Draft Public Sector deal

Kradock · 01-12-2009 02:37PM

K-9 wrote: »

It covers existing pension payments. It goes into the general pool of expenditure, like NAMA, Pay bill, SW etc. but 10% and rising of the pay bill is pensions.

And the reason that early retirement is being taken up.

Kimbot · 01-12-2009 02:38PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The pension levy is not a paycut.

Minimum cut should be 15% ranging up to probably 30-35% for top end earners

The pension levy is a paycut with a different name!

It goes nowhere near the pension pot instead it is been used to bail out the banks.

I am now earning approx 7% less because of the pension levy so how is it not a paycut?

So someone on 22,000 a year should take a 15% paycut ontop of a 7% "pension levy".

Lets work this out!!
15% of 22,000 is 3,300.

So their basic pay is now 18,700.

Pension Levy of approx 7% = 1500.
Pension Contribution of 7.5% that we all pay already = 1500.

So now before tax is taken we are down to a basic salaray before tax of 15,000 odd a year all because you want a 15% cut in their pay?? Get real mate!

Saint_Mel · 01-12-2009 02:44PM

BennyLava wrote: »

The base salar scale will be the same, but you loose 20 days pay, so in real terms you have had a pay cut

If your forced to take 20 days unpaid leave, then will the base salary not be reduced by 20 days pay?

Cookie_Monster · 01-12-2009 02:46PM

jonny24ie wrote: »

...
So now before tax is taken we are down to a basic salaray before tax of 15,000 odd a year all because you want a 15% cut in their pay?? Get real mate!

So you want the country to borrow billions and pay more tax to support a bloated useless public service just because you don't want to take a pay cut. Get real mate!

RacoonQueen · 01-12-2009 02:52PM

dicknorris wrote: »

The Government have given in to the unions yet again, no reduction in pay in this deal

Is losing 20 days pay not a reduction in pay?

This is the stupidest idea in the world, there is no way our service could cope with ALL of us taking unpaid leave on top of annual leave.

opinion guy · 01-12-2009 03:03PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Because its paying for your pension

(whether you like to think that or not)

Its not relevant what its being used for. It is a deduction from salary that was not there one year ago resulting in a reduction in take home pay - therefore by definition a pay cut

Cookie_Monster · 01-12-2009 03:05PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Its not relevant what its being used for. It is a deduction from salary that was not there one year ago resulting in a reduction in take home pay - therefore by definition a pay cut

no its not. it just the public service finally paying a realistic amount towards their own pensions

Trishis · 01-12-2009 03:14PM

Yea unpaid leave which is mandatory is the same as a pay cut.

The Public sector was going to get a pay cut no matter what, so the unions must have decided, ok if a pay cut is happening then staff will work less days in the year....Its cut wages by 20 days....but the silver lining is that there is leave...it could have been a pay cut, end of story...

Unpaid leave will prob be in addition to annual leave....although unpaid leave cuts your A/L slightly...i.e 2 weeks unpaid levae cuts your annual leave by a half day....well thats what is in operation at the moment...

Either way its a pay cut to the civil service again...
The pension levy was also a pay cut....some of you think it wasn't....at the end of the day if the money is not in your wage packet then its a pay cut...by the time the people paying the pension levy retire something else will have come up and the money will have vanished....

Apparently 70% of people in the private sector are still in employment, anyone know if this percentage is correct?

Kimbot · 01-12-2009 03:14PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So you want the country to borrow billions and pay more tax to support a bloated useless public service just because you don't want to take a pay cut. Get real mate!

No I don't want the country to borrow billions but what I want is some equality in the matter!!

I have no objection to take a paycut at all but I do however think that it should be done equally.

When the pension levy was agreed, top earners in the public service got something like a 3% pay increase on the same day. The lower down grades didn't get that so are suffering more as a result! Its the lower grades that do all the work but get paid peanuts. They should not be the worst affected by it!

Why don't Ministers etc take a big paycut? because they are greedy thats why!!

opinion guy · 01-12-2009 03:17PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no its not. it just the public service finally paying a realistic amount towards their own pensions

Ok if you are saying a reduction in your weekly/monthly wage is NOT a pay cut then you are arguing black is white.

I'm sorry but what is your issue with the public service ?
Did you have this opinion regarding public service pensions before the recession/levee ?
Why did you not take a job in the public service if you believe its such a holiday ?

