Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Lemming · 17-01-2013 01:31PM

eigrod wrote: »

Have a look at Britain and the cost of rail tickets there since it was privatised.

That's not as black & white as you try to paint it. The UK government puts in a considerable amount of co-funding to the rail industry, so privatisation isn't quite a self-sufficient affair yet. The UK government want to spend less & less on co-funding hence why the ticket prices - in part - keep rising; to offset the deficit of funding that comes with each reduction in spending by government.

not yet · 17-01-2013 01:34PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

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.

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

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 reference to your last qoute.........

Now feel free to ignore this information if it doesn't fit in with the agenda you follow.

PS average wage is inclusive of all salaries, including 250k for consultants, 250k for professors, 250 for special advisers etc etc etc.

The private sector does not include bank managers, heads of multi nationals, self employed hotel owners or most big business people.

Now as you can see this would distort the figure ever so slightly. Just saying like.

not yet · 17-01-2013 01:39PM

eigrod wrote: »

Very naive. Refuse collection charges have gone up every year since that was privatised in my area. Private bus fares have gone up this year.

Have a look at Britain and the cost of rail tickets there since it was privatised.

To be of the opinion that driving tests or passports will be cheaper if/when that service is privatised is absolutely ridiculous.

privitisation= greed=profits= minimum wage and so on.....

The people who invest in these private industries want profits at all costs, When the job is done by the PS, profit is not the main driving force behind the service, hence it's nearly always cheaper

Examples, Driving licences 20e PS-55e privatised

Bin Collection 120e PS over 200e privatised, and the list will grow over the next ten years as our government privatise as much as they can.

ballyharpat · 17-01-2013 01:49PM

Godge wrote: »

Apple operate like that. You cannot buy a phone or music player that uses iTunes unless you buy it from Apple so they keep their prices as high as possible.

There are many other examples of private sector companies operating like that. In fact the abuse of monopolies by private sector companies is one of the justifications for public goods and public services in that having democratically elected politicians overseeing the monopoly services is better than having private sector oligarchs looking after their own interests (well, in theory anyway)

Absolutely nothing in common, if I want to listen to music, I don't have to buy an apple ipod, but I have all apple electronics, because they are the best, and being the best I am happy to pay above the average price for an mp3 player-IMO.
When it comes to the Public sector, I don't have that option, if I want a drivers licence, I can only get it through a government agency-Sorry Godge, but your argument holds no water.

eigrod · 17-01-2013 01:50PM

Lemming wrote: »

That's not as black & white as you try to paint it. The UK government puts in a considerable amount of co-funding to the rail industry, so privatisation isn't quite a self-sufficient affair yet. The UK government want to spend less & less on co-funding hence why the ticket prices - in part - keep rising; to offset the deficit of funding that comes with each reduction in spending by government.

Oh I agree with you totally. Running a rail service is expensive business, irrespective of whether it's in private or public hands. But to suggest that private sector operators can't increase fares simply because of competition (as the post I was responding to intimiated) is wrong.

Gumbo · 17-01-2013 01:53PM

ballyharpat wrote: »

if I want a drivers licence, I can only get it through a government agency-Sorry Godge, but your argument holds no water.

its not in a national interest to sub-contract out drivers licence applications. IMHO, its better to be a government organisation that issues these.

antoobrien · 17-01-2013 02:28PM

not yet wrote: »

The people who invest in these private industries want profits at all costs, When the job is done by the PS, profit is not the main driving force behind the service, hence it's nearly always cheaper

Examples, Driving licences 20e PS-55e privatised

Bin Collection 120e PS over 200e privatised, and the list will grow over the next ten years as our government privatise as much as they can.

Those are not examples of "bad value" but more accurately examples of true cost, showing just how much the services are being subsidized by business (in the case of bins) and the taxpayer (in the case of the licenses).

n97 mini · 17-01-2013 03:15PM

eigrod wrote: »

Very naive. Refuse collection charges have gone up every year since that was privatised in my area. Private bus fares have gone up this year.

Have a look at Britain and the cost of rail tickets there since it was privatised.

