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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

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.

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.

You're babbling now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

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"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

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/NewsManage...016_insert.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I don't think I said anything about about substancial increases. maybe mixing me up with different poster?

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

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

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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:

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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:

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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.

[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]

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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