Benchmakring III without the comparison

Geuze

The PS cont does not cover the full cost of the pension, correct, and they shouldn't, as their employer should pay some of the cost.

When we as a nation hire a nurse, we must accept that we must pay their wage and contribute towards their pension.

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

and no pension bar the OAP which they pay in full via PRSI.

Note that PRSI conts don't cover the full cost of social insurance.

The State has used taxes to top up the SI fund.

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

I have said defined contribution should be consigned to the past in both public and private sectors as when the pension goes belly up the the tax payer is asked to be the doorstop which is unfair.

I think you mean DB here.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

How much did it go up in the decade before that..and have you figures their for 2013 - 2015?

The cost will have dropped further because of a number of factors:

(1) Further pay cuts to the higher earners
(2) Further reduction in the number of public servants
(3) No pay increases for public servants
(4) New pension scheme for new entrants from 2013

The €98 bn was based on an assumption of rising PS numbers and pay increases. They didn't happen so the cost will be less. I reckon the current cost is around €88 - 90 bn and I think an official from Howlin's Department confirmed this at a Dail committee.

More money being given by the public sector to the private sector.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I have pointed out that over 50% of private sector have no scheme and that 1 in 5 in the private sector over the bust stopped paying their pension, therefore they have no money and no pension bar the OAP which they pay in full via PRSI. Now I do accept there are private sector pensions out there and if you or anyone else bothered to read what I put up here. I have said defined contribution should be consigned to the past in both public and private sectors as when the pension goes belly up the the tax payer is asked to be the doorstop which is unfair.

This is another false statement. The SI fund has been in deficit for quite some time and has been propped up by tax contributions. A previous problem with the fund was solved by making public servants pay PRSI and contribute to private sector pensions (more money from the public sector for the private sector).

In addition, the SI fund only covers the contributory OAP. The non-contributory OAP comes out of general taxation, paid by all, including public servants.

It seems fliball, that you want public servants to pay for their own pensions and pay for the pensions of the private sector as well.

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

The PS cont does not cover the full cost of the pension, correct, and they shouldn't, as their employer should pay some of the cost.

When we as a nation hire a nurse, we must accept that we must pay their wage and contribute towards their pension.

But the problem is the employer uses tax payers money to cover it. Imagine a company doing this where they are broke and borrowing and then they decide to charge customers more money to shovel into their employees pensions and at a time when over 50% of their customers cant afford their own. It doesnt take a genius to know this company would of hit the wall, the pension scheme would of been wound up. This is where the anomaly is.

Why should we accept the premise that we should contribute to their pension? When we as a nation hire a nurse we must pay them what we can afford and what they deserve and if they want a pension they should provide for their own pension. I think nurses in the main in Ireland are overworked and underpaid by the way and they along with other front line workers should get a pay rise but then again there are some on the front line and throughtout the ps not deserving of a payrise. All politicans for example do not deserve any payrise..But I stand by my premise that the current benchmarking III without any measurement is pure madness and when collective bargaining is being used unfortunately all good workers get tarred with the same feather

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

I think you mean DB here.

sorry yeah DB is what I meant

fliball123

Geuze wrote: »

Note that PRSI conts don't cover the full cost of social insurance.

The State has used taxes to top up the SI fund.

It depends on what the person is paying and what they garner throughout their life. As in if someone works all their life, has private health insurance, never has a kid and dies the day they retire. I would say they have paid PRSI without getting anything in return

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

But the problem is the employer uses tax payers money to cover it. Imagine a company doing this where they are broke and borrowing and then they decide to charge customers more money to shovel into their employees pensions and at a time when over 50% of their customers cant afford their own. It doesnt take a genius to know this company would of hit the wall, the pension scheme would of been wound up. This is where the anomaly is.