Anything that was cheaper when being run by the state was most likely cheaper because of subsidies. It's also entirely likely that if the local authority was still running the refuse collection that it would be even more expensive than the private operator, especially if the subsidy was withdrawn.

eigrod wrote: »

To be of the opinion that driving tests or passports will be cheaper if/when that service is privatised is absolutely ridiculous.

They more than likely would be more expensive due to less or no subsidy. It is likely they would be delivered more efficiently and cheaper to the state, but not cheaper to those buying them.

Lumbo · 17-01-2013 04:39PM

n97 mini wrote: »

Anything that was cheaper when being run by the state was most likely cheaper because of subsidies. It's also entirely likely that if the local authority was still running the refuse collection that it would be even more expensive than the private operator, especially if the subsidy was withdrawn.

Waivers for Pensioners and the Unemployed don't come cheap. Are Private Sector refuse collectors offering these waivers?

Godge · 17-01-2013 04:58PM

itzme wrote: »

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.

I keep hearing this mantra about performance management and performance pay for public servants as the solution to all our woes as it copies and mimics the private sector.

I have a couple of questions. Firstly how widespread is performance-related pay in the private sector?

http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/wp5.pdf

According to this 2007 study in the UK only 26% of private sector workers are covered by performance-related pay. Interestingly, 50% of firms are covered and that there are differences within firms with some employees covered and others not. This begs the question is why do some commentators on here and elsewhere (and as included in the Croke Park Agreement) believe that all public servants should have their increments related to performance? If private sector companies differ between themselves in approach and in dealing with different employees of their own, why does a one-size-fits-all approach apply to the public service?

Another big question is how has the experience been in the public service elsewhere?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3647/1/Motivation_and_performance_related_pay_in_the_public_sector(CEP).pdf

This 1992 study looks at performance related pay in the UK Inland Revenue. A noticeable conclusion is that

"Our second finding is that any positive motivational effects of Performance Pay have
been, at most, very modest among Revenue staff. Even worse, there is clear
evidence of some demotivation among staff. It is by no means implausible that

the net motivational effect has been negative."

This is especially interesting when you consider that the system they were using was more generous than the one suggested here in Ireland. Extra increments were available, it wasn't about getting your normal annual increment which you got anyway.

Finally, I ask is performance-related pay appropriate for the public sector. Here is an OECD paper on the introduction of pay systems in Kosovo.

http://www.oecd.org/site/sigma/publicationsdocuments/40974834.pdf

It examines performance-related pay for public service and in quoting from another paper (which I can't find) it lists some of the issues:

"

"Performance-related pay systems are costly and time-consuming to implement.

• In many cases such systems are only applicable at senior levels.

• Discretion of managers is confined to issues such as measurement of performance and distribution of the small pool of money available for performance-related pay.

• Some systems have been introduced as pilot projects with a view to wider application at a later date, but in absence of rigorous analyses of the effects of the pilot projects it is not clear how wider application could be introduced.

• Almost none of the current schemes address the issue of underperformance (no punishment for failure to deliver).

• Measurement of performance, particularly in areas where there are no obvious quantifiable outputs, is a very difficult issue.

• No evidence has been found that performance-related pay schemes have contributed to an improvement in performance, in human resource management or in the quality of the service delivered.

• Additional remuneration was not a significant motivator for the employees concerned.

• The regular, annual or more frequent, formalized discussions between managers and employees on performance, targets and progress achieved have positive effects on motivation (recognition of the contribution of an individual to the organisational performance)."

You would have to ask as a result, what is the basis that some people are shouting for the introduction of performance-related pay in the public service and where is the evidence that it would improve matters?

itzme · 17-01-2013 05:11PM

They're all great points and I'll take my time to read through them and digest more thoroughly but I think you've taken my point wrong. I wasn't calling for Performance management on pay for the whole PS as a solution as I don't see pay being the biggest problem in the PS.

I was highlighting my own view that the minority of workers suffer from motivation problems and that the biggest issue is one of their efficiency and work practices. This is linked to management not doing their jobs right at motivating their staff and maintaining the highest standards and work-rate for the staff. This is because managers are not being held accountable for their staffs performance and in turn the staff are not being held accountable to their managers. In places this is not the fault of the managers. For instance, take a principal in a school. They are the managers of the school and the staff. Yet they have no control over rewarding/controlling pay of their staff. The job of inspections is being done "objectively", their ability to control their staff is completely removed from them giving their staff too much autonomy. This is too common in the PS where the general staff have too much autonomy.

