Social Welfare cut but Public Service Pay not ?

whatawaster · 07-12-2010 09:49PM

sdonn wrote: »

Public servants have had their pay cut enough.

Top salaries still need addressing (250,000 for a sec gen when the Taoiseach now earns less is unsustainable and plain wrong).

I hate to agree with SF but the newst TD Pearse Doherty said today that the govt have merely cut figurehead, high profile salaries to make it look like they're doing something. Needs to go a lot further.

The VAST majority of public sector workers, and the the pay bill are on lower-medium wage workers. There is no way of balancing our budget without cutting their numbers and pay. Wish there was, but there isn't.

It may not be nice, it may not seem fair, but it is what it is.

Absurdum · 07-12-2010 09:52PM

caseyann wrote: »

It was a bonus for kids not for parents,when things are at their most difficult :rolleyes:
Prices of presents etc.. should be cut or they should ban advertisement of anything out of reach for lower paid parents and those on social welfare.:) Instead of rubbing it in their faces.

two things: not everyone on SW has kids, and welfare isn't there to buy presents for kids anyway. If kids are expecting expensive presents at xmas, then I'd be questioning the parenting skills rather than the social welfare system.

chelseavera · 07-12-2010 10:16PM

Blondini wrote: »

This is exactly what you are doing. Let me tell you a story.

After I graduated I was a private sector worker up until 2002.

I then voluntarily left the private sector and took a public sector job for much much much less money because I wanted a change in direction. My choice - no regrets.

I earn less now in 2010 in the public sector than I did in 2002 in the private sector.

When I made this decision every single person that I knew thought I was mad because I was basically "demoting myself" , "throwing my career away" ,"heading for financial ruin" and I actually had people laugh at me.

Now fast forward to 2010 and guess what .. From these same people I now hear "You're a cute hoor" , "Sure you're paid too much" , "Why don't you take a pay cut" etc etc et-f*ckin-cetera

I am sick of the hypocrisy and short-term memory of the f*ckin Joe Duffy and Indo masses. Jumping on any bandwagon regardless of the facts.

Sick of it.

Very well said Blondini. Same boat - but I'm not denying there are inefficiencies, I know where I work they could cut numbers by 5-10% - then maybe those who do the work would not be under constant attack.

rainbowtrout · 07-12-2010 10:35PM

Musicmental85 wrote: »

The average 2nd level teacher spends 7 years before they get any sniff of a permanent contract. That means 7 years with no pay increase at all.

That's not true. Part time teachers are entitled to increments and have been for a long time. If you have a contract next september and work enough hours in that school year and get another contract the following september you will get an increment on the pay scale. You don't have to be permanent to get increments.

ednwireland · 07-12-2010 10:36PM

chelseavera wrote: »

Very well said Blondini. Same boat - but I'm not denying there are inefficiencies, I know where I work they could cut numbers by 5-10% - then maybe those who do the work would not be under constant attack.

Blondini wrote: »

This is exactly what you are doing. Let me tell you a story.

After I graduated I was a private sector worker up until 2002.

I then voluntarily left the private sector and took a public sector job for much much much less money because I wanted a change in direction. My choice - no regrets.

I earn less now in 2010 in the public sector than I did in 2002 in the private sector.

When I made this decision every single person that I knew thought I was mad because I was basically "demoting myself" , "throwing my career away" ,"heading for financial ruin" and I actually had people laugh at me.

Now fast forward to 2010 and guess what .. From these same people I now hear "You're a cute hoor" , "Sure you're paid too much" , "Why don't you take a pay cut" etc etc et-f*ckin-cetera

I am sick of the hypocrisy and short-term memory of the f*ckin Joe Duffy and Indo masses. Jumping on any bandwagon regardless of the facts.

Sick of it.

no offence guys but your employers dont have enough money to pay you i was put down to a 3 day week 2 years ago (i'm back to 5 days now after an awful lot of work by our company to get new business) and i'm still on a 10% paycut (never mind what the gov. decides to hack off). you may not like it but thats the truth of the situation they cant afford you, if you can find a better paid job then i suggest you take it.

ntlbell · 07-12-2010 10:43PM

Blondini wrote: »

This is exactly what you are doing. Let me tell you a story.

