Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

1…8687899192…159

Comments

  • #2642
    noodler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,002 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Godge wrote: »
    So we have a difference of opinion which is where 1.24 comes in. But the Government sidestepped it.




    Was all of that unforseen? If you asked McWilliams or Constantin in 2010 what was happening with the economy, they would have told you we would be bankrupt by the end of the week. So using their forecasts we ended up better rather than worse. And they were not alone. The likes of Marc Coleman (remember the best is yet to come) was also singing the doomsday song.

    Jesus Christ Godge...

    Yes, unforeseen.

    Unforeseen budgetary circumstances,as outlined by the Government is talking about its own projections.

    I have no memory of Williams or Constantin outlining their own version of the Government's budgetary projections in detail at the time.

    You are really, really being disingenuous now.


  • #2643
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    There's a two theories I have on that:

    Their families falls into the realm of "acceptable sacrifice"
    They think their families are behind them and won't care - as long as there's no disruption to their pet service(s)

    The point is, they have to provide for their families (like everyone else). If they take a hit in wages and conditions, the life of their families also take a hit.

    It's not about "bullyboy" tactics, it's about trying to keep the standard of living they are used to.
    I think most people, given the same scenario would do as much as they can to keep that.

    (Obviously I see the overall picture about the deficit and the "fairness" in society and indeed the requirements for cuts, however in environments of ever increasing costs for everyone, they are hard to take, for anyone.)


  • #2644
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    What would you do, given the circumstances and options available?

    This is not 10 years ago, so my view is that strikes will damage the workers positions, not strengthen them.

    There's a few problems I have with the union positions, the biggest one around overtime. The position that overtime is "guaranteed wage" - which seems to me to be a belief that the "lower waged" PS workers & unions have - is ludicrous. It wouldn't cause me to go on strike.


  • #2645
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    This is not 10 years ago, so my view is that strikes will damage the workers positions, not strengthen them.

    There's a few problems I have with the union positions, the biggest one around overtime. The position that overtime is "guaranteed wage" - which seems to me to be a belief that the "lower waged" PS workers & unions have - is ludicrous. It wouldn't cause me to go on strike.

    There are lots of us that have no desire or intention to go on strike and I agree with you, there won't be much/any public sympathy for strikes so yes, it probably will damage their position however the government don't want the problem of strikes so the threat of strikes can often be a good negotiating position to start from (not something I agree with either)

    As I said earlier, CP1 and CP2 have been and are far more damaging in the long term to public sector workers than straight paycuts. Hindsight might show that.


  • #2646
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    kippy wrote: »
    There are lots of us that have no desire or intention to go on strike and I agree with you, there won't be much/any public sympathy for strikes so yes, it probably will damage their position however the government don't want the problem of strikes so the threat of strikes can often be a good negotiating position to start from (not something I agree with either)

    As I said earlier, CP1 and CP2 have been and are far more damaging in the long term to public sector workers than straight paycuts. Hindsight might show that.

    I agree completely with this there have been so many conditions eroded away or new ones introduced such as the additional hours this time, pension levies, overtime adjustments which I can see ever being reversed whereas with straight pay cuts there would be a slight chance they would be reversed in the future.

    Additional hours this time means no recruitment or promotions for a long long time so current staff have in affect all taken a pay cut, working longer for the same pay. Those on the bottom struggling now will be faced with struggling for the next 30 years as a result.


  • Advertisement
  • #2647
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    It's not about "bullyboy" tactics, it's about trying to keep the standard of living they are used to.
    I think most people, given the same scenario would do as much as they can to keep that.

    Kippy, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but the governments position was summarised as effectively give us what we want (i.e. make a deal) or we'll do X. The unions position is effectively the same - we don't want this deal, give us what we want or we'll do Y.

    How can one be described as bullyboy (I know you didn't use the term) and the other not when they are the same position?

    As for trying to keep the standard of living, the government's broad aim is to try to keep the national standard of living in a position that affordable, sustainable and won't do long term damage to the economy. The PS is just one part of the puzzle (despite the doomsday scenarios that a few are trotting out).

    kippy wrote: »
    (Obviously I see the overall picture about the deficit and the "fairness" in society and indeed the requirements for cuts, however in environments of ever increasing costs for everyone, they are hard to take, for anyone.)