Trankton · 01-12-2009 03:17PM

This is another joke and a blatant attempt by the Unions to protect their buddies higher up in the chain. I feel sorry for thos on the lower pay scales as they'll be taking the same hit as someone on 2 - 5 times their wage and who it won't adversely affect.

Cuts need to be made and those on higher wages should have to take a bigger cut..simple as.

Typical Gov and Union bull****...the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I'm Private sector by the way but I think we can all sympathise with those in the public sector on lower wages who are being completely screwed as usual.

geeky · 01-12-2009 03:21PM

BennyLava wrote: »

percentage wise they would have been better off taking a pay cut

Not strictly true. Unless this affects their pension entitlements - highly unlikely by the looks of things - this is a very cushy deal made at the expense of future generations of taxpayers.

Cookie_Monster · 01-12-2009 03:23PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok if you are saying a reduction in your weekly/monthly wage is NOT a pay cut then you are arguing black is white.

It is a pay reduction but with a reduction in work load also. in real terms its not a pay cut but a realignment

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry but what is your issue with the public service ?

It is overpaid, overstaffed, horrendously inefficient, not accountable and run by muppets (Gov & unions).

opinion guy wrote: »

Did you have this opinion regarding public service pensions before the recession/levee ?

That they were always very generous and did not reflect the %age paid in by workers

opinion guy wrote: »

Why did you not take a job in the public service if you believe its such a holiday ?

I took a job where / when I could get one, I didn't have the luxury of sitting around waiting for a public service job in my are to become available.

I'm sure if the right oppertunity arose I'd take a job. And after a few years leave disillusioned by all the waste, inefficiency, incompetence, laziness and muppets I had to deal with daily

geeky · 01-12-2009 03:27PM

ehhhh....

Just read the link in the OP. This hasn't been agreed. According to the story, it's what the unions are proposing.

Kradock · 01-12-2009 03:29PM

I haven't had a pay rise in 3 years . Company I work for had the foresight to see what was coming and adjusted accordingly. This however was not enough and redundancies of 25% on head count came later forcing the remaining employees to restructure and work smarter.

My mate, working elsewhere has had his salary cut by 18% in that time , he however did not get any more time off in lieu of any reductions so , he has to work the same hours , days , weeks , months for his reduced salary.

Meanwhile I have a number of friends who have had their salaries and pension contributions to to ZERO. Unemployment was their lot.
No oppurtuinity to take an early retirement package with a pension being paid with annual increments.

Why can the Public service not accept the reality of the situation we are all in?

delricyo · 01-12-2009 03:29PM

Thought these threads were finished by now

I dont want to get into an argument about the whole public/private thing BUT -
PS pensions are nice, ill give you that that. But most of the people on this forum have not mentioned the correct facts !

Existing contribution - about 7.5%
Pension levy - about 6.5% (ahem - for this example I will assume it goes towards my pension :rolleyes:)
Amount that wages were adjusted to take into account the generous PS pension - 12% !!!

Thats a 26% contribution that I and thousands others are paying towards a pension. Do you know ANY private sector company that expects their staff to pay this much ???? I thought not ...

Back OT:
opinionguy - it will definitely be on top of existing holidays. It would be illegal otherwise. Also, if you were told that all your holidays would be unpaid in 2010, would you really take all 20 days ?? I know I wouldnt. I would take my 2 weeks in summer and a day or two at Christmas and thats it

There is already a system in place where a civil servant can get 2,4,6,8 weeks unpaid leave in 2010. Dont know anybody who took this offer - everybody is waiting for Dec 9th. The good thing about this scheme (hopefully it would continue for this new scheme being proposed), is that salaries section can spread your pay over the 52 weeks. So, when the time comes for your unpaid leave - you will be still be getting the same salary (8% less of course)

Bottom line - PS will get an 8% pay cut. But 4 weeks "holidays" extra.

Its win win for PS. And not too bad for the general public either. It should definitely be done for the back office staff. I dont know how it would work for teachers etc ?

K-9 · 01-12-2009 03:37PM

Kradock wrote: »

And the reason that early retirement is being taken up.

Which results in less pay, barring the one off lump sum which has to be paid anyway.

jonny24ie wrote: »

The pension levy is a paycut with a different name!

It goes nowhere near the pension pot instead it is been used to bail out the banks.

I am now earning approx 7% less because of the pension levy so how is it not a paycut?

So someone on 22,000 a year should take a 15% paycut ontop of a 7% "pension levy".

