View Full Version : An Bord Snip Nua
Officially known as Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes.
Report due this week. I suppose success of the body will depend on what looking for in it. I see government already saying findings of the report not bidding which seems like an attempt to distance themselves from it.
Board Snip leaks (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0629/1224249726726.html?via=mr)
The Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, informally known as An Bord Snip Nua, will make more than 400 recommendations for public sector cutbacks.
About €1.5 billion will be cut from the €21 billion social welfare budget, with child benefit and rent supplements being the primary targets. Mr Lenihan has said that he would seek reductions of approximately €4 billion in December’s budget.
I also read they apparently proposing to close the Dept of Sport, Tourism & Culture alongside other reorganisations.
CSO public sector report (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0629/breaking44.htm)
In the three years to March 2009, employment in the public sector rose by 19,900 to 371,200. However, this figure for March marks a reduction on the 373,300 employed in the public sector in December 2008.
I suppose that shows that will hiring feeze numbers will reduce but not significantly. I hear many people (I have heard about education specifically) taking early retirement now to avoid tax levy taking portion of lump sum. I guess early retirement schemes will also be proposed...
passinginterest
29/06/2009, 3:17 PM
The early retirement and incentivised career break schemes seem to be doing very well. I know there was such an interest in early retirement in my Dept they had to suspend making a decision on letting them all go until after the closing date. If even half those eligible took retirement the Dept would be impossible to reorganise as the majority are in senior management positions.
The first early retiremnts only started this month so they wouldn't be reflected in those figures. The drop would be a result of the recruitment freeze and natural wasteage I'd imagine.
I see talk of cutting Garda numbers too, I'd be disappointed if that happens I think increasing Garda numbers was one of the few things this Government has gotten right.
There's a fairly obvious need at this stage for an overhaul of the social welfare programme.
There's a fairly obvious need at this stage for an overhaul of the social welfare programme.
Leaks sound like they moving towards suggestions from IMF last week that social welfare budget should be targetted at those you need the most. Means testing seems an inefficient process so some other system would be preferable.
Tourism could be merged into Enterprise as it is just an Industry. It would also seem to make some sense to reorganise the Departments & cabinet Minsiter posts as areas like say communications are a lot important than in the past.
mypost
29/06/2009, 5:52 PM
Hanafin telling all and sundry yesterday, that unfortunately "our public spending is just too much", and savings need to be made. Well, unfortunately Mary, that applies to every citizen in the country. More money taken out of the economy = less money spent by the public = more job lossess = less tax revenue = more strain on the public finances. The public sector can't be touched in terms of job redundancies, people like me won't allow Lisbon to be passed, the EU can't help, the IMF are unwilling to help.
Tough decisions need to be made, and it needs a cabinet that know what they're doing, not an inexperienced cabinet employed in the wrong ministerial positions, making budget projections which are off the wall in accuracy.
Cutting public spending is the most painless way, (if there is one) of achieving the targets the IMF want, but Cowen and his cabinet are primarily responsible to the Irish people, not someone with a computer in some remote distant location, acting as judge and jury on other nation's finances.
Hanafin telling all and sundry yesterday, that unfortunately "our public spending is just too much", and savings need to be made. Well, unfortunately Mary, that applies to every citizen in the country. More money taken out of the economy = less money spent by the public = more job lossess = less tax revenue = more strain on the public finances. The public sector can't be touched in terms of job redundancies, people like me won't allow Lisbon to be passed, the EU can't help, the IMF are unwilling to help.
Tough decisions need to be made, and it needs a cabinet that know what they're doing, not an inexperienced cabinet employed in the wrong ministerial positions, making budget projections which are off the wall in accuracy.
Cutting public spending is the most painless way, (if there is one) of achieving the targets the IMF want, but Cowen and his cabinet are primarily responsible to the Irish people, not someone with a computer in some remote distant location, acting as judge and jury on other nation's finances.
I don't like quoting entire posts but bt confused by that post. Not sure if you are saying cuts need to be made or not.
I am sure the leaks will be fairly accurate as apparently some departments have already been given a preview of their section.
Will be interesting to see how the government spin it politically. I think Cowan said it would potentially be implemented in the December budget.
mypost
30/06/2009, 5:38 AM
Cuts need to be made but there are certain no-go areas, like jobs in the entire public sector, and standard JA/JB social welfare. Rent allowance and child benefit are areas where you could review the situation.
But imo, cutting infrastructure seems to be the least painful way of balancing the books.
I suppose that shows that will hiring feeze numbers will reduce but not significantly.
It depends, in some sections there is an older workforce, so natural wastage can be high. Do those figures include temp/ contract staff?
I hear many people (I have heard about education specifically) taking early retirement now to avoid tax levy taking portion of lump sum. I guess early retirement schemes will also be proposed...
