Dublingirl80 wrote: » It's funny how the people in the private sector choose pay and perks over security then when crisis hits the public sector should take a hit. As for the banking crisis, nothing to do with the public sector. Everyone chooses their line of work to some degree. If you aren't happy with your decision then change career and stop begrudging others their job security.
barneystinson wrote: » You're the one who made the assertion, you should be prepared to back it up otherwise it's just ould shyte talk, don't you think? Who, how many, where are they, and what do you propose is to be done about it? Don't be surprised if you make a stupid, general comment targeted at a group of over 300,000 people, and some of them take umbrage and call you out on it. :rolleyes:
enricoh wrote: » I'm pretty sure Ireland has a banking regulator paid from the public purse. A bit of googling tells me Patrick neary was the regulator keeping tabs on the banks during the tiger. Stellar work Patrick, no doubt sent to pasture with the lump sum n pension!https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/banking-inquiry-patrick-neary-arguably-5777369.amp
maneno wrote: » YOU are wrong, the “Banking regulator” is not paid from the public purse, they are independent and in fact they remit their excess money to the government every year, so it’s not your taxes keeping it afloat, try harder
Dav010 wrote: » I am open to correction on this, but up until 2010 when the position was dissolved, the Financial Regulator was a constituent part of the Central Bank, which is 100% State owned.
fliball123 wrote: » The facts are the there are a lot less pensions in the private sector than in the public sector. Someone in the private sector who has a pension is nearly always a defined contribution. So what age are ps allowed retire to get their pension again by the time this clusterphuck and brexit completes I will be lucky to get my OAP at 80 with the way the government keep putting the age up. Will the government go and raid the private pension pot again like last time? The facts are I am not paying a pension for anyone in the private sector bar my own. The same cannot be said about public servants thats a fact and unfair as I cant afford to put by for my own.
[Deleted User] wrote: » govt appoint one person to a role regulating an entire sector, ensure that that role is filled sweetly or has no teeth somehow the entire sector involved suddenly have zero responsibility for their own behaviour fabulous mental hoops some people will construct and fabulous how poorly some people can fail to draw the line between the govt and political parties and the public sector but again, explaining complexity to people only out to score simple points to their own satisfaction is a fool's errand
Dav010 wrote: » That’s your bosses you are talking about.
[Deleted User] wrote: » ive a line in there about ppl who fail to discern the different roles and functions of govt and public service id draw yr attention to it
Dav010 wrote: » That’s your bosses you are talking about. The politicians who sign off on your wage increases and cave to the unions.
Sinzo wrote: » Yeah Dave.. and I bet you're the kind of boss who makes sure your workers get the lowest pay possible. And only for the fact that the State makes you pay a minimum wage, you would be paying even less..
Dav010 wrote: » It’s those politicians who your unions lobby and who sign off on your wage increases.
Dav010 wrote: » My staff are extremely well paid and have been with me for years. In fact in one of my businesses, two employees who started a decade ago with no qualifications are now partners in the firm. A cheap shot, but a miss.
Edgware wrote: » The public service jobs were advertised. Anyone could apply and avail of the generous conditions unlike the private sector where a lot of jobs are filled by relatives and word of mouth
[Deleted User] wrote: » AND? theres a lot of govt spending that isnt public sector salaries there's more than income taxation to meet exceptional economic demands on govt thats it. thats the debate on your two main points pretty much done. and it was really easy. youd almost have been expected to notice those two obvious items yourself. nb the govt doesn't have to suddenly cut pay or workers in a year where it loses money as if it were a small town café thats a ridiculous mentality to take towards a govt sector. raised many the time for those with eyes willing to read and comprehend it
Dav010 wrote: » To be fair, we know the unemployment rate was 24% in June, it’s not ould ****e talk to speculate that a tiny number of those are PS.
[Deleted User] wrote: » its a government. it doesnt have to react to economic predictions based on essentially unknowable outcomes as we stand by doing anything my point was of course quite clear- a govt doesnt react to yearly projected losses by taking ten thousand jobs into the office for a chat thats profit-motive private sector ideology applied where it simply doesnt belong should a govt cut its cloth to measure? sure, over an elongated period of time. should a govt react to an economic downturn by slashing employment/investment? plenty of opinions on that, believe it or not. should a govt hop to cutting public sector pay with reference only to the next budget, as opposed to the overarching demands on its services, the long term needs of its staffing and retention, the difference between it and the private sector mission? of course it shouldnt. youd be an idiot to demand it to do so. and again, completely ignoring the points raised you didnt like. govts can and should borrow sensibly to support the failing private sector. govts can and should consider tax as a viable fundraiser when needed. society doesnt exist to suit the private sector, but in particular it should combat at every juncture- even ones as low-rent so as to make the one-note idiot noise arguments seen in these threads regardless of the patience and time taken to seek to educate and counter- the private sector ideologies espoused by those who think that the private sector is the be all and end all of govt practice the private sector is useful, even if it falls over a lot. its more limited propronents should show a little more humility when it falls over and needs a more grown-up model to come in and rescue it from itself.
[Deleted User] wrote: » you are incorrect to refer to increases, this has been pointed out not interpreting anything in a particular way incorrect not much point if you cannot even take basic correction on a factual error
fliball123 wrote: » AND??? We cant afford the current pay and pensions let alone payrises those are the facts regardless of what was advertised where. Your boss will be 240 odd billion in debt by the end of the year and main revenue stream of tax to pay for your wage is going to be cut by at least 20%, so like any other entity that has income and expenditure we need to cut our cloth. There isll be an absolute sh1tstorm if the government try to tax more on income before the spend side is tackled
[Deleted User] wrote: » to dav010 im not sure what you think youre debating now pay restoration continues as agreed if- and this has been said many times in the thread- a major economic downturn occurs, no doubt the next round of pay talks will be a tough process none of that changes the pay restoration that has been agreed. this is how it works. were you gnashing your teeth as the govt dawdled over pay restoration the past decade while public workers paid a huge cumulative price to prop up the private banking/property sector? id say not. dont come frothing now demanding the entire system change overnight to suit the opinion you formed a minute ago. its transparent nb the correct term remains restoration regardless of what you or the private sector would call it. i mean what the govt as an employer agrees as terms and conditions with its employees is never going to hop and skip to the opinion of every angry barstool, but at least get the terms right and dont squeeze them, youll only make yourself angry that way