Davy Stockbroker salary cuts: an example 2the civil service?

[Respvblica]

[quote=meriwether][quote=Leftfemme22]

The facts have simply collided with your delusions.

Most private sector workers are employed in small firms.

You clearly haven't a clue about the private sector.

I should attribute the 1 million workers without a pension to Minister Mary Hanafin. just in case that collides with your misinformation.

No you attribute the 1 million workers without a pension to their employers, they set the terms of their employment, not the Government.

I think your desire to attack FF has collided with reality.

So we move on from the Land of Narnia to whose responsible for the poorer conditions in the private sector.

The most recent update on private sector pensions had come from Hanafin - thus the term "attribute." Given that you bizarrely assumed that I was blaming the minister, it may be more 'productive' for you to focus on your job rather than confusing yourself further.

Yeah yeah, you're a tosser I'm a tosser.

In reality this is entire thread id irrelevant. The Government will not cut public sectors salaries nor initiate a pay freeze. It’s as simple as that despite all the obvious hysterical ranting form the sidelines by people like you.

Davy Stockbrokers didn’t cut salaries for the benefit if the economy, they did it for the benefits of its stock holders and to maintain profit. End of story. It is not an example to anyone of a sacrificial behaviour for the benefits of the wider economy.

I know - Shock horror a company doing something that is in the best interests of the owners of the company - How dare they do such an awful thing (admittedly it is owned by the staff)...Now imagine if the public sector did the same thing for its owners (the public) and not the workforce...

Thats precisely what they did.

What they didn't do was set an example to everyone that they are taking the welfare of the entire economy into consideration. They didn't do it for anyones benefit but their own. People citing it as some sort of benevolent sacrifice or taking one for the team in order to show up the Public service are being disingenuous at best and down right sneaky conniving liars at worst.

Tell me, what pay cuts are you taking? Is your job at risk? Do you fear for it on a daily/hourly basis? Considering that is the case, surely then you wouldn't have a single free minute to post on a political website?


Oh and you really need to stop thinking that you somehow own the public service or that you finance it solely through your taxes, it is jaundicing your view of it and is so ridiculously simplistic is secludes you from being taken seriously by anyone within the Public service, the very people you seem to deem yourself fit to preach to.

There has been alot of insipid banal sound bites fired off recently by those who are devoid of the facts. Those ingrained in a PR assault on the Public service or some battle for public opinion seem recklessly unaware that it is useless. Those whom you should be trying to influence are those who are doing the negotiating in Partnership. The problem here of course is they know far more about the mechanics of the Civil Service than you ever will. Your glib rhetoric means nothing to them.[/quote:3h4u5yvu]


Leftfemme, just a quicj question.

Do you get a certain number of stautory sick days per year?

Do you ever take them when you're not sick, i.e. see them as an extension of your holidays?
Now, Id be surprised if you did. But a girl who lived with me was a civil service employee. She had sick days 'left over', so she took them. And she told me everybody else did it. It was common practice in her Dept.

Have you ever come across such wasteful culture examples like this?[/quote:3h4u5yvu]
Good point Meriweather.

The people in the private sector really are second class citizens in this country. The leisure class of the super-rich and pampered state employees never have to worry about that job being there tomorrow to pay that ever increasing mortgage. The job security aspect is what makes this unfair and injust. People in the private sector are taking far more risks, are under far more pressure and yet they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the recession. Which is normal because they are the new underclass. And this new classism is what the partnership has brought. It ties in with EU-consensus social approach, which does not deem to look at citizens as individuals with needs, but as organised masses of labour.

In order to redress this inequality the civil service employees need to be put on the same footing as ordinary private sector workers. No benchmarking and their jobs should be up for grabs just like the rest of ours. Then we should downsize it. The smaller the state aparatus is, the better the rest of us can get about our business and prosper. If we all had the same security then maybe we would have seen less people opt to become landlords. We all know that one of the prime reason that many invested in the housing boom was to insure security - a security that only a lot of wealth or a public service job has.

[bobbysands81]

2. why is it laughable? in 1999 my starting salary as a clerical officer in the private sector was iep11,000. the starting salary for a clerical officer in the civil service (a friend of mine was in Dublin Corporation so could compare) was iep12,500 or so. not sure if the figures are bang on, but he got paid about 1,000 punts more than i.

Dublin Corporation is not part of the Civil Service so that's a false analogy.

It's public sector, so it is relevant.

He is factually incorrect in what he says. Dublin Corporation Clerical Officers and what they get paid is not the same as what the Civil Service Clerical Officers get paid.

There is an unbelievable amount of misinformation and lies about Civil Service pay and pensions out there (not saying that I think zakalwe is lying btw).

[Ronanr]

It is unfair to demand that all civil servants get a pay cut on the basis of what Davy Stockbrokers do.

For a start Davy Stockbrokers are a bit of a class apart. They seem to have messed up bigtime recently, and are in trouble. But Dolmen Stockbrokers, in comparison, are not planning either lay-offs or pay cuts.

And anyway, if you look industry wide, the story is different also.


In an article for the Irish Times yesterday (14th July), Peter McLoone stated that:

"The most recent available CSO figures show average public sector pay up 3.6 per cent in the year to December 2007, compared to average earnings increases of 4.1 per cent.

Average earnings rose even faster in the financial sector (6.1 per cent) and private industry (4.4 per cent)."

So even though the financial sector generally got increases of 2.5% more than the public sector generally last year, as soon as one stockbroking firm fecks up, the geniuses on this site think cutting the salaries of civil servants is the natural first step.


Davy Stockbrokers may be doing poorly this year, but it is a year in which shares have been plummeting.

What is the salary scale like for a Davy Stockbroker employee in a normal year?

I do not know, only that according to a High court case last year, one employee made about 260,000 Euros in bonuses alone in a 24 month period in the late 1990s.

So I am guessing the total remuneration is substantial.

[adamirer]

Leftfemme, just a quicj question.
Do you get a certain number of stautory sick days per year?

Do you ever take them when you're not sick, i.e. see them as an extension of your holidays?
Now, Id be surprised if you did. But a girl who lived with me was a civil service employee. She had sick days 'left over', so she took them. And she told me everybody else did it. It was common practice in her Dept.

Have you ever come across such wasteful culture examples like this?

Meri, I usually like your posts, but thats the dumbest post of the day. Just because some parasite does it and treis to justify it does not make it true. I've been a civil servant six years, I've missed 3 days due to sickness in that time. Most of my colleagues, and the staff under me, would neve rpull a stunt like that, nor would I stand for it. Ther eis no 'statutory' sick day in the sense you place it, though there are limits where if you go over a certain number of dayd you don't get an increment.

I can honestly say, in 2 depts I've worked in I have not come across one individual like that - and can only think of two instances when I felt (ie: opinion - I'm no doctor) someone was taking the piss, one after a bereavment and another milking a harassment case. Your ex-flat mate is a stain....

[adamirer]

Meri, I usually like your posts, but thats the dumbest post of the day....

I take that back. I just saw what Respvblica after you wrote. Yeah, I bought my home for 'security'(?!)- not because I wanted to move out into a home of my own. Hey Respvblica - newsflash - you can apply for the jobs in the civil service, from CO all the way up. In fact 2/9's of PO jobs are open recrutiment.. so why not try your hand and let us know how you get on...

Anyone here who thinks the civil service is that f****** great, go join it and put up with the crap we do and lets see what you think about the great wages and great pension yadda yadda.

[Dublinguy]

[quote=Leftfemme22]

The facts have simply collided with your delusions.

Most private sector workers are employed in small firms.

You clearly haven't a clue about the private sector.

I should attribute the 1 million workers without a pension to Minister Mary Hanafin. just in case that collides with your misinformation.

No you attribute the 1 million workers without a pension to their employers, they set the terms of their employment, not the Government.

I think your desire to attack FF has collided with reality.

So we move on from the Land of Narnia to whose responsible for the poorer conditions in the private sector.

The most recent update on private sector pensions had come from Hanafin - thus the term "attribute." Given that you bizarrely assumed that I was blaming the minister, it may be more 'productive' for you to focus on your job rather than confusing yourself further.

Yeah yeah, you're a tosser I'm a tosser.

In reality this is entire thread id irrelevant. The Government will not cut public sectors salaries nor initiate a pay freeze. It’s as simple as that despite all the obvious hysterical ranting form the sidelines by people like you.

Davy Stockbrokers didn’t cut salaries for the benefit if the economy, they did it for the benefits of its stock holders and to maintain profit. End of story. It is not an example to anyone of a sacrificial behaviour for the benefits of the wider economy.

I know - Shock horror a company doing something that is in the best interests of the owners of the company - How dare they do such an awful thing (admittedly it is owned by the staff)...Now imagine if the public sector did the same thing for its owners (the public) and not the workforce...

Thats precisely what they did.

What they didn't do was set an example to everyone that they are taking the welfare of the entire economy into consideration. They didn't do it for anyones benefit but their own. People citing it as some sort of benevolent sacrifice or taking one for the team in order to show up the Public service are being disingenuous at best and down right sneaky conniving liars at worst.

Tell me, what pay cuts are you taking? Is your job at risk? Do you fear for it on a daily/hourly basis? Considering that is the case, surely then you wouldn't have a single free minute to post on a political website?


Oh and you really need to stop thinking that you somehow own the public service or that you finance it solely through your taxes, it is jaundicing your view of it and is so ridiculously simplistic is secludes you from being taken seriously by anyone within the Public service, the very people you seem to deem yourself fit to preach to.

There has been alot of insipid banal sound bites fired off recently by those who are devoid of the facts. Those ingrained in a PR assault on the Public service or some battle for public opinion seem recklessly unaware that it is useless. Those whom you should be trying to influence are those who are doing the negotiating in Partnership. The problem here of course is they know far more about the mechanics of the Civil Service than you ever will. Your glib rhetoric means nothing to them.[/quote:jss1q10h]

We hear the Public Sector preach about how they should be treated to all the benefits that the private sector get when things are going well but they don't want to suffer the pain when things go poorly - Over 50k people in the private sector lost their jobs this year and how many in the public sector?????

Well I work for myself and have been already told that my current contract is not going to turn into the permanent job that was supposed to happen due to the current climate and that the bonuses in our company are liable to be down at least 50%....I know though that I have the skills/experience to get another job and I certainly won't be looking for handouts etc or expecting someone else to sort me out..

Well considering that I know an awful lot of people who work in the public sector who are also disgusted at what goes on in the public sector and the waste that takes place and they have no problems agreeing with most of my thoughts maybe you need to talk to more people....So who do you think owns the public sector??

[Conor]

Well I work for myself and have been already told that my current contract is not going to turn into the permanent job that was supposed to happen

You shouldn't have supposed that. More fool you.

and that the bonuses in our company are liable to be down at least 50%....

"Our" company? I thought you worked for yourself?

Poor ba$tards though, with their 50% bonuses. I hope the public service get less than a 50% bonus this year. That'll learn 'em.

[meriwether]

Leftfemme, just a quicj question.
Do you get a certain number of stautory sick days per year?

Do you ever take them when you're not sick, i.e. see them as an extension of your holidays?
Now, Id be surprised if you did. But a girl who lived with me was a civil service employee. She had sick days 'left over', so she took them. And she told me everybody else did it. It was common practice in her Dept.

Have you ever come across such wasteful culture examples like this?

Meri, I usually like your posts, but thats the dumbest post of the day. Just because some parasite does it and treis to justify it does not make it true. I've been a civil servant six years, I've missed 3 days due to sickness in that time. Most of my colleagues, and the staff under me, would neve rpull a stunt like that, nor would I stand for it. Ther eis no 'statutory' sick day in the sense you place it, though there are limits where if you go over a certain number of dayd you don't get an increment.

I can honestly say, in 2 depts I've worked in I have not come across one individual like that - and can only think of two instances when I felt (ie: opinion - I'm no doctor) someone was taking the piss, one after a bereavment and another milking a harassment case. Your ex-flat mate is a stain....

Whats stupid about my post?

Im afraid because she does do it, that does actually make it true.

It is true she has taken her sick days as an extension of her holidays.

It is true she doesn't have to account for them.

And whats worse, in her opinion, it is a common practice amongst her department. Her opinion is formed on the basis of her experiences at work.

It would be naive to believe this is widespread to everyone in the civil service.

But it would also be naive to think its exclusive to her department (departmnt, mind).

[Dublinguy]

Well I work for myself and have been already told that my current contract is not going to turn into the permanent job that was supposed to happen

You shouldn't have supposed that. More fool you.

and that the bonuses in our company are liable to be down at least 50%....

"Our" company? I thought you worked for yourself?

Poor ba$tards though, with their 50% bonuses. I hope the public service get less than a 50% bonus this year. That'll learn 'em.

Well at the interview the position was a contract role with a permanent role at the end of it which if we were both happy I would slip into - However with the current climate all approved permanent roles which hadn't been filled were removed so it was only due to economic circumstances that the role was removed - something that doesn't seem to really impact the public sector....

If your going to slag off someones post you should actually read it first - I said "liable to be down at least 50%" which means that it will be a minimum of 50% less than their normal bonus even if they perform as well and as they are sales force their reward scheme is designed to be more bonus based than fixed salary.

The "our company" I suppose is the company I have contracted to for the last 10 months that is why I classified it as that.

[zakalwe]

leftfemme,

everyone is getting bogged down in the detail here.

the main argument put forward by me and several others is this:

benchmarking was introduced to bring public sector pay in line with *perceived* private sector pay, on the premise that the differential between the two led to the best candidates being hired by the private sector. personally, i thought this smacked of heresay and think there was little empirical evidence to support both assumptions (1. public pay lower than private and 2. best candidates being hired by private sector) as evidenced by the secrecy around the data and the fact that the only credible (read: unbiased) contributor (jim o'leary) resigned in protest. there definately should have been a "job security" weighting or control, and pension calculation included in the calculations.

anyway, benchmarking went ahead, with supposed milestones to be attained before the payment of the awards. these milestones or productivity improvements were very vague and hard to quantify (therefore easily awarded). this was feted as to bring public sector productivity up to private standards.

roll forward about 5 years and you have the prospect of a medium term recession entailing private sector job losses, falling pay/bonuses, introduction of defined contribution pensions (due to the onorous accounting for defined benefit schemes under IFRS, which impact companies' balance sheets but do not apply to public sector/govt depts) etc.

in face of this new economic reality, the private sector employees/people, look to the public sector which was percieved to have benefitted from the boom produced by the private sector (thru benchmarking) but are immune from the recession due to job security for current employees and index linked pensions paid from revenue (disallowed in private companies) for retirees.

benchmarking cannot, in all fairness, be a one way street. if the country is going into recession then we need to lower public spending. cutting capital expenditure is shortsighted, we need to cut overheads and running costs. at minimum, a wage freeze and hiring embargo should be implemented. expenses (the most generous in the economy) should be slashed (conference calls vs get together meetings etc). most advertising should be cut. the c&ag should take the razor to all excess fat in the system (unperforming contracts, budget overruns, storage of white elephants!! etc).