When Lenihan introduced the scheme in the last budget, the main incentive was the threat of changes to the treatment of lump sums.
But imo, cutting infrastructure seems to be the least painful way of balancing the books.
That is the least efficient way of saving money. Infrastructure projects should be accessed on cost/benefit analysis though.
Ultimately the decisions will be political. If the government avoid certain decision they will be criticised & for the tough decisions they do make they will probably just blame the report.
Says a lot about our political leaders that they need to setup an external body now to advise them. Reform should be an ongong process not something looking to when in crisis.
OneRedArmy
30/06/2009, 12:52 PM
Two "facts" bandied around yesterday amongst the usual crew of all knowing economists blew my mind.
1) Public sector numbers have, and continue to increase substantially over the last 12 months.
2) Public sector employees are still getting increments.
1) seems like an indisputable fact (but would be good to know where the increase in numbers is coming from), but 2) surprises me. Is it true?
Dodge
30/06/2009, 12:57 PM
1) Public sector numbers have, and continue to increase substantially over the last 12 months.
2) Public sector employees are still getting increments.
1) seems like an indisputable fact (but would be good to know where the increase in numbers is coming from)
Whatever about hem increasing over 12 months, Pete's link above states that numbers were down by about 2,000 for the past three months so that would suggest that the line "continue to increase substantially " isn't an indisputable fact
passinginterest
30/06/2009, 1:09 PM
It's really bothering me the way the recent figures are being presented, numbers in the public service have clearly begun to fall but the headlines are only concerned with the increase, which isn't substantial in the first place, the average wage for public servants that's quoted at just over 50,000 seems to include all state employees which means overpaid politicians and high level management positions, and then deeper in the articles passing mention is given to the fact that it doesn't take into acount the pension levy. Lower level civil and public servants end up getting all the stick about being over-paid etc when the figures being quoted are horribly distorted.
1) Public sector numbers have, and continue to increase substantially over the last 12 months.
1) seems like an indisputable fact (but would be good to know where the increase in numbers is coming from)
It's not even a fact, numbers are down for the first three months of the year, and that is before the early retirement scheme, incentivised career break, shorter working week scheme, the reductions in teachers and teaching assistants, special needs assistants, the temp/ contract workers reaching the end of their contract etc.
2) Public sector employees are still getting increments.
2) surprises me. Is it true?
It's part of the contract (once performance targets are reached), so would require legislation to change it.
the average wage for public servants that's quoted at just over 50,000 seems to include all state employees which means overpaid politicians and high level management positions, and then deeper in the articles passing mention is given to the fact that it doesn't take into acount the pension levy. Lower level civil and public servants end up getting all the stick about being over-paid etc when the figures being quoted are horribly distorted.
They take the total (gross) pay bill and divide it by the numbers they say are employed. Using an average alone is obviously misleading, and tbh how can you trust an organisation full of statisiticians that continues to go for headlines on what they must know is an irrelevant figure?
Just on the general coverage I've a few things that are bugging me.... they're quoting an increase in average pay, when I would've thought that this was going to happen with the laying off of temp workers - there would hardly be too many temps at higher grades. Also, there has been zero mention of the levy, so even if there has been an increase in gross pay, it's been wipped out and more by the levy - instead of their headline 3.4% increase, it's a 3.6% reduction.
I think from the numbers above can see public sector numbers were increasing until the last 3-6 months where there has been a small drop. I would guess most of the numbers reduction has been at local authority & other bodies?
Not surpised at the pay increments as I think that was highlighted in the media in recent months.
Whatever else the government do with the expenditure cuts I can't see them avoiding pay cuts or reduction in numbers in the public sector. I think wages increase with age in some categories? I think a 40 year old teacher earns more than a 30 year old all things being equal? Probably not a big difference for individuals but across the system all adds up.
Social Welfare could probably do with a big shake up. Surely the goal should be to assist people (temporarily) when they are at their lowest instead of the miriad of child, rent & other allowances.
I think from the numbers above can see public sector numbers were increasing until the last 3-6 months where there has been a small drop. I would guess most of the numbers reduction has been at local authority & other bodies?
Wait, so a increase of "nearly 3,000" for the year is substantial but a drop of 2,900 in 3 months for the year is a "small drop"
OneRedArmy
30/06/2009, 2:14 PM
Thanks for clarifying the above.
Devil is obviously in the detail (e.g. As mentioned above the loss of a guard or nursing job over an admin position makes a harder case) but broadly a fall in employment is what is required. Why it took until 3 months ago simply reinforces view that senior civil servants are in practical terms, accountable to nobody and a law unto themselves (Yes Minister springs to mind).
In relation to the increments, in a declining wage environment in the wider economy, the price to be paid by the civil service is layoffs and other ridiculous schemes like the levy. The penny might drop soon with the unions.
I would imagine various special interest groups (and threatened Ministers) are trying to stop the report being publicly released in full.