So my points were meant to be in the vein of how to get the managers to care more about their staff and also seperately to this we need to give them the power and ability to be in control of their staff. In that way, they are being given the tools to be responsible for their staff and in turn should be held responsible for their staffs performance.

On motivation and pay, its accepted that in skilled jobs money is not the primary driving factor when the pay is high enough for a person to have a comfortable living (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc). Mastery, purpose and autonomy are. I completely agree with you on the point that performance related pay is not the right tool for the whole PS. A one size fits all approach for ~300,000 workers working with children, adults, senior citizens, sick, disabled, tax payers..... will end up fitting none. An interesting short piece from the states on this issue relating to teachers by the guy who created the video above is http://www.danpink.com/2012/02/eight-points-about-merit-pay-for-teachers.

n97 mini · 17-01-2013 05:32PM

Lumbo wrote: »

Waivers for Pensioners and the Unemployed don't come cheap. Are Private Sector refuse collectors offering these waivers?

I'm not sure who is funding the waivers. Since AES took over Kildare Co Co refuse collection there is still a waiver system in place, but the fact is it was outsourced as the overall cost was cheaper, even if it costs more to the end user.

sarumite · 17-01-2013 06:38PM

Godge wrote: »

Apple operate like that. You cannot buy a phone or music player that uses iTunes unless you buy it from Apple so they keep their prices as high as possible.

There are many other examples of private sector companies operating like that. In fact the abuse of monopolies by private sector companies is one of the justifications for public goods and public services in that having democratically elected politicians overseeing the monopoly services is better than having private sector oligarchs looking after their own interests (well, in theory anyway)

I think you are getting more than a little bit confused here. Apple is not a monopoly. Itunes is proprietary software (and a store that also sells, amongst other things, proprietary software). This is not a unique business model, indeed probably its biggest competitor (of which there are more than one, since it is not a monopoly) is google play which operate in a similar manner. Other companies such as Microsoft (e.g. Xbox live) sony (e,g, playstation network) amongst other also operate this way and none of these are considered monopolies either.

In fact Music is sold on Itunes as DRM free, thus you don't actually need an apple device to play it (same for renting movies from Itunes). I personally use Itunes as it is a good podcast manager, despite not owning any apple devices.

OMD · 17-01-2013 09:22PM

not yet wrote: »

In reference to your last qoute.........

Now feel free to ignore this information if it doesn't fit in with the agenda you follow.

PS average wage is inclusive of all salaries, including 250k for consultants, 250k for professors, 250 for special advisers etc etc etc.

The private sector does not include bank managers, heads of multi nationals, self employed hotel owners or most big business people.

Now as you can see this would distort the figure ever so slightly. Just saying like.

This is brought up so often it has to be commented on. Very few in public sector earn above €250 so their effect on the average would be marginal.
On the other hand, large numbers of public sector work part time or some work term time. These people obviously earn less and so bring average down. This is one of the reasons public sector workers overall work fewer hours than private sector (for more pay).

tenton · 17-01-2013 11:32PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

an end to automatic increments based on time served

Redundancies to made in areas that are not currently productive (an example being the planning offices all over the country that have little or no work)

10% pay cut for anyone earning over 100k

5% for anyone earning between 40-100k

Increase the working week to 39 hours in areas where it is currently less than this

Excellent constructive suggestions. We all - well, most Irish people / people in Ireland - know lots of people in the public service, be they family, friends, relatives , neighbours, clubmates. We all know its overpaid and overpensioned, and over-staffed in many areas. Time to get real.

creedp · 17-01-2013 11:40PM

OMD wrote: »

This is brought up so often it has to be commented on. Very few in public sector earn above €250 so their effect on the average would be marginal.
On the other hand, large numbers of public sector work part time or some work term time. These people obviously earn less and so bring average down. This is one of the reasons public sector workers overall work fewer hours than private sector (for more pay).

