Is "Rip Off Ireland" really "Rip Off by the Public Sector"

RobBrn

Are we really being ripped of by the public sector.

They never miss a pay increase.
They get "benchmarking" which is really just an electoral bribe.
They get massive pensions.
They can't be sacked.
They decide how much we should pay to them so they can have wages far in excess of private workers.
They get huge mileage allowances
They get huge over night allowances - un-vouched.
They threaten strike at the drop of a hat.
They are backed up by politicians , Regardless

The recent debacle with FAS is just an example. Probably just the exposure of the "Tip of the Iceberg"

Is it not time that we demanded an end to this in equality, only equaled in the former USSR

Colonel Sanders

RobBrn wrote: »

They get huge over night allowances - un-vouched.

A mate of mine works in his local council. When he stays in Dublin he often kips on my couch and still gets his hotel allowance. How the f*ck can this be when he obviously doesn't have receipts?

I can't claim any expense back without a receipt (private sector employee)

Nightwish

Don't tarnish all public sector workers with the one brush. The FÁS Debacle is probably not the only example of utter wastage but I can assure you, as a public sector employee things arent all that good. I work for a public organisation where, when someone leaves the department, they are not replaced and their workload is absorbed by everyone else (in my section 3 people have left), leading to increased processing times for clients. Increments are not guaranteed, although we do get the pay increases as agreed by the pay agreements. This (like many others) will be eroded by the tax levy. I personally have no job security due to the nature of my contract, again, I'm not alone in this. My salary is the standard for my grade, industry-wide, so I'm no better paid than the private sector. Also, my pension is crap....not that I plan to stay until 65.

I'm just giving my side of the story and not defending the whole Public service. I have seen in other departments and other public bodies, the "surplus" staff who do absolutely nothing. I've seen people whose carry on would get them sacked in the private sector, but just get a file full of warnings. I agree there needs to be a serious shake up, but bear in mind we're not all the lazy fu*kers the media would like you to believe.

E.T.

Ever hear of sweeping generalisations? Who do you include in public service workers? Do you include the Gardai? Nurses? Teachers?

DenMan

Please beg my question Nightwish but if people lose their jobs in a public department why are they not replaced? It seems a lot to take on for the existing staff to not only continue with their own work but to inherit a further workload. I read Mary Harney's report from the Irish Times back in July about the restructuring of the HSE as an example. It seems inconceivable that the positions would not be replaced. Sorry to hear about that. When I lived in Malta any public sector jobs lost in the Government of Health Services were replaced so as that staff would not inherit their workload and operate efficiently (system taken from neighbours Italy). It definitely needs to be looked at over here. It's too easy to condemn the people who work in the public sector when it is the top levels who are skimming the cream and those further down have to pick up the pieces.

jmayo

Nightwish wrote: »

I'm just giving my side of the story and not defending the whole Public service. I have seen in other departments and other public bodies, the "surplus" staff who do absolutely nothing. I've seen people whose carry on would get them sacked in the private sector, but just get a file full of warnings. I agree there needs to be a serious shake up, but bear in mind we're not all the lazy fu*kers the media would like you to believe.

Yes but the sad thing is there are enough lazy wh**** who do nothing and strike at the drop of a hat, that it appears to most non public sector workers that the whole system is inept, lazy, inefficient and a waste of money.
Added to that private sector employees see guaranteed tenure, guaranteed pensions and it also seems no censure for wasting taxpayers money.

E.T. wrote: »

Ever hear of sweeping generalisations? Who do you include in public service workers? Do you include the Gardai? Nurses? Teachers?

There are a fair of the above that do quiet handsomely out of the system for little effort.
Why should the above professions be immune from critism ? Are they some sort of holy cows that we dare not critise.
How long have the Garda being trying to implement modern communications and IT systems ? Remember the blue flu ?
I have made more than a few nurses that are lazy, unhelpful, uncaring and downright rude.
I would guess everyone on here has at sometime come across a teacher that should not have been let within a million miles of a classroom.
Some just have a complete inability to socially interact and impart basic knowledge, but yet they are still employed.

spadder

Get busy public servants, the reckoning is coming. If your a hard worker, you have nothing to fear, if your an unvouched expenses, sick day abusing
clipboard carrying, slacking, tea drinking sinner, your end is nigh!

Benny-c

spadder wrote: »

Get busy public servants, the reckoning is coming. If your a hard worker, you have nothing to fear, if your an unvouched expenses, sick day abusing
clipboard carrying, slacking, tea drinking sinner, your end is nigh!

