To strike or not to Strike

As a low paid public servant.......
that is the question...........

JOLearysgloves wrote:As a low paid public servant.......
that is the question...........

Strike, definitely.

See on one hand I am thinking, say 3 days strike action, staggered over a month was called....
first of all it will save the government a fortune so they would be only delighted....
then the **** will really hit the fan. As it is, lower paid public servants are completely misrepresented by economists and a very biased anti public sector media. And the minions are buying their crap.....25% higher wages than the private sector!!!! there are people with 7 years service to the public sector earning LESS than 30K trying to raise families, pay mortgages etc and these economists and journalists and social commentators with their massive salaries are say they should take a cut!!! And to say anyone on 28,000 a year is on 25% more than ANYONE working similar hours in the private sector bar minwage is complete and utter lies! So say we strike....what happens? the "people" turn against us even more, the govt crucify us, the people love it, FF are popular again...they call an election....and BANG!

JOLearysgloves wrote:As it is, lower paid public servants are completely misrepresented by economists and a very biased anti public sector media. And the minions are buying their crap.....25% higher wages than the private sector!!!!

Low-paid public servants seem to be the victims in all of the mud-slinging going on, they are the ones who will suffer most if strikes go ahead, and if blanket cuts are introduced.
The problem in the public sector is at the middle-management level. Too long a culture of automatic promotions based on years of service has lead to a bloated layer of middle managers, not providing services to anyone, and providing f*ck all actual management/assistance to the people under them. A case of "too many chiefs, not enough Indians."
They earn comfortable enough wages and seem to have bugger all responsibilty to go with it, despite the fact that similar wages in the private sector would come with a lot more pressure. This is where cuts are needed, strip out the waste at this level, and the public sector bill will fall. Pad it with generous voluntary redundancy packages and many people will be happy to take it. It will mean a short-term expense, but the long-term saving would be very significant. That way the lower-paid workers don't get effected, services aren't cut, and the bureaucracy that can sometimes seem to cripple the civil service will be reduced.

JOLearysgloves wrote:And to say anyone on 28,000 a year is on 25% more than ANYONE working similar hours in the private sector bar minwage is complete and utter lies!

I'm an assistant manager in a "Big 4" professional services firm. Professional staff (i.e. accountants) at our firm, with an honours degree, a masters, and a year's experience are being paid less than €23k per annum. This is high for the industry at present.
These staff do a min 37.5 hours a week (approx 60 hours a week between Jan and April), and perform work that could result in liabilities of millions to our firm if they make mistakes. They also have to sit exams (1 set of 4 papers to 3 sets of 4 papers, depending on their college courses/results). If they fail these exams more than once they are fired, as per their contracts. They are all on 3-4 year contracts, with no guarantee of future employment when the contract ends (approx 50% are kept on). Try telling them that public sector workers on €28k a year have it hard!

I'm not trying to have a go, but members of the public sector seem to be equally blind when it comes to what life in the private sector is like. It's very hard to have sympathy over a 7-8% pension levy when most of us have experienced pay cuts in the 15-20% range over the past year, and then see our taxes being increased to fund the public sector wage bill.

JOLearysgloves wrote:a very biased anti public sector media.

Why am I not surprised that you think that.

JOLearysgloves wrote:And the minions are buying their crap

I guess us poor minions don't know any better.

JOLearysgloves wrote:there are people with 7 years service to the public sector earning LESS than 30K trying to raise families, pay mortgages etc

There are people in the private sector with 7 years service earning less thaht 30k trying to raise families, pay mortgages etc. What's your point?

JOLearysgloves wrote:And to say anyone on 28,000 a year is on 25% more than ANYONE working similar hours in the private sector bar minwage is complete and utter lies!

How can you exclude the minimum wage from your discussion? The minimum wage is a real part of life in the private sector and unfortunately can't be "barred" for people who live on it.

I'm an assistant manager in a "Big 4" professional services firm. Professional staff (i.e. accountants) at our firm, with an honours degree, a masters, and a year's experience are being paid less than €23k per annum. This is high for the industry at present.
These staff do a min 37.5 hours a week (approx 60 hours a week between Jan and April), and perform work that could result in liabilities of millions to our firm if they make mistakes. They also have to sit exams (1 set of 4 papers to 3 sets of 4 papers, depending on their college courses/results). If they fail these exams more than once they are fired, as per their contracts. They are all on 3-4 year contracts, with no guarantee of future employment when the contract ends (approx 50% are kept on). Try telling them that public sector workers on €28k a year have it hard!

I'm not trying to have a go, but members of the public sector seem to be equally blind when it comes to what life in the private sector is like. It's very hard to have sympathy over a 7-8% pension levy when most of us have experienced pay cuts in the 15-20% range over the past year, and then see our taxes being increased to fund the public sector wage bill.[/quote]

B&W are you seriously trying to tell me, that qualified accountants with 7 years service are making 23K a year cos I am sorry man, but if you are, I straight up dont believe you!!!
Cos thats the like to like comparison, say a Library Assistant who had to go to Maynooth to get his degree and now has 7 years exp and is making 28K, telling me accountants with the same quals and service are on 23k.......

JOLearysgloves wrote:
B&W are you seriously trying to tell me, that qualified accountants with 7 years service are making 23K a year cos I am sorry man, but if you are, I straight up dont believe you!!!
Cos thats the like to like comparison, say a Library Assistant who had to go to Maynooth to get his degree and now has 7 years exp and is making 28K, telling me accountants with the same quals and service are on 23k.......

I never mentioned qualifed accountants. Read the post.
You never specified anything about experience etc, in your first post, so how am I supposed to know what roles you were talking about.
Anyway I don't see how you can try to equate working as a library assistant to working as an auditor. There are massive differences in pressure, responsibilty and other factors. I can't imagine many librarians having to work till 2 or 3 am to get a report out, as my team did last week.
When I finished my masters I had a choice between pursuing my Chartered Accountancy qualification through a role in the civil service (starting salary €33k) or a role with a Big 4 firm (starting salary €22k). In the civil service interview I was offered guaranteed promotions, a permanent contract and immediate eligibility for the public sector pension. The Big 4 role offered genuine experience of the business world, and the prospect of higher pay in 5-10 years time, albeit with no guarantees of anything (only longer working hours).
If you want to compare like with like then there's the equivalent roles. Comparing librarians to accountants is not comparing like with like.

Comparing librarians to accountants is not comparing like with like.



Stereotyping rules ok!

Working in the private sector, striking is an alien concept to me.

There are many things that I could complain about in my job (very long hours without lieu time, no flexi-time, no career breaks, weekend work at times, lack of proper health or pension benefits, no guarantee of promotion at any stage, pay-cuts during tough times, 20 days holidays annually, lack of maternity pay for women, constant threat of redundancy), but if I did complain, no-one would listen. Failure to comply with these aspects of the job would see me marked as a trouble-maker, and I'd be quickly pushed towards the exit door. And unlike public servants, I have no union to support me in any resultant grievance, no colleagues to row in behind me. I'm on my own.

I enjoy my job, and I do get paid reasonably well for it, but with the decent salary and potential bonus (almost nothing in the last 2 years, I must add) come all the burdens listed above.

Should you strike? Well, that depends on how ill-treated you feel you have been. But instead of striking, I'd suggest a career break, and spend the time working in the private sector, and then you can make an informed decision on how badly off you really are.