After I graduated I was a private sector worker up until 2002.

I then voluntarily left the private sector and took a public sector job for much much much less money because I wanted a change in direction. My choice - no regrets.

I earn less now in 2010 in the public sector than I did in 2002 in the private sector.

When I made this decision every single person that I knew thought I was mad because I was basically "demoting myself" , "throwing my career away" ,"heading for financial ruin" and I actually had people laugh at me.

Now fast forward to 2010 and guess what .. From these same people I now hear "You're a cute hoor" , "Sure you're paid too much" , "Why don't you take a pay cut" etc etc et-f*ckin-cetera

I am sick of the hypocrisy and short-term memory of the f*ckin Joe Duffy and Indo masses. Jumping on any bandwagon regardless of the facts.

Sick of it.

What's the moral of this story? things change? circumstances chage?

or that people are fickle?

What I don't see what it has to do with your current employer not being able to afford the current levels of pay.

chop chop

0O7 · 07-12-2010 10:44PM

_michelle_ wrote: »

So what because one person says he doesnt want a job all the other 400,000 od thousand are the same. God would you get a grip on reality!

I was simply relating that to another post where some dude was going mad for it being called the scratch! id say alot of people wouldnt mind it being called the scratch?????

the dole is so you can survive, not a profession. nor is it my fault you are unemployed.

just because 400000 are unemployed, that dosnt mean the dole should be higher.

and _michelle_ ... your not the only one in the world that dosnt get a bonus, a bonus is a novelty or perk, not an entitlement.
I have worked xmas day for the last 4 years and never once got a bonus. waaa
and to make it worse, your complaining that you dont get a bonus for being unemployed???????

kippy · 07-12-2010 10:47PM

0O7 wrote: »

I was simply relating that to another post where some dude was going mad for it being called the scratch! id say alot of people wouldnt mind it being called the scratch?????

the dole is so you can survive, not a profession. nor is it my fault you are unemployed.

just because 400000 are unemployed, that dosnt mean the dole should be higher.

I was the "dude"........
I mind "it" being called the "scratch". It is demeaning and not a fair reflection on the reasons many people are in that situation.

What you call it has got NOTHING to do with survival or profession or it not being your fault.

0O7 · 07-12-2010 10:55PM

sorry dude

.

btw i dont actually usually call it the scratch, id usually say dole. i dont even think i used it here unless i was refering to somebody else saying it. must check my posts. if i did, apologies.

caseyann · 07-12-2010 10:56PM

soden12 wrote: »

Yeah right.

There'll always be someone worse off and always someone better off.

The Dole is there to pay for the necessities - food, ordinary clothes, council rent. It's not designed to pay for the latest Nike gear (or whatever the current knacker fashion is) or for Xboxs, Flat-screen TVs...

When I was a kid the family income was what it was . We didn't have everything that was advertised and that was life.

Who said anything about nike clothes etc.... and flat screen tvs

And are you saying that all people who get welfare are knackers and their kids are knackers? :rolleyes: And small kids should **** off and wish for nothing nice for one day of year

And i didnt have nothing growing up either,i still dont begrudge a couple hundred euro to a family at Christmas,when i am sure the politicians will be spending thousands on one gift each :rolleyes:

I am giving five hundred euro to one family i know for their Christmas pressies tis year to keep their heads above water.
And stuff this lousy ass government and the materialistic of this stupid ass world.
It just bewilders me how people believe the majority are living well off the welfare.

cursai · 07-12-2010 11:00PM

ednwireland wrote: »

no offence guys but your employers dont have enough money to pay you i was put down to a 3 day week 2 years ago (i'm back to 5 days now after an awful lot of work by our company to get new business) and i'm still on a 10% paycut (never mind what the gov. decides to hack off). you may not like it but thats the truth of the situation they cant afford you, if you can find a better paid job then i suggest you take it.

Seriously a 10% pay cut......log off please...

0O7 · 07-12-2010 11:03PM

job seekers allowance .... not job seekers wages.

next there be someone complaining there is not a "job seekers pension" etc.

kippy · 07-12-2010 11:06PM

cursai wrote: »

Seriously a 10% pay cut......log off please...

