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

NewDubliner

CDfm wrote: »

During conference calls a bit - its a distraction.Its the nature of the work that I do that I can

That wouldn't be allowed in the public sector.

jmayo

BroomBurner wrote: »

QUestion 1, 2 and 3: I would suggest you read the whole post, plus all threads on this topic, in particular in the Economics forum. Public servants aren't demons you know, contrary to the belief of some private sector (jealous) workers

Question 4: We are a long long way off the IMF coming in to "fix" us, so its not really worth worrying about

Question 5: Isn't that part of the problem that got us in to this mess?

Ok so what are YOUR answers to above, apart from me reading through every thread on boards and making a list of all public servant posters ?

I don't go over much to the economics forum since too man bankers were inhabiting that place. Last time I was there they told me the fundamentals were all fine.
Or was that the Banking/Investments forum

We may be a long way off IMF, but what about ECB/EU rapping us on the knuckles ?

BroomBurner

jmayo wrote: »

Ok so what are YOUR answers to above, apart from me reading through every thread on boards and making a list of all public servant posters ?

I don't go over much to the economics forum since too man bankers were inhabiting that place. Last time I was there they told me the fundamentals were all fine.
Or was that the Banking/Investments forum

We may be a long way off IMF, but what about ECB/EU rapping us on the knuckles ?

They might rap us on our knuckles about the IMF scaremongering for helping to further devalue the Euro.

Anyway, wouldn't be too sure on these being solutions, but my suggestions on tackling the public sector would be:

Tackle the overstaffing problem in the HSE by consolidating administrative departments that are basically doing the same thing as each other. INdividuals that are not making the grade in terms of performance would be let go.

Across the board - Anyone that received the lowest grading score on their performance management would be let go, with those that received the second lowest would be put on a warning that if they do not improve within 6 months that they too would be let go. This would have to take into consideration people's individual circumstances, especially those who may have a long-term illness, etc.

Teachers, nurses and Guards, well, to be honest, I really can't say anything about these areas as I believe that they are entirely necessary. Have to say that I never agreed with nursing being a degree course, but that's not something we can turn the clock back on. Perhaps performance management on a greater scale for teachers, but on the whole, we should be providing a lot of support to our young to ensure that our future economy is based on knowledge and education.

Put the National Wage Agreement on the long finger. Though bare in mind that this agreement was not JUST for public bodies, plenty of private sector bodies are signed up to this too, so if it isn't going to be implemented in the public sector, it also shouldn't be implemented in the private sector.

Anyone in the public service earning over €100,000 to take a 10% pay cut, those earning over €50,000 to take a 5% pay cut. Anyone earning below this should continue as is. These paycuts should be reversed once things stabilise and we can afford it. I don't believe in punishing people just because they have succeeded or are good at their job.

TD's wages to be cut, there is absolutely no reason for our Taoiseach to be earning more than his counterparts in countries that have mulitple population numbers.

Better integration of all departments and public sector bodies, for the ease of transfer