Why should we accept the premise that we should contribute to their pension? When we as a nation hire a nurse we must pay them what we can afford and what they deserve and if they want a pension they should provide for their own pension. I think nurses in the main in Ireland are overworked and underpaid by the way and they along with other front line workers should get a pay rise but then again there are some on the front line and throughtout the ps not deserving of a payrise. All politicans for example do not deserve any payrise..But I stand by my premise that the current benchmarking III without any measurement is pure madness and when collective bargaining is being used unfortunately all good workers get tarred with the same feather

You know fliball, even when you are being nice to the public sector, you are getting your facts completely wrong.


http://www.thejournal.ie/the-lancet-patient-safety-nurses-1332414-Feb2014/

Leaving aside the sensationalist heading, this bit is interesting:

"In Ireland, the average patient-to-nurse ratio is 6·9, found the study. The ratios for other European countries were 12·7 in Spain and 10·8 in Belgium and 5·2 in Norway. "

A lot more overworked nurses in Belgium.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264183896-en/03/03/g3-03-01.html?itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-30-en&_csp_=e92c9913836e5fffbbecfc400984a40b


This OECD study shows Ireland with the third-highest number of nurses per 1000 population in the EU.

In defending the public service, you actually picked on one of the few areas where we have more than sufficient staff. If you had said police officers, third-level lecturers, teachers or hospital consultants, you would have been right. Your point only highlights your lack of knowledge.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

The cost will have dropped further because of a number of factors:

(1) Further pay cuts to the higher earners
(2) Further reduction in the number of public servants
(3) No pay increases for public servants
(4) New pension scheme for new entrants from 2013

The €98 bn was based on an assumption of rising PS numbers and pay increases. They didn't happen so the cost will be less. I reckon the current cost is around €88 - 90 bn and I think an official from Howlin's Department confirmed this at a Dail committee.

More money being given by the public sector to the private sector.

on point 2 how many left for the dole as apposed to getting their pension?
on point 3 there was increments in these years so there was pay increases.
on point 4 there has been a moratorium on new new entrants to the total saved there is 0

You dont know how much it is it will be interesting to see what the overall pay and pensions bill has come down by since 2008 and this needs to be published before any payrises come into play

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

It depends on what the person is paying and what they garner throughout their life. As in if someone works all their life, has private health insurance, never has a kid and dies the day they retire. I would say they have paid PRSI without getting anything in return

Someone in the public service who remains single works from 17 to 65, has paid 6.5% of his salary in superannuation and dies the day before his 65th birthday has got nothing for his 48 years of contributions.

That is one of the reasons you are so wrong with your calculations of the cost of public service pensions.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

This is another false statement. The SI fund has been in deficit for quite some time and has been propped up by tax contributions. A previous problem with the fund was solved by making public servants pay PRSI and contribute to private sector pensions (more money from the public sector for the private sector).

In addition, the SI fund only covers the contributory OAP. The non-contributory OAP comes out of general taxation, paid by all, including public servants.

It seems fliball, that you want public servants to pay for their own pensions and pay for the pensions of the private sector as well.

The private sector pay for their own OAP via taxes and how can you say public servants are paying for private sector pensions when they do not even contribute enough to cover their own..So that is a falsehood and I would like you to retract it please.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

on point 2 how many left for the dole as apposed to getting their pension?

Huh? They stayed working and got pay cuts in 2013. Also working hours went up so all part-time staff saw their pay cut.

fliball123 wrote: »

on point 3 there was increments in these years so there was pay increases.

Not for everybody. No increments for the higher earners and lengthened increments for everyone else.

fliball123 wrote: »

on point 4 there has been a moratorium on new new entrants to the total saved there is 0

Not true again. Nurses and teachers were replaced when numbers dropped below certain levels.

fliball123 wrote: »

You dont know how much it is it will be interesting to see what the overall pay and pensions bill has come down by since 2008 and this needs to be published before any payrises come into play

Something like €3 bn in total.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

The private sector pay for their own OAP via taxes and how can you say public servants are paying for private sector pensions when they do not even contribute enough to cover their own..So that is a falsehood and I would like you to retract it please.

They pay PRSI towards your pension.

Sheldons Brain

fliball123 wrote: »

The private sector pay for their own OAP via taxes and how can you say public servants are paying for private sector pensions when they do not even contribute enough to cover their own..So that is a falsehood and I would like you to retract it please.

