Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Increments cost 1 billion or industrial peace is worth 1 billion?

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to industrial peace.

I love the arguement from some that to reduce pay in the public sector will reduce spending power in the economy.

Ignoring the fact that we have to borrow this money in the first place, the arguement doesn't stand up at all. In effect it is arguing that we should tax everybody so that other people can take some of that money (after some of it has been wasted through admin etc) and they can make a decision on where to spend it. Why not just leave the money with the original person and save all the hassle?

Of course we need the PS to keep essential on non profit operations going, but to somehow argue that we need to continue to overpay arge parts of that service in order to keep the economy going is daft

principle?

The primary aim of reducing the Public Sector Salary Bill to is control the deficit - NOT stimulate spending in the economy.

If anybody wants to argue that deficit control thus far has been self-defeating then just consult the Fiscal Council's latest report.

Or even even just note that the underlying deficit has decreased every year since 2009.

not yet wrote: »

Just a quick appendage to the debate.

PS average pay includes each and every member of government, Including Kenny etc,College professors-Consultants and so on, This is the reason the average PS pay is 45-50 k

The private sector does not include Bank managers, heads of multi-nationals etc. So it is easy to see why the average pay of both is distorted.

JusT saying like...........

It also doesnt include the black economy, which almost totally in the private sector must be quite substantial at this stage
Black economy wages = dole + benefits + other fringe benefits + nixer money.

Godge wrote: »

You are right, the point about money being taken out of the economy is over-stated. A similar point is made about cuts to social welfare payments by those defending social welfare.

However, there is an element of truth in it when you compare it to other measures. Take for example, the levy on private pension funds. That didn't take money out of the economy, it took money from private pension funds that were at least partially invested abroad. A secondary effect would discourage saving for pension and therefore increase spending in the economy. Another one is the property tax which is levied on non-residents who will have to pay tax on money they were taking out of the country. Both of those measures are better for the economy than public service pay cuts or social welfare cuts.

Result, to be consistent those who buy into the argument that cuts to public service pay and social welfare take money out of the economy should support the property tax and the levy on private sector pensions.

GODge that a f##king good one it ok to screw private sector pension where people save money so that they will be less of a burden on the state longterm but it is wrong to cut PS pay which will reduce the burden on the state longterm. It is laso wrong to cut hard at the top level of the PS where people are more likly to spend a higher% of there money abroad on holidays and holidays homes abroad where they can spend more of there high level of pension abroad.

Creedp, the difference is that in the main the private sector generate their own income through sales of goods etc. If people stop buying they they are in trouble. The public sector has no income of it's own, it comes entirely form taxes.

The public sector has no income of it's own, it comes entirely form taxes.

This is not true. Many parts of the public sector have income, be it driving test charges, payments for beds from health insurers, universities only get about 60% of their income from the State, etc.

creedp wrote: »

Ah for petes sake .. same auld story all the time. Private side say you cant touch us in any way but you should crucify the other side - basically anybody but me. Not saying the public side are any different but the difference is when the public side defend their position they are ridiculed by the private side.

We hear that only the public sector can afford to save .. oh wait then we hear that [only] the private side are saving hard by contributing to private pensions for which the [only the private sector] taxpayer funds 40% of the contribution. Im surprised the private sector taxpayers who cant afford a private pension contribution havent revolted against this support for their wealthier colleagues by now. But its OK because their pension will reduce their burden on the taxpayer in the future.

Then we hear that only the public sector holiday abroad and waste taxpayers funds in the process and only the public servant pensioner owns foreign property and resides abroad. Of course the private sector pensioner will never do such a unpatriotric act and will always live and holiday in good auld Ireland - 0f course we also all know that its an irrefutable fact that all private sector pensioner are basically surviving on paltry pensions and simply couldnt afford to holiday/reside abroad.

There are a lot of incisive comments, analysis and views expressed on these threads which are interestising and informative to read but there are also a lot of other stuff which is simply one side slagging off the other side with arguments that have no balance or objectivity or reasoned analysis. Doesn't seem to matter though and I suppose at least in small doses it can be entertaining at times

First of all if you look up previous post by me in othere threads I have always stated that the burden should be shared accross sectors. Yes there should be extra taxes, yes there should be cuts in Social welfare but we also need to cut the costs of publiuc services and government costs. The tax that the government put on private pension was grossly unfair. I know that it was a small amount but a pension fund of 150K will give the owner a pension og about 6.5K per year with a 1.8% inflation adjustment.