Lets work this out!!
15% of 22,000 is 3,300.

So their basic pay is now 18,700.

Pension Levy of approx 7% = 1500.
Pension Contribution of 7.5% that we all pay already = 1500.

So now before tax is taken we are down to a basic salaray before tax of 15,000 odd a year all because you want a 15% cut in their pay?? Get real mate!

Income tax receipts €11 Billion (including levies), Pay Bill (including pensions) €20 Billion.

Yes, it goes towards pensions, current pensions.

opinion guy · 01-12-2009 03:39PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It is a pay reduction but with a reduction in work load also. in real terms its not a pay cut but a realignment

Ok pay attention. My comment "Ok if you are saying a reduction in your weekly/monthly wage is NOT a pay cut then you are arguing black is white." was with regard to the pension levee as I suspect you know.

As I've previously said - this deal will not mean extra holidays, it will mean existing ones go unpaid.

It is overpaid, overstaffed, horrendously inefficient, not accountable and run by muppets (Gov & unions).

How do you reckon its overpaid ?

Overstaffed ? SEriously ? aRe u f**kin kidding me ? You've never had to go into hospital have you ?
Ineffiecient yes - Management, people who are immune to all this ****e.
run by muppets - yes indeed.

That they were always very generous and did not reflect the %age paid in by workers

Well thats the contract people signed up to. people in private sector also got employer contributions in part of whole towards pensions. These things are known as perks. I'll give you and example of another perk. Bank employees get cheaper mortgage rates, did you know that? Yes the people who caused this whole ****ing mess and are getting bailed out yet again pay less for their mortgages than the random public or private sector worker. Many jobs have their perks. Its in the contract. THere's nothing untoward about it.

I took a job where / when I could get one, I didn't have the luxury of sitting around waiting for a public service job in my are to become available.

Fair enouhg.

I'm sure if the right oppertunity arose I'd take a job. And after a few years leave disillusioned by all the waste, inefficiency, incompetence, laziness and muppets I had to deal with daily

And the private sector jobs inspire you do they? How ****ing dare you cast all public sector workers as lazy, wasteful and inefficient? Let me ask you this - would you be prepared to clean up people's **** and puke in an understaffed, underresourced dump of a hospital. would you work a 60 hour shift making life or death decisions cause you're employer demands it ? Would you deal with the drunken eegits on the street on a rainy cold fridat night ? Would you drive your firetruck/ambulance into a dodgy estate where your colleagues have been attacked on crank calls because this call might be genuine ?
Because until you are prepared to do that - don't you go about thinking you can call those who do lazy, wasteful and inefficient. Grow up and stop throwing your toys out of the pram

Euro_Kraut · 01-12-2009 03:40PM

geeky wrote: »

ehhhh....

Just read the link in the OP. This hasn't been agreed. According to the story, it's what the unions are proposing.

Shh... you'll stop the outrage.

Nevermind him folks, continue with the rabble.

Kradock · 01-12-2009 03:40PM

delricyo wrote: »

Bottom line - PS will get an 8% pay cut. But 4 weeks "holidays" extra.

So basically as CookieMonster has said it is a realignment. Still begs the question if you can afford from a service level to have your staff missing for an extra 4 weeks a year , do you need them all?

Kradock · 01-12-2009 03:42PM

K-9 wrote: »

Which results in less pay, barring the one off lump sum which has to be paid anyway.

What about the annual pension payments that are not coming out of reserved funds but monies been gathered annually.

TheZohanS · 01-12-2009 03:43PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok pay attention. My comment "Ok if you are saying a reduction in your weekly/monthly wage is NOT a pay cut then you are arguing black is white." was with regard to the pension levee as I suspect you know.

As I've previously said - this deal will not mean extra holidays, it will mean existing ones go unpaid.

How do you reckon its overpaid ?

Overstaffed ? SEriously ? aRe u f**kin kidding me ? You've never had to go into hospital have you ?
Ineffiecient yes - Management, people who are immune to all this ****e.
run by muppets - yes indeed.

Well thats the contract people signed up to. people in private sector also got employer contributions in part of whole towards pensions. These things are known as perks. I'll give you and example of another perk. Bank employees get cheaper mortgage rates, did you know that? Yes the people who caused this whole ****ing mess and are getting bailed out yet again pay less for their mortgages than the random public or private sector worker. Many jobs have their perks. Its in the contract. THere's nothing untoward about it.