That is essentially the minimum that is required over the next few years. (Most likely double that to be honest)
Whether that is achieved through taxation, a reduction in numbers or a straight salary cut (which at the moment is stopped by the CPA) is the only question.
Its tough and its something that everyone will find hard to adjust to, especially with certain costs of living still going up.

KindOfIrish · 07-12-2010 11:17PM

I saw their faces today. They don't care. They have about 1000 euro for a day work(so called work). If you think politicians care about your well being, you are fool!

caseyann · 07-12-2010 11:20PM

Absurdum wrote: »

two things: not everyone on SW has kids, and welfare isn't there to buy presents for kids anyway. If kids are expecting expensive presents at xmas, then I'd be questioning the parenting skills rather than the social welfare system.

Bonus Bonus Bonus is what i said would be able to get some small gifts and shoes and probably some bills :rolleyes:seriously looking for any reason to put down people on social welfare.I dont give a stuff i am doing my bit and i will make sure as many of them families get what they wish for christmas as i can.Be it whether they are x box 360 or what ever.
And again who said social welfare you can buy expensive gifts on social welfare???????????????????????? Good luck to you if you could :rolleyes:

peanuthead · 07-12-2010 11:20PM

ntlbell wrote: »

What's the moral of this story? things change? circumstances chage?

or that people are fickle?

What I don't see what it has to do with your current employer not being able to afford the current levels of pay.

chop chop

I think you don't see the point actually.

Which is that everyone in this country, from the top down, will blame anyone but themselves if they think they can avoid a hit.

In the case of the OPs example: Public service has never been looked on well - 3/4 years ago we were lower-paid idiots who appeared to be too stupid to realise there were better paid jobs out there, now were the target of all insults and accusations and are apparently fair game for as many pay cuts as can be thrown at us

This has nothing to do with us getting pay-cuts, its to do with the fact that some have the audacity to suggest we didn't deserve our wage to begin with. Didn't seem to bother them when they were in their high rise office blocks, sitting in their recliner office chairs, sipping mochafrappararararaRARARA CRAP!

ntlbell · 07-12-2010 11:29PM

peanuthead wrote: »

I think you don't see the point actually.

Which is that everyone in this country, from the top down, will blame anyone but themselves if they think they can avoid a hit.

In the case of the OPs example: Public service has never been looked on well - 3/4 years ago we were lower-paid idiots who appeared to be too stupid to realise there were better paid jobs out there, now were the target of all insults and accusations and are apparently fair game for as many pay cuts as can be thrown at us

This has nothing to do with us getting pay-cuts, its to do with the fact that some have the audacity to suggest we didn't deserve our wage to begin with. Didn't seem to bother them when they were in their high rise office blocks, sitting in their recliner office chairs, sipping mochafrappararararaRARARA CRAP!

With all due respect, I don't think you see the point.

If anyone came to me over the years and told me they were going to the PS based on my knoweledge of it I would have advised them in the same way. this is comptley irrelvant to the current circumstances.

the vast majority of the PS did not deserve their increases over the last 8 years or so. People were benchmarked against the private sector and based on their hard work the PS got increases, if you performed or not performed so to suggest the PS deserved it when it was based on the hard work of others? really?

Now away from all that, it's irrelvant of what their opinion of the PS was now. the current circumstances dictate, and currently the employer of the PS can no longer afford the current wage bill, so it needs to be cut.

There two seperate issues, people's perception of the usefulness of the PS and the employers capability of paying the current wage levels.

ntlbell · 07-12-2010 11:33PM

caseyann wrote: »

Bonus Bonus Bonus is what i said would be able to get some small gifts and shoes and probably some bills :rolleyes:seriously looking for any reason to put down people on social welfare.I dont give a stuff i am doing my bit and i will make sure as many of them families get what they wish for christmas as i can.Be it whether they are x box 360 or what ever.
And again who said social welfare you can buy expensive gifts on social welfare???????????????????????? Good luck to you if you could :rolleyes:

The last two posts seem more of you advertising your good deeds to help to the down trodden in society.

the current levels of SW are more than enough to pay for the basics, we've been over this more times.