It also worth commenting on the fact that the variation in av wage is very significant across the private sector so while the average for the entire private sector is €620pw, the av in industry is €826pw; av in financial, insurance and real estate is €1,019 while the av is accommodation and catering is €305.

So when people keep referring to the private sector average being €620pw while in the public sector it is €912 they can thank the lowly paid accommodation and catering colleagues for hwelping to make theoverall private sector wage appear so low. Where would people be without that €305pw to support this argument? By the way these figures are taken from CSO Qtr 1 2012 earnings publication. Finally, I know I will be hammered for raising this again but also the PS figure has not been adjusted for the pension levy which average 7.5% ... duck

By the way I was just looking at the the CSO Earnings and Labour costs for Qtr 2 2012 and read an interesting stat - in the 3 years Q3 2012 weekly earnings in the PS have decreased by 4% (excluding the pension levy for non semi-state PS) while they increased by 1.4% in the private sector. Kind of debunks the usual old line of 50% pay cuts across the private sector.

Cookie_Monster · 18-01-2013 12:00AM

not yet wrote: »

privitisation= greed=profits= minimum wage and so on.....

The people who invest in these private industries want profits at all costs,

BS

nobody runs a business to make profits at all costs, otherwise they'd fail and fail quickly. There's all sorts of things to take into account, not least public and customer perception, which is becoming a bigger and bigger deal.
A good product / service delivered well, with good support for a fair price will bring better long term returns over short term and that's the entire goal behind running a business.

That said the UK / Irl business model is fairly unique in being far more shareholder and profit driven than most

Gumbo · 18-01-2013 08:43AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

BS

nobody runs a business to make profits at all costs, otherwise they'd fail and fail quickly. There's all sorts of things to take into account, not least public and customer perception, which is becoming a bigger and bigger deal.
A good product / service delivered well, with good support for a fair price will bring better long term returns over short term and that's the entire goal behind running a business.

That said the UK / Irl business model is fairly unique in being far more shareholder and profit driven than most

Customer Service doesnt pay the bills or get repeat customers

My local camera shop has excellent customer service, but i still bough my camera from Simply Electronics in Hong Kong. I still bought my phone up North and i actively buy/sell on ebay.

If theres no profit to be made in a particular service it wont work long term in the private sector.

tenton wrote: »

Excellent constructive suggestions. We all - well, most Irish people / people in Ireland - know lots of people in the public service, be they family, friends, relatives , neighbours, clubmates. We all know its overpaid and overpensioned, and over-staffed in many areas. Time to get real.

They are obviously not real friends or real family, if you have to resort to making up lies on a public forum.

antoobrien · 18-01-2013 09:08AM

kceire wrote: »

Customer Service doesnt pay the bills or get repeat customers

You would be the exception that proves the rule. CS does keep customers - poor CS makes them leave. It may well be seen as a cost, but it is one that there is a benefit to as hard as it is to quantify or put a monitery value on.

I worked callcenter for a number of large Irish & UK companies while I was in college/just finished. They took their CS very seriously because it helped bring customers back.

NTL/UPC is the prime example of that - people left them because of the perception that their CS was crap (and it was poor). It took them years to turn it around (i.m.o. they have done so spectacularly) and it's winning them back customers.

Tea drinker · 18-01-2013 10:11AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

BS

nobody runs a business to make profits at all costs, otherwise they'd fail and fail quickly. There's all sorts of things to take into account, not least public and customer perception, which is becoming a bigger and bigger deal.
A good product / service delivered well, with good support for a fair price will bring better long term returns over short term and that's the entire goal behind running a business.

That said the UK / Irl business model is fairly unique in being far more shareholder and profit driven than most

Doesn't seem to apply to the banks ? They incompetetently ran their biz into the ground and then turned and stole from their customers.
Biz still going relatively well, no witch hunt, any consequences? The ironic things is it's gov dept which should have protected Irish citizens from this attack, but they ignored/covered up the problem and finally organised the wealth transfer.

fliball123 · 18-01-2013 12:08PM

Godge wrote: »

Apple operate like that. You cannot buy a phone or music player that uses iTunes unless you buy it from Apple so they keep their prices as high as possible.

