Alternatives to pay scales in the public sector

barneystinson · 28-04-2015 10:44pm

test3test wrote: »

“Even when you adjust for qualifications, experience and length of service, the public sector workers still enjoy a significant pay premium over their private sector counterparts,” Ibec economist Fergal O’Brien is quoted as saying.

Hmmmm an ibec economist eh... he wouldn't be biased at all I'm sure...

creedp · 28-04-2015 10:52pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Well I agree some other sort of mechanism for judging how to pay increments and pay rises should be entered and people from outside the country (as in someone who does not directly profit from deciding an across the board 3% pay rise) should be consulted as to who should get a pay rise.

In most jobs people are given deadlines, goals and objectives and their payrise/bonus or lack of it is dependent on this. The current position of the unions everyone gets a pay rise no matter how good, bad or indifferent is a joke and while that system exists no pay rises should be allowed.

The problem with increments and I agree it is simular to apprenticeships..but the thing is if a company had an apprentice carpenter, plumber, butcher..whatever and they were due a payrise and the company was in trouble, I can guarantee all payrises would of been the first thing cut, this did not happen within the public sector.

As for the banks model..look at how that worked for them they are only back on their uppers after the tax payer bailed their sorry a$$es out. I wouldn't follow their model and their bonuses should be changed or when they get paid should be changed to when the loan is paid off instead of when the loan is created.

The government borrowed during the boom so that Bertie could buy off the unions with social partnership and benchmarking, he bought off those on the dole with social welfare increases. Just look at how much the bill for both public sector pay and pensions and welfare went up during the boom..It more than doubled and now we are in the crapper trying to pay for these mistakes. The banks are 64 billion of our debt and with the sales of Permanent , BOI and AIB we will get upwards of 25billion back so that will leave about 40bililion the other 160 odd billion is because Bertie decided to buy off votes from the ps and the those who depend on social welfare.

Now people on the PS want a payrise and yet we still are borrowing 5/6 billion this year and have a 200billion debt over hang...thanks but eh no thanks no pay rises there are a number of other areas that were decimated during the crash the public sector is way down the list of people who deserve anything back

How do you pay my wages?

A very long post attempting to justify why one category of workers should dictate the terms and conditions of another category.

Any views on whether private companies with borrowings/debt should offer pay increases to its employees?

The way its portrayed here it must be exceptional that a country borrows and has debt. There must be very few countries offering their employees pay increases in this day and age.

As for paying your wages .. No I don't pay yours .. Unless I purchase services/goods produced by your organisation. I was simply referring to a well worn private sector phrase .. My taxes pay your wages...

Godge · 29-04-2015 9:57am

test3test wrote: »

Average weekly pay rates in the public sector are nearly 50 per cent higher than those in the private sector, according to new data from the Central Statistics Office (CSO).
See the article in the Irish Times on the 25th of August, google it.

The CSO figures also indicate the pay gap between the sectors is widening.

The figures show average weekly earnings in the public sector in the second quarter of last year were €919, almost €300 higher than €622 recorded for the private sector.
They also indicate the average weekly wage in the public sector rose by €15.88 or 1.8 per cent between the first and second quarters of last year.
At the same time, weekly earnings in the private sector fell by €8.53 or 1.4 per cent.
“Even when you adjust for qualifications, experience and length of service, the public sector workers still enjoy a significant pay premium over their private sector counterparts,” Ibec economist Fergal O’Brien is quoted as saying.

You didn't provide a link to your out-of-date comments. Maybe you should get up to speed and read an actual study that examines the issue closely.

Geuze wrote: »

New CSO study published this week:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2010/publicprivatepay.pdf

The gap closed significantly by 2010 and in certain categories public sector employees were paid less than private sector employees. There is no doubt that the trend has continued since with widespread reports of pay rises in the private sector and further pay cuts in the public sector.

I have been saying for quite some time that there is no current up-to-date comparison and that some public servants are bound to be underpaid and some others still overpaid. Not one economist or statistician has an accurate understanding of the current picture. Even that most recent CSO report is based on five-year old data.

fliball123 · 29-04-2015 12:50pm

Godge wrote: »

In a court case, the court will look at what was happening when McCreevy was running deficits of 3% - lots of pay increases for public servants. Then the court will conclude that a deficit of 3% is not a financial emergency that prevents pay rises to public servants and FEMPI will be struck down. Simples.

Were we 200 billion in debt at any stage when McCreevy was there..ehh NO. What is the Debt to GDP ratio possibly the most important of all, ours is off the charts and back in McCreevys day debt to GDP was fairly small

fliball123 · 29-04-2015 12:53pm

ardmacha wrote: »

As has been pointed out here numerous times, you cannot make useful comparison between hundreds of thousands of diverse people at the same time, only between specific professions or jobs. There may be a point to be made, but people prefer to make pointless rants based on useless aggregates.

They make this point as the comparison was made twice before during benchmarking now all of a sudden a third round is off the table as wages in the ps in the main would be severely cut if the same mechanism was used.

The aggregates are only useless when wage may go down in the ps but useful when wage goes up in the ps.

Godge · 29-04-2015 12:54pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Were we 200 billion in debt at any stage when McCreevy was there..ehh NO. What is the Debt to GDP ratio possibly the most important of all, ours is off the charts and back in McCreevys day debt to GDP was fairly small

Debt to GDP ratio is of no relevance if we are servicing the debt and running a small deficit that sees the ratio in decline.

FEMPI would be struck down as excessive if a court case was taken tomorrow. The only question is whether the court would strike it in its entirety or suggest to the legislature that it should be partially rolled back.

fliball123 · 29-04-2015 1:00pm

creedp wrote: »

A very long post attempting to justify why one category of workers should dictate the terms and conditions of another category.

Any views on whether private companies with borrowings/debt should offer pay increases to its employees?

The way its portrayed here it must be exceptional that a country borrows and has debt. There must be very few countries offering their employees pay increases in this day and age.

As for paying your wages .. No I don't pay yours .. Unless I purchase services/goods produced by your organisation. I was simply referring to a well worn private sector phrase .. My taxes pay your wages...

So you think the union speak of one in all in payrises for all no matter how good, bad or ugly you are at your job should be the way forward. The problem you have is people have their blinkers off and understand that the ps is overpaid by all reports being done and even before we are out of a deficit the unions are lining up for their members for pay rises thinking that they were the hardest hit during the recession. They were cushioned, they got cuts that reversed benchmarking and social partnerships and were asked to contribute a bit more towards their pension (which they still fall way short of covering BTW) and now they think its pay back time...

The government should just reduce taxes then everyone gets a piece of the pie and no tax cuts should happen until after as a country we start taking in more then we are paying out. But they are hell bent on buying votes, the only problem is if they buy the PS there will be substantial voting block looking at alternatives as they simply do not want to pay more for a public service that in a lot of areas is not fit for purpose. The HSE springs to mind

BTW Your taxes dont pay any of my wages if you repeat this I would like proof

fliball123 · 29-04-2015 1:04pm

Godge wrote: »

Debt to GDP ratio is of no relevance if we are servicing the debt and running a small deficit that sees the ratio in decline.

FEMPI would be struck down as excessive if a court case was taken tomorrow. The only question is whether the court would strike it in its entirety or suggest to the legislature that it should be partially rolled back.

Really so what your saying is what you take in and comparing it to what you owe has absolutely no relevance to servicing debt..really as that just seems like a paradox.

You have moved away from mcCreevey now as well as we were no were in the ballpark of being 200billion in debt when he was in charge, FEMPI will remain for as long as the government want it. I can see them trying to buy the ps but I reckon this could back fire as they will lose a fairly large voting block for using this tactic.

creedp · 29-04-2015 1:42pm

fliball123 wrote: »

BTW Your taxes dont pay any of my wages if you repeat this I would like proof

I'm just going to deal with this so as to avoid any threatened action against me!! .. what I said

As for paying your wages .. No I don't pay yours .. Unless I purchase services/goods produced by your organisation.

Onthe flip side all taxpayers fund the provision of public services .. e.g. my taxes go towards funding teachers pay for mine and all other taxpayers' children

creedp · 29-04-2015 1:47pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Really so what your saying is what you take in and comparing it to what you owe has absolutely no relevance to servicing debt..really as that just seems like a paradox.

You have moved away from mcCreevey now as well as we were no were in the ballpark of being 200billion in debt when he was in charge, FEMPI will remain for as long as the government want it. I can see them trying to buy the ps but I reckon this could back fire as they will lose a fairly large voting block for using this tactic.

So who will you be voting for in 2016?

Godge · 29-04-2015 3:46pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Really so what your saying is what you take in and comparing it to what you owe has absolutely no relevance to servicing debt..really as that just seems like a paradox.

.

You are applying the principles of personal finance to states, a common layperson's mistake.

For a sovereign state, the ability to service the interest on the debt is key, not the level of the debt. A state exists in perpetuity, unlike a person.

fliball123 · 30-04-2015 10:55am

creedp wrote: »

So who will you be voting for in 2016?

I have not decided yet to be honest I will have to see what way parties are thinking but if any party are giving ps payrises , increases in welfare or if they are looking to use tax money to give people a deal on their mortgage i will not be voting for them..

Any party who is looking to be prudent with the taxes I pay and who are looking to invest in Public sector services (not pay) and try to make people accountable for their own actions will get my vote

fliball123 · 30-04-2015 11:03am

Godge wrote: »

You are applying the principles of personal finance to states, a common layperson's mistake.

For a sovereign state, the ability to service the interest on the debt is key, not the level of the debt. A state exists in perpetuity, unlike a person.

Really well you seem to think that just paying the interest is key, we also have other areas that we need money as in the following:

huge problem with regards to funding pensions in the country in to the future
HSE
Schools
Infrastructure.

You do realise that paying off that interest is taking money away from other areas that are now seriously underfunded and underdeveloped

How much in interest do we pay on interest on a bill of over 200billion.. but I do appreciate the sentiment that a country is different to personal finance..Having said that the rules of common sense for when your borrowing money you should really not be spending any more than you are taking in this is common no matter if your a country, person or business, it is basic common sense

Geuze · 30-04-2015 12:59pm

fliball123 wrote: »

How much in interest do we pay on interest on a bill of over 200billion.

Approx 7.5 bn.

Gumbo · 30-04-2015 3:13pm

fliball123 wrote: »

I have not decided yet to be honest I will have to see what way parties are thinking but if any party are giving ps payrises , increases in welfare or if they are looking to use tax money to give people a deal on their mortgage i will not be voting for them..

Any party who is looking to be prudent with the taxes I pay and who are looking to invest in Public sector services (not pay) and try to make people accountable for their own actions will get my vote

I think you will not be casting a vote next year then.

Godge · 30-04-2015 3:48pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Really well you seem to think that just paying the interest is key, we also have other areas that we need money as in the following:

huge problem with regards to funding pensions in the country in to the future
HSE
Schools
Infrastructure.

You do realise that paying off that interest is taking money away from other areas that are now seriously underfunded and underdeveloped

How much in interest do we pay on interest on a bill of over 200billion.. but I do appreciate the sentiment that a country is different to personal finance..Having said that the rules of common sense for when your borrowing money you should really not be spending any more than you are taking in this is common no matter if your a country, person or business, it is basic common sense

That is not common sense when it comes to states.

If the monetary GDP of a state is growing at X%, the State can afford to run a budget deficit of X-Y%, so long as both are positive numbers and the debt/GDP ratio will consequently decline.

glacial_pace71 · 30-04-2015 7:07pm

Geuze wrote: »

Approx 7.5 bn.

This is the figure on the National Debt, not the General Government Debt figure the chap was quoting. However, there's an element of apples and oranges, as the other debt components of the GGD are not a matter for budgetary policy as such.

Re the actual 180 billion National Debt? We can refinance a large portion of this over time, as QE and ECB bond-buying programmes will leave a healthy cushion under the peripheral eurozone debt market. As it stands we are sitting on an 18 billion cashpile for no better reason than we could raise it cheaply when the opportunities arose, i.e. we had no immanent debt refinancing to do when scheduling those debt auctions.

Re the 7.5 billion? It's costly but, and I know I'm showing my age here, the pre-euro days saw a much larger percentage of Govt income go on debt servicing costs. We are currently running a primary surplus, i.e. income and exp balance out if one disregards debt servicing costs.

I think the poster's concerns re the potential for runaway Govt Exp are valid but misdirected. For the past 1 1/2 years FG ministers have begun the process of dismantling anything that's not nailed down and carting them off to their constituencies. It seems that many people become budgetary hawks if it's about "tough choices" like scrapping Visiting Teachers services for Travellers but hit the roof if there's even the slightest suggestion that the full cost of teachers' salaries in fee-paying secondary schools should not be met by the State or that income-generating assets should be taken into account for third level grant assessments.

It'd take a different thread to outline the political plunder issue but you can see from various Irish Times FOIs (see two FG ministries in particular, Health and Agriculture) where recommendations from civil servants are routinely overturned in favour of politically expedient expenditure. It's the old problem of poor governance, but - for better or worse - the Irish public elect local FF/FG/Lab chieftans to go out on a pillage and plunder mission to, ahem, "deliver for their constituents", where the constituency is defined in geographical or socio-economic terms. Civil servants draw up all sorts of laughable multi-annual budgeting plans that don't survive contact with the needs of the electoral cycle.

We are in a situation in which millions of extra hours are being worked in the health and education sectors for free, regardless of whether the 7.5% levy or 7% pay cut are restored or whether the cuts to shift allowances (the so-called 'premium payments') are revisited. Redeployment has freed up staff to transfer from areas where the workload doesn't warrant their retention or where there are fluctuating needs. Notionally there are hundreds of millions being delivered each year under Croke Park/Haddington Road, but much of it is then guzzled down by politicians and pssed up against a political wall of expediency. FEMPI wouldn't survive a legal challenge, but the issue isn't about that, it's more about the political dismantlement of any permanent governance structures and the subversion of everything to the electoral cycle by the government of the day. The retiring Clerk of the Dáil, Kieran Coughlan, voiced some mild criticism of the distasteful way in which various political advisers were touting his job as a political plum to those who would bow before them and pay homage. Coughlan's criticisms drew howls of outrage. Similarly so when several High Court and Supreme Court judges voiced private criticism of Govt overbearing activities and interference in the administration of justice. (Cue much political baring of teeth, but no judicial resignation - though we were close to a constitutional crisis). Some posters would be better to consider the reality that every other country in the world makes at least a passable attempt at retaining institutions of state and doesn't just subordinate it all to the chieftain for dispensing during one electoral cycle.

On my original post? I'm glad for the interesting range of contributions.

fliball123 · 01-05-2015 11:12am

kceire wrote: »

I think you will not be casting a vote next year then.

Well the closest I have seen is the new party formed by Lucinda ..I will probably vote for them they seem to be talking the most sense

fliball123 · 01-05-2015 11:15am

Godge wrote: »

That is not common sense when it comes to states.

If the monetary GDP of a state is growing at X%, the State can afford to run a budget deficit of X-Y%, so long as both are positive numbers and the debt/GDP ratio will consequently decline.

So by having to pay 7.5billion in interest a year is in your view a prudent way to run the country.

I understand the logic of how the debt rolls over etc, yet at the moment we are still borrowing as well which while this theory exists when your adding debt and interest related debt to an already over burdened income side, your looking for trouble. Spending has not been cut at all since 2008.

K-9 · 01-05-2015 12:54pm

I really shouldn't have to say this again, but cut out out the I/we pay your wages stuff!

relax carry on · 01-05-2015 9:00pm

fliball123 wrote: »

So by having to pay 7.5billion in interest a year is in your view a prudent way to run the country.

I understand the logic of how the debt rolls over etc, yet at the moment we are still borrowing as well which while this theory exists when your adding debt and interest related debt to an already over burdened income side, your looking for trouble. Spending has not been cut at all since 2008.

Spending by the Government hasn't dropped at all since 2008? Any chance of any link to any statistics or reports that show government spending in Ireland hasn't dropped since 2008?

creedp · 01-05-2015 10:54pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Well the closest I have seen is the new party formed by Lucinda ..I will probably vote for them they seem to be talking the most sense

New party no track record .. Lets see how long those lofty commitments last if they get a taste of power

al22 · 01-05-2015 11:20pm

Before pay increases a business must to earn more income to afford this pay increase.

Whatever experience one gained is irrelevant if one do the same job or produce same amount of goods or services nd of the same quality? unless to increase prices of these goods/services. But increased prices do nothing with qualofications or experience.

D

Black Menorca · 25-05-2015 9:08am

I've finally got myself into the civil service. Don't you dare touch my pension entitlements.

Gumbo · 25-05-2015 11:34am

Black Menorca wrote: »

I've finally got myself into the civil service. Don't you dare touch my pension entitlements.

You are on Career Average so

Geuze · 25-05-2015 1:09pm

fliball123 wrote: »

So by having to pay 7.5billion in interest a year is in your view a prudent way to run the country.

I understand the logic of how the debt rolls over etc, yet at the moment we are still borrowing as well which while this theory exists when your adding debt and interest related debt to an already over burdened income side, your looking for trouble. Spending has not been cut at all since 2008.

Govt expenditure

2009 = 79.95bn
2010 = 109bn incl capital transfers to banks
2011 = 79.1 bn
2012 = 73.1 bn
2013 = 71 bn
2014 = 72.3bn

Black Menorca · 25-05-2015 3:03pm

kceire wrote: »

You are on Career Average so

Yes.

Godge · 25-05-2015 3:53pm

Geuze wrote: »

Govt expenditure

2009 = 79.95bn
2010 = 109bn incl capital transfers to banks
2011 = 79.1 bn
2012 = 73.1 bn
2013 = 71 bn
2014 = 72.3bn

fliball will be back in two weeks quoting the same thing again, despite you having given him the facts.

glacial_pace71 · 25-05-2015 6:08pm

kceire wrote: »

You are on Career Average so

Career average will be a pain for anyone who plans a full-length career in the public service but it could work out at a tolerable level of financial loss if you were to have several years in the private sector and return to the civil service through open competition at a more senior grade, i.e. the idea would be to spend the later years of one's career there. (The downside to that is the lower salary in the public sector for certain middle and senior management grades). Either way, you don't do it for the pension. Similarly, if you were in the health and education grades, e.g. nurses or teachers, then there aren't much promotion opportunities and so it'd be probably easier to calculate when to step out into what'd notionally private sector 'agency' work and so forth.

Btw, in the deep dark distant past many public sector bodies had their own pension funds and - in some cases - various endowments and trust funds to also meet their day to day running costs. There was certainly a logic for retaining some of these, although at the end of the day the State can still produce a better return on an employee's pension contributions than any private fund, especially when the time-frames stretch to 40-50 years of service and 15-20 years of pension draw-down.

Still though, had they restructured some of the various arms-length bodies' funds over the years we could now be scratching our heads and trying to calculate a notional value on 'fishing rights of Lough Eske', defunct railways and so forth:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/si/0022.html and
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/si/0017.html

realitykeeper · 14-09-2015 10:31am

In recent years, there have been several reported cases (notably in France and Argentina) of redundant employees re-opening their former factories and running them in defiance of court orders. In effect, the workers fired their bosses. I doubt if such a thing would happen in the public sector though, if it did, who would subsidize them.

Godge · 14-09-2015 11:43am

realitykeeper wrote: »

In recent years, there have been several reported cases (notably in France and Argentina) of redundant employees re-opening their former factories and running them in defiance of court orders. In effect, the workers fired their bosses. I doubt if such a thing would happen in the public sector though, if it did, who would subsidize them.

What point are you trying to make?

Paulzx · 14-09-2015 2:06pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

In recent years, there have been several reported cases (notably in France and Argentina) of redundant employees re-opening their former factories and running them in defiance of court orders. In effect, the workers fired their bosses. I doubt if such a thing would happen in the public sector though, if it did, who would subsidize them.

Gumbo · 14-09-2015 3:15pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

In recent years, there have been several reported cases (notably in France and Argentina) of redundant employees re-opening their former factories and running them in defiance of court orders. In effect, the workers fired their bosses. I doubt if such a thing would happen in the public sector though, if it did, who would subsidize them.

I once put too much milk in my Porraige oats. They came out very watery.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is similar to your own ??????

andrew · 14-09-2015 3:52pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

In recent years, there have been several reported cases (notably in France and Argentina) of redundant employees re-opening their former factories and running them in defiance of court orders. In effect, the workers fired their bosses. I doubt if such a thing would happen in the public sector though, if it did, who would subsidize them.

For Forks Sake · 14-09-2015 8:41pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

In recent years, there have been several reported cases (notably in France and Argentina) of redundant employees re-opening their former factories and running them in defiance of court orders. In effect, the workers fired their bosses. I doubt if such a thing would happen in the public sector though, if it did, who would subsidize them.

fliball123 · 18-11-2015 4:10pm

Godge wrote: »

fliball will be back in two weeks quoting the same thing again, despite you having given him the facts.

and how much will it be when the likes of increases above increments are taken in or the 600 to 600 million needed for the HSE..Its all cloak and dagger stuff ..Like I say we are still borrowing and by the end of the year we will be spending as much if not more then we were back in 2008 and yet we are paying individually more in taxation...So when do we get tax cuts back to 2008?

barneystinson · 18-11-2015 6:45pm

fliball123 wrote: »

and how much will it be when the likes of increases above increments are taken in or the 600 to 600 million needed for the HSE..Its all cloak and dagger stuff ..Like I say we are still borrowing and by the end of the year we will be spending as much if not more then we were back in 2008 and yet we are paying individually more in taxation...So when do we get tax cuts back to 2008?

We weren't paying enough tax in 2008, clearly.

relax carry on · 18-11-2015 7:03pm

fliball123 wrote: »

and how much will it be when the likes of increases above increments are taken in or the 600 to 600 million needed for the HSE..Its all cloak and dagger stuff ..Like I say we are still borrowing and by the end of the year we will be spending as much if not more then we were back in 2008 and yet we are paying individually more in taxation...So when do we get tax cuts back to 2008?

Have a look at the Revenue stats on tax collected in 2008 and 2014. See if you can spot any differences. Look for the trends in taxation receipts pre 2008 and follow through to 2014.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/index.html#section1

fliball123 · 19-11-2015 11:39am

relax carry on wrote: »

Have a look at the Revenue stats on tax collected in 2008 and 2014. See if you can spot any differences. Look for the trends in taxation receipts pre 2008 and follow through to 2014.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/statistics/index.html#section1

Can you show me how we were not paying enough in tax back in 2008? how are you quantify that ?

The problem is for the last decade or so we have been overspending in 2 general areas public sector pay and pensions and welfare and the fact is back in 2008 we were overpaying in tax and in 2014 we are literally being raped with taxes and in general we get a pretty poor return for those taxes.

The reason why there is a discrepancy was because more than 300k people lost their jobs in that period so it meant losing not only their income tax but their discretionary spend was also decimated which has a knock on to other indirect taxes such as VAT it also meant more borrowing in order to pay out dole for those people so Per head we are paying more than enough tax and were back in 2008 the big problem is what the gombiens in government decide spend on.

Godge · 19-11-2015 6:14pm

fliball123 wrote: »

and how much will it be when the likes of increases above increments are taken in or the 600 to 600 million needed for the HSE..Its all cloak and dagger stuff ..Like I say we are still borrowing and by the end of the year we will be spending as much if not more then we were back in 2008 and yet we are paying individually more in taxation...So when do we get tax cuts back to 2008?

Oh I love being proved right. Thanks for that post

:D:D:D:D:D:D

fliball123 · 19-11-2015 6:53pm

Godge wrote: »

Oh I love being proved right. Thanks for that post :D:D:D:D:D:D

?? proved right in what we are going to be paying over 1.6 billion extra to sort out the different departments in overspend by the end of the year so we are at the end of this year spending as much if not more on our public sector then we were in 2008

barneystinson · 19-11-2015 9:21pm

fliball123 wrote: »

?? proved right in what we are going to be paying over 1.6 billion extra to sort out the different departments in overspend by the end of the year so we are at the end of this year spending as much if not more on our public sector then we were in 2008

I presume he was referring to this:

Godge wrote: »

fliball will be back in two weeks quoting the same thing again, despite you having given him the facts.

fliball123 · 23-11-2015 11:00am

barneystinson wrote: »

I presume he was referring to this:

yeah just typical misdirection from people who want to be blinded. Its was the same when the banking crisis kicked in..it was all the big bad banks fault even do the debt we will owe by the time we sell AIB will be down to about 30 billion give or take a billion yet our spend on public sector and welfare keeps going up. .. So for anyone saying I am wrong do the maths, Irish water 1/2 a billion still on the spend side, 300k public servants getting a payrise above increments, ps increments and a 1.6billion hole to plug for our our public services and if add all of those up people we are going to be spending more than we did back in 2008 at the height of the boom..

Alternatives to pay scales in the public sector

Comments