And yes the government fund 42% of it by the way I am no fan of the way private sector pension are funded and run it is a racket and lots of Private sector workers suffer losses in there funds every year. It is not like the PS sector where the are gauranteed and linked to pay rates which means that the benificiaries win win win. By the way they also benifit by the 42% relief on the pension contribution that they now make.

Godge wrote: »

I didn't say which was better from a policy perspective.

I only said that from a "removing money from the economy perspective", the levy on private pensions and the property tax were better options than cutting social welfare or public service pay.

I stand over that statement as a statement of fact but it is only one consideration to take into account. Policy decisions are usaully based on a multiplicity of different factors.

As for the myth of the higher earning public servants, read the last CSO report where they look at senior managers in various sectors of the economy and public service senior managers are earning less than the private sector. That is before you take into account all those self-employed or business owners who are outside the CSO statistics.

The CSO report was produced by a public service body and when they started to fiddle teachers hours etc it lost credibility. also they failed to compare with equivlents abroad which might have show a different story. Also a private sector manager that is on a high wage will in general be working a lot longer hours than an public service manager. He will also be oin a short term contract 2-5 years in general yes it may be renewed however he may also get the boot. By the way I believe that the level of pay of some of these is out of kilter with reality. When you look at PLC's and the pay they give to senior managers it is no wonder that pension funds cannot make money

deise blue wrote: »

Given the hugely demanding wish list apparently being sought by the Government might it not be a better tactic for the Unions to withdraw from the current negotiations advising the Government that if terms & conditions are unilaterally changed then they will ballot their members on Industrial action ?

Perhaps , however , the Unions may have been heartened by Minister Howlin's comments that he does not expect to achieve everything listed ?

Blair Horan on the frontline programme indeed suggested the same when he indicated that he had heard from Union representatives at the initial meeting that there was no question of compulsory redundancies being sought.

Perhaps we are being treated to the usual posturing before the real negotiations begin on really achievable matters ? - after all the Unions must be making the Government aware that they will have a hugely difficult job selling any compromise agreement to their members if even a minority of the Government's wishes are included in such an agreement

By all means walk out it might well be just what the government need to wake up and ballot and go on strike and see the support you get. Try to justify 49K average wages accross the PS when the aver private sector one is around 650/week

In response to Farmer Pudsey I would say that the most important support in terms of a strike ballot is from the members of the various Unions , public opinion is a factor obviously but given the siege mentality that a lot of PS workers currently operate under not a major factor.

If the Unions are sufficiently organised & have built up strike contingency funds to enable frontline workers to strike without a major impact on their pay & if they can convince the Government that such is the case then that may force the Government to compromise.

I should point out that although I am a Union member I am not a PS employee.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The CSO report was produced by a public service body and when they started to fiddle teachers hours etc it lost credibility. also they failed to compare with equivlents abroad which might have show a different story. Also a private sector manager that is on a high wage will in general be working a lot longer hours than an public service manager. He will also be oin a short term contract 2-5 years in general yes it may be renewed however he may also get the boot. By the way I believe that the level of pay of some of these is out of kilter with reality. When you look at PLC's and the pay they give to senior managers it is no wonder that pension funds cannot make money

I'm not aware of the fiddling with teachers hours, can you give me a link to it please.

On the equivalents abroad, the purpose of the report was to compare the public and private sector in Ireland. What "different story" would be told if they compared other EU countries?

When it comes to certain sectors of the PS, I would say in my experience that your comment on hours is correct. In general, private sector managers work longer hours. However, that is only one factor in pay. Two others would be years experience and relevant education qualifications. The report showed in both of these the public sector employee had more than the private sector employee. On this point, it would seem you've selected a point that supports what you already have believe and are ignoring all others.

Personally, I think one of the biggest problems in the PS is management. I think they don't have enough teeth, aren't trained properly and they don't exercise enough control over those they are responsible for. That filters down. This definitely needs to be addressed, one way is through controlling their pay more tightly through performance management and increments, another is making them more responsible for their teams achievements, giving them control over the pay rises of their staff and making them responsible for their budget.