Taxes are paid by everyone, not just the private sector.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

You know fliball, even when you are being nice to the public sector, you are getting your facts completely wrong.


http://www.thejournal.ie/the-lancet-patient-safety-nurses-1332414-Feb2014/

Leaving aside the sensationalist heading, this bit is interesting:

"In Ireland, the average patient-to-nurse ratio is 6·9, found the study. The ratios for other European countries were 12·7 in Spain and 10·8 in Belgium and 5·2 in Norway. "

A lot more overworked nurses in Belgium.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264183896-en/03/03/g3-03-01.html?itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-30-en&_csp_=e92c9913836e5fffbbecfc400984a40b


This OECD study shows Ireland with the third-highest number of nurses per 1000 population in the EU.

In defending the public service, you actually picked on one of the few areas where we have more than sufficient staff. If you had said police officers, third-level lecturers, teachers or hospital consultants, you would have been right. Your point only highlights your lack of knowledge.

What fact did I get wrong and I am only going by what I have seen for myself up in Beaumont and in temple street. The nurses are making very simple mistakes and in the main look very tired and if you look at the barrage of publicity around differing mistakes being made thoughout the countries hospitals it doesn't take an brainiac to see that services are dangerously underfunded.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

They pay PRSI towards your pension.

No they dont their prsi does not even cover their own pension

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Ok lets look at the 7 years so

The PS in that 7 years have also had 7 bouts of increments (costing between 100m and 250m a year) and in the decade preceding the bust the amount we pay for ps pay and pensions more than doubled through stupid stupid ideas such as benchmarking.
They also still have a fricken pension be grateful for that over 50% of the private sector don't have that luxury yet they have the luxury of covering the cost of the public sectors pensions. There has been an analysis done 1 in 5 in the private sector stopped paying into a pension as they could not afford it.
In the 7 years the dole queue rose too 400k at its highest from 100k its now come down a fair bit from that but its still too high.. How many of those who joined were from the public sector? as there was not one forced redundancy through out the crash.
They have and take a hell of a lot more sick leave then their private sector counter parts same goes with annual leave. ..
Now that there may be some wiggle room you want payrises..why not spend that money on employing new recruits to share the burden you have pointed out.
Why not spend it on Health where there is a disgraceful and dangerous amount of mistakes being made.
Why not give tax cuts to all employees instead of just easing the burden on the public sector?

We all made sacrifices but the ps were largely removed from the firing line during the bust and should not be first in line for a hand out

Also the private sector in general work till the job is done not this 37.5 hours a week. Some weeks I put in 50/60/70 hours to get something over the line.

so while I accept you took cuts you were also shielded from the majority of the harshness that the last 7 years brought

Sweeping generalisation about the public and private sector from both sides of the argument here.
It's plane to see there are people with very wrong and entrenched views from both sides of the fence who could well do with spending some time in the sectors they have issues with.

I am not sure what this thread is going to do as pretty much all of this has been "discussed" ad-nasum over the past decade, and it's very unlikely that anyone is changing their opinions based on it.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

No they dont their prsi does not even cover their own pension

You should really be an expert in Public sector pensions at this stage as they have been explained to you countless times.

For the record, can you outline the specifics of the public sector pension as you see it?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Someone in the public service who remains single works from 17 to 65, has paid 6.5% of his salary in superannuation and dies the day before his 65th birthday has got nothing for his 48 years of contributions.

That is one of the reasons you are so wrong with your calculations of the cost of public service pensions.

Your twisting and spinning remember Public servants also get the same social insurance benefits as those in the private sector.

So are you saying that the public service pays the full amount to cover their pensions..this is a simple question please answer yes or no and be done with it?

I have shown you that we all pay PRSI both sectors and both reap the same benefit. We all pay tax yet one sector gets a guaranteed pension the other does not. That is where the line is drawn.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Huh? They stayed working and got pay cuts in 2013. Also working hours went up so all part-time staff saw their pay cut.




Not for everybody. No increments for the higher earners and lengthened increments for everyone else.



Not true again. Nurses and teachers were replaced when numbers dropped below certain levels.





Something like €3 bn in total.

