Slashing Public Sector Pay

In truth no government will make radical cutbacks and savings in the public service that is required. What is funny is that many of the people who give out about how little they have are the ones that most people would gladly see protected more then those in higher positions.

The real problems are that there are too many people on the payrole, many which arent required. There is an unqualified upper level management incapable of making the most out of its workforce as much because of the lack of motivation to make big decisions (and lack of responsibility) to properly improve the running of the service.

The government are still afraid of the public service overall, but will as usual show a jelly backbone by making everybody else sustain the unjustifiable expenses that many area's are sucking up.

What is funny is that when people say "slash social welfare even more" it must be clarified that people on social welfare will spend more in the economy (in terms of what money they actually have) then those on the public payrole who are currently saving, saving saving. This doesnt justify not cutting welfare, its just a point that the Unions always conveniently forget when they speak of how cutting public service salaries will take so much out of the economy, but they ignore how much worse slashing welfare in its current state (440k people spending!) would do to the economy.

I have said it before and I dont limit this to public servants. People still do not know how to budget and dont realise that the lifestyle they are used to is not something they deserve to maintain simply because they are used to it.

I know myself how much the average household can run on as I have to count my pennies:

Mortgage: €960 (interest Only)
Telephone: €50
Electricity: €50
Gas: €50
Petrol/transport: €300
TV: €37
Refuse: €22
Life Assurance: €50
VHI: €130
Sundries (including groceries): €600
Annual expenses unforeseen: €300

Total €2549

That is close to my budget (wife and child).

I dont go on holidays and dont really go out much. BBBBBUUUTTT

When most people speak of hardship, they simply do not know how to budget and they simply presume that hardship is not going out every week or not even being able to go on holiday!. PPPPLLLLEEEAAASSSEE

To subsidise above, my family needs to bring in roughly €36,000 PA. Now, I hear some people on tv say they cannot live on this salary on their own. I am sorry but if you got in over your head with investments, that is not anybody elses fault or problem but your own.

I think the state should always look to protect its people, but I dont think as an employer its job is to protect its employees from required lifestyle downgrades.

stone roses wrote: »

im a fireman and im sick off all you people talking about money!! why dont you shot me in the head and get it over and done with???

i save lifes for a living, i work hard and train hard i got 3 kids and live a very normal life , im on 40,000 not 400.000!!! like some top dogs in the private and public sector!!

yes i agree slash all pay private and public but leave the middle income earners alone! we have taken far to much pain as it is in the public and private sector!! i worked in the private sector and desided to move to the public sector when money was crap!!!! so give us a break and think about what your saying!!!! slash the public sector pay!!!!! same **** all the time but nobody says that when tere being saved for a car crash or fire!!!! cope on you make me sick!!

With all due respect, it doesnt matter what your job is, if you get paid for it, you cant start getting high and mighty because there are paycuts on the table. What you think you are entitled to and what the state can afford are subjective (whether you are defending your pay or somebody is suggesting it should be reduced).

The fact of the matter is that the Public sector paybill will have to be reduced. Most people would argue that its mainly wastage, over employment and certain sections that are simply paying themselves too much thats a huge part of the problem. But the problem is that there will be areas that should be trimmed that wont and as such it will be the usual knife to everybody approach that most yellow bellied governments take!

But for Nurses, firemen and policemen to start shouting about how important they are (and if we dont listen we can go F**k ourselves), it does little to strengthen their cause and they forget that they are actually saying since they are in jobs (that pay them) that are of noble nature, the rest of us should subsidise what they think they are worth.

Im sorry, but the pay increases that happened during the boom need to be reversed because the taxes that were subsidising it are gone. If you bought an investment house or got too much into debt, its not justified with the old "well I save lives" card. I know this is a ridiculously unpopular stance to take. I have nothing against anybody being upset with a potential paycut. I have a problem with people who basically have shifted the argument from I am entitled to it, to something completely differant. If you are feeling unappreciated, move jobs or join the rest of us and just get on with things.

Make no mistake, we are in a depression that could last a decade long. If you think what has happened up until now is bad, wait until things continue to labour along and get worse.

