What will happen when/if the PService deal is rejected?

Just for the purpose of clarification;
When I wrote; You would not be allowed to water the office plants without having a union rep pull you up over it,....I didn't mean that literally.

I didn't mean they would literally haul you over the plant!

I meant,pull you up over it in terms of ,taking you aside and mentioning that you should not be doing this as it was not your job.

As some posters seem to think things like this do not happen,I felt perhaps they were thinking of the wrong meaning..
 

I knew that any reasonable person would be able to see my point about pointless analogies

Could you post the details regarding the redundancy packages available to the Public Sector , I am not aware of such packages !

Again I can only reiterate that Waterford Glass as constituted under the previous appalling management never had a chance of succeeding , the fact that the remaining workers lost their pension is nothing to do with the Unions , hopefully the Union's court case will go some way towards redressing the position.

It is a consolation that vast members of the workforce retired with large pensions and as I said unparralled redundancy packages.
 

Interesting question. Our cop-out government has made sure that the single largest item of expenditure in the state (PS pay) will not be tapped again. Their 'savings through efficiencies' trade-off will go the way of all previous attempts at PS reform - precisely nowhere. The unions who have signed up to this clause will now bend their considerable energies to ensuring that nothing changes.
Many of the PS unions and their members must (secretly) see this deal as an unbelievable victory given the current economic climate - essentially, they have ensured that the private sector will continue to carry the cost of an absolutely unsustainable PS. Whilst many PS employees will for now, continue to enjoy guaranteed tenure, luxury pensions and high earnings - it is abundantly clear that their victory in this battle is almost certainly a Pyrrhic one. As the government has now few options left to cut spending and increase revenue - it will increase direct/indirect taxes and slash capital expenditure. This of course will further weaken the economy - and will very likely trigger economic collapse. What then for the PS? Almost certainly, it will undergo a rapid, bloody, and very painful down-sizing, in numbers and earnings, at the behest of the IMF.
Fantasy? Look at Greece - committed (at IMF insistence) to €30 billion in spending cuts, and even this staggering amount is unlikely to be enough to turn their economy around. So, to all the PS unions and their apologist, I say, well done, you, the bankers, the developers and our weak-kneed government have truly knackered this country - and thats no mean achievement...
 

The availability of DBPS early retirement with pension,is virtually unknown in the private sector,average private sector worker couldn't afford nor access early retirement with pension on this scale.
The norm in the PS is an absolute rarity in the private sector,the vast majority of payouts in the private sector,are cash only with many paying only statutory.

Read below for unparalleled!

As requested,
Extract from ;Report of the Special Group on Public
Service Numbers and Expenditure
Programmes

Public servants are generally entitled to retire on a full Defined Benefit pension (calculated at half of the average annual salary over the final three years of service), after 40 years’ service, together with a lump sum of up to one-and-a-half times the final salary. Employees may retire after reaching the age of 60 (the compulsory retirement age is 65), with pro rata reductions for those with fewer than 40 years’ service, although those retiring between the ages of 50 and 60 incur an ‘actuarial reduction’ to reflect the longer retirement period. ](The key benefit of the recently-introduced Incentivised Scheme for Early Retirement is that it eliminates the actuarial reduction for this age group.) After retirement, it has been the practice to index pension rates in line with earnings, which carries a very high actuarial cost and is not generally available in the private sector.
In addition to the basic public service pension system, the Group notes the existence of a range of accelerated / ‘added years’ arrangements across various areas of the public service. These accelerated arrangements are more costly to the Exchequer, and their existence and budgetary implications do not appear to be widely known or appreciated by the general public. For example, Gardaí are free to retire on full pension at the age of 50 (an effective 10 years’ added service on the assumption of an entry age of 20); some engineers, who might enter the public service at the age of
35, would accrue full pension entitlements at age 65 (again an effective 10 added years); teachers with 35 years service are eligible to retire from age 55 on; some hospital consultants may be entitled to up to 10 added years of service; and a High Court judge, who might typically be appointed to the bench at 50 years of age, is entitled to full pension at age 65 (an effective 25 added years). Accelerated accrual terms also apply in certain top-level public sector posts although it must be said similar pension arrangements at these levels can apply in the private sector.
Given the above arrangements, the Group observes that the annual cost of purchasing similar pension arrangements (including the earnings-linking of pension benefits) in the private sector would be very high indeed: ranging from around 27% of annual salary in the case of a typical civil servant employed prior to 2004 to 31% for a teacher entitled to retire at age 55; 33% for a hospital consultant; 48% in the case of a Garda member; and as high as 87% of annual salary in the case of a High Court judge. The cost of providing similar benefits in a Defined Contribution arrangement, which is more generally applicable in the private sector, would be significantly higher in all cases."end extract.
 