If someone is really on the breadline, they're badly managing their SW, and if things are that bad, they can go to mabs for some assitance on finance managment and in the mean time the SVDP will give famlies a small gift for their kids for xmas.

wicorthered · 07-12-2010 11:34PM

Th only way to solve this is to sack every single public servant. That way they can all sign on and everybody will be equal and we'll live in a happy world where everybody gets along.:rolleyes:

daithi2011 · 07-12-2010 11:34PM

mixednuts wrote: »

I really do not want to start off the Private 'v' Public employee argument again , but this to me is one of the most unfair aspects of the 2011 Budget .

The Croke Park agreement done great to protect existing jobs in the Public Service (fair play) but it should not stop the tide going out for public service employee's when everyone else is going down .

If Wages/Welfare are been lowered it should be across the Public service aswell.

The Croke Park agreement is just another failed contract by the same people that have been agreeing contracts for the future of our country for decades to come ...This does not inspire confidence .:(

Get a life there.

I believe those in the public sector, along with any other workers work for their money.

Social welfare isnt even taxed. The tax increases alone have seen savage reductions for anyone working.

ParkRunner · 07-12-2010 11:37PM

ntlbell wrote: »

Now away from all that, it's irrelvant of what their opinion of the PS was now. the current circumstances dictate, and currently the employer of the PS can no longer afford the current wage bill, so it needs to be cut.

Do you acknowledge that the cost to the exchequer of public sector pay and pensions has fallen for the 3rd budget in a row?

ntlbell · 07-12-2010 11:40PM

EF wrote: »

Do you acknowledge that the cost to the exchequer of public sector pay and pensions has fallen for the 3rd budget in a row?

There was no changes to public sector pay that didn't affect private sector pay in this budget.

I acknowledge that we cannot afford the billions currently been spent on Ps pay.

peanuthead · 07-12-2010 11:41PM

ntlbell wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't think you see the point.

If anyone came to me over the years and told me they were going to the PS based on my knoweledge of it I would have advised them in the same way. this is comptley irrelvant to the current circumstances.

the vast majority of the PS did not deserve their increases over the last 8 years or so. People were benchmarked against the private sector and based on their hard work the PS got increases, if you performed or not performed so to suggest the PS deserved it when it was based on the hard work of others? really?

Now away from all that, it's irrelvant of what their opinion of the PS was now. the current circumstances dictate, and currently the employer of the PS can no longer afford the current wage bill, so it needs to be cut.

There two seperate issues, people's perception of the usefulness of the PS and the employers capability of paying the current wage levels.

Okay while I take your point, the public sector (just like the private) is a very broad one and I won't get into the specifics of how this affects me personally as I don't want to o be attacked by all about my 'cushy number' but I can tell you that not all aspects of public sector work like that, ie: bonuses here and there for non improvement in work.

Also, be aware that there is a difference between an incremental wage increase based on years of service and yearly bonuses. I'm sure you are but I think some forget that private sector bonuses are paid on top of ALREADY increasing wages.

Also, the OPs point and her being fed up was not, according to my understanding of her post, about her wage cut. It's that this is a hard time for all and the hardship this has placed on the public sector (as well as all others) seems to be met with glee and thats not fair.

I would just like to add that I am in public sector - I haven't got a permanent or secure job, I've no savings as I'm just out of full time Ed and I can't afford the cuts that are coming to me as my current income is just 100euro above what I pay in tax at the moment. Personally, I'm just glad I'm 100 up and not 100 down. I realise there are others worse off than me and while I don't like paying it (especially since none of this is my fault at all, by any stretch of the imagination) I do it because this is what needs to be done.

But I don't like to see people pleading for one sector to be hit more than the other and being happy about the thought of it - and I think thats what the OP was referring to in her post.

ParkRunner · 07-12-2010 11:43PM

ntlbell wrote: »

There was no changes to public sector pay that didn't affect private sector pay in this budget.

I acknowledge that we cannot afford the billions currently been spent on Ps pay.