There are many other examples of private sector companies operating like that. In fact the abuse of monopolies by private sector companies is one of the justifications for public goods and public services in that having democratically elected politicians overseeing the monopoly services is better than having private sector oligarchs looking after their own interests (well, in theory anyway)

Yes but it has competition from other companies giving the exact same service. Apple may entice you in to their domain and then screw you but you if they continue to do so the user can buy say an asteroid and get a better service

fliball123 · 18-01-2013 12:16PM

not yet wrote: »

privitisation= greed=profits= minimum wage and so on.....

The people who invest in these private industries want profits at all costs, When the job is done by the PS, profit is not the main driving force behind the service, hence it's nearly always cheaper

Examples, Driving licences 20e PS-55e privatised

Bin Collection 120e PS over 200e privatised, and the list will grow over the next ten years as our government privatise as much as they can.

We can argue this till the cows come home, lads the only equation or sum that is anyway important is that we are borrowing 2million an hour to service public sector pay, pensions, services and social welfare, the tax payer the income part of this equation has been hit 5 years on the trot. Now how much longer do you think the tax payer will take this hit and not hit back. Lets see how the property tax goes this year. The unions would want to be careful a strike would cause disruption and it would also cause outrage amongst tax payers who have been bent over and taking the pinapple up the hole for the last 5 years. You had a pay cut 3 years ago and have been left pretty much alone since. Bar the tinkering around the edges of the cpa which we should of got for the 2 benchmarking exercises. I would hazard a guess that there would be twice as many tax payers on the street telling the public sector to get on with their jobs and take another pay cut for the good of the country when we are on our knees (and by all means reverse these pay cuts when times are better) but to continue to ask more tax from a ever decreasing pool of tax payers cannot continue. I have sympathy with those in the ps particularly those in the front line and on the lower wage, but the simple economics of the situation is we cannot continue burying our head in the sand. Also welfare will have to take a hit aswell, but to think that a fairly sizeable chunk of our expenditure (ps pay and pensions) should be off the table indefinately and only increased through increments is absolutely crazy

itzme · 18-01-2013 12:30PM

fliball123 wrote: »

We can argue this till the cows come home, lads the only equation or sum that is anyway important is that we are borrowing 2million an hour to service public sector pay, pensions, services and social welfare, the tax payer the income part of this equation has been hit 5 years on the trot. Now how much longer do you think the tax payer will take this hit and not hit back. Lets see how the property tax goes this year. The unions would want to be careful a strike would cause disruption and it would also cause outrage amongst tax payers who have been bent over and taking the pinapple up the hole for the last 5 years. You had a pay cut 3 years ago and have been left pretty much alone since. Bar the tinkering around the edges of the cpa which we should of got for the 2 benchmarking exercises. I would hazard a guess that there would be twice as many tax payers on the street telling the public sector to get on with their jobs and take another pay cut for the good of the country when we are on our knees (and by all means reverse these pay cuts when times are better) but to continue to ask more tax from a ever decreasing pool of tax payers cannot continue. I have sympathy with those in the ps particularly those in the front line and on the lower wage, but the simple economics of the situation is we cannot continue burying our head in the sand. Also welfare will have to take a hit aswell, but to think that a fairly sizeable chunk of our expenditure (ps pay and pensions) should be off the table indefinately and only increased through increments is absolutely crazy

Three things on this rant

First, you say the taxpayer has been hit for 5 years and how much longer will it be. That's already answered 2015. There is a plan with fiscal targets, so far they have been met and we are on target to a manageable deficit. So this alarmist approach of "how much longer..." is pointless. Read up on the targets come back if you think they aren't achievable and with why.

Second, the PS are taxpayers too so have been hit by the USC, the property tax and all the other taxes stealth or otherwise that the private sector worker has been hit with.

Third, if you're going to talk about ps pay and pensions please keep the figures consistent with that. So 2 million an hour borrowed to pay for ps pay, pensions, services, social welfare is meaningless.

