ICTUs 'Get Up, Stand Up campaign'
- Thread starter DerKaiser
- Start date
- Status
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
You need to get out more. More than 3000 staff have gone from the local authorities alone (http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-new...r-3000-council-staff-let-go-during-recession/), that without even looking at the big employers in health and education. I wonder if perhaps teachers are classified as 'private', because their direct employer is not the state in many cases. I'd guess that agency nurses and other medical staff would also be classified as private.Ahem... http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018290.shtml
You wanna explain how 2700 can be classified as 'many' compared to 209000 ?
Considering contract staff are constantly 'hoping' their contracts will be extended, rather than 'expecting' that, it's hard to see how they can be considered casualties of the Public Sector layoffs, as no redundancy pay will be paid. Temp staff the same.
But sure Public sector staff have 'shared the pain' I suppose, Complainer ?
S
S.L.F
Guest
Hi aj, I have read your post again and see where you are coming from, the public sector would include the public service, civil service and the semi-states.
I think the ones that should have been included in the ERSI report should have been the ones paid by the dept of finance.
Fixed that for you
Public sector employees include the semi-state bodies who have not been hit with the pension levy.
The pension levy has nothing to do with the pension, it is not put into the pension fund so it does not cover the cost of the pensions.
What's your point about 40 years?
Will the lump sum and total retirement income of someone who works for 30 years not be 75% that of someone who works 40 years?
S
S.L.F
Guest
Not being PS myself I don't know but I do know the pension will not be 75% it is far less maybe 66%.
Please elaborate.
I thought that 3/80 of salary is accrued as a lump sum benefit for each year of service with 1/80th accrued as a retirement pension for each year of service. That would seem pro-rata to me
Z
z101
Guest
I thought they actually have made a mess of this. If it were after the budget there would no doubt be other groups who will be agrieved about issues that effected them, to partner up with and pump the numbers for protest. They have made a judgement on this and believe they have enough public support. This is a mistake as the public is turning against them. The tactic seems to try to get a deal before the budget. This may work if lenihan bottles it.
I got that union leaflet also. I thought it was a take away menu. Some very selective facts on there with far more important ones left out. Saving Ireland is clearly not high on their agenda.
Temporary staff.
By definition their jobs were never secure anyway. That there was a culture of treating them or regarding them as secure is different matter.
Yes, it's like hiring a plumber to fix your jacks and then saying he had lost his job when it was fixed.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Indeed, they were temporary staff. But isn't it strange how there wasn't the same mad rush to clarify how many of the extra private sector people on the register were permanent or temporary? Usual double-standards that one expects here on AAM I suppose.
So when evidence of other reports are put forward they're rejected immediately because they don't suit your argument? The IBEC quarterly reports surveys their members from all sectors and it is simply looking at many areas of their business. There's no disputing the facts that employers have had to cut costs, the difference is that it shows in what areas.
Seriously, at least have the common courtesy to read and look at the report before dismissing it out of hand. You don't do your arguments any favours being so immediately judgemental.
And it doesn't matter how good the CSO's statisticians are if the questions they're asking are the wrong ones. Like the simple question have you reduced pay. The difference in other reports like the IBEC one is they go deeper than just basic pay and show where other cost cuts have had to take place.
So how does that give a comparisson of Public sector pay to Private which was the remit of the report?
Their method wasn't perfect, but then they say that in the report. It's reasonable because it is a recognised model of comparisson. To start picking up on this issue of a the gardai and a security company is irrelevant to the whole report. The other jobs used seem comparable to me. And to dismiss it on this one fractional issue means you also dismiss their conclusions on how a certain percentage of better wages in the PS is justified due to experience, knowledge and qualifications? Or again do we just cherrypick the ones that suit our argument?
Only because I don't know - but it is a fact that the 3000 you refer to were temporary.
Maybe you know what proportion of the private sector lay offs were temporary staff?
In practice, temporary/permanent have tend to have quite different status in private as opposed to public. Unless they are hired specifically to meet seasonal demands etc it is unusual for staff in the private sector to remain 'temporary' indefinitely but not so in the public sector.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
IBEC clearly have a vested interest in producing a view that suits their purposes. To suggest that it carries more weight than an independent report produced by a statutory body is foolish.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Not unusual at all in my experience, where many private sector (and some public sector) employers use fixed term contracts to evade their responsibilities to staff that are effectively full time staff. This approach has been facilitated by the wave of outsourcing, often used simply as a device to distance employees rather than a genuine development to allow a business to focus on its core objectives.
This is the same CSO who also point out the huge gap between public and private sector pay?
So what are we arguing about
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Fixed that for ya there.
So that changes the argument? So let me get this straight. Every report that shows that public sector workers earn a premium over their private sector counterparts is flawed.
So the CSO is wrong as well then.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
The CSO report itself is not flawed, just as the ESRI report itself is not flawed. They both do indeed show that on average, public sector staff are paid more than private sector staff.
On average, aeroplanes cost more than bicycles. On average, a flight to America costs more than a flight to Kerry. On average, a television costs more than a chocolate bar.
Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.
So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.
The point was there are other reports out there showing the true picture for the private sector. The CSO report has limitations in the data it asks for. On the basis of what the CSO don't ask, then yes for that area the IBEC reports do have more weight because:
1. It addresses a huge gap in the CSO survey
2. It is Quarterly and more up-to-date
3. Its responses are from CFO/CEOs giving precise payroll and other information affecting their organisations.
Your suggestion (again without any actual look at or reading of the report) that the data is irrelevant and possibly even biased/inaccurate just because it has come from IBEC's members.
It is not foolish to point out the CSO survey is limited to certain areas and that this report expands on where the CSO remit is limited. For you this might be too huge a leap, especially when you haven't read the reports, however, it is a quarterly report that does have credence.
- Status