The budget was fairer so at last in that wider society makes some contribution. Either we reduce the public sector to zero or everybody makes a contribution

caseyann · 07-12-2010 11:45PM

ntlbell wrote: »

The last two posts seem more of you advertising your good deeds to help to the down trodden in society.

the current levels of SW are more than enough to pay for the basics, we've been over this more times.

If someone is really on the breadline, they're badly managing their SW, and if things are that bad, they can go to mabs for some assitance on finance managment and in the mean time the SVDP will give famlies a small gift for their kids for xmas.

I am going to ask you one question,Do you have kids and live on social welfare?

SVP i work with them and they are stretched beyond their means already.MABS cant help most people SVP will tell you that.

andrewdeerpark · 07-12-2010 11:48PM

The carers allowance cut was a bit unnecessary. Agree with cutting disability as a lot of people scam that system anyway.

However as part the 4 budget pack social welfare had to have been cut in one of them, everyone has to feel some pain.

I would have slashed (- 20%) the welfare benefits of the long term unemployed (over 3 years on the dole, career claimants in my mind) and hassle disability claimants. Then say after 4 years no dole; like USA. Anyone on the dole during the boom years is beyond help and does not want to contribute to society, time to remove their social support floor.

We have the best welfare state in Europe and can no longer afford the luxury.

We also need to also tackle all the welfare fringe benefits like back to school cheque, rent allowance, free house, fuel, tv license, free bin etc

newtoboards · 07-12-2010 11:51PM

Over the years I've constantly heard about benchmarking to increase wages in the public sector tied with the cost of living. Now that the cost of living is coming down can the rate of pay also come down so that benchmarking works both ways? Or is this too simplistic a view to have?

ntlbell · 07-12-2010 11:54PM

peanuthead wrote: »

Okay while I take your point, the public sector (just like the private) is a very broad one and I won't get into the specifics of how this affects me personally as I don't want to o be attacked by all about my 'cushy number' but I can tell you that not all aspects of public sector work like that, ie: bonuses here and there for non improvement in work.

But the PS has guarnteed yearly wage incrments a lot of private sector companies do not and generally if you don't perform, your wage doesn't increase regardless of how long you're in a job.

peanuthead wrote: »

Also, be aware that there is a difference between an incremental wage increase based on years of service and yearly bonuses. I'm sure you are but I think some forget that private sector bonuses are paid on top of ALREADY increasing wages.

I wouldn't know, I don't think i've ever recieved a "bonus" in any job.
Again a lot of private companys don't have incremental wages based on years of service it's generally performance related.

peanuthead wrote: »

Also, the OPs point and her being fed up was not, according to my understanding of her post, about her wage cut. It's that this is a hard time for all and the hardship this has placed on the public sector (as well as all others) seems to be met with glee and thats not fair.

Well I think a lot of people were not aware of the many sections of the Ps on obscene wages/increases/security/pensions untill the media started to report on it. for example I had no idea teachers were earning on average of 60k give or take for less than 8 months work a year. no one shoud be happy about someone losing part of thier wage, but the reality is we have to cut it.

peanuthead wrote: »

But I don't like to see people pleading for one sector to be hit more than the other and being happy about the thought of it - and I think thats what the OP was referring to in her post.

If a company is profitable, well managed with a hard working work force and can afford to pay current levels of pay there's no point crying out for them to be cut. The PS employer can't afford the current levels of wages so they need to be cut.

ntlbell · 07-12-2010 11:56PM

caseyann wrote: »

I am going to ask you one question,Do you have kids and live on social welfare?

Yes.

No.

peanuthead wrote: »

SVP i work with them and they are stretched beyond their means already.MABS cant help most people SVP will tell you that.

MABS can advise people if they're badly managing their finances.

If not, there's plenty of good books on budgeting you can get in the librabry for free.

I'm sure the SVP are stretched. but they also manage to pull something out for people who really need it.

ntlbell · 07-12-2010 11:57PM

EF wrote: »

The budget was fairer so at last in that wider society makes some contribution. Either we reduce the public sector to zero or everybody makes a contribution

what has it got to do with the fact we can't afford the PS?

Social Welfare cut but Public Service Pay not ?

Comments