Fair enouhg.

And the private sector jobs inspire you do they? How ****ing dare you cast all public sector workers as lazy, wasteful and inefficient? Let me ask you this - would you be prepared to clean up people's **** and puke in an understaffed, underresourced dump of a hospital. would you work a 60 hour shift making life or death decisions cause you're employer demands it ? Would you deal with the drunken eegits on the street on a rainy cold fridat night ? Would you drive your firetruck/ambulance into a dodgy estate where your colleagues have been attacked on crank calls because this call might be genuine ?
Because until you are prepared to do that - don't you go about thinking you can call those who do lazy, wasteful and inefficient. Grow up and stop throwing your toys out of the pram

Tone it down.

Kradock · 01-12-2009 03:46PM

geeky wrote: »

ehhhh....

Just read the link in the OP. This hasn't been agreed. According to the story, it's what the unions are proposing.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Shh... you'll stop the outrage.

Nevermind him folks, continue with the rabble.

We are aware that it is just a proposal , but thanks for adding your 2 cents.

K-9 · 01-12-2009 03:48PM

geeky wrote: »

ehhhh....

Just read the link in the OP. This hasn't been agreed. According to the story, it's what the unions are proposing.

That would be why the thread is called "Draft" Public Sector deal! :cool:

Anyway, it seems the Govt. isn't opposed to it so I'd say it will not be too far ahead.

ixoy · 01-12-2009 03:50PM

Are pension contributions not done on a per-day basis worked? So would it not reduce the pension sums for the public/civil servants involved?

It'd be "interesting" to see how this plays out. Should they not increase the working week to compensate in some form (to 37.5 hours from 35 or some such) ?

Cookie_Monster · 01-12-2009 03:52PM

opinion guy wrote: »

. Grow up and stop throwing your toys out of the pram

I'm not throwing anything anywhere. I'm trying to have a reasoned debate. you're the one getting upset

How ****ing dare you cast all public sector workers as lazy, wasteful and inefficient?

where'd I say that? I referred to the public service, not the people. as a whole it is like that, I commented nowhere that every single person in it was. I'm sure there are many wonderful, deserving people working in the PS but the system they work in encourages all of the above and would wear down even the best of them.

opinion guy · 01-12-2009 03:57PM

TheZohan wrote: »

Tone it down.

Fair enough

Thought people might find this interesting: Dept of Health and Children Salary Scales
http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/salary_scales_mar2008.pdf

I haven't gone thru the whole thing, but you will notice a marked jump in scale in the form of a 6th digit under Clerical Admin Management Grades page 31

where'd I say that? I referred to the public service, not the people. as a whole it is like that, I commented nowhere that every single person in it was. I'm sure there are many wonderful, deserving people working in the PS but the system they work in encourages all of the above and would wear down even the best of them.

So why are you arguing in favour of punishing those people who are working hard despite the system ?

Cookie_Monster · 01-12-2009 04:03PM

opinion guy wrote: »

So why are you arguing in favour of punishing those people who are wrking hard despite the system ?

Because re-adjusting pay to reasonable levels (akin to across the EU) and cutting out the large %age of fat/ freeloaders (particularly in admin and all the quangos) is the first step.

Riskymove · 01-12-2009 04:10PM

ixoy wrote: »

Are pension contributions not done on a per-day basis worked? So would it not reduce the pension sums for the public/civil servants involved?

indeed service entitlements do need to be considered for this

it wouldn't reduce the pension payment as such but public servants may need to work longer to get to their entitlement

opinion guy · 01-12-2009 04:16PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Because re-adjusting pay to reasonable levels (akin to across the EU) and cutting out the large %age of fat/ freeloaders (particularly in admin and all the quangos) is the first step.

So you confirm you are in favour of punishing all in the public sector regardless of current pay and productivity then.
Define reasonable levels ? (Please account for relative cost of living and stealth taxes)
How would paycuts across the public sector achieve that ?
How would it reward those that are hardworkers and punish those that aren't.
In fact it would only further disillusion and drive away the hardworkers
I refer again to saturday's Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1128/1224259620164.html
The last few paragraphs shows the response of the hard-worker - get me da feck outta here (Edit: and you can expect nurses to do the same as they are just as employable internationally)

Look at the link I provided - you can clearly see the massive gulf between management and underling pay in the DoHC

Draft Public Sector deal

Comments