AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you want to take a hit in solidarity, you adjust the tax rates. That's solidarity - applying to everyone according to their means.
addaword wrote: » Not when public sector pay went up 59% between 2001 and 2006, a period when average industrial earnings only went up 20%.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Why would you compare public servants against average industrial earnings? Public servants aren't industrial - they are largely professional. ?
Wheety wrote: » I think there will be reductions. Certainly, I imagine, the pay restoration due in October, will not go ahead.
Bobtheman wrote: » It will baby. It will ! Try telling the nurses they ain't getting an increase. Anyway they ain't gonna listen to some annoymous posters on boards when they make up their minds that's for sure
thomasdylan wrote: » Not all PS workers are nurses. It suits the non-frontliners to be lumped in with nurses even though the demands on them both are very different.
addaword wrote: » Rubbish. I know lots of public servants like lecturers in third level who privately admit they were way overpaid when the last downturn happened in 2007, having had pay increases of a whopping 59% between 2001 and 2006.
JJJackal wrote: » I think only frontliners deserve October increase this year
seefin wrote: » I really wish! Have big mortgage, my partner's business is gone belly up(as did I'm last recession) . I just know there's a massive recession coming and rather than see the government borrowing to pay us or cutting health services, I think it's only fair we take a hit in solidarity with rest of country. I'm principled, most people only think of themselves
Rodin wrote: » I wouldn't be increasing any wages this year beyond what's already been agreed. I wouldn't be on for new increases in the next public pay agreement
smelly sock wrote: » Plenty of nurses done ****all during this crisis too. This Florence Nightingale ****e is a joke. Sure some went above and beyond. Not all though.
[Deleted User] wrote: » youve been asked about ten times to compare relevant figures and still are unable to do so
Deleted User wrote: » id have no issue with this, as a civil servant. if the greater environment doesnt lend itself to pay rises in the predicted recession then so be it.
TheDavester wrote: » id be for this if it came to it or defer the agreement to next year...but im a clerical officer and only get 420 and change a week and cant really afford a cut, living at home paying rent saving for a mortgage...
addaword wrote: » I have given figures, which is more than you did. You probably even think the public sector deserved their 59% increase between 2001 and 2006, when others only got a 20% increase. No wonder public sector wages had to be cut a few years laer.
addaword wrote: » People on low incomes can be protected. Do not forget average public sector salary is close to 50k, according to the statistics. Google it.
mehico wrote: » I worked in a public sector role during this period and from memory the pay increase for the vast majority in the organisation at the time was approximately 4%.
salonfire wrote: » That's easy. If they don't like not getting an increase, tell them they can go work somewhere else.
addaword wrote: » It was 8% in 2005 alone. Between 2001 and 2006 it was 59%. The education sector saw the biggest increase with pay costs rising by 65%. Health sector pay surged by 63% in the period, civil service salaries rose 48% and in the security sector they rose by 34.8%.
addaword wrote: » You think Gardai, soldiers, firemen, hospital porters, secretaries etc are more professional than the average employee in the pharmaceutical industry for example? And they deserved a 59% increase, as well as golden pensions and job security, when everyone else just got a 20% increase?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You might want to think about the impact of what happens when they do go work somewhere else. What happens to the running of hospitals, schools, police service and more when the best and brightest leave, and can't be replaced due to embargoes or unattractive rates.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » For the umpteenth time, can you please quote your sources for this?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Why would you compare public servants against average industrial earnings? Public servants aren't industrial - they are largely professional. How did average professional earnings work out over that period? And what happens when you take a ten year or twenty year view of earnings growth, to reflect the long stagnation before the benchmarking process kicked in?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So yeah, that is a bit of a different league to pharmaceutical plant.
addaword wrote: » I have given figures, which is more than you did. You probably even think the public sector deserved their 59% increase between 2001 and 2006, when others only got a 20% increase. No wonder public sector wages had to be cut a few years later. If the government has a 30 billion euro deficit this year, cuts in public sector pay are inevitable again. If they want to leave and join the private sector, feel free to do so.
addaword wrote: » You would be surprised. In some multinational pharmaceutical plants, the majority of employees are graduates. I suppose you will tell me most Gardai and soldiers are graduates now.