    I'm not arguing that in the slightest, any cuts are hard to take. I'm just shaking my head at the explicit hypocrisy of the unions calling the government bullies, when they are using the same tactics to try to get their aims.


  • #2648
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    antoobrien wrote: »
    They make up less than 1/5th of the population. The rest of us (about 3.5m) are the ones you're threatening with no <insert service of choice> unless you get your wage demands.

    And that's not bullyboy tactics?

    I said they made up a sizeable portion of the voting public, not the population. And I don't think there'll be any need for strikes. Simple work to rule action should be more than enough to demonstrate how much PS workers contribute beyond what is required and why they deserve their wage. You can call it bullyboy if you want but it's simple self preservation really.


  • #2649
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    As I said earlier, CP1 and CP2 have been and are far more damaging in the long term to public sector workers than straight paycuts. Hindsight might show that.

    CP2 can't have damaged you, it isn't in yet ;)


    Can you highlight some of the "damage" that CPA has done to PS vs in terms of pay and conditions vs most private sector workers.

    I know there have been paycuts, but there have been no compulsory redundancies in the PS - both of those have happened in the private sector.


  • #2650
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    SB2013 wrote: »
    I said they made up a sizeable portion of the voting public, not the population. And I don't think there'll be any need for strikes. Simple work to rule action should be more than enough to demonstrate how much PS workers contribute beyond what is required and why they deserve their wage. You can call it bullyboy if you want but it's simple self preservation really.

    But it's not the voting public they're holding to ransom is it, but the entire population.

    They're holding my two school going nieces who don't have a vote under the same threat of withdrawal of services as their two OAP uncles that do.

    And as I have said to kippy, if the government's position is regarded as "do what we want or X" can be described as bullyboy, the the unions position of "do what we want or Y" is equally bullyboy tactics - regardless of the motives of either side.


  • #2651
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,130 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Additional hours this time means no recruitment or promotions for a long long time so current staff have in affect all taken a pay cut, working longer for the same pay. Those on the bottom struggling now will be faced with struggling for the next 30 years as a result.
    Oh dear, less of the drama. There's always a job in the private sector for someone who doesn't want to "struggle for 30 years" in the public sector! ;)

    Working there is not compulsory, is it?


  • Advertisement
  • #2652
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    murphaph wrote: »
    Oh dear, less of the drama. There's always a job in the private sector for someone who doesn't want to "struggle for 30 years" in the public sector! ;)

    Working there is not compulsory, is it?

    It is when you have a mortgage to pay and the job security the public sector gives. Although there are many in the public sector that would be far better off in the private sector now.


  • #2653
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Kippy, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but the governments position was summarised as effectively give us what we want (i.e. make a deal) or we'll do X. The unions position is effectively the same - we don't want this deal, give us what we want or we'll do Y.

    How can one be described as bullyboy (I know you didn't use the term) and the other not when they are the same position?

    As for trying to keep the standard of living, the government's broad aim is to try to keep the national standard of living in a position that affordable, sustainable and won't do long term damage to the economy. The PS is just one part of the puzzle (despite the doomsday scenarios that a few are trotting out).




    I'm not arguing that in the slightest, any cuts are hard to take. I'm just shaking my head at the explicit hypocrisy of the unions calling the government bullies, when they are using the same tactics to try to get their aims.
    Okay, I agree, one side calling the other side "bullies" is rather daft - whatever you want to call it, both sides are at it.
    I understand the bigger picture argument and indeed the bigger picture side of it.
    I was just calling you on your initial point that the public sector unions were the real bullyboys here, the state were just looking out for private sector taxpayers.


  • #2654
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    CP2 can't have damaged you, it isn't in yet ;)


    Can you highlight some of the "damage" that CPA has done to PS vs in terms of pay and conditions vs most private sector workers.

    I know there have been paycuts, but there have been no compulsory redundancies in the PS - both of those have happened in the private sector.
    My point was they have been far more damaging to public sector workers in comparison to two sets of straight sliding scale pay cuts.
    Not that they have been far more damaging than anything that has happened in sections of the private sector - that is not the point I was making.

    How have they been far more damaging than straight pay cuts:
    1. Some of the terms that have been removed took years to bring in and will probably never come back again.
    2. Adding additional hours to a workweek (while I agree with it), will add additional costs for some public sector workers.
    3. Most importantly, CP1 and CP22 have split public sector workers down into a number of distinct groups. I am sure that is obvious.
    4. The cost of negotiating, implementing and monitoring on the effectiveness CP1 and CP2 is not insubstantial.
    5. People don't believe many efficiencies have been achieved anyway - even with the review boards reports.
    6. Straight paycuts are far "easier" to implement and indeed see the direct benefit of.
    7. Ultimately some of the process's that that place within politics and high level state jobs have not changed whatsoever and the level of accountability for any role hasn't improved as a result of CP1 or CP2.


  • #2655
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    I was just calling you on your initial point that the public sector unions were the real bullyboys here, the state were just looking out for private sector taxpayers.

    Sorry, that wasn't my intention - I was trying to make the point (to another poster who made the claim first that the government were bullies) that both sides were using the same tactics.

    I'm trying not to weigh in on either side here, but more than likely failing miserably.


  • #2656
    road_high
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,076 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    donalg1 wrote: »
    It is when you have a mortgage to pay and the job security the public sector gives. Although there are many in the public sector that would be far better off in the private sector now.

    Does the country owe you a living? Just because some people over exteneded themselves based on bubble govt revenues, they expect the (broke) state to prop them up? You do realise how ridiculous this sounds...

    As for being better off in the private sector, they are absolutely free to leave and under no obligation to stay.


  • #2657
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    noodler wrote: »
    Jesus Christ Godge...

    Yes, unforeseen.

    Unforeseen budgetary circumstances,as outlined by the Government is talking about its own projections.

    I have no memory of Williams or Constantin outlining their own version of the Government's budgetary projections in detail at the time.

    You are really, really being disingenuous now.


    I am talking about the process.

    The Government cannot just decide that there are unforeseen budgetary circumstances and walk away from the Croke Park Agreement. That makes it prosecuter, judge and jury on the issue. That is why 1.24 is there.

    The defence of the unions, however weak it is (relying on the delusions of McWilliams et al) deserved to be heard but it never got a chance. On the other hand, think of how strong a hand the government would have had if the Labour Court had ruled that the current circumstances were unforseen and that there had been a deterioration. The unions that walked away would have found it much more difficult to do so.

    The fact that the government reneged on the agreement (FACT) without actually formally invoking the relevant clause (FACT) demonstrates that they were not sure they could win the day at the Labour Court (MY OPINION). You can disagree with the last part of my sentence because it is my opinion but the first two parts of that sentence are factual.


  • #2658
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kippy wrote: »
    My point was they have been far more damaging to public sector workers in comparison to two sets of straight sliding scale pay cuts.
    Not that they have been far more damaging than anything that has happened in sections of the private sector - that is not the point I was making.

    Fair enough, and I don't think you were trying to make that point either, but a bit of context is probably useful. The acid test that outsiders like nmyself will apply to judging the fairness of either CPA or CP2 is did they suffer from anything that the private worker doesn't already have to deal with?

    I'm not nitpicking with my questions below, I'm trying to get some concrete examples. I'm not attempting to undermine your case, it might even help you to make it in a more concise manner.

    kippy wrote: »
    How have they been far more damaging than straight pay cuts:
    1. Some of the terms that have been removed took years to bring in and will probably never come back again.

    Such as?
    kippy wrote: »
    2. Adding additional hours to a workweek (while I agree with it), will add additional costs for some public sector workers.
    What costs - childcare, transport meals?
    kippy wrote: »
    3. Most importantly, CP1 and CP22 have split public sector workers down into a number of distinct groups. I am sure that is obvious.

    I don't know about you but I have never seen it as anything but a diverse set of groups that have different aims. It'd doesn't make sense to classify the Software company I work for as all sales, administration or developers so why does it make sense that the PS would be classified as a single uniform group?
    kippy wrote: »
    4. The cost of negotiating, implementing and monitoring on the effectiveness CP1 and CP2 is not insubstantial.

    Is it more than the potential cost of not having an agreement?
    Is it more than the cost of doing it in the private sector, and if so why?
    kippy wrote: »
    5. People don't believe many efficiencies have been achieved anyway - even with the review boards reports.

    Well that's probably the fault of the unions trying to protect items that many people find in excusable, such as the "bank time". When they see even simple reforms like this being blocked, they have no faith that there are anything serious being done. And can you really blame them?


    kippy wrote: »
    6. Straight paycuts are far "easier" to implement and indeed see the direct benefit of.

    Probably, but then the unions don't want that because they see straight paycuts as being unfair due to the discrepancies between allowances, premiums etc that are paid to some but not others. So while they might be "easier" they may not be "appropriate".

    Personally what I'd like to see is an end to the allowances (e.g. the phone allowance for receptionists answering the phone), incorporate them into pay. It will cause discrepancies, so freeze pay / slow pay rises until the rest of the people on that grade are on the same wage.
    kippy wrote: »
    7. Ultimately some of the process's that that place within politics and high level state jobs have not changed whatsoever and the level of accountability for any role hasn't improved as a result of CP1 or CP2.

    Fine, but were they part of the agreements and why not?


  • #2659
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Fair enough, and I don't think you were trying to make that point either, but a bit of context is probably useful. The acid test that outsiders like nmyself will apply to judging the fairness of either CPA or CP2 is did they suffer from anything that the private worker doesn't already have to deal with?

    Yes, absolutely, as demonstrated repeatedly, and as acknowledged by Leo Varadkar on tv, public servants have taken higher pay cuts on average than private sector workers. This is even more so this year when average private sector wages are on the way up again.


  • #2660
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Godge wrote: »
    The Government cannot just decide that there are unforeseen budgetary circumstances and walk away from the Croke Park Agreement. That makes it prosecuter, judge and jury on the issue. That is why 1.24 is there.

    Godge it's there in writing in the clause 1.3:
    The core concern for Government is to restore the public finances and to reduce the deficit to less than 3% of GDP by 2014

    What has happened that was not foreseen at the time of negotiation:
    The bailout
    Moving the deficit target
    PCAR
    The promissory notes


    Since the bailout we have failed to hit the 2% nominal GDP growth targets.

    How much more unforeseen do you want?


  • #2661
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Godge wrote: »
    Yes, absolutely, as demonstrated repeatedly, and as acknowledged by Leo Varadkar on tv, public servants have taken higher pay cuts on average than private sector workers.

    Name a single PS worker that was made redundant (as opposed to being redeployed) because there was no work for them. My brother eventually lost his job as a plumber - they company weren't dependent on building sites but that created problems in that there were more than enough plumbers going around to do the non site work.

    He managed to find a (non construction) job after less than a year, but his pay has been cut - forcibly by about about 40%, which is actually a lucky story in the construction sector - many of whom are still unemployed so have faced bigger paycuts.

    Has anybody in the PS faced those levels of cuts?
    Godge wrote: »
    This is even more so this year when average private sector wages are on the way up again.

    Are they - I've seen no evidence of this in my wages, or any member of my family (6 different employers so by the law of averages one of us should see something).

    The average wage is being driven up by the new high paying jobs, e.g. all those software jobs, coming online, not by increases in pay for people already in jobs.

    The same thing would happen if for example a new Ministry of IT was created (and staffed by new people) to supply IT services to the PS as the workers would be paid higher than the PS average.


  • Advertisement
  • #2662
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Fair enough, and I don't think you were trying to make that point either, but a bit of context is probably useful. The acid test that outsiders like nmyself will apply to judging the fairness of either CPA or CP2 is did they suffer from anything that the private worker doesn't already have to deal with?

    I'm not nitpicking with my questions below, I'm trying to get some concrete examples. I'm not attempting to undermine your case, it might even help you to make it in a more concise manner.




    Such as?


    What costs - childcare, transport meals?



    I don't know about you but I have never seen it as anything but a diverse set of groups that have different aims. It'd doesn't make sense to classify the Software company I work for as all sales, administration or developers so why does it make sense that the PS would be classified as a single uniform group?



    Is it more than the potential cost of not having an agreement?
    Is it more than the cost of doing it in the private sector, and if so why?



    Well that's probably the fault of the unions trying to protect items that many people find in excusable, such as the "bank time". When they see even simple reforms like this being blocked, they have no faith that there are anything serious being done. And can you really blame them?





    Probably, but then the unions don't want that because they see straight paycuts as being unfair due to the discrepancies between allowances, premiums etc that are paid to some but not others. So while they might be "easier" they may not be "appropriate".

    Personally what I'd like to see is an end to the allowances (e.g. the phone allowance for receptionists answering the phone), incorporate them into pay. It will cause discrepancies, so freeze pay / slow pay rises until the rest of the people on that grade are on the same wage.



    Fine, but were they part of the agreements and why not?
    I'm not going to answer them one by one.
    To address one or two points. I think you've proved my case that people on the outside dont think much effective has been achieved in CP 1 or 2 either.

    Most of the type of allowances and "perks" you refer to such as bank time and "phone allowance" for receptionists actually get used or were applied to very many people in the first place but few people would know that based on media reports.
    Do you think the state will actually have saved a billion euro in real money after CP2 is finished, assuming the whole thing is implemented?
    Do you not think that straight paycut would work out better and more efficiently for the private sector taxpayer?


  • #2663
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    road_high wrote: »
    Does the country owe you a living? Just because some people over exteneded themselves based on bubble govt revenues, they expect the (broke) state to prop them up? You do realise how ridiculous this sounds...

    As for being better off in the private sector, they are absolutely free to leave and under no obligation to stay.

    Where did I say anything about me? And no the country doesnt owe them a living but they signed a contract based on certain conditions and borrowed money based on projected earnings, so they have a right to feel aggrieved when they are being consistently targeted to make amends for the mess others got us into.

    I dont think there are many in the public sector that will have over extended themselves to the same extent as those in the private sector. You seem to be forgetting it was the private sector that got the country into the mess its in.


  • #2664
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    antoobrien wrote: »
    My brother eventually lost his job as a plumber - they company weren't dependent on building sites but that created problems in that there were more than enough plumbers going around to do the non site work.

    He managed to find a (non construction) job after less than a year, but his pay has been cut - forcibly by about about 40%, which is actually a lucky story in the construction sector - many of whom are still unemployed so have faced bigger paycuts.

    40% is irrelevant depending on his old and new salary.
    My plumber mates, ive 2 all earned over 1k during the boom.

    If your brother has gone from 1k to €600 then he is still earning more than me and many other people working full time, so yes indeed, he is lucky.


  • #2665
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Godge it's there in writing in the clause 1.3:



    What has happened that was not foreseen at the time of negotiation:
    The bailout
    Moving the deficit target
    PCAR
    The promissory notes


    Since the bailout we have failed to hit the 2% nominal GDP growth targets.

    How much more unforeseen do you want?


    There is an argument (however weak) that it wasn't unforeseen if some people predicted worse. I am not necessarily saying that was the case. What I am saying is that the Government was afraid to have its view tested by a third party which is why they did not invoke the clause.

    You can have an opinion that the Government would have successfully argued its case before the Labour Court on the basis of the points you presented (that is your opinion), someone else can have the opinion that they would not have been successful (that is their opinion). I am not putting forward a clear view on the prospects of success or not. I am merely saying that the fact that the Government was afraid to go to the Labour Court on the issue signals at the very least some semblance of uncertainty about their prospects of winning. That is interesting in its own right especially for the people reading this thread who may be voting on the deal. Remember if CP2 goes down, and the Government introduce cuts unilaterally before 2014, the likelihood is that the unions in the first instance will challenge that under CP1. If they succeed the Government (particularly the Labour Party) would have a credibility issue.


  • #2666
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Name a single PS worker that was made redundant (as opposed to being redeployed) because there was no work for them. My brother eventually lost his job as a plumber - they company weren't dependent on building sites but that created problems in that there were more than enough plumbers going around to do the non site work.

    He managed to find a (non construction) job after less than a year, but his pay has been cut - forcibly by about about 40%, which is actually a lucky story in the construction sector - many of whom are still unemployed so have faced bigger paycuts.

    Has anybody in the PS faced those levels of cuts?



    .

    That is a very extreme example of someone (a plumber) who was grossly overpaid in the boom (actually obscenely overpaid is a better description) and who is in a new job. The Taoiseach and government secretaries have taken at least that amount of a cut but that is also an extreme example (very similar though in terms of obscenely overpaid). We can all quote extreme examples.


    The average salary of the public sector employee has fallen further from its peak than the average salary of the private sector employee has fallen from its peak. That is an undisputable fact demonstrated many times on these boards. That is set to continue with more pay cuts for public servants and average private sector salaries going up.


  • #2667
    cursai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    Prison officers will be getting their own deal. Similar to the one the firefighters will get. This is a disgrace.


  • #2668
    creedp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭creedp


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Can you highlight some of the "damage" that CPA has done to PS vs in terms of pay and conditions vs most private sector workers.

    I know there have been paycuts, but there have been no compulsory redundancies in the PS - both of those have happened in the private sector.

    As per always it comes down to a direct comparison between public and private sectors which of course are not directly comparable but that doesn’t seem to matter. Some people seem to enjoy telling others what is good for them and what they must do.

    I've made this point before in relation to voluntary/compulsory redundancies in the private sector companies where the company continues in business - they help the remaining workers maintain their rates of pay. Private sector employers do not in the main introduce across the board pay cuts. Even during the worst recession to hit the country in decades, private sector wage rates have not been substantially reduced. For the most part pay freezes and redundancies have been the mechanisms adopted by employers and now employers are starting to award small pay increases. The reason for this is staff motivation. Any employer worth their salt will know that cutting employee wages is bad for productivity which his bad for the employer. Consequently employers let people go and maintain the wages of those remaining. This is obviously good for those who remain in work.

    However, in general people making pronouncements on how the PS should be handled seem to think the opposite is the best, i.e. cut wages time and time again to fix the deficit. They are against PS redundancies but want workers to take pay cuts in order to protect the private sector living standards by avoiding tax increases. Obviously motivation in the PS is not relevant and there is no problem continually hitting workers as they don’t deliver any productivity in any case or at least apparently nothing that helps the economy function more productively. It goes even further in that private sectors workers want PS workers to take paycuts in solidarity with unemployed private sector workers. Obviously this makes sense as its everybody for themselves.

    However, I think its disingenuous of people to jump down the throats of PS workers who are upset that their wages are cut particularly when some categories of PS workers are targeted in order to protect others – telling them they should feel lucky they have a job and the taxpayer can’t afford you and in any case we’ll be back for more in a couple of years when the deficit hasn’t reduced enough and obviously we can’t increase taxes on the private sector so the only game in town is further pay cuts for you folks. The reality is, no worker [incl the private sector worker] is happy to have their wages cut, yet apparently the PS should just suck it up and prepare for more.

    Despite all the negativity towards the PS in terms that they need to get real and smell the coffee about where this country is, it is the PS that have already had 2 pay cuts and now a third one on the way. Numbers have been reduced and work has been increased. Yet there have been no major IR issues. The PS has, up to know, for the most part accepted the necessity of these cuts to protect the living standards of others while trying to repair the economy. However, there’s no recognition of this .. simply we want more. There was a comment earlier that the deal should be opposed and the Govt legislate for cuts for all with the high paid (I assume over €65k) being hit for 20%. That’s 20% on top of 15% or a gross 32% pay cut since 2008.

    Anyway let the games continue … PS rightly upset that their wages are once again being reduced and the others telling them to cop on and get real because there is no other game in town.


  • #2669
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    kceire wrote: »
    40% is irrelevant depending on his old and new salary.
    My plumber mates, ive 2 all earned over 1k during the boom.

    Then so is the PS paycuts - no matter whether they're at 100k or 20k.

    FTR he's gone form about 800 to about 400-450.


  • #2670
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    antoobrien wrote: »
    FTR he's gone form about 800 to about 400-450.

    He should go to Auz or canada.
    one of my 2 mates went to Auz and is absolutely liviing the life.

    Earns fantastic money and the quality of life is light years ahead, he is eating better, out in the air more often and lost alot of weight and just looks so much healthier!

    If i was in your brothers position, i would deffo consider going.


  • Advertisement
  • #2671
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Godge wrote: »
    That is a very extreme example of someone (a plumber) who was grossly overpaid in the boom (actually obscenely overpaid is a better description) and who is in a new job. The Taoiseach and government secretaries have taken at least that amount of a cut but that is also an extreme example (very similar though in terms of obscenely overpaid). We can all quote extreme examples.

    Careful godge, ones definition of overpaid might come into it. Plumbers were paid at the rate the jobs market demanded, same as PS workers.

    Godge wrote: »
    The average salary of the public sector employee has fallen further from its peak than the average salary of the private sector employee has fallen from its peak. That is an undisputable fact demonstrated many times on these boards.


    I've never seen it proved just stated.

    Besides I though averages were not appropriate when discussing PS workers.:rolleyes: and let's not ignore the fact that statistics can be doctored any way you like, such as ignoring lost income of those that lost jobs to suit an argument.


Advertisement