Last edited:
We were debating the relative merits of the Waterford Glass redundancy package with similar packages you said were available in the PS.

What you have detailed is the incentivised early retirement package , a horse of a very different colour !
 
Slightly off track, but something that has always bothered me, is how all 'Front-line' staff (nurses, teachers etc.) can cry about paycuts affecting the quality of patient care or whatever, yet when the chequebook comes out, these problems are no more.

So, higher pay equals better care. Or conversely, cut my pay and the patients get less care ? This from a caring profession ? Hhmmm. Everybody's got their price, huh ?

Anyway, carry on you lot.
 
To ad to Pique's post, why is it that only "front line" staff deserve to be well paid and how come none of them are ever lazy or selfish?
 
Complainer said:
Whoever said that the 'problems are no more'?
Click to expand...

That's true, nurses went on strike to get a bigger slice of the health budget and within a few weeks of getting it they were picketing A&E departments protesting about lack of resources. Nothing highlighted their hypocrisy more.
 
thedaras said:
Those who read my post,can draw their own conclusions..
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

However you specifically referenced PS redunancy packages in your post and then posted detailed info on the incentivised retirement scheme.

There is a world of difference as redundancy packages are open to all whereas the early retirement scheme targets a specific age profile.

I do agree that the incentivised early retirement scheme is a good one as it suits both employer and employee indeed I myself availed of such a scheme in the Private Sector
 
DonDub said:
So, to all the PS unions and their apologist, I say, well done, you, the bankers, the developers and our weak-kneed government have truly knackered this country - and thats no mean achievement...
Click to expand...

Just to be clear on this, over the last 18 months the PS has had a hiring freeze, let go all of its temporary staff, reduced pay by an average of 5%, cancelled agreed pay rises and upped the employee pension contributions by 7%. The range of measure agreed in the CP deal, if put through, will further improve the PS efficiency and reduce costs.

It is also not true to state that past reforms of the PS have come to nothing, although I agree that they have not all being implemented. I invited posters here to start a thread on previous reforms and I’d attempt to verify which ones had been left undone providing the need was still relevant. No takers from that one but then again the type of people who make idiotic allegations wouldn’t do any basic research when they can just read the Sunday Independent or listen dot the Newstalks Breakfast show to get their anti-PS invective delivered straight to their noggin.

The PS and their Unions no more knackered this country than the Private sector and their unions.

In voting for the CP deal I’ll be accepting further reform and drawing a line under pay disputes, but don’t think for one minute that there won’t be more pay cuts and or voluntary redundancies from the PS. The Public Sector pay bill is the well to draw from if tax increases are not enough by themselves.

It’s a shame that 2 years after the global credit crisis began, the Public Service worker is still being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy. And its worse still when people who should know better pop up like a nodding dog to add their support to such nonsense.

M
 
Where do you hear /read that the PS is being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy?

I have to say, I have never seen a post or read anywhere that the PS were to blame for bringing down the Irish economy..We are not stupid,,most of the posters ,perhaps all the posters,here are very well aware of what brought the Irish economy down!
However that is a different discussion which I'm more than happy to get involved in ,should you decide to start a thread about it.

Private sector still carry the cost of PS pensions.

PS pay is the single biggest outlay for the exchequer.

The general view is that it is too expensive.And we can no longer afford it.
 
It may certainly be your view that PS outlay is too expensive and that we can no longer afford it.

It certainly is not the Government's view as they seem happy to apply a wage freeze for 4 years and take the question of pension reform off the table for the same period.

Indeed there is also the carrot of reversing wage cuts via efficiencies.
 

I think it’s more a case that it’s the government accept that while it is too expensive they can’t do anything more about it.
 

At last, some badly needed perspective.

By the way, net pay is down in the Public Sector is down 20% relative to 18 months ago. For those advocating further cuts, how much is enough?

Realistically, my employer can't afford to pay me at all. Should I be happy to work for food vouchers?
 

At last, some badly needed acknowledgement.
 
You said it, " Realistically,my employer cant afford to pay me at all".

If that were the situation in the private sector,you would be on the dole.
 
Last edited:

There is some good comments in this post until you get to the last point. The Public Sector is not being blamed for bringing down the Irish economy, the Irish economy just doesn't have the money to keep paying you at the rates we were. It's as simple as that.

I'm in the private sector and myself and everyone of my remaining colleagues have taken paycuts because our employer couldn't afford the wagebill. They weren't blaming us for revenue being down, they just couldn't afford the bill, hence why we've reduced headcount by 25% in 20 months and taken cuts of 5%-15% as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register