Because the public service has been a seriously protected beast and a culture of entitlement was fueled by a Bertie blank cheque, coupled with Unions who got used to asking and getting what they wanted, it still hasnt registered with many of them that the ATM service that their Unions were able to treat our public finances with, are gone.

I dont see how anybody can argue that when private sector gains were used to increase wages in the public service, how it should be the private sector again that is used to maintain these inflated wages that were only possible due to private sector success (in a property bubble). So basically we subsidise the increase in the boom and subsidise the "soft landing" in the depression. Since most government positions do not create wealth and there is huge unemployment , it puts an even greater strain on private citizens to fund our bills.

I didnt make this public v private, but I have to call you up on that. I am sorry that you feel angry and unnapreciated, but once everybody on both sides start seeing that there are few (save for select positions) people working in this country that are not suffering in some sort. But most people cant go into their boss and bang the table and demand that their salary remain stationary when their boss is barely keeping the company afloat as is.

sollar wrote: »

Seeing as it would be renaging on an existing agreement without the painters agreement then yes. If they took money directly out of his paypacket to put towards his already agreed pension then i can't see how that is anything other than a cut to his pay. He gains nothing from that, infact he is down money from his paypacket. His employer gains.

What are you talking about ? What if you just told the painter that he didnt have a job ? Ah wait, that would be a private sector painter, we are talking about a pulblic sector painter, so that couldnt happen.

So the public sector painter "is entitled" to it. The same old drum being beaten again. Doesnt matter what state the countrys finances are, there was a contract signed so everybody else should have to subsidise it! Typical narrow minded thinking and ignoring the harsh reality the state finds itself.

Until the government stops pussy footing around the problem, we will continue to have people thinking that its up to everybody else to honor an employers contract with it employees because they have an expectation of it!

sollar wrote: »

This is public sector pensions we are talking about. Not a private sector pension basd on the stock markets. We are told what we are getting from day one. Our pensions don't go up or down unless they are cut or increased.

There is no smal print on our contract saying the value of your pension may go up or down etc.

Do you understand the cost of public sector pensions to the state ? The cost of the state to subsidise these kinds of pensions ? Do you understand why they are sometimes referred to as "gold plated pensions" ?

They used to be available to certain company employees but they were too expensive to maintain. But our friends in government didnt want to lose their cushty pensions, so they couldnt cut everybody elses!

Most in the private sector would trade their pension for what people get in the public service in a heartbeat. But do you know what, most companies dont have taxpayers to fall back on to subsidise pensions that government guarantee on our behalf.

If a company cannot afford its paybill, it has to slash and burn. Why should it be any differant for the public service ? Seriously, why should the taxpayer have to "protect" the public service from the depression ?

Riskymove wrote: »

you realise that some actions have been taken right? some examples:

1. since 1995, entrants pay full PRSI and will get the State OAP with the occupational pension element being reduced

2. The combined take of the current contributions, USC, the Pension Levy on serving PS and the levy on retired staff essentially covers the cost of current pensions

3. The paycut will reduce the level of future pensions

4. Pensions are fully taxed and liable to the USC, reducing the net cost further

5. new entrants will have a 10% further reduciton in salary and will have a pension based on average salary as opposed to final salary meaning reduced pensions in the future

Yes, finally we are getting closer to some sort of normal arrangement , but its still a perk that is not completely funded by the contributions of its members.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/Irish_Economy/article_1022173_printer.shtml

ardmacha wrote: »

Respectable employers generally make a contribution to pensions, so there is no need for the PS pensions to be completely funded by the contributions.

As always there is a point to be made about pensions, but all this manure about "gold plated" prevents any reasonable discussion.

What a crock. Most employers do not make meaningful contributions to their employees pension. I state this from working within the pension industry and from what I see regularly. What do you base your assumptions on ?

You can take the phrase "gold plated pensions" in the same context as people taking public servants saying that they are being "attacked" so. Public service pensions cost the state too much. It was fine when the country was making money and servicing its debt, it has to be properly analysed now that we are in ruins.