It's imperative that the detail is released into the public domain. At least then when the pork barrels are rolled out, we at least know where to look.
OneRedArmy
30/06/2009, 2:24 PM
Wait, so a increase of "nearly 3,000" for the year is substantial but a drop of 2,900 in 3 months for the year is a "small drop"Benchmarked against private sector employment and tax revenue, then yes.
Now that's an interesting word, "benchmarking". Suspect we won't hear it coming out of the public sector for a while.
Just to clarify, the increments effect public servants, not just civil servants.
And increments aren't based on age, but rather service and performance. There is a scale and once people reach the top of the scale thats it. It isn't like increments are continual throughout your career at each grade.
Here's an idea of the pay scales for "middle managers" in the Civil service
http://www.pseu.ie/html/pay.html#Payrate_Page
For Clerical grades (BY FAR the largest group within civil service) the pay scales are in this .pdf file
http://www.cpsu.ie/images/NewsManager/CPSU_salary_scales_2016_insert.pdf
Benchmarked against private sector employment and tax revenue, then yes.
Now that's an interesting word, "benchmarking". Suspect we won't hear it coming out of the public sector for a while.
From the same CSO survey, industry pay rose by 4%. Guess we won't be hearing about that for a while either...
And for the record I work in the private sector...
Why it took until 3 months ago simply reinforces view that senior civil servants are in practical terms, accountable to nobody and a law unto themselves (Yes Minister springs to mind).
Or they abide by employment law and the terms of contracts that temp staff have. But, hey, whatever spin you want to put on it...
In relation to the increments, in a declining wage environment in the wider economy, the price to be paid by the civil service is layoffs and other ridiculous schemes like the levy. The penny might drop soon with the unions.
Legally, Unions cannot negotiate/ agree for members a reduction in terms and conditions. The civil and public service use salary scales - you start at the bottom and work your way up over time (which might answer pete's question about age - it's not age it's time on the grade). The pension levy was a de facto pay cut (even Lenihan admits this now).
Benchmarked against private sector employment and tax revenue, then yes.
Now that's an interesting word, "benchmarking". Suspect we won't hear it coming out of the public sector for a while
If we use the last available CSO figures, private sector wages were increasing - 4% in industry, 2% in Retail and services. Public Sector (taking into account the levy) down 3.6%.
Wait, so a increase of "nearly 3,000" for the year is substantial but a drop of 2,900 in 3 months for the year is a "small drop"
I don't think I said anything about about substancial increases. maybe mixing me up with different poster?
If there are to be cuts it would seem more likely to hit admin rather than guards/techers/nurses.
I don't think I said anything about about substancial increases. maybe mixing me up with different poster?
Fair enough.
If there are to be cuts it would seem more likely to hit admin rather than guards/techers/nurses.
There won't be cuts. There'll be "natural wastage" and the first thing to go will be the various Quangos, semi state boards and maybe even the multitude of consultants now employed by the public sector bodies
OneRedArmy
30/06/2009, 3:20 PM
Slightly disingenous to complain that averages are an unfair measure when used to reflect public sector pay, then immediately quote the same measure in respect of the private sector!
mypost
30/06/2009, 7:36 PM
Really, instead of having to wait for this report to be published, the government should have the competence to make the relevant decisions themselves.
Instead, we have a Taoiseach, who has lost 4 polls in 14 months, we have a Tanaiste, who doesn't seem to be able to save, let alone attract jobs here, we have a Finance Minister who can't run a prudent budget, and social partnership talks that achieve little.
The SW minister estimated at budget time last year, that unemployment would be c290k in 2009, while the ESRI projected it to be 8%. Instead, tomorrow's figures will result in 400,000 claiming, and a rate of 12%, resulting in more huffing and puffing in the Dail chamber, but after Friday night, the Dail docks for almost 3 months. God only knows how bad things will get in the meantime.
OneRedArmy
30/06/2009, 9:01 PM
Really, instead of having to wait for this report to be published, the government should have the competence to make the relevant decisions themselves.
Instead, we have a Taoiseach, who has lost 4 polls in 14 months, we have a Tanaiste, who doesn't seem to be able to save, let alone attract jobs here, we have a Finance Minister who can't run a prudent budget, and social partnership talks that achieve little.
The SW minister estimated at budget time last year, that unemployment would be c290k in 2009, while the ESRI projected it to be 8%. Instead, tomorrow's figures will result in 400,000 claiming, and a rate of 12%, resulting in more huffing and puffing in the Dail chamber, but after Friday night, the Dail docks for almost 3 months. God only knows how bad things will get in the meantime.Whats your point in relation to public sector expenditure?:confused:
mypost
30/06/2009, 11:52 PM
That the government can't be relied on to make the right decisions for the country.
It's as Michael Ring said a few weeks ago: "You're like a football team going for relegation, everything you do is wrong".
Slightly disingenous to complain that averages are an unfair measure when used to reflect public sector pay, then immediately quote the same measure in respect of the private sector!
Averages alone are rubbish, but it at least shows how you can use them to suit your arguement - there's a lot of bs about how great things are in the public sector compared to the private sector. In the wider public sector, people are worried about their employment prospects and their terms and conditions of employment - there might be more security, but it isn't absolute.
It seems almost certain the report will not be published at least not in the short term. In the meanwhile there will continue to be leaks presumably from the affected departments (they have preview of their own area) & the government takes a holiday for 2 months.
It is hilarious the government keeps telling us they are making the hard decisions when they have delayed decisions at every opportunity. If they need to cut spending or raise taxes better to do it now than delay.
The Dail has another 1-2 weeks left before break until SEPTEMBER. Apparently won't even be a cabinet meeting from early July to late August. :eek:
Dodge
01/07/2009, 10:37 AM
Think I read in one of the 'papers that the last cabinet meeting before the "recess" (made for puns by the way) is July 15th
I thought they resumed in mid-September actually so August would be an improvement. Of sorts...
Calcio Jack
01/07/2009, 10:49 AM
Time to stop messing about and for the Govt. to announce with effect from today a 20% reduction in all Public Servant's salaries (including judges) on the basis that according to last weeks IMF report, Public Sector salaries are now 20% higher than the private sector. That doesn't take into account the very generous pension costs that are provided almost gratis by the state.
IMO a 20% reduction is very fair, it would be a 40% reduction if the hidden cost of pensions funding and a "no redundency" premium as applied to public Sector wages in other countries was factored in... if they don't like it then they can resign and see if they can find a better paid job in the private sector... we've had benchmarking now's the time for retrenchmarking.
Time to stop messing about and for the Govt. to announce with effect from today a 20% reduction in all Public Servant's salaries (including judges) on the basis that according to last weeks IMF report, Public Sector salaries are now 20% higher than the private sector. That doesn't take into account the very generous pension costs that are provided almost gratis by the state.
The IMF just took that from the ERSI report (from 2006) about graduates (which in itself used hourly rates rather than actual salary - for example it only took a teachers "in school" time if though that was all their work).
That doesn't take into account the very generous pension costs that are provided almost gratis by the state.
IMO a 20% reduction is very fair, it would be a 40% reduction if the hidden cost of pensions funding and a "no redundency" premium as applied to public Sector wages in other countries was factored in...
Pensions cost the state virtually nothing and are self funded through contributions (and that was before the levy). This will only change if there is a purge of numbers or a closing of these schemes to new members. You should tell the CIE & Dublin Bus workers about how they are safe from redundancy because they are in the public sector :rolleyes:
Pension Levy, plus unpaid increases due in the last benchmarking (using the pension as the excuse) add up to more than your 20% "pension premium" anyway. And again, the public sector pension bill costs the state bugger all in reality since the pensions are paid from current contributions.
if they don't like it then they can resign and see if they can find a better paid job in the private sector...
Pity more who now go on about how great life is in the public sector didn't get a job there before the recruitment embargo - they would've earned more and have a 100% safe job, well in your world at least.
we've had benchmarking now's the time for retrenchmarking.
Which compared like jobs and gave the increases based on that. The last round would've given further increases, but gave nothing to most because of the pension. I'd have no problem with a further round tbh - it won't happen because it suits people to use anecdotal "all the private sector are taking wage reductions" better than actual evidence.
Calcio Jack
01/07/2009, 3:42 PM
The IMF just took that from the ERSI report (from 2006) about graduates (which in itself used hourly rates rather than actual salary - for example it only took a teachers "in school" time if though that was all their work).
Pensions cost the state virtually nothing and are self funded through contributions (and that was before the levy). This will only change if there is a purge of numbers or a closing of these schemes to new members. You should tell the CIE & Dublin Bus workers about how they are safe from redundancy because they are in the public sector :rolleyes:
Pension Levy, plus unpaid increases due in the last benchmarking (using the pension as the excuse) add up to more than your 20% "pension premium" anyway. And again, the public sector pension bill costs the state bugger all in reality since the pensions are paid from current contributions.
Pity more who now go on about how great life is in the public sector didn't get a job there before the recruitment embargo - they would've earned more and have a 100% safe job, well in your world at least.
Which compared like jobs and gave the increases based on that. The last round would've given further increases, but gave nothing to most because of the pension. I'd have no problem with a further round tbh - it won't happen because it suits people to use anecdotal "all the private sector are taking wage reductions" better than actual evidence.
Rather than engage in a long debate which i suspect would be worthless based on the fact that our views are so far apart... I'll agree to diagree with everthing you've stated above including your inference that the IMF don't know what they're talking about and the gem about how pensions cost nothing as they are self funded from current contributions... and hopefully IMO FF will have the nerve to implement everything recomended in the Bord Snip report...which I can assure you includes a 20% cut in Public Sector wage costs and other general spending cuts that will affect almost every person in the country...am looking forward to hearing the Public Sector pig squeal having had years of lazily grazing at the trough on the back of the rest of the workers of this country
Moderator: Can we keep the thread on topic as opposed to general public v private debate.
I guess the report will be more specific about expenditure cuts than just across the board wage cuts as don't need months to come up with that proposal. I would expect suggestions to cut varies projects, departments & quangos. I would also guess they would look at those bodies, determine what they do & impact if they are closed. Shouldn't be too difficult to find savings in any large bureaucracy on that basis.
I have no doubt the government are sacred to implement cuts & probably hoping for miraculous global economic turnaround in the next few months.
OneRedArmy
01/07/2009, 5:39 PM
Whatever about the size of the adjustment required, either benchmarking has to be made a two way process (with proper valuation of public sector t's&c's and benefits), or the benchmarking increases should simply be reversed.
Benchmarking was another crazy FF idea when they thought the money would never run out.
including your inference that the IMF don't know what they're talking about
The IMF report references an ERSI report from 2006, which is on graduate pay differences. I made no such inference, just pointed out where they got the figures from.
the gem about how pensions cost nothing as they are self funded from current contributions...
Whilst it may not suit the current witchhunt, it is actually true. There was a Commission on Public Sector Pensions a few years ago - look it up.
which I can assure you includes a 20% cut in Public Sector wage costs and other general spending cuts that will affect almost every person in the country...am looking forward to hearing the Public Sector pig squeal having had years of lazily grazing at the trough on the back of the rest of the workers of this country
I suspect it'll be the overall wage bill that'll be reduced rather than a further reduction in individuals pay anyway. If it was the type of reductions you are suggesting, the main result would be a further reduction in consumer spending that would ultimately leave everyone squealing like pigs.
Calcio Jack
02/07/2009, 8:01 AM
[QUOTE=Macy;1185622]The IMF report references an ERSI report from 2006, which is on graduate pay differences. I made no such inference, just pointed out where they got the figures from.
Perhaps you haven't read the full report..what you are doing is taking out of context a selective quote to support your inference
Whilst it may not suit the current witchhunt, it is actually true. There was a Commission on Public Sector Pensions a few years ago - look it up.
paying the penions of retired Public Servants out of current spending is the way their cost is met... however saying that is an ok way of meeting their ongoing cost based on (1) demographics and (2) the levels of pensions payable is completely unsustainable , a huge drain on Govt day to day spending i.e. we have to borrow to pay both public Servants salaries and pensions, ergo the reason we need cut salaries and force Public Servants to fund the 'real' cost of their pensions like those in the private sector.... of course we could also give a choice to Public Servants don't bother to contribute to your pension whilst working and receive a reduced pension on retirement i.e. the samr deal that those in the private sector have
I suspect it'll be the overall wage bill that'll be reduced rather than a further reduction in individuals pay anyway. If it was the type of reductions you are suggesting, the main result would be a further reduction in consumer spending that would ultimately leave everyone squealing like pigs.
Correct but will give us a basis to regroup and rebuild our economy by coming from a low cost base...if we continue as is (borrowing 25 billion per annum) to pay excessive salaries and pensions to public servants , then in a few years we as a nation will be bankrupt , with little or no chance of recovery in our lifetimes.... so there are no easy painless solutions to this....however reducing Public Servants salaries and offering them the choice of paying for their own pensions or accepting a reduced one will at least go a huge way towards controlling our public finances and put both the private and public sector on an equal footing in terms of carrying the burden of solving this issue.... one other thing we'd need to enforce with the Public Sector is greater productivity , not saying they don't work hard now just that they need to work even harder and smarter in the future.[/B][/B][/B][/B]
OneRedArmy
02/07/2009, 8:39 AM
I see IMPACT are so worried by the prospect of the reports recommendations that they are mobilising for a strike vote already.
Let the backsliding begin...
paying the penions of retired Public Servants out of current spending is the way their cost is met... however saying that is an ok way of meeting their ongoing cost based on (1) demographics and (2) the levels of pensions payable is completely unsustainable , a huge drain on Govt day to day spending i.e. we have to borrow to pay both public Servants salaries and pensions, ergo the reason we need cut salaries and force Public Servants to fund the 'real' cost of their pensions like those in the private sector.... of course we could also give a choice to Public Servants don't bother to contribute to your pension whilst working and receive a reduced pension on retirement i.e. the samr deal that those in the private sector have
How is it a drain on day to day Government spending, if it's paid out of contributions and existing funds? The net effect is zero in terms of Government spending. The first part of the pension is made up of the standard contributory pension, so between the pension contribution, prsi and foregone benchmarking 2, public servants are paying over 20% for their pensions. Over 30% if you see the pension levy as a pension contribution rather than a pay cut.
Calcio Jack
02/07/2009, 9:17 AM
How is it a drain on day to day Government spending, if it's paid out of contributions and existing funds? The net effect is zero in terms of Government spending. The first part of the pension is made up of the standard contributory pension, so between the pension contribution, prsi and foregone benchmarking 2, public servants are paying over 20% for their pensions. Over 30% if you see the pension levy as a pension contribution rather than a pay cut.
Because the amount coming into the fund from both prsi contributions and the amount paid by pension contribuions is no where near enough to fund the future liabilities.
In relation to the current day to day cost of pensions, you can't claim that it is cost neutral because pension costs are only one of the many different costs that Govt pays. You have to look at the totality of Govt day to day spending against the amount of revenue the Govt takes in via paye, vat etc. And as things stand this year we'll have a deficit of approx €25 billion. That is the context under which the need to cut all aspects of Govt spending needs to be viewed.
It's time for Public Servants to realise that thier cosy pay arrangements can't be ring fenced anymore but to accept that they have to take a hit along with the private sector to ensure that the money is available to fund other vital public services.
The bottom line is that the Govt is like a company that is in administration and needs to take some very heavey decisions to allow it to come out of administration or it goes bankrupt and the receiver (aka the IMF) takes over
It's time for Public Servants to realise that thier cosy pay arrangements can't be ring fenced anymore but to accept that they have to take a hit along with the private sector to ensure that the money is available to fund other vital public services.
Is this the Private Sector that saw pay increases of 4% according to the CSO
In relation to the current day to day cost of pensions, you can't claim that it is cost neutral because pension costs are only one of the many different costs that Govt pays.
I can and will. If what's paid out in pensions is less than or equal to what comes in in pension contributions it is cost neutral. Future liabilities will only be an issue if there is a closure of the schemes and/or a massive reduction in the numbers paying in.
It's time for Public Servants to realise that thier cosy pay arrangements can't be ring fenced anymore but to accept that they have to take a hit along with the private sector to ensure that the money is available to fund other vital public services.
You mean like accepting a 7% cut in pay?
I see IMPACT are so worried by the prospect of the reports recommendations that they are mobilising for a strike vote already.
Let the backsliding begin...
Is this what you referring to? Click (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0702/1224249908537.html)
THE COUNTRY’S largest public sector trade union has warned members that there is an emerging threat to their pay, pensions and job security and that a campaign of resistance against unilateral changes to existing terms and conditions may be required.
In a circular issued yesterday, Impact general secretary Peter McLoone said the leadership had agreed to take steps to mobilise the union so that members were prepared “to deal swiftly and decisively” with potential attacks in these areas in the weeks and months ahead.
He said that inevitably, a campaign to protect core pay and conditions of employment would necessitate a ballot for industrial action.
Mr McLoone said the Government proposals for economic recovery presented to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions last week had contained “inadequate progress on measures to save jobs and pensions”.
“The situation is as bad – if not worse – from a public service point of view. The Government has not felt in a position to negotiate on the issues raised by Impact, which were: a guarantee of no further reductions in public service pay; a guarantee of no reduction in the value of public service pensions, including a commitment not to tax the lump sum; and the need for an agreed protocol on public service employment issues,” he said.
We can argue where cuts should or should not take place but how could any government guarantee job security, pay & pensions? How could they make any effort at economic planning with both hands tied behind their backs? Trade Unions still haven't grasped reality as can also be seen by the Electricians threatening strike for 11% pay increase.
:rolleyes:
Calcio Jack
02/07/2009, 9:51 AM
I can and will. If what's paid out in pensions is less than or equal to what comes in in pension contributions it is cost neutral. Future liabilities will only be an issue if there is a closure of the schemes and/or a massive reduction in the numbers paying in.
Very true we can all do what we want including attending the Lewis Carroll school of economicsDo demographics not have anything to do with the potential problem... currently we have 1 pensioner for every 4 people employed, in 30 years time that will reduce to a 1:2 ratio
You mean like accepting a 7% cut in pay?
I assume you are refering to the pension levy ? if you are then (1) do please put in the net figure as pension contributions reduce ones paye liability , it amuses me that I've yet to hear to any public Sector employee mention the net cost of the pension levy but instead always refer to the Gross cost..
Finally where do you exect the money to come from to maintain Govt spending at its current level ? and do you at all accept that the Public Service salary and pension costs need to be reduced ? and if yes by how much ?
I assume you are refering to the pension levy ? if you are then (1) do please put in the net figure as pension contributions reduce ones paye liability , it amuses me that I've yet to hear to any public Sector employee mention the net cost of the pension levy but instead always refer to the Gross cost..
The pension levy is a defacto pay cut. It effects PAYE no more, or no less than if it had been a straight pay cut on the actual workers.
If you want to get hung up on net figures, we should also nett off the taxes, prsi and levies paid from the gross public sector pay bill too?
Finally where do you exect the money to come from to maintain Govt spending at its current level ? and do you at all accept that the Public Service salary and pension costs need to be reduced ? and if yes by how much ?
Public Sector Salary costs have been reduced already, ffs, whether you consider the levy a pay cut or a pension contribution, by 7%. Numbers are also being reduced. I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with further pay cuts if they can be properly justified (not just based on anedotal evidence and bitterness) and with the target at the higher levels, as part of an overall plan that also meant that the rich, wealthy, tax shelters, tax avoidance were also tackled along with other job creation and training initiatives. I would have a problem if it's a basic scapgoating that's going on now.
Calcio Jack
02/07/2009, 12:31 PM
The pension levy is a defacto pay cut. It effects PAYE no more, or no less than if it had been a straight pay cut on the actual workers.
No it's not a de facto pay cut e.g. if you have to pay a gross €100 per month pension levy and are a 41% taxpayer , your net cost (excluding a further reduction in prsi) is €59
If you want to get hung up on net figures, we should also nett off the taxes, prsi and levies paid from the gross public sector pay bill too?
Not relevent to the net cost of a pension
Public Sector Salary costs have been reduced already, ffs, whether you consider the levy a pay cut or a pension contribution, by 7%. Numbers are also being reduced. I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with further pay cuts if they can be properly justified (not just based on anedotal evidence and bitterness) and with the target at the higher levels, as part of an overall plan that also meant that the rich, wealthy, tax shelters, tax avoidance were also tackled along with other job creation and training initiatives. I would have a problem if it's a basic scapgoating that's going on now.
I think further salary reductions are both justified and required on the basis that the Govt doesn't have the income to afford them and thus will have to borrow at an unsustainable level to continue there payment. You are correct that tax shelters etc need to be closed off.
Can you suggest and supply figures as to what savings can be made from specific tax shelters being closed. Like it or not the cost of public sector salaries , provison of services and social welfare payments form the bulk of Govt. spending and that's why the IMF has recomended major cuts in spending in those areas and that has nothing to do with bitterness or scapegoating but has lots to do with the reality that we simply don't have the money
Any chance of taking off the bloody bold of every post and using multi quote?
No it's not a de facto pay cut e.g. if you have to pay a gross €100 per month pension levy and are a 41% taxpayer , your net cost (excluding a further reduction in prsi) is €59
Yeah, hands up. Must be over worked, or in need of yet another tea break. However it is still a pay cut, which most people I know in the private sector haven't had to take.
I think further salary reductions are both justified and required on the basis that the Govt doesn't have the income to afford them and thus will have to borrow at an unsustainable level to continue there payment. You are correct that tax shelters etc need to be closed off.
I'm saying they would only be accepted as part of an overall package of measures. You'd have less income tax and less consumption taxes as a result of further cuts to the level you are talking about, and further defaults on mortgages which will obviously help the Government borrowing requirement.
Can you suggest and supply figures as to what savings can be made from specific tax shelters being closed. Like it or not the cost of public sector salaries , provison of services and social welfare payments form the bulk of Govt. spending and that's why the IMF has recomended major cuts in spending in those areas and that has nothing to do with bitterness or scapegoating but has lots to do with the reality that we simply don't have the money[/B]
What the fook else would be the bulk of Government spending bar the provision of services (which is what public sector wages go towards providing) and social welfare?
You'd swear the IMF is some unbias organisation without vested interest. It's not exactly going to come in and say we need to increase corporation tax or force profiteering companies to reduce prices or recommend we take competition out of the utilities so we can go back to having one of the lowest energy prices in europe as opposed to one of the highest, or that we should close off the health insurance market to go back to old levels, is it? It's more than fecking pay, whether private or public sector, that has us uncompetitive.
Calcio Jack
02/07/2009, 2:11 PM
Any chance of taking off the bloody bold of every post and using multi quote?
Yeah, hands up. Must be over worked, or in need of yet another tea break. However it is still a pay cut, which most people I know in the private sector haven't had to take.
This is a stupid response and totally unrelated to the subject matter, which was the fact that the net cost of a pension is lower than the gross cost , yet public Servants never seem to acknowlege that and thus by quoting the gross cost try to pretent the real cost is higher than it is.
I'm saying they would only be accepted as part of an overall package of measures. You'd have less income tax and less consumption taxes as a result of further cuts to the level you are talking about, and further defaults on mortgages which will obviously help the Government borrowing requirement.
I know and accept that, my point is that if we don't curtail the cost of PS salaries we'll find soon thatthe country will be bankrupt which will lead to even less consumption and thus a longer than necessary recovery period.
What the fook else would be the bulk of Government spending bar the provision of services (which is what public sector wages go towards providing) and social welfare?
Agreed, but let me spell it out again a huge proportion of Govt spending is on salaries, thus we need to cut the salaries and increase productivity thereby enabling vital services to continue... or would you have us lose services but continue to pay public services salaries
You'd swear the IMF is some unbias organisation without vested interest. It's not exactly going to come in and say we need to increase corporation tax or force profiteering companies to reduce prices or recommend we take
competition out of the utilities so we can go back to having one of the lowest energy prices in europe as opposed to one of the highest, or that we should close off the health insurance market to go back to old levels, is it? It's more than fecking pay, whether private or public sector, that has us uncompetitive.
I think your views on the IMF are wrong however that is immaterial to the fact that if we don't get our public spending under control we'll have no choice but to seek help from the IMF who will instruct /dictate that we cut Public Service salaries by much more than 20% in addition to job cuts and service reductions.
I'm not saying that the cause of our present difficulty is solely down to rates of pay and agree there are many other issues that need to be tackled...however in the short term the quickest and most major contributor to commence the stabalising of our finances is the reduction in salaries etc.that I've mentioned and like it or not that is the awful reality of what we face, if you can suggest a better way then share it with us , An Bord Snip, Brian Lenihan and the IMF... but as things stand none of those eminent bodies have any better suggestions that the ones I've made no doubt you'll be able to astound them them with your mixture of gubu thoughts and fuzzy logic, looking forward to being amazed and saved.
OneRedArmy
03/07/2009, 10:06 AM
IMPACTs position is extremely hypocritical. They have been complaining for ages about Government not engaging constructively and now they have done exactly the same.
Mobilising for action before the detail of the report is published is a clear statement that they won't accept anything less than they have at the minute. Obviously this is their right, but I wonder will we get into a situation down the line where involuntary redundancies come as a result of union obstinence (as has happened in a number of cases in the private sector). It's funny how union membership is portrayed as the strength of the collective, when increasingly demands end up with some people benefiting at the cost of others ending up on the dole.
I can't be arsed cleaning up yet another of your posts for reply as you're not able to quote it properly...
1) I held up my hands that I made a mistake on the bottom line, but it still does equate to a pay cut (of over 4% iirc) on wages, and off the wage bill (even the IMF state it as a 7.5% reduction btw).
2) We'll be bankrupt if we slash and burn to that degree to balance the books. About the only thing they have right is to not to try and correct in one year
3) I repeat again, pay has been cut, and you can cut the pay bill without slashing individual wages.
I think your views on the IMF are wrong however that is immaterial to the fact that if we don't get our public spending under control we'll have no choice but to seek help from the IMF who will instruct /dictate that we cut Public Service salaries by much more than 20% in addition to job cuts and service reductions.
They're not my views, there based on the IMF track record. Move state assests into private control in return for money. It'll be the ECB we'd be relying on anyway.
I'm not saying that the cause of our present difficulty is solely down to rates of pay and agree there are many other issues that need to be tackled...however in the short term the quickest and most major contributor to commence the stabalising of our finances is the reduction in salaries etc.
It's not as it'll make the situation worse. The best way is to stimulate growth. The biggest competitive factors aren't wages, or public sector spending, it's our lack of infrastructure and our non wage costs that have been driven up in the last number of years because of ideologically driven competition philosophy (supposedly to lower prices).
An Bord Snip, Brian Lenihan and the IMF... but as things stand none of those eminent bodies have any better suggestions that the ones I've made no doubt you'll be able to astound them them with your mixture of gubu thoughts and fuzzy logic, looking forward to being amazed and saved.
Until An Bord Snip Nua/ Lenihan publish their ideas how the fook do I know whether I agree with them or not? I've pointed out that you slashing of wages will exacerbate the situation. The IMF didn't suggest across the board cuts, just a reduction in the overall wage bill, and definitely didn't suggest 20% of wages.
Mobilising for action before the detail of the report is published is a clear statement that they won't accept anything less than they have at the minute. Obviously this is their right, but I wonder will we get into a situation down the line where involuntary redundancies come as a result of union obstinence (as has happened in a number of cases in the private sector).
It does seem premature, but then I don't know whats been going on in the places they have members. I know in our place, there are major movements of staff to priority areas, with Union agreement/ negotiation - however, managers are still taking solo runs causing problems.
Until we see the plans, and the union response we're only guessing how it'll play out.
It's funny how union membership is portrayed as the strength of the collective, when increasingly demands end up with some people benefiting at the cost of others ending up on the dole.
You have to be careful taking things as portrayed in the media at face value. There's been a few examples recently where you have to look a bit deeper and genuinely get both sides of the story.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0716/economy1.html
Full report available there
savings of 5.3 billion and 17,300 jobs to go
Interestingly they spoke about public service pay, despite that not being part of their remit
Let the games begin...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.