Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Tea drinker · 13-04-2013 07:51PM

woodoo wrote: »

What a surprise... take the money of somebody else and leave me alone

Simple economics mate, we are living beyond our means in both areas. We have had reports suggesting both need reforms.
Nothing personal, and leave me alone ;-)

ardmacha · 13-04-2013 07:58PM

PS workers want everybody to pay for their inability to reform public sector. Government had time and money to cut all non-critical services and afford 15-20% redundancies.

So is the lack of reform not the fault of the Government then, as appointed by people not in the PS.

iba · 13-04-2013 07:58PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

PS workers want everybody to pay for their inability to reform public sector. Government had time and money to cut all non-critical services and afford 15-20% redundancies.

Care to substantiate this extremely disingenuous remark?

Many individuals in many companies and in all walks of life continually come up with ideas to improve efficency.

How can you throw such a carpet over every single PS worker and state that they do not try to improve efficency and work practices and are anti-openness to change.

MMAGirl · 13-04-2013 08:15PM

Tea drinker wrote: »

Simple economics mate, we are living beyond our means in both areas. We have had reports suggesting both need reforms.
Nothing personal, and leave me alone ;-)

No such thing.
I had 3 years of it at uni and its far from simple.
Show me someone who says that it is and i'll show you a bull****ter.

Tea drinker · 13-04-2013 08:24PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

No such thing.
I had 3 years of it at uni and its far from simple.
Show me someone who says that it is and i'll show you a bull****ter.

Well your answer is more tax for PAYE workers, how is this innovative and not in fact more bull****? You seem to base this on the premise that spending by PS is a stimulus, but Private sector workers are too stupid to spend their own money, but would burn it, lose it in cracks in floorboards, the gap between the Dart and the platform etc.
You can't increase capital spend, increase PS spend and decrease tax all while reducing our deficit. Well, at least not in the real world. Someone has to get the short end of the stick.

iba wrote: »

Care to substantiate this extremely disingenuous remark?

isn't it accurate to say that the unions (the paid PS reps) resisted reform and only wanted reform when accompanied by increased remuneration or better conditions?

MMAGirl · 13-04-2013 08:33PM

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well your answer is more tax for PAYE workers, how is this innovative and not in fact more bull****? You seem to base this on the premise that spending by PS is a stimulus, but Private sector workers are too stupid to spend their own money, but would burn it, lose it in cracks in floorboards, the gap between the Dart and the platform etc.
You can't increase capital spend, increase PS spend and decrease tax all while reducing our deficit. Well, at least not in the real world. Someone has to get the short end of the stick.

isn't it accurate to say that the unions (the paid PS reps) resisted reform and only wanted reform when accompanied by increased remuneration or better conditions?

I called you out on the lazy argument "Its simple economics". Take it like a man/woman.

My only argument all along is that one sector of society should not be hit harder than any other. That the pain should be equal.
You keep introducing straw men. You'll need a hay baler at this rate.

Please dont attribute quotes to me that I never said either.

In fact, you should just stop at this stage tbh.

iba · 13-04-2013 08:42PM

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well your answer is more tax for PAYE workers, how is this innovative and not in fact more bull****? You seem to base this on the premise that spending by PS is a stimulus, but Private sector workers are too stupid to spend their own money, but would burn it, lose it in cracks in floorboards, the gap between the Dart and the platform etc.
You can't increase capital spend, increase PS spend and decrease tax all while reducing our deficit. Well, at least not in the real world. Someone has to get the short end of the stick.

isn't it accurate to say that the unions (the paid PS reps) resisted reform and only wanted reform when accompanied by increased remuneration or better conditions?

Ive got no idea if Unions resisted reform - perhaps you might define what this reform is

And BTW this is not what the OP was suggesting. OP was stating that all PS resist change, resist improvements, resist streamlining.

What I know is that individuals every day come up with ideas how to improve efficency and streamline work and make improvments and this goes on in every single company and organisation. A Union has got nothing to do with the everyday work.

Also not everyone in the PS is even in a Union.

Count Dooku · 13-04-2013 08:58PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

I called you out on the lazy argument "Its simple economics". Take it like a man/woman.

My only argument all along is that one sector of society should not be hit harder than any other. That the pain should be equal.

So we have one sector spared from compulsory redundancies, but they still demand equality
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

MMAGirl · 13-04-2013 09:03PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

So we have one sector spared from compulsory redundancies, but they still demand equality
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Those people are in jobs where they have certain conditions. They are part of the reason they chose those jobs as a career.
Just like yours or my job have different conditions to each others.
Mine allows me to work from home, thats why i chose it. Others may not be able to work from home, but they'll have their own conditions of employment. It doesnt make it right for those who arent allowed to work from home to start asking for my ability to work from home to be taken away from me.

barneystinson · 13-04-2013 09:08PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Those people are in jobs where they have certain conditions. They are part of the reason they chose those jobs as a career.
Just like yours or my job have different conditions to each others.
Mine allows me to work from home, thats why i chose it. Others may not be able to work from home, but they'll have their own conditions of employment. It doesnt make it right for those who arent allowed to work from home to start asking for my ability to work from home to be taken away from me.

What is this industry, which allows working from home while earning 10-12% pay rises annually? - I think I might need to consider a career change...

MMAGirl · 13-04-2013 09:17PM

barneystinson wrote: »

What is this industry, which allows working from home while earning 10-12% pay rises annually? - I think I might need to consider a career change...

Please do.

barneystinson · 13-04-2013 09:19PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Please do.

To what industry?

MMAGirl · 13-04-2013 09:26PM

barneystinson wrote: »

To what industry?

Any industry you like where you find a job that you are qualified to do and they offer the flexibility to work from home.

Tea drinker · 13-04-2013 09:27PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

I called you out on the lazy argument "Its simple economics". Take it like a man/woman.

My only argument all along is that one sector of society should not be hit harder than any other. That the pain should be equal.
You keep introducing straw men. You'll need a hay baler at this rate.

Please dont attribute quotes to me that I never said either.

In fact, you should just stop at this stage tbh.

You arent arguing this, at least not in any discussion with me. In fact it's hard to discern what you are arguing for, all I can see is you are for higher taxes. That's the only thing you made sort of clear. That and your huge paypacket in your mystery job.

barneystinson · 13-04-2013 09:49PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Any industry you like where you find a job that you are qualified to do and they offer the flexibility to work from home.

So just to confirm, you've said that you work in such an industry, and have achieved 300% pay rises in the last 10 years (that's about 12% per annum year on year).

I'm asking you, all smartarsery aside, what industry it is? - maybe I'm on the way to being qualified for it, and I should take Kippy's advice and move to where the grass is greener rather than accept further cuts in my pay & conditions in the civil service...

creedp · 13-04-2013 11:15PM

Tea drinker wrote: »

Again we are back to discussing your specific pocket..... weren't you just telling us all about your 100% raise? You are deluding the more easily deluded sector of the PS with your talk of the "undisclosed huge raises" that everyone has been hush hush about. Anecdotally on boards it seems There's another 10 guys for every one guy who says he can pay more. And that's just on people who are earning 100K plus, I guess it's higher for lower paid.
Let me put it another way, we just had the largest drop in PC sales in history, hows about the odds of Intel and HP pulling out of Leixlip?

So how much do you want to rise my tax by/ I mean you are saying no more PS cuts how much more do you expect to pay to compensate?

Funny isn't it, you and many others are no problem calling for cuts to PS pay but when it comes to proposals to decrease your own pay you get a bit tetchy! You've no problem going on about inflated salaries in PS but won't accept anyone making a point re increases in private sector pay.

Bottom line cuts are grand as long as they effect somebody else!

creedp · 13-04-2013 11:25PM

barneystinson wrote: »

So just to confirm, you've said that you work in such an industry, and have achieved 300% pay rises in the last 10 years (that's about 12% per annum year on year).

I'm asking you, all smartarsery aside, what industry it is? - maybe I'm on the way to being qualified for it, and I should take Kippy's advice and move to where the grass is greener rather than accept further cuts in my pay & conditions in the civil service...

What is the problem here .. you won't accept that someone working in the private sector can achieve substantial pay increases? If your on the way to be qualified for such an industry then I'd advise get a move on or you could miss the boat .. if you're not then so be it.

barneystinson · 13-04-2013 11:50PM

creedp wrote: »

What is the problem here .. you won't accept that someone working in the private sector can achieve substantial pay increases? If your on the way to be qualified for such an industry then I'd advise get a move on or you could miss the boat .. if you're not then so be it.

That's why I'm trying to find out what this magical industry / job is, I can't get a move on until I know what it is, can I?! :rolleyes:

MMAgirl appears to have suggested that her pay has increased by 300% - 500% since 2000 in the private sector (apparently it increased by 200% between 2000&2008, and by 100% since - its unclear whether that's 100% of the original 2000 figure, or 100% of the 2008 figure, in which case her income would've increased by 500%!). She didn't confirm whether or not that is a pay increase for doing the same job, or whether she achieved it through ongoing education and changing jobs/employers. Obviously I'm keen to know more about an industry with such a steep earnings gradient if that is simply normal pay increases, rather than jumping jobs or being promoted.

She made this point about her own wonderful career in the context of trying to show that as people gain experience and become better at their job they should be paid more, and that this is true in the PS as much as it is in the private sector.

In response to that, and as a PS worker myself, I agree with her sentiment and would say that's why we have incremental scales and competency based promotions.

I also made the point that unless her 300-400% pay increases relate to her doing the same role as she was in 2000, then it has no comparability to, say, a HEO in a Govt department who started as a HEO in 2000 and is still there.

MMAgirl is conveniently elusive in actually explaining anything though - at this stage I'm assuming its because she's now doing quite different work than she was in 2000, in a different location, in a different currency even, and therefore her circumstances and enhanced earnings can't be offered as any kind of comparison to a PS worker who has been at the same desk for 13 years getting benchmarking & increments for showing up.

If I'm wrong I'm sure MMAgirl will be along to correct me...!

skafish · 14-04-2013 01:25AM

For what its worth, I've been donig a lot of thinking about the whole CP2 situation for a while. Not about what way to vote..... thats a no brainer.

But the real politick behind it.

The government say they need to save €1B, or €330 M a year.

IF their proposals go ahead, the will raise/save no more than 40% of this. If they cut back PS wages by €330M, the tax take will be down €165M (effective tax rate for most PS is between 50% and 52%).

Then, whaever discretionary spending is happening currently by the PS will be reduced or cut, I reccon this will reduce the VAT take by another €15M or so (not based on anything other than my own situation and those of colleagues and friends).

This €15M loss of VAT will stem from a decrease in spending in local shops of about €60M, resulting in more of them closing and longer welfare queues.

SO I estimate the net saving to the government will be no mre than €130 or €140M a year.

As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread, the current SW budget is in excess of €20B. A 2.5% cut in this would generate the same return over the three years, without the disruption that will surely arise if these cuts go through, either by negotiation or legeslation.

Additionaly, the government have said that if things improve, they may consider reversing some of the cuts in 2015........ just in time for the next general election (or am I just being cynical here?).

Think back to the hype that was generated before the CP1 talks. A huge ampont of spin was created, appearently with the sole aim of turning the public and private sector against each other. And it worked.

This time around, not only have the public and private sector been turned against each other, you have the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in danger of colapse, as a result of caareful orchestration of the spin by various interested parties.

So who is the winner in all this?

Appearently, Fine Gael. I realise they weren't in power when the first deal was done, but they are nothing if not good at jumping on the bandwaggon.

Labour are heading in the same direction as Fianna Fail at this stage.... straight down the road to nowhere. If CP2 is forced through, their new TDs will only ever see the inside of Dail Eireann again as tourists. The Rabbits and Quinns of the world don't care, those few of them that run in the next election will probably scrape through, same as they always did.

So there is a reasonable chance FG will have a majority next time around. That or ...... wellll FF SF colation anyone?

ICTU will be a spent force because of the divisions currently being helped by the government.

So we may well end up with the country being run by Angela s good friend Enda. If that happens, all I can say is god help us all

skafish · 14-04-2013 01:36AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

As a counter balance consumer but food of the highest quality in the world both hormone and GM free compared to anywhere in the world. The main reasons for payments is that farmers have to farm at standards higher than anywhere in the world.

As for relying on PAYE workers the same with PAYE workers they rely on the jobs and taxes created by low cost farm produce. If you wish to start a thread on the value or otherwise to the economy.

The other issue is that Ireland is a net recipient of EU funds because of our high agri o/p compared to out population base. We export 90% of the produce earning revenue from abroad that helps pay for public services and employs PAYE workers.

Also agriculture is noted world wide for it roll over effect in the any economy as the money regenerated more times in the economy than income from other sources.

I wasn't having a go at farmers in general. But as far as I know, the original reason for farm subsidies in the (then) Common Market was food security following millions of deaths due to hunger in the aftermath of WW2.

Also, and I'm not 100% sure, but I thought Ireland ia now a net contributor to the EU, and has been for a few years now.

BUT I do think it, to say the least, a bit strange to have a farmer abusing the PS, while in recipt of welfare payments (or whatever you chose to call them).

As for your statement re food standards: Horse burger anyone???

woodoo · 14-04-2013 01:43AM

skafish wrote: »

Additionaly, the government have said that if things improve, they may consider reversing some of the cuts in 2015........ just in time for the next general election (or am I just being cynical here?).

A similar promise was made in CPA1. They said they would reverse the cuts dor those on less than 35K... didn't happen same way as that 2015 promise won't happen. Politicians lie and that should be well understood by everyone in the country.

skafish · 14-04-2013 01:50AM

woodoo wrote: »

A similar promise was made in CPA1. They said they would reverse the cuts dor those on less than 35K... didn't happen same way as that 2015 promise won't happen. Politicians lie and that should be well understood by everyone in the country.

I don't generally expect any politian to keep any promice.

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 07:40AM

barneystinson wrote: »

So just to confirm, you've said that you work in such an industry, and have achieved 300% pay rises in the last 10 years (that's about 12% per annum year on year).

I'm asking you, all smartarsery aside, what industry it is? - maybe I'm on the way to being qualified for it, and I should take Kippy's advice and move to where the grass is greener rather than accept further cuts in my pay & conditions in the civil service...

if you have researched it before diving in you will know what the lay of the land is like in your industry.
dont be worrying about everybody elses careers. concentrate on your own and dont distract yourself by trying to nitpick at everyone elses. youll go further.
and there are thousands of jobs in all sorts of sectors where you can work from home part or full time.
and look abroad too if you want to widen your net.
youll need to pick one with good conditions of employment too. much like some people in the ps might have chosen their careers based on the conditions of employment offered.
good luck in your chosen career.

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 07:45AM

Tea drinker wrote: »

You arent arguing this, at least not in any discussion with me. In fact it's hard to discern what you are arguing for, all I can see is you are for higher taxes. That's the only thing you made sort of clear. That and your huge paypacket in your mystery job.

you arent having a discussion though.
you are just throwing up straw men again and again.

let me say it once more. What i am saying is that higher taxes and wage cuts should apply all across the board so they can effect everybody by a smaller amount than if you make just one sector and have them pay more.

Count Dooku · 14-04-2013 07:54AM

skafish wrote: »

IF their proposals go ahead, the will raise/save no more than 40% of this. If they cut back PS wages by €330M, the tax take will be down €165M (effective tax rate for most PS is between 50% and 52%).

Not really, only 30% of of PS pay bill go above second tax band, so tax take will decrease by about 50 mil. Plus pension pay will be reduced without influencing much tax take. Effectively state will save about 270 millions.

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 08:09AM

effectively instead of adding a new tax band for those on over 65k and collect revenue from everyone on over 65k, the state has decided to attack one sector and make them pay even more, while letting everyone else on over 65k laugh at them and pay nothing more.

and just to add insult to injury they have decided they can take a few things from the same sector from those on less than 65k.

i ask you, how much easier and fairer would it have been to take less from everyone on over 65k both public and private, instead of piling all the hurt on one sector only.

Count Dooku · 14-04-2013 08:28AM

MMAGirl wrote: »

Those people are in jobs where they have certain conditions. They are part of the reason they chose those jobs as a career.
Just like yours or my job have different conditions to each others.
Mine allows me to work from home, thats why i chose it. Others may not be able to work from home, but they'll have their own conditions of employment. It doesnt make it right for those who arent allowed to work from home to start asking for my ability to work from home to be taken away from me.

Are you saying that people were choosing job in public services because it can guarantee job for life?
If so, then public sector itself must pay for this privilege

MMAGirl · 14-04-2013 08:42AM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Are you saying that people were choosing job in public services because it can guarantee job for life?
If so, then public sector itself must pay for this privilege

why. it was a condition of their job offer.
if anything if you want to remove it you must pay them to give it up.

if you want redundancies you can offer them redundancy packages that are good enough to tempt them. its easy.

i think the ps probably would have one giant constructive dismissal case at this stage.

Tea drinker · 14-04-2013 10:15AM

creedp wrote: »

Funny isn't it, you and many others are no problem calling for cuts to PS pay but when it comes to proposals to decrease your own pay you get a bit tetchy! You've no problem going on about inflated salaries in PS but won't accept anyone making a point re increases in private sector pay.

Bottom line cuts are grand as long as they effect somebody else!

I don't think people on the same salary as me in the PS should face much salary cuts, anyone on the lower scales should receive little or no salary cuts. There's a lot of guys and girls on higher salaries who can afford it and should get cuts. That's fair isn't it. The PS is not a monoblock and neither is Private. I don't see an issue with saying the people with more cash should pay more cash. Are you saying this is an issue? Besides there will be further reforms to ensure we pay more tax or USC etc, so yeah I'm factoring that in.

As for MMAgirls and her representing the private sector and it's seedy raises, she doesn't speak for me. She is not the benchmark for PS or private. Pointlessly inferring the PS should get massive raises because she got same is not rational.
EDIT: I saw this post more fairly represents mmagirls view so I changed it:

MMAGirl wrote: »

effectively instead of adding a new tax band for those on over 65k and collect revenue from everyone on over 65k, the state has decided to attack one sector and make them pay even more, while letting everyone else on over 65k laugh at them and pay nothing more.

and just to add insult to injury they have decided they can take a few things from the same sector from those on less than 65k.

i ask you, how much easier and fairer would it have been to take less from everyone on over 65k both public and private, instead of piling all the hurt on one sector only.

previous quote confused me:

MMAGirl wrote: »

let me say it once more. What i am saying is that higher taxes and wage cuts should apply all across the board so they can effect everybody by a smaller amount than if you make just one sector and have them pay more.

barneystinson · 14-04-2013 12:14PM

MMAGirl wrote: »

if you have researched it before diving in you will know what the lay of the land is like in your industry.

Of course I know what the lay of the land is like, I made a calculated decision a few years ago to leave my profession and join the PS.

MMAGirl wrote: »

dont be worrying about everybody elses careers. concentrate on your own and dont distract yourself by trying to nitpick at everyone elses. youll go further.

Thanks for the pep talk, now maybe tell me what the industry is that affords 300-500% pay increases for a particular role in a 13-year period? (Unless of course you are now willing to admit such an industry doesn't exist, and you achieved your pay increases through changing jobs and/or further education?)
I'm not worried about everyone else's career at all, I'm worried about my own, hence my curiosity about your wonder-job - I'm above average intelligence, so I reckon I could do another degree by night if it would mean I could quadruple my earning power in ten years.

MMAGirl wrote: »

and there are thousands of jobs in all sorts of sectors where you can work from home part or full time.

Agreed, but I'm interested in the one that allows this, and also affords such massive pay increases.

MMAGirl wrote: »

and look abroad too if you want to widen your net.

Why would you say this? You said you got pay increases of 300-500% since 2000, and offered this as a comparison to PS pay. If you had to go abroad to get it then it's hardly a valid comparison, is it?

MMAGirl wrote: »

youll need to pick one with good conditions of employment too. much like some people in the ps might have chosen their careers based on the conditions of employment offered.
good luck in your chosen career.

My job has good conditions of employment, and relative to the profession I came from in the private sector, would continue to do so even under CP2. Of course if I knew what your wonder-industry is, I might consider changing careers, but right now, even with CP2 on the table, I'm fairly happy where I am.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments