Comments on: Public sector pay and the idea of intensive (not extensive) cuts

By: Budget 2010 Scorecard – Minister Lenihan gets a 7/10 | Ronan Lyons

Budget 2010 Scorecard – Minister Lenihan gets a 7/10 | Ronan Lyons — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:27:34 +0000

[...] adjustments that were made were done, as should be the case in a recession by the public sector, on the intensive rather than extensive margin. Cutting rates of pay was, for a whole host of reasons, the only sensible option when it came to [...]

By: Senan

Senan — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:17:07 +0000

Well, the ‘negotiations’ are now firmly underway between the government and the unions regarding the public sector cuts. So far all I’ve heard is rhetoric from the unions and concessions from the government. Sigh…

By: James

James — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:28:53 +0000

Shouldn’t some comparison be made between other Euroarea public sector pay levels & Ireland’s as well as a measure of performance of services?
I agree with Michael that a cut in public pay will hinder growth (obvious), but we have to get pay levels down to comparable levels to our neighbours, which I believe we are some way higher. It’s a painful adjustment to make, but as our monetary control is out of our hands, there is no other way.
Also does the CSO survey take into account failed businesses (selection bias) or other benefits (Christmas party, discounted canteeen ect.)?

By: kevin denny

kevin denny — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:46:16 +0000

@Donal Agreed. I think partnership is wonderful -or at least seems so- when the cake is expanding but its a different matter when its contracting. The traditional small open economy model that I learned as a student had a traded and non-traded sector with wages determined in the traded sector, Beijing in other words. We seem to think we can do it the other way round.
We could make a start by eliminating the arbitrary mark-ups that exist in many professions (medicine, law etc) due to restrictions on entry. No prizes for guessing why that hasn’t happened. It may be symbolic but its a start (actually given the Tribunals it has been more than that).
Anyway,competition is not perfect but I think it beats the alternative.

By: Donal O'Brolchain

Donal O'Brolchain — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:01:09 +0000

@Ronan
“Perhaps an AGM for citizens every year would be a good idea.”
How about a Swiss-style citizens’ initiative?

@Kevin Denny and others
In addition to working ourselves out of our present, mostly self-inflicted situation, we need a complete new way of setting wages/fees/prices that reflects our need to trade internationally if we are to enhance the quality of life here for all.

By: Mossy Heneberry

Mossy Heneberry — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:31:33 +0000

Public sector pay cuts have to be made. The government can’t continue to borrow millions each week to fund the public sector. The money has to be paid back with interest. The longer we continue to borrow the riskier we are seen and interest rates will go up on those borrowings. Enventually, our lenders would simple refuse to lend to us and the public sector we be in for a 100% pay cut.

The logic of Michael Taft is flawed. Why doesn’t the government simple increase PS pay to pull us out of the recession so?

By: kevin denny

kevin denny — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:18:00 +0000

Some of the discussion here ignores the fact that real wages are rising due to a high level of deflation. I can say see no rationale for that. There clearly is downward pressure on the private sector wages. Why should those in the public sector (who are paid more on average, with additional benefits due to security and pension rights) not also be affected?
Some kind of social solidarity is necessary to get us out of this hole and the public sector working telling the private sector to f-off is neither smart nor reasonable.
Cutting public sector wages has to be part of any sensible strategy (I work in the public sector). After all if cutting them was deflationary,why not increase them instead? The idea that a small open economy with no control of its monetary policy can spend its way out of recession is dangerous.

By: AdamS

AdamS — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:12:48 +0000

@Michael

Given that welfare recipients save very little, presumably a higher proportion of welfare benefits is spent than the proportion of public sector wages. It follows that any shock produced by cutting benefits will be proportionally higher than that produced by cutting public sector wages.

So whilst I can accept your view that it might be best to avoid deflationary spending cuts in general, then would you agree that if spending does have to be cut, welfare payments should be protected first & foremost, with public sector wages in very much second place?

By: Ciaran Daly

Ciaran Daly — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:25:56 +0000

The unions will always act irresponsibly and treacherously to fuel their greed, after all that is their job. I wouldn’t concede the point that they shouldn’t be targeted, even if there was no fiscal crisis they should be targetted because they are the most overpaid public servants in europe and we badly need real world reform to get our public services up to european standard, they SHOULD be targetted and it’s time the government stood up.

When taxpayers leave, what will the citizens do then?

By: Ronan Lyons

Ronan Lyons — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:19:10 +0000

@Caelan: good point. Taxpayers = customers, citizens = stakeholders. Perhaps an AGM for citizens every year would be a good idea. @Michael: Thanks for the comment. I appreciate we're probably not going to agree on this! I would agree, though, that I don't see much point in laying off large numbers of the public sector at the height of recession (unlike some others in the debate). From what I can see, where we disagree is on the necessity of cutting public expenditure. I believe it's necessary, and given that and ruling out layoffs this means that the only solution has to be cuts in earnings, which - I believe not coincidentally - is also needed for a labour market less skewed towards the public sector. (Perhaps it's no harm at this point noting that I've worked in both public and private sectors, on the off-chance that quells any Ivory Towers arguments.) I understand, though, that you and others would argue with both points, i.e. that public sector wages are too high and that public sector spending is too high. To those interested in the debate, on the former, I would cite the ESRI and the latter I would cite the ca.55% government-GNP ratio, the largest in the EU, but I doubt I'm going to win any converts on your side. Thanks again for the comment though, R