Civil servants given leave to cash cheques- even though paid automatically !

[Kevin Doyle]

Not in the same sense as those paid by the private sector

Oh right, its all in our imagination is it?

[bobbysands81]

Not in the same sense as those paid by the private sector

You're actually right.

As a Civil Servant I pay a higher % of my wages in mandatory payments to the Govt than any single person in the private sector.

[DCon]

You're actually right.

As a Civil Servant I pay a higher % of my wages in mandatory payments to the Govt than every single person in the private sector.

Paying towards your own pension should not be seen as a punishment Bobby

[DCon]

Oh right, its all in our imagination is it?

Look, if I have 10 quid and I pay you 5 quid to do a job and then tax you 50% of it, I have 7.50 and you have 2.50. I paid you, then I took some of MY money back in taxes

If somebody else pays somebody 5 quid to do the job, and I tax him 50% of it, I have 12.50 and he has 2.50. Somebody else paid him, and I took some of his taxes

Replace "I" with the government, "you" with the Public service, and "somebody else" with the private sector.

Can you people understand this?

[bobbysands81]

Paying towards your own pension should not be seen as a punishment Bobby

Oh so now you admit we do pay tax?

A large % of the Civil Service won't see a penny for the contributions they make to their pension - that is a punishment.

[Proposition Joe]

Where is that happening? COs calling to be paid the same as Gardai?

Fourteen women employed as civilian clerical officers in Garda stations have brought a test High Court action alleging gender discrimination because they are being paid less than gardaí doing the same work.

You're having a laugh aren't you, Are you sure its not a Clerical grade within the Gardai?

I referred to them as "civilian clerical officers", which is exactly what they are.

[DCon]

Oh so now you admit we do pay tax?

A large % of the Civil Service won't see a penny for the contributions they make to their pension - that is a punishment.

If that is the case, then the ones who will see pennies should pay more and the ones who will see nothing should pay nothing.

[garlandgreen]

That's not an equality argument.

Rather its a what-we-have-we-hold argument.

For illustration, here's how an equality argument might play out: 70% of the civil service joiners since 2003 are women. But a majority of the pre-2003 civil servants are men. The newbie women are paid between 1.33% and .66% less per hour than the established men. Therefore on equality grounds either the post-2003 joiners must also go to the bank to cash imaginary cheques every week, or all must stop the practice.

If you think that line of reasoning is far fetched, note there's a court case on-going with clerical officers demanding to be paid as much as Gardai. That's 48k at the top of the scale and the option to retire at 50 on a full pension. Not bad for a bit of auld paper shuffling. Their argument goes thusly: the clerical officers are mainly women, but a majority of the Garda are still men. A small number of Gardai are on desk duty, and thus effectively do clerical work. So the female civilian COs are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender. So instead of being paid a premium of 30% over their private sector equivalents (source: ESRI) they deserve a premium more like 70% (not even including the pension at 50, worth about a million euro in itself).

Fair play to them, you say?

Yeah its all well and good to ride the tax-payer like that. But ultimately its self-defeating. No solvent state can afford to pay form-stampers with leaving certs as much as university professors and surgeons earn in other countries. At the end of the day a PS dependent on the state's solvency for their salaries pensions must begin to realize that maintaining that solvency is strongly in their own interest.

Since only about two sentences of that rant are relevant to the argument I'll simply repeat. All who sgned up under the same terms and conditions are treated equally under the terms they signed up for. Those who signed under different terms are treated equally with others who signed those terms. It's called a contract

[Proposition Joe]

Since only about two sentences of that rant are relevant to the argument I'll simply repeat. All who sgned up under the same terms and conditions are treated equally under the terms they signed up for. Those who signed under different terms are treated equally with others who signed those terms. It's called a contract

Again I repeat that's not an equality argument.

Contracts exist between individual employees and their employers. If the terms of the contract are contravened, then the legal remedy is to seek enforcement of that individual contract.

Not to appeal to the principle of equality with other employees on the same contract.

The latter approach wouldn't be much use if the half-hour off was taken away from all civil servants.

[garlandgreen]

Again I repeat that's not an equality argument.

Contracts exist between individual employees and their employers. If the terms of the contract are contravened, then the legal remedy is to seek enforcement of that individual contract.

Not to appeal to the principle of equality with other employees on the same contract.

The latter approach wouldn't be much use if the half-hour off was taken away from all civil servants.

Well it depends by what you mean by "equality" argument. As I used the word initially I should have the right to say what I meant by it shouldn't I? Nobodies elected you to be my spokesman