getting concise correct data.

Dinge wrote: »

The pension levy's not included in those figures though, is it?

The pension levy is a deduction and has nothing to do with Gross pay, the CSO reports also don't factor in pension contributions private sector workers make.

angelfire9

gigino wrote: »

average public sector pay is actually 47k per year www.cso.ie


pay in the semi-states, which are really part of the government anyway you could say, is considerably higher, as was highlighted a week or 2 ago , both in the national media as well as on boards.ie

north of the border average public sector pay is between 22 and 23 k per year stg.

Firstly the €47k figure quoted is from 2008 correct?
Therefore is inaccurate as it does not take into consideration the reduction in gross pay for public servants in budget 2009

Can you show a source for the NI figures please?

rodento

Question isn't how overpaid the public sector is, more the effects on the general society if you cut the pay of 500,000 people + by over 7'000.

beeno67

deise blue wrote: »

That report would appear to be out of date as it covers the 3 year period to 2006 & as such does not include the unilateral pay cuts imposed more recently.

Is there no more recent , relevant report ?

In todays mini budget or what ever you want to call it, Noonan said the cut in PRSI for those earning under €18,500 would affect 600,000 workers. So I take it from that that 600,000 workers (about one third of the workforce) earn less than €18500 a year.

Drumpot

In truth no government will make radical cutbacks and savings in the public service that is required. What is funny is that many of the people who give out about how little they have are the ones that most people would gladly see protected more then those in higher positions.

The real problems are that there are too many people on the payrole, many which arent required. There is an unqualified upper level management incapable of making the most out of its workforce as much because of the lack of motivation to make big decisions (and lack of responsibility) to properly improve the running of the service.

The government are still afraid of the public service overall, but will as usual show a jelly backbone by making everybody else sustain the unjustifiable expenses that many area's are sucking up.

What is funny is that when people say "slash social welfare even more" it must be clarified that people on social welfare will spend more in the economy (in terms of what money they actually have) then those on the public payrole who are currently saving, saving saving. This doesnt justify not cutting welfare, its just a point that the Unions always conveniently forget when they speak of how cutting public service salaries will take so much out of the economy, but they ignore how much worse slashing welfare in its current state (440k people spending!) would do to the economy.

I have said it before and I dont limit this to public servants. People still do not know how to budget and dont realise that the lifestyle they are used to is not something they deserve to maintain simply because they are used to it.

I know myself how much the average household can run on as I have to count my pennies:

Mortgage: €960 (interest Only)
Telephone: €50
Electricity: €50
Gas: €50
Petrol/transport: €300
TV: €37
Refuse: €22
Life Assurance: €50
VHI: €130
Sundries (including groceries): €600
Annual expenses unforeseen: €300

Total €2549

That is close to my budget (wife and child).

I dont go on holidays and dont really go out much. BBBBBUUUTTT

When most people speak of hardship, they simply do not know how to budget and they simply presume that hardship is not going out every week or not even being able to go on holiday!. PPPPLLLLEEEAAASSSEE

To subsidise above, my family needs to bring in roughly €36,000 PA. Now, I hear some people on tv say they cannot live on this salary on their own. I am sorry but if you got in over your head with investments, that is not anybody elses fault or problem but your own.

I think the state should always look to protect its people, but I dont think as an employer its job is to protect its employees from required lifestyle downgrades.

billyboy01

Sure why dont we just become a Fully Communist State, and make the people work for nothing and own nothing!

Oh yes that idea was been tried, and failed!:rolleyes:

Pay people peanuts and you WILL get monkeys! especially in Ireland, where there is a culture of defiance and slyness!;)

stone roses

im a fireman and im sick off all you people talking about money!! why dont you shot me in the head and get it over and done with???

i save lifes for a living, i work hard and train hard i got 3 kids and live a very normal life , im on 40,000 not 400.000!!! like some top dogs in the private and public sector!!

yes i agree slash all pay private and public but leave the middle income earners alone! we have taken far to much pain as it is in the public and private sector!! i worked in the private sector and desided to move to the public sector when money was crap!!!! so give us a break and think about what your saying!!!! slash the public sector pay!!!!! same **** all the time but nobody says that when tere being saved for a car crash or fire!!!! cope on you make me sick!!

thebman

billyboy01 wrote: »

Sure why dont we just become a Fully Communist State, and make the people work for nothing and own nothing!

Oh yes that idea was been tried, and failed!:rolleyes:

Pay people peanuts and you WILL get monkeys! especially in Ireland, where there is a culture of defiance and slyness!;)

Communism would be paying the same rate to people who push papers as highly educated staff which seems to be what we have at the moment.

People actually doing low skilled jobs, getting paid wages of people that do skilled jobs.

gigino

thebman wrote: »

Communism would be paying the same rate to people who push papers as highly educated staff which seems to be what we have at the moment.

\rubbish. Highly educated people at the top of the payscale in an Irish hospital or university for example earn oven ten times more than some other people working in the same building. The boss in ESB earns about 40 times the annual salary of many people in the country.

gigino

Drumpot wrote: »

The real problems are that I know myself how much the average household can run on as I have to count my pennies:

Mortgage: €960 (interest Only)
Telephone: €50
Electricity: €50
Gas: €50
Petrol/transport: €300
TV: €37
Refuse: €22
Life Assurance: €50
VHI: €130
Sundries (including groceries): €600
Annual expenses unforeseen: €300

Total €2549

To many people the above is quite extravagent expenditure. 600 euro a year on phone for example? 264 a year on refuse? 444 a year on tv ? Room for economising there a bit for many people.

Drumpot

stone roses wrote: »

im a fireman and im sick off all you people talking about money!! why dont you shot me in the head and get it over and done with???

i save lifes for a living, i work hard and train hard i got 3 kids and live a very normal life , im on 40,000 not 400.000!!! like some top dogs in the private and public sector!!

yes i agree slash all pay private and public but leave the middle income earners alone! we have taken far to much pain as it is in the public and private sector!! i worked in the private sector and desided to move to the public sector when money was crap!!!! so give us a break and think about what your saying!!!! slash the public sector pay!!!!! same **** all the time but nobody says that when tere being saved for a car crash or fire!!!! cope on you make me sick!!

With all due respect, it doesnt matter what your job is, if you get paid for it, you cant start getting high and mighty because there are paycuts on the table. What you think you are entitled to and what the state can afford are subjective (whether you are defending your pay or somebody is suggesting it should be reduced).

The fact of the matter is that the Public sector paybill will have to be reduced. Most people would argue that its mainly wastage, over employment and certain sections that are simply paying themselves too much thats a huge part of the problem. But the problem is that there will be areas that should be trimmed that wont and as such it will be the usual knife to everybody approach that most yellow bellied governments take!

But for Nurses, firemen and policemen to start shouting about how important they are (and if we dont listen we can go F**k ourselves), it does little to strengthen their cause and they forget that they are actually saying since they are in jobs (that pay them) that are of noble nature, the rest of us should subsidise what they think they are worth.

Im sorry, but the pay increases that happened during the boom need to be reversed because the taxes that were subsidising it are gone. If you bought an investment house or got too much into debt, its not justified with the old "well I save lives" card. I know this is a ridiculously unpopular stance to take. I have nothing against anybody being upset with a potential paycut. I have a problem with people who basically have shifted the argument from I am entitled to it, to something completely differant. If you are feeling unappreciated, move jobs or join the rest of us and just get on with things.

Make no mistake, we are in a depression that could last a decade long. If you think what has happened up until now is bad, wait until things continue to labour along and get worse.

Because the public service has been a seriously protected beast and a culture of entitlement was fueled by a Bertie blank cheque, coupled with Unions who got used to asking and getting what they wanted, it still hasnt registered with many of them that the ATM service that their Unions were able to treat our public finances with, are gone.

I dont see how anybody can argue that when private sector gains were used to increase wages in the public service, how it should be the private sector again that is used to maintain these inflated wages that were only possible due to private sector success (in a property bubble). So basically we subsidise the increase in the boom and subsidise the "soft landing" in the depression. Since most government positions do not create wealth and there is huge unemployment , it puts an even greater strain on private citizens to fund our bills.

I didnt make this public v private, but I have to call you up on that. I am sorry that you feel angry and unnapreciated, but once everybody on both sides start seeing that there are few (save for select positions) people working in this country that are not suffering in some sort. But most people cant go into their boss and bang the table and demand that their salary remain stationary when their boss is barely keeping the company afloat as is.

Drumpot

gigino wrote: »

To many people the above is quite extravagent expenditure. 600 euro a year on phone for example? 264 a year on refuse? 444 a year on tv ? Room for economising there a bit for many people.

Well I get it subsidised as I use it for work.

Also, that is our local refuse charges (I pay quarterly) and its the cheapest.

As for tv, I was simply showing that you can live a decent life on a modest wage!

I didnt include my annual management charge of €185 and was using conservative figures to show that the people moaning on 36k are simply not budgeting properly if they think they cannot live on this wage!

gigino

fair enough. . Many people would love to be on 36k a year. Its a good wage by international standards.

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

There has been one paycut not paycuts. It was only a few percent and the PS have continued receiving increments since then.



You say tomato

---

.

I , like Brian Lenihan , believe there have been 2 pay cuts to date .

It is of course incorrect to state that the PS have continued to receive increments since 2006 , some have & some haven't.

Head The Wall

gigino wrote: »

fair enough. . Many people would love to be on 36k a year. Its a good wage by international standards.

But alas it's just above the so called lower paid level that gets trotted out by the unions

deise blue wrote: »

You say tomato

---

.

I , like Brian Lenihan , believe there have been 2 pay cuts to date .

It is of course incorrect to state that the PS have continued to receive increments since 2006 , some have & some haven't.

First crazy notion is that you believe what Brian Lenihan says, he's hardly a bastion of truth is he! You can't get tax relief on a paycut so explain that one


Secondly the Public sector as a whole has continued to receive increments, I didn't state that everyone received increments. Either way it still doesn't negate the fact that increments are still being awarded while there is a "pay freeze" going on, it's idiotic to try and see it any other way but if that's how you want to look at it go ahead

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

But alas it's just above the so called lower paid level that gets trotted out by the unions




First crazy notion is that you believe what Brian Lenihan says, he's hardly a bastion of truth is he! You can't get tax relief on a paycut so explain that one


Secondly the Public sector as a whole has continued to receive increments, I didn't state that everyone received increments. Either way it still doesn't negate the fact that increments are still being awarded while there is a "pay freeze" going on, it's idiotic to try and see it any other way but if that's how you want to look at it go ahead

That's the way I want to look at it.

If you had stated that the PS continued to pay increments to the proportion of it's employees that were contractually entitled to same then we would have been on the same page.

If the man that arbitrarily reduced PS salaries on 2 occasions referred to them both as pay cuts then who am I to argue ?

sollar

deise blue wrote: »

If the man that arbitrarily reduced PS salaries on 2 occasions referred to them both as pay cuts then who am I to argue ?

Yes of course they are paycuts. Only people who didn't see the money coming out of their pay packets would say otherwise.

Its like agreeing a price to get your house painted and the painter asks you for more money for the job half way through. Has he increased the price or are you just contributing more for the gold plated job he thinks he has done.

gigino

If the house painter was getting big contributions from his employers towards his gold-plated pension fund, and was then asked to pay a decent contribution to the pension out of his wages, would he look on that as a pay cut ?

sollar

gigino wrote: »

If the house painter was getting big contributions from his employers towards his gold-plated pension fund, and was then asked to pay a decent contribution to the pension out of his wages, would he look on that as a pay cut ?

Seeing as it would be renaging on an existing agreement without the painters agreement then yes. If they took money directly out of his paypacket to put towards his already agreed pension then i can't see how that is anything other than a cut to his pay. He gains nothing from that, infact he is down money from his paypacket. His employer gains.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

Seeing as it would be renaging on an existing agreement without the painters agreement then yes. If they took money directly out of his paypacket to put towards his already agreed pension then i can't see how that is anything other than a cut to his pay. He gains nothing from that, infact he is down money from his paypacket. His employer gains.

So if my pension loses value, can I call that a paycut?

Drumpot

sollar wrote: »

Seeing as it would be renaging on an existing agreement without the painters agreement then yes. If they took money directly out of his paypacket to put towards his already agreed pension then i can't see how that is anything other than a cut to his pay. He gains nothing from that, infact he is down money from his paypacket. His employer gains.

What are you talking about ? What if you just told the painter that he didnt have a job ? Ah wait, that would be a private sector painter, we are talking about a pulblic sector painter, so that couldnt happen.

So the public sector painter "is entitled" to it. The same old drum being beaten again. Doesnt matter what state the countrys finances are, there was a contract signed so everybody else should have to subsidise it! Typical narrow minded thinking and ignoring the harsh reality the state finds itself.

Until the government stops pussy footing around the problem, we will continue to have people thinking that its up to everybody else to honor an employers contract with it employees because they have an expectation of it!

gigino

Drumpot wrote: »

we are talking about a pulblic sector painter

lol he is entitled to a job for life, shorter working week, higher pay, xmas shopping day, time off to cash his non-existed pay cheque, golden pension and no stress / pressure as he cannot be sacked.

sollar

Drumpot wrote: »

So the public sector painter "is entitled" to it. The same old drum being beaten again. Doesnt matter what state the countrys finances are, there was a contract signed so everybody else should have to subsidise it! Typical narrow minded thinking and ignoring the harsh reality the state finds itself.!

This is public sector pensions we are talking about. Not a private sector pension basd on the stock markets. We are told what we are getting from day one. Our pensions don't go up or down unless they are cut or increased.

There is no smal print on our contract saying the value of your pension may go up or down etc.

sarumite

sollar wrote: »

There is no smal print on our contract saying the value of your pension may go up or down etc.

So did the government break the contract? If so, why didn't the unions take them to court?