Why not come to the discussion with something more than time stamped figures which don't even fit with the point you're making. What is the borrowing figure per year? what is the percentage of the expenditure going to ps pay and pensions? What was the amount in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012? is it going down, by how much annually? If the rate of change is continued when would it reach an acceptable amount?

not yet · 18-01-2013 12:33PM

tenton wrote: »

Excellent constructive suggestions. We all - well, most Irish people / people in Ireland - know lots of people in the public service, be they family, friends, relatives , neighbours, clubmates. We all know its overpaid and overpensioned, and over-staffed in many areas. Time to get real.

Who's we...?

Give 1 example of overpaid and one of over staffed, or do you need to consult with ''we'' to get it straight.

antoobrien · 18-01-2013 01:12PM

not yet wrote: »

Who's we...?

Give 1 example of overpaid and one of over staffed, or do you need to consult with ''we'' to get it straight.

HSE administration on both counts.

not yet · 18-01-2013 01:13PM

antoobrien wrote: »

HSE administration on both counts.

Agreed, but you jumped in to soon, the point I was making is people jump on this band wagon to quickly.

antoobrien · 18-01-2013 01:21PM

not yet wrote: »

Agreed, but you jumped in to soon, the point I was making is people jump on this band wagon to quickly.

Not really the point is very valid - most Irish people directly know someone in an area of the PS that is overstaffed or overpaid or have read the reports in the newspapers.

Two examples I can give you:

The "put upon" hospital porters in UCHG. 10 of them went on strike a couple of years ago and nobody noticed (apart from wondering what the 10 yahoos were at standing out at the front gate). If that amount of slack can be picked up that handily then there's a lot of overstaffing going on in that sector.

It was reported that there are hundreds of posts in a government department ( I think it was agriculture) that were technically redundant (no work for them) but they couldn't be redeployed (before CPA). This have have been resolved since (didn't hear one way or the other).

fliball123 · 18-01-2013 02:08PM

itzme wrote: »

Three things on this rant

First, you say the taxpayer has been hit for 5 years and how much longer will it be. That's already answered 2015. There is a plan with fiscal targets, so far they have been met and we are on target to a manageable deficit. So this alarmist approach of "how much longer..." is pointless. Read up on the targets come back if you think they aren't achievable and with why.

Second, the PS are taxpayers too so have been hit by the USC, the property tax and all the other taxes stealth or otherwise that the private sector worker has been hit with.

Third, if you're going to talk about ps pay and pensions please keep the figures consistent with that. So 2 million an hour borrowed to pay for ps pay, pensions, services, social welfare is meaningless.

Why not come to the discussion with something more than time stamped figures which don't even fit with the point you're making. What is the borrowing figure per year? what is the percentage of the expenditure going to ps pay and pensions? What was the amount in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012? is it going down, by how much annually? If the rate of change is continued when would it reach an acceptable amount?

My alarmist approach is the way the property tax situation is currently being played out. AS for the rest of your response what part of borrowing 2 million an hour to pay for this do you not understand or in your words think its meaningless. To pay the levels we are paying we are borrowing the money and it has to be paid back with interest and even without a banking clusterfck this would be the case

18-01-2013 02:15PM

fliball123 wrote: »

My alarmist approach is the way the property tax situation is currently being played out. AS for the rest of your response what part of borrowing 2 million an hour to pay for this do you not understand or in your words think its meaningless. To pay the levels we are paying we are borrowing the money and it has to be paid back with interest and even without a banking clusterfck this would be the case

We are not borrowing 2 million per hour to pay PS wages, this is hyperbole and nothing else.

If you cannot make your case without having to resort to misinformation then I wont take your point seriously.

Firstly the correction the minister for Public expenditure is looking for from the public service over the whole lifetime of any deal is not even remotely near 2 million an hour.

sarumite · 18-01-2013 02:31PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

We are not borrowing 2 million per hour to pay PS wages, this is hyperbole and nothing else.

If you cannot make your case without having to resort to misinformation then I wont take your point seriously.

Firstly the correction the minister for Public expenditure is looking for from the public service over the whole lifetime of any deal is not even remotely near 2 million an hour.

To be fair, the poster actually said

"2million an hour to service public sector pay, pensions, services and social welfare,".

I don't know what the actual figure per hour is, but the government does spend a lot on the 4 items above.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments