Public sector pay increase

uch · 07-05-2015 04:08PM

Forgive me but I thought they were only meeting next week to have discussions about pay restoration, not increases

bjork · 07-05-2015 04:10PM

uch wrote: »

Forgive me but I thought they were only meeting next week to have discussions about pay restoration, not increases

You're forgiven for your error

Iwasfrozen · 07-05-2015 04:10PM

BoatMad wrote: »

our problem isn't beds, its the people in them

A lack of beds is definitely one of our problems.

Dan_Solo · 07-05-2015 04:11PM

bjork wrote: »

Would if be preferable to call it a winfall?

Not really since that isn't a word.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 04:12PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A lack of beds is definitely one of our problems.

Our biggest problem is the lack of step-down facilities and the fact that beds in major trauma hospitals are blocked by people who shouldn't be there. I did two longish stays in hospital as a major trauma patient , easy to see whats wrong . This is then exacerbated by the private consultants booking beds and the codology where public hospitals beds are subsided by private health insurance, causing hospitals to book beds for categories of patients

Our statistics shows that we are under the EU average in beds per 1000 pop, but not significantly so.

The actual number of beds is not the issue, the policy of allocation , is

uch · 07-05-2015 04:13PM

bjork wrote: »

You're forgiven for your error

And to be fair, using the Indo as a source is about as good as using Waterford whispers

bjork · 07-05-2015 04:13PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not really since that isn't a word.

oops did I lead out the "d", cutbacks

We'll agree on "Windfall"

Dan_Solo · 07-05-2015 04:14PM

"If we engage in an absolute giveaway then we lose the high moral ground"

LOL, FG minister thinks they hold the moral high ground!

Iwasfrozen · 07-05-2015 04:35PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"If we engage in an absolute giveaway then we lose the high moral ground"

LOL, FG minister thinks they hold the moral high ground!

They lost the moral ground when they agreed any increae while our surplus is still negative.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 04:39PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They lost the moral ground when they agreed any increae while our surplus is still negative.

not s good reason, suggests that in surplus times PS get loads.

It a balance

Iwasfrozen · 07-05-2015 04:44PM

BoatMad wrote: »

not s good reason, suggests that in surplus times PS get loads.

It a balance

I don't think it implies that.

I would like to see public service pay tied to the cost of living while the surplus is positive and automatically frozen when our surplus is negative. I think that's the fair.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 04:48PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think it implies that.

I would like to see public service pay tied to the cost of living while the surplus is positive and automatically frozen when our surplus is negative. I think that's the fair.

Current Budget surplus is actually bad for a country, the best is a small deficit , as it shows that taxes are being used

The computation of such , is very complex and open to all sorts of variables, not a way to determine pay.

Private industry does not simply use net profit as a determination of salary

Iwasfrozen · 07-05-2015 04:54PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Current Budget surplus is actually bad for a country, the best is a small deficit , as it shows that taxes are being used

The computation of such , is very complex and open to all sorts of variables, not a way to determine pay.

Private industry does not simply use net profit as a determination of salary

I disagree, a small deficit implies growth in debt. Much better to have surplus that can be reinvested in Ireland our loaned out to other countries at interest.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 04:56PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree, a small deficit implies growth in debt. Much better to have surplus that can be reinvested in Ireland our loaned out to other countries at interest.

borrowed money has never been cheaper, if anything we should be borrowing massively on the capital side.

there is no need for surplus per se, it just demonstrates your taxes are too high

Investment in a fiat currency , should be borrowed, since its essentially free ( at the moment) capital is in essence really never paid back

07-05-2015 04:56PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They lost the moral ground when they agreed any increae while our surplus is still negative.

The negative is not the public sectors fault nor is it their job to turn it around and so their pay should not be linked to it, this was why it should never have been cut in the first place.

Iwasfrozen · 07-05-2015 04:58PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

The negative is not the public sectors fault nor is it their job to turn it around and so their pay should not be linked to it, this was why it should never have been cut in the first place.

It's not the fault of any individual worker when their employer gets into financial trouble but they have to take pay cuts anyway. The government is borrowing money to pay public sector wages, increasing wages at a time like this is against the public interest.

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 04:59PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

The negative is not the public sectors fault nor is it their job to turn it around and so their pay should not be linked to it, this was why it should never have been cut in the first place.

Agree, BUT, the salaries of the public sector must be reflected in the states ability to pay. there are two ways to achieve that. Redundancies when things are tight or pay reductions.

Redundancies is actually a better way, as the productive needed part that remains should not be penalised in carrying the unproductive or unwanted part. across the board pay cuts just demotivate the very people you want motivated

BoatMad · 07-05-2015 05:00PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not the fault of any individual worker when their employer gets into financial trouble but they have to take pay cuts anyway. The government is borrowing money to pay public sector wages, increasing wages at a time like this is against the public interest.

it , may however, be related to the faults of the workers as a whole.

Iwasfrozen · 07-05-2015 05:00PM

BoatMad wrote: »

borrowed money has never been cheaper, if anything we should be borrowing massively on the capital side.

there is no need for surplus per se, it just demonstrates your taxes are too high

Investment in a fiat currency , should be borrowed, since its essentially free ( at the moment) capital is in essence really never paid back

Borrowed money has never been cheaper? Seriously? Gee, I wonder how many mortgage holders thought the same in '05?

What happens in ten years time when we have to refinance the debt an the interest rate has risen?

seamus · 07-05-2015 05:05PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

The negative is not the public sectors fault nor is it their job to turn it around and so their pay should not be linked to it, this was why it should never have been cut in the first place.

More nonsense. It doesn't have to be your fault. Companies go bust, yet their employee still lose their jobs despite it not being their fault.

The employer of the public sector saw a massive drop in its income. Like any other employer, cost cuts had to be made, one of which is usually salaries.

It's not about blame or fault, but simple economics. When your employer's in the red, your pay gets cut. The public sector is not immune to this. You were not punished or blamed, just the victim of circumstance, like the rest of the economy.

07-05-2015 05:09PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree, a small deficit implies growth in debt. Much better to have surplus that can be reinvested in Ireland our loaned out to other countries at interest.

Not necessarily. If the amount of debt paid back is more than the overall deficit then the total debt has fallen. Along with inflation and GDP rises there's no harm in having stable amounts of debt. The fear of any national debt at any level is silly.

awec · 07-05-2015 05:11PM

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

The negative is not the public sectors fault nor is it their job to turn it around and so their pay should not be linked to it, this was why it should never have been cut in the first place.

Imagine you earn 100 quid a month (just a random number). You take out a Sky tv package that costs 50 quid a month.

In 6 months time, all of a sudden you are only earning 40 quid a month because the arse has fallen out of things.

By your logic, you should not cut back on your Sky cause it's not their fault your earnings reduced.

Do you see how insane that idea is?

wp_rathead · 07-05-2015 05:15PM

Not a pay rise, but €10 million owed by HSE to Social Care Workers
They weren't paying some staff the "time and a sixth" between 8pm and Midnight which was in their contract

bjork · 07-05-2015 05:18PM

wp_rathead wrote: »

Not a pay rise, but €10 million owed by HSE to Social Care Workers
They weren't paying some staff the "time and a sixth" between 8pm and Midnight which was in their contract

Have the department been given lessons in adding and multiplication?

KomradeBishop · 07-05-2015 05:38PM

Geuze wrote: »

People are getting bogged down with the phrase "wealth creation".

Note that a euro spent on a hosp has equal value to a euro of profits.

Here is the key national income equation:

Y = C + I + G+ X - M

Y = national income
C = household consumption
I = investment
G = Govt purchases
X = exports
M = imports

100m spent by the State on paying nurses or building a bypass has the same impact on national income as 100m spent by households on consumption.

Excellent post - rare that you see anyone on Boards take note of Sectoral Balances.

KomradeBishop · 07-05-2015 05:43PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree, a small deficit implies growth in debt. Much better to have surplus that can be reinvested in Ireland our loaned out to other countries at interest.

This has been covered elsewhere in other threads: Increases in debt don't matter if they are sustainable at low interest rates - newly issued public-debt/government-bonds carry the lowest interest rate ever right now, so it's the perfect time to be running a deficit.

KomradeBishop · 07-05-2015 05:44PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Borrowed money has never been cheaper? Seriously? Gee, I wonder how many mortgage holders thought the same in '05?

What happens in ten years time when we have to refinance the debt an the interest rate has risen?

You don't have to refinance debt...

KomradeBishop · 07-05-2015 05:45PM

seamus wrote: »

More nonsense. It doesn't have to be your fault. Companies go bust, yet their employee still lose their jobs despite it not being their fault.

The employer of the public sector saw a massive drop in its income. Like any other employer, cost cuts had to be made, one of which is usually salaries.

It's not about blame or fault, but simple economics. When your employer's in the red, your pay gets cut. The public sector is not immune to this. You were not punished or blamed, just the victim of circumstance, like the rest of the economy.

Government finances do not work like business finances. Never have, and never will - that's a false comparison. The sustainability of government finances is not determined by profits vs costs like a private business - it is instead, more determined by GDP vs debt - and in particular, GDP vs interest rates on debts (which is at its lowest rate ever).

You're not comparing like with like - comparing business finances with government finances, shows a lack of knowledge about government macroeconomics.

awec · 07-05-2015 05:48PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Government finances do not work like business finances. Never have, and never will - that's a false comparison. The sustainability of government finances is not determined by profits vs costs like a private business - it is instead, more determined by GDP vs debt - and in particular, GDP vs interest rates on debts (which is at its lowest rate ever).

You're not comparing like with like - comparing business finances with government finances, shows a lack of knowledge about government macroeconomics.

If you can't afford something then you can't afford something.

Call a spade a spade and don't try and bury it in a essay full of waffle.

Idbatterim · 07-05-2015 05:49PM

money should go towards job creation and capital invetment, increase nursing, doctor, guardai, teachers, SNA's etc if needed. Those who lost a job that are looking for one, should be given the best chance and the long term wasters certainly shouldnt be getting any more. Far better uses to be had than throwing it at welfare... Whose rates are already based on an outrageous boom and McCreevy and Bertie throwing out boomier budgets year on year and particularly so, come election time...

"If we engage in an absolute giveaway then we lose the high moral ground"

LOL, FG minister thinks they hold the moral high ground!

Dont engage in an absolute giveaway, do the bear minimum financially required to maintain power... The problem with Labour in, is that if FG want to maintain them as bed buddies and Renua dont win enough seats to be potential bed buddies (which they may well not) then FG are going to have to throw Labour a bone, is it enough to simply start restoring PS pay and I am not getting into the merits of that, or will they throw some money at welfare also. Should they pay both sectors off and then when power has I am assuming, again been achieved. Simply not increase welfare again for several years? You only need to be popular at election time...

Have been following the Uk election run up and the conservatives make FG look like the AAA!

Public sector pay increase

Comments