An Bord Snip Nua

[Macy]

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?

[pete]

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

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.

[Calcio Jack]

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 ?

[Macy]

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]

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

[Macy]

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]

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]

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.

[Macy]

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.

[Dodge]

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...

[micls]

They want to reduce special needs assistants even more? There's already a cull ongoing.

You can't decide that all kids should be integrated and then leave them to drown in a normal classroom...

[passinginterest]

I'd say the 20% cut in children's allowance and 5% in social welfare will cause some controversy. A lot of very vauge pie in the sky talk through the whole document, no genuine suggestions as to how the cut in public service numbers will be achieved. Lots of suggestions about merging agencies which logistically will prove to be a nightmare and will probably take years to implement, the realtionships between some of those they want to bring together would be fairly vauge too.

Some suggestions about restructuring of pensions and ousourcing of payroll and corporate services, such as IT. I missed the bit about the pay cut as I was reading through, apparently they've suggested 10%.

My initial reaction to it all was it could be worse.

[Macy]

They called for reverse benchmarking rather than any salary cut, and referenced the higher renumeration body. I don't have a problem with that as I said earlier in this thread against slash and burn nonsense. My main issue would be the suggestion of benchmarking against other countries - only if they also take into account cost of living in those countries too and other benefits such as childcare, truly free education etc that most developed countries enjoy.

They said staff reductions could be achieved through natural wastage and the existing schemes. The career breaks could get more if they reopen it - it didn't really give people much time to apply by the time the circulars had gone out, particularly in the wider public service.

[Angus]

Some excellent posts here but let's get a few things straight

There are many in the public service who operate effectively and skilfully and professionally, for reasonable salaries

There are many however who, through no fault of their own, have a job of no value or a job manufactured for them because of de fact redundancy

There is a staggering degree of waste - read the FAS report or any C+AG report

There is a "sanction free" environment - there is no penalty for screwing up, except for cosmetic shifting about titles and jobs and departments

The public service as a body is a mess, overstaffed, abysmally managed, chronically inefficient, notwithstanding the talents and professionalism of many people

This is the fault of the cosy cartel between successive governments, unions and "social partners". Hiring unqualified people into the PS has been an unemployment management measure for years

This report will hurt many decent professional people but I am sorry to say that is a necessary price to pay for the chaotic environment in which this monster operates.

Classically on the same day (and of course this is deliberate !!) that we have IMPACT and SIPTU talking up the abilities of the HSE, we see the Leas Cross report which talks about criminal negligence in Leas Cross and spectacular negligence in terms of oversight of key functions.

Now on the flip side, let's also drop the private sector pretence. yes many people have lost their jobs but equally many firms contain crap staff and crap managers. It is clearly easier to get fired in the private sector but still comparatively difficult.

Unfortunately the public service has a duty to spend the publics money effectively and are supposed to operate to a higher standard - it is precisely for that reason that they get better pensions, longer holidays and enjoy employment protection

[Macy]

There is a staggering degree of waste - read the FAS report or any C+AG report

There is a "sanction free" environment - there is no penalty for screwing up, except for cosmetic shifting about titles and jobs and departments

You can basically tie it down to a few, politically well connected managers as what happened in FAS, and the lack of proper penalty. If it was ordinary workers they would've been long gone - because contrary to the misconception it isn't a sanction free environment.

This is the fault of the cosy cartel between successive governments, unions and "social partners".

It's the fault of Government. Shifting the blame to the "social partners" is just an FF tactic, that too many have brought into. There are agreed procedures for making changes, that would ultimately lead into the Labour Court. If they haven't bothered their hole to propose changes how is that the fault of the unions/ workers?

Hiring unqualified people into the PS has been an unemployment management measure for years

At what level and what jobs and in what employments? That really wouldn't be my experience at all.

[reder]

At what level and what jobs and in what employments? That really wouldn't be my experience at all.

At all levels of all the sectors I have ever dealt with. Also, those who I know personally who work or have worked in the sector have commented on this. It is staggering to hear some of the goings-on in public sector bodies. One friend of mine worked in the public sector for a few months between finishing university and travelling for a year and did nothing, literally. He filled out a few in-house surveys and spent the rest of his time twiddling his thumbs. He got the job via a family member also but nepotism is not confined to the public sector. It is rife through all sectors in this country.

However, I do think people are being overly unfair towards public sector staff. For me, there is an equal level of ineptitude in the private sector. Personally, I have encountered countless people, some in positions of serious responsibility, who, in my opinion, were completely out of their depth and obtained their position as a result of loyalty as opposed to ability.

[Mr A]

Good post Angus, but like Macy says I wouldn't agree with the bit about hiring unqualified people into the public service as policy.

I work in the private sector and listen to incessant attacks on the public sector- but in my experience the many people I know working in the latter work very hard and are anything if overpaid. It also true to say that the vast majority of the utterly useless plonkers I've come across have been in the private sector.

[passinginterest]

As Mr A and Macy have pointed out it's an excellent post Angus but not without it's flaws. There's certainly a high degree of wastage and mis-management in the wider public service, and a chronically poor use of resources in places. A lot of improvements have been made in recent years, with more and more performance management checks being introduced, the PAS has also helped to remove the nepotism and rewarding of ineptitude that was prominent in the past.
Procedures to deal with underperformance and dismissal have also been developed, certainly within the Civil Service, and maybe more in some Departments than others, a number of staff have been dismissed from my Department in the last six months and while it is a long process that has to be followed to the letter it is used and it is effective.

[Macy]

At all levels of all the sectors I have ever dealt with. Also, those who I know personally who work or have worked in the sector have commented on this. It is staggering to hear some of the goings-on in public sector bodies. One friend of mine worked in the public sector for a few months between finishing university and travelling for a year and did nothing, literally. He filled out a few in-house surveys and spent the rest of his time twiddling his thumbs. He got the job via a family member also but nepotism is not confined to the public sector. It is rife through all sectors in this country.

As you said yourself, what you describe is nepotism, not a policy to manipulate the unemployment figures by hiring unqualified people, which is what Angus claimed.

while it is a long process that has to be followed to the letter it is used and it is effective.

There are so many checks and balances to ensure that there isn't political intereference and political sackings. Whilst there is political interference in appointments (certainly in the wider public sector), I know of direct examples of Ministers exerting enormous pressure on individuals who wouldn't break procedures for the benefit of their cronies. I've no doubt with a straight hire and fire policy they would've been gone for doing their job properly. It's a long process not because of the unions (as is portrayed), but because our politicians can't be trusted, and so that the integrety of the public service is upheld.