Point 2 you said further reduction in numbers not pay cuts or hours increase
point 3 it still cost the tax payer somewhere in the region of 100m and 250m a year for increments regardless of who got them
point 4 - I wasn't aware of that I thought that contract teachers were brought in

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Huh? They stayed working and got pay cuts in 2013. Also working hours went up so all part-time staff saw their pay cut.




Not for everybody. No increments for the higher earners and lengthened increments for everyone else.



Not true again. Nurses and teachers were replaced when numbers dropped below certain levels.





Something like €3 bn in total.

have you anything to back up that 3billion in savings?

fliball123

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Taxes are paid by everyone, not just the private sector.

And?

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Sweeping generalisation about the public and private sector from both sides of the argument here.
It's plane to see there are people with very wrong and entrenched views from both sides of the fence who could well do with spending some time in the sectors they have issues with.

I am not sure what this thread is going to do as pretty much all of this has been "discussed" ad-nasum over the past decade, and it's very unlikely that anyone is changing their opinions based on it.

Kippy I accept the premise that some in the public sector are deserving of payrises (above increments) I just do not agree with this blanket benchmarking III approach that rewards good and bad workers alike and at at a time when we are still borrowing 6 billion and where there are areas like Health that I have pointed out that are now at a dangerous level of underfunding.

There are people who are black and white with regard to ps but I am not one of them and I understand hard working ps employees feeling bitter towards their cuts but they also have to understand that the private sector got hit harder

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

You should really be an expert in Public sector pensions at this stage as they have been explained to you countless times.

For the record, can you outline the specifics of the public sector pension as you see it?

I see it like this the amount that the public sector pay for their pension does not cover the full cost of their pension as I see it they are asking people to pay the shortfall via higher taxation at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Private Joker

fliball123 wrote: »

I have a serious issue when I see the state of our A&Es , our class rooms , our infrastructure and when I look at the amount of tax that I pay. The 2 dont add up what I pay I am certainly not getting any kind of value in return and now the people responsible for the above think that they are deserving of more from my back pocket. Like the thread name states this is benchmarking III without any measure just a pure blank cheque every little ps piggy gets a sup from the trough its actually embarrassing for any government to be entering talks about ps pay rises while we are borrowing 6 billion this year. Maybe a few days for Enda or Howlin in Beaumont hospital without a bed and sitting there in pain with no help would help focus their narrow minds on where any money should be going

I actually find your tone offensive. You're vilifying public servants who have endured all the cutbacks and reductions in pay and conditions which have caused the conditions in our a&e's, it's not the public servants who work there that made the mess.
I am a public servant and i earn less now than i did 10 years ago, i struggle with my bills , if i got another pay cut in the form of extra pension contributions then i would have to consider leaving for the private sector, but why should I , do you not think a fair wage should be paid for an honest days work?

i never joined the public service for the pension , i doubt any person would have the foresight to think over 40 years into the future when starting a career. I take great pride in my work , there is something very gratifying about seeing a project from inception to completion with the sole purpose of enhancing the lives and safeguarding the livelihoods of the general public but its not entirely altruistic, i still need a wage that i can live on.

I'm sorry that my post doesn't include figures and articles from the irish independent, this is an entirely emotive response . we're not all public service piggies that want to line our pockets with your taxes.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

have you anything to back up that 3billion in savings?

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1027770.shtml


my apologies, the saving was "only" €2.3 bn.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Can they not afford one or simply choose not to take one out?
Does this 50% of people include people earning relatively low wages in retail etc as one would not expect them to take out a pension until they move to a professional position or similar.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

I see it like this the amount that the public sector pay for their pension does not cover the full cost of their pension as I see it they are asking people to pay the shortfall via higher taxation at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Thats not very specific though is it?

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I see it like this the amount that the public sector pay for their pension does not cover the full cost of their pension as I see it they are asking people to pay the shortfall via higher taxation at a time when 50% of the private sector cannot afford their own. Is that specific enough for you?

Specifically, how much of their pension do they pay for and how much of a shortfall is there?

How does it compare to the shortfall in the SI fund?

Or are you spouting soundbites?