Well said

E.T.

jmayo wrote: »

Why should the above professions be immune from critism ? Are they some sort of holy cows that we dare not critise.
How long have the Garda being trying to implement modern communications and IT systems ? Remember the blue flu ?
I have made more than a few nurses that are lazy, unhelpful, uncaring and downright rude.
I would guess everyone on here has at sometime come across a teacher that should not have been let within a million miles of a classroom.
Some just have a complete inability to socially interact and impart basic knowledge, but yet they are still employed.

I don't disagree with this point at all, there are people in all jobs, public and private, who are useless at their jobs and don't care about them.

What I'm questioning is the list of "perks" in your first post that you say public servants get, you can't just state that a huge, varied body of jobs get all of these.

dresden8

Hey lads, calm down.

You're going to need public servants when you go to sign on.

Remember to say please and thank you.

Nightwish

spadder wrote: »

Get busy public servants, the reckoning is coming. If your a hard worker, you have nothing to fear, if your an unvouched expenses, sick day abusing
clipboard carrying, slacking, tea drinking sinner, your end is nigh!

The unfortunate thing is this wont be guaranteed. I have never taken a sick day in 2.5 years. I put in up to 4 hours overtime a week which is unpaid, but I know I'll be one of the first to go. The way the reforms seem to be structured is towards duplication of services and not aimed at inept, lazy employees. For example, a pensions department with 10 excellent employees will be told they are surplus to requirements and let go/offered redundancy as their department is being centralised to another part of the country. Now I've no problem with that per sé, but I have to correct the assumption that the crap employees are being targeted.

DenMan wrote: »

Please beg my question Nightwish but if people lose their jobs in a public department why are they not replaced? It seems a lot to take on for the existing staff to not only continue with their own work but to inherit a further workload. I read Mary Harney's report from the Irish Times back in July about the restructuring of the HSE as an example

Staff are not being replaced as per a circular issued in January, which basically means admin staff are not being replaced. Its a "cost containment" measure.

kaiser sauze

Nightwish wrote: »

Don't tarnish all public sector workers with the one brush. The FÁS Debacle is probably not the only example of utter wastage but I can assure you, as a public sector employee things arent all that good. I work for a public organisation where, when someone leaves the department, they are not replaced and their workload is absorbed by everyone else (in my section 3 people have left), leading to increased processing times for clients. Increments are not guaranteed, although we do get the pay increases as agreed by the pay agreements. This (like many others) will be eroded by the tax levy. I personally have no job security due to the nature of my contract, again, I'm not alone in this. My salary is the standard for my grade, industry-wide, so I'm no better paid than the private sector. Also, my pension is crap....not that I plan to stay until 65.

I'm just giving my side of the story and not defending the whole Public service. I have seen in other departments and other public bodies, the "surplus" staff who do absolutely nothing. I've seen people whose carry on would get them sacked in the private sector, but just get a file full of warnings. I agree there needs to be a serious shake up, but bear in mind we're not all the lazy fu*kers the media would like you to believe.

That is a very disingenuous statement.

Nightwish

My pension is crap unless I put in 30 years service at a minimum. Many of my co workers have to have private pensions along with the work one, because it wont be enough to retire on. The pension is good if you reach a high enough level, but if you work on the lower end of the scale, it isnt as good as its made out to be.

jmayo

Nightwish wrote: »

My pension is crap unless I put in 30 years service at a minimum. Many of my co workers have to have private pensions along with the work one, because it wont be enough to retire on. The pension is good if you reach a high enough level, but if you work on the lower end of the scale, it isnt as good as its made out to be.

Answer one thing, is your pension guaranteed to be a percentage of your final salary ?

Nightwish

jmayo wrote: »

Answer one thing, is your pension guaranteed to be a percentage of your final salary ?

Its 1/80th of pay less twice rate of old age pension. As I said, many people who dont have the service have a private pension too. And I also said, since I'm going to be gone in the next year my pension is the least of my worries.

markpb

Nightwish wrote: »

Its 1/80th of pay less twice rate of old age pension. As I said, many people who dont have the service have a private pension too. And I also said, since I'm going to be gone in the next year my pension is the least of my worries.

You brought up as a complaint, you can't dismiss it when it suits you Your pension might not be great but it's guaranteed, something a lot of public sector staff don't appreciate. Imagine anyone retiring in the last few months? Even with a considerable section of their pension in low risk bonds, they still lost a lot of money. No guarantees, no bailouts.

sovtek

markpb wrote: »

You brought up as a complaint, you can't dismiss it when it suits you Your pension might not be great but it's guaranteed, something a lot of public sector staff don't appreciate. Imagine anyone retiring in the last few months? Even with a considerable section of their pension in low risk bonds, they still lost a lot of money. No guarantees, no bailouts.

Thats a comment on the private and not so much on the public sector.

I am always baffled why people keep arguing AGAINST stable and good compensation in a job.

markpb

sovtek wrote: »

Thats a comment on the private and not so much on the public sector. I am always baffled why people keep arguing AGAINST stable and good compensation in a job.

Because DB pensions are vastly more expensive to maintain than DC and also assume that there are more people working than claiming the pension. In Ireland, this isn't true and won't be true going forward. Look at population trend graphs for Ireland over the next 30 years - our population is expected to age so quickly that there'll be 3 times more pensioners than workers. A DB system can't work in a population like that.

I'd much prefer my company remain solvent and able to pay my wages now than risk them being dragged under by their pension debts. The joke about Aer Lingus and BA being pension funds which also happens to own a few aircraft is more satirical than funny.

grahamo

RobBrn wrote: »

Are we really being ripped of by the public sector.

They never miss a pay increase.
They get "benchmarking" which is really just an electoral bribe.
They get massive pensions.
They can't be sacked.
They decide how much we should pay to them so they can have wages far in excess of private workers.
They get huge mileage allowances
They get huge over night allowances - un-vouched.
They threaten strike at the drop of a hat.
They are backed up by politicians , Regardless

The recent debacle with FAS is just an example. Probably just the exposure of the "Tip of the Iceberg"

Is it not time that we demanded an end to this in equality, only equaled in the former USSR

People generalising again. Why are public sector workers the scapegoats for everything these days. They are taxpayers too. As for the can't be sacked crap- anyone taken on after 1995 is Class A1 PRSI...The same terms and conditions as private sector so they can be sacked.

kaiser sauze

Nightwish wrote: »

My pension is crap unless I put in 30 years service at a minimum. Many of my co workers have to have private pensions along with the work one, because it wont be enough to retire on. The pension is good if you reach a high enough level, but if you work on the lower end of the scale, it isnt as good as its made out to be.

Jesus H.......

I'm sorry, but as gold plated as your pension is, you still have to work for it.

Are you saying that employers should just hand you a pension?

sovtek

markpb wrote: »

Because DB pensions are vastly more expensive to maintain than DC and also assume that there are more people working than claiming the pension. In Ireland, this isn't true and won't be true going forward. Look at population trend graphs for Ireland over the next 30 years - our population is expected to age so quickly that there'll be 3 times more pensioners than workers. A DB system can't work in a population like that.

I can't speak for Ireland but I know that 'ol W was trying to make the same argument for Social Security in America. It's bull**** of course.
Whats a DB and DC?

I'd much prefer my company remain solvent and able to pay my wages now than risk them being dragged under by their pension debts. The joke about Aer Lingus and BA being pension funds which also happens to own a few aircraft is more satirical than funny.

Yet wether they are insolvent or not they always seem to find billions for their CEO pensions.
I kinda remember hearing that AL and BA are both state subsidized institutions.
Are you saying that companies that pay their staff well and give them good benefits are destined to become insolvent?

sooper

You know this whole Roddy Molloy thing astounds me. I run a FAS scheme where participants work hard for 222 a week (just enough for half a hairdo:p). If I spend any money on luxuries such as say light and heat or staff training I have to produce 2 receipts - one on a specially commissioned FAS form and another on the suppliers letterhead. Copies of all cheques must be kept and cross checked with the invoice. They then do a very detailed audit every year. I couldn't get away with ordering a paperclip for myself. So how the guys at the top have carried on is a slap in the face to all of us poor eejits.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

I can't speak for Ireland but I know that 'ol W was trying to make the same argument for Social Security in America. It's bull**** of course.

Why is it bull****? It's not enough to merely state that it is.

sovtek wrote: »

Whats a DB and DC?

Defined benefit and defined contribution. With DB you invest X now and are guaranteed Y every year (adjusted for inflation) when retired. With DC you invest X now and you get the return on your investment every year when retired. The big problem with DB is that if there's a downturn in the markets and the pension fund shrinks then money needs to be found from somewhere to pay people their pension and that money generally needs to come from people who are at present working. This works fine if you have 4 or 5 people working for every 1 person retired and drawing the pension but it cannot work when you have 1 or 2 people working for every 1 person drawing a pension for obvious reasons if you do the math.

The DB system (and Social Security) was designed for a time when people died much younger than they do now. With people living longer we may not be able to sustain retiring at 65 and pensioners having a good standard of life from their pensions. There is a vicious cycle, less babies are being born and the old live longer making this literally a ticking time bomb that our generation are going to have to face up to before we get to retire. Honestly, I do not expect to be able to retire at 65 and get a state pension, I don't think it will be feasible.

zootroid

Just out of curiousity, of the people who posted in this thread that work in the public sector, what do you do, and is it well paid?

I remember a few years ago when I was leaving college, there was one person who went into a public sector job. Incidentally, of the people in my class who found employment within a couple of months, he was the highest paid.

kippy

Lads,
I work in the public sector (for he last 18 months or so). Before that I did about 5 years in the same area in the Private sector. I have a national cert and a large number of vendor certificates.
I spent the five years I was working in the private sector building up skills and experience so I could get out of it and into the Public/Civil sector as soon as I could because he pay/conditions/pension etc were in general far better than a private sector job (Maybe not as much opportunities for progression but overall a better deal)
I make no apologies for working in the public sector. I work hard and reap the benefits. If ye all think it is that good a number then try get into it. Seriously.
There are numerous areas that costs could be saved in the public sector (without even hitting jobs) but when you think of what the public sector spend money on, many private sector organisations would take a hit themselves. (That said, there is misuse of money but that stems from the very top level (government) on a daily basis also.
What should and probably will happen in the next few years is that public sector organisations with like functions will be merged saving costs on building and associated costs and many other functions may be centralised. There will be early retirements and voluntary redundancy offered.
In general though the public sector provides a great service and the people on the ground who normally get paid the least shouldnt worry about the naysayers.
For the rest, try get into the job, its good, family friendly, has good conditions and at the end of the day, thats what you want from a job.
Kippy

Devious

The very simple fact of the matter is that we are funding a bloated and inefficient public sector that we DO NOT NEED in the current economic climate. What is needed NOW is drastic and immediate wage cuts across the board, our country cannot continue to fund these salaries. Alas, we have cowardly and incompetent politicians with neither the intelligence or the courage to stand up to the unions.

P. Breathnach

Devious wrote: »

The very simple fact of the matter is that we are funding a bloated and inefficient public sector that we DO NOT NEED in the current economic climate. What is needed NOW is drastic and immediate wage cuts across the board, our country cannot continue to fund these salaries. Alas, we have cowardly and incompetent politicians with neither the intelligence or the courage to stand up to the unions.

The "very simple fact of the matter" is that anybody can post intemperate nonsense. If you are of the opinion that there are things wrong with the public service, it is much more useful to point to particular things or areas and say in what way things are wrong.

It might be that a person who subscribes to Devious's point of view could also take a different stance if the school where his children attend stands to lose a teacher or two, or if his local hospital has services cut.

Sure, there are problems. But wild rants do nothing useful to help solve them.

Devious

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The "very simple fact of the matter" is that anybody can post intemperate nonsense. If you are of the opinion that there are things wrong with the public service, it is much more useful to point to particular things or areas and say in what way things are wrong.

It might be that a person who subscribes to Devious's point of view could also take a different stance if the school where his children attend stands to lose a teacher or two, or if his local hospital has services cut.

Sure, there are problems. But wild rants do nothing useful to help solve them.

Oh dear, looks like iv pi$$ed off another teacher :rolleyes:

So my calling for reductions in both public sector numbers and wages is a "wild rant"? Are you seriously that deluded to believe that we can sustain a public sector of 370,000 odd in the current climate? Do you actually believe that schools losing "a teacher or two" is going to radically impact the educational development in a negative way? Come on man, its time to get realistic here.

jmayo

kippy wrote: »

Lads,
I work in the public sector (for he last 18 months or so). Before that I did about 5 years in the same area in the Private sector. I have a national cert and a large number of vendor certificates.
I spent the five years I was working in the private sector building up skills and experience so I could get out of it and into the Public/Civil sector as soon as I could because he pay/conditions/pension etc were in general far better than a private sector job (Maybe not as much opportunities for progression but overall a better deal)
I make no apologies for working in the public sector. I work hard and reap the benefits. If ye all think it is that good a number then try get into it. Seriously.
There are numerous areas that costs could be saved in the public sector (without even hitting jobs) but when you think of what the public sector spend money on, many private sector organisations would take a hit themselves. (That said, there is misuse of money but that stems from the very top level (government) on a daily basis also.
What should and probably will happen in the next few years is that public sector organisations with like functions will be merged saving costs on building and associated costs and many other functions may be centralised. There will be early retirements and voluntary redundancy offered.
In general though the public sector provides a great service and the people on the ground who normally get paid the least shouldnt worry about the naysayers.
For the rest, try get into the job, its good, family friendly, has good conditions and at the end of the day, thats what you want from a job.
Kippy

You can not build an economy on public sector. You need companies that create things, that provide services to the nation's inhabitants, that export products and services to other countries.
Qe cannot all work in public sector that just provides services to the nation's inhabitants.
The public sector cannot support itself, it requires taxes from private sector employees and businesses.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The "very simple fact of the matter" is that anybody can post intemperate nonsense. If you are of the opinion that there are things wrong with the public service, it is much more useful to point to particular things or areas and say in what way things are wrong.

It might be that a person who subscribes to Devious's point of view could also take a different stance if the school where his children attend stands to lose a teacher or two, or if his local hospital has services cut.

Sure, there are problems. But wild rants do nothing useful to help solve them.

Ok, why not start in the HSE.
There are too many administration staff, too many managers. And yes I do know what I am talking about as I have worked indirectly in healthcare business and have experienced the wastes of space that inhabit HSE.
Have you ever had to read a HSE tender?
When cuts are mentioned in the HSE, they always cut contract and temporary nursing and medical staff, they close wards, they close medical care units, they cut services to the patients.
Here is an idea why not close down every single PR unit dotted in all the HSE regions and just have one in HSE HQ.
Do patients need PR ?
Why do they have services duplicated across areas.

Why not close down the The Parliamentary Affairs Division (PAD), since they do not appear to bother ever answering the tough questions about why people are left to die.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

Ok, why not start in the HSE.
There are too many administration staff, too many managers. And yes I do know what I am talking about as I have worked indirectly in healthcare business and have experienced the wastes of space that inhabit HSE.
Have you ever had to read a HSE tender?
When cuts are mentioned in the HSE, they always cut contract and temporary nursing and medical staff, they close wards, they close medical care units, they cut services to the patients.
Here is an idea why not close down every single PR unit dotted in all the HSE regions and just have one in HSE HQ.
Do patients need PR ?
Why do they have services duplicated across areas.

Why not close down the The Parliamentary Affairs Division (PAD), since they do not appear to bother ever answering the tough questions about why people are left to die.

That's a bit more focused than Devious's ranting approach.

Yes, I agree that the HSE seems to be overburdened with administrative staff (I use the word "seems" because I don't know enough to have a fully and properly informed opinion). Much, but by no means all, of the problem is a legacy of the messy situation that existed before the HSE was set up. There seems to have been a very bad failure to clean up the system: there was no worthwhile programme for managed redundancy and there was apparently insufficient effort to redeploy staff; there was a major cock-up with PPARS, which should have contributed to better administration; it seems that other possibilities for rationalising functions have not advanced sufficiently. Some of the problems can be laid at the door of politicians, some at the door of HSE staff (medical as well as administrative), and some at the door of the HSE executive.

Yes, I think that one PR unit seems like enough (and the business of the unit should be to get the truth out to the public, and not to impart a positive spin).

There is, to be fair, a particularly difficulty for the HSE in dealing with some bad press coming from patients or their families, because patients can forgo their right to privacy, but the HSE must still respect patient confidentiality. That might be part of the reason why the PAD does not always answer tough questions to your satisfaction.

Irish and EU law on public procurement contribute to some of the tendering problems. Why should it cost more and take longer to build a public hospital than a more-or-less equivalent private one (one of the things that Mary Harney points out quite often)? It's because of public procurement law. Where's the level playing field there?

kippy

jmayo wrote: »

You can not build an economy on public sector. You need companies that create things, that provide services to the nation's inhabitants, that export products and services to other countries.
Qe cannot all work in public sector that just provides services to the nation's inhabitants.
The public sector cannot support itself, it requires taxes from private sector employees and businesses.

Did I say or state otherwise?
I know that. I just find it strange that people who believe the Public sector is such a great place to work aren't there themselves. It is a good job with good benefits in general.
Is the only reason people dont "chose" to work in the public sector because they feel they have a moral duty to their country to work in the private sector? I think not.
Money from the Public sector is spent either directly or indirectly in providing business for private sector organisations-if that were all to stop/be cut back tomorrow, lots of private sector business would feel more of a pinch than they are now.....
As I said, I agree with cost savings and cost cutting measures just in a structured and well thought out manner, not in the cack handed manner that the majority of the current and previous governments "brainwave schemes" have been implemented.