Any bets on the size of Public Sector pay cuts?

[Kevin Doyle]

The argument against payroll cuts is over.

Just to mark your card, the arguement is far from over.

[pfkf]

There will be very few cuts, possibly 2.5% max, FF don't want any major cuts before June, and if they risk it before Lisbon in Sep/Oct next year it could lead to an anti-govt sentiment.

The cuts that are needed are far more than 2.5%, but FF wont do it.

[smitchy2]

Just to mark your card, the arguement is far from over.

I am sure of that and that is what the unions are paid to do.
Any compromises will result in more borrowing for wages.

Fact is that payroll costs €18bn per year out of a total spend of €48bn or 37.5%.
Taxes that fund this have dropped to €40bn (going south).

As a rough estimate to get expenditure down to €40bn there would need to be a reduction of 17%. This would very roughly translate into payroll costs dropping to €15bn. I would say this would be a long term aim of the government but unfortunately such a decrease is needed this year to stay on our feet.
The reduction in payroll expense will come in the form of redundancies in QUANGOS/HSE, a massive reduction of overtime and perhaps better work practices and efficiencies- to be determined by An bord snip.

The public sector is largely reliant on the private sector to fund it’s operations.
As many private industries have gone to sh’t completely- there will be obvious cuts in the public service.

I would forecast what is needed is 15% but what will happen is 5-10% cut in total payroll by the end of 2009.

[Kevin Doyle]

I am sure of that and that is what the unions are paid to do.
Any compromises will result in more borrowing for wages.

Fact is that payroll costs €18bn per year out of a total spend of €48bn or 37.5%.
Taxes that fund this have dropped to €40bn (going south).

As a rough estimate to get expenditure down to €40bn there would need to be a reduction of 17%. This would very roughly translate into payroll costs dropping to €15bn. I would say this would be a long term aim of the government but unfortunately such a decrease is needed this year to stay on our feet.
The reduction in payroll expense will come in the form of redundancies in QUANGOS/HSE, a massive reduction of overtime and perhaps better work practices and efficiencies- to be determined by An bord snip.

The public sector is largely reliant on the private sector to fund it’s operations.
As many private industries have gone to sh’t completely- there will be obvious cuts in the public service.

I would forecast what is needed is 15% but what will happen is 5-10% cut in total payroll by the end of 2009.

The issue is value for money.

Many on FTCs will be dropped, VERs offered on a time served basis, all OT and most expenses scrapped and all departments will shed 5% from their operating budgets across the board. What everyone seems to be confused about is that operational budgets can be cut significantly if their is scope to alter work practices (not terms and conditions), most seem to equate cuts ostensibly with pay roll cuts and job losses.

The former will happen the later will be severely limited.

[kerrynorth]

I would expect a gradation of cuts of between 5-10% with an exemption for those on a cut off point of somewhere between €30-40k pa. I would expect the highest level of cuts to kick in at the Assistant Principal (and equivalent across the public sector) level. The AP level is the salary scale that TD's are pegged to and by relativities also Senators and Cllrs.

[bobbysands81]

In real terms there are currently reductions of probably just under 10% already in place for Civil Servants.

There will be no cuts to pay rates for serving Civil Servants without consent as to reduce wages without consent is illegal.

[smitchy2]

The issue is value for money.

Many on FTCs will be dropped, VERs offered on a time served basis, all OT and most expenses scrapped and all departments will shed 5% from their operating budgets across the board. What everyone seems to be confused about is that operational budgets can be cut significantly if their is scope to alter work practices (not terms and conditions), most seem to equate cuts ostensibly with pay roll cuts and job losses.

The former will happen the later will be severely limited.

You are probably right in your assessment.
There is an €8bn hole (increasing substantially next year) and it needs to be filled.
The easier for management and unions will be to cut out a lot of their operational budgets- I suspect that there is efficiencies to be found here but with payroll being such a substantial part of expenditure it is bound to come under scrutiny.

If there is a 2.5% reduction in pay this saves €450m (next year??)
Job losses from people let go on FTC’s and other redundancies will have to save a further €1bn minimum after that which will be very harsh on many, with the cuts in budgets saving another €2bn. Rough figures again.

[Big Bobo]

I am sure of that and that is what the unions are paid to do.
Any compromises will result in more borrowing for wages.

Fact is that payroll costs €18bn per year out of a total spend of €48bn or 37.5%.
Taxes that fund this have dropped to €40bn (going south).

As a rough estimate to get expenditure down to €40bn there would need to be a reduction of 17%. This would very roughly translate into payroll costs dropping to €15bn. I would say this would be a long term aim of the government but unfortunately such a decrease is needed this year to stay on our feet.
The reduction in payroll expense will come in the form of redundancies in QUANGOS/HSE, a massive reduction of overtime and perhaps better work practices and efficiencies- to be determined by An bord snip.

The public sector is largely reliant on the private sector to fund it’s operations.
As many private industries have gone to sh’t completely- there will be obvious cuts in the public service.

I would forecast what is needed is 15% but what will happen is 5-10% cut in total payroll by the end of 2009.

That's where you are completely naive. The public sector is not reliant on the the private sector. Quite the opposite in fact. Private property could not exist with out the state. Do you think the rich and petit bourgeoise can hold onto their businesses without the guards and army for example? Only with the consent of the state can they exist. You also have to remember that under capitalism the public sector is forbidden from entering profitable production of goods and services. According to your minimal logic a private sector doctor pays for a doctor in the public sector. Also public sector workers are much more important to the functioning of society. Doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers etc are essential workers. Somehow the same cannot be said of marketing firms and insurance salesmen. Huge amounts of the employment in the private sector is completely worthless and is only employment for one individual's gain.

[Kevin Doyle]

In real terms there are currently reductions of probably just under 10% already in place for Civil Servants.

There will be no cuts to pay rates for serving Civil Servants without consent as to reduce wages without consent is illegal.

This is also true. The proposed cuts from Government will of course be subject to acceptance by the Unions and their membership. Not even the mighty IMF can get around that constitutional safeguard.

The Government maybe forced into a referendum.

[kerrynorth]

This is also true. The proposed cuts from Government will of course be subject to acceptance by the Unions and their membership. Not even the mighty IMF can get around that constitutional safeguard.

The Government maybe forced into a referendum.

WTF are you blathering about. The government can of course impose pay cuts if it so wishes, but the workers can also withdraw their labour if they so choose. There is no legal/constitutional impediment to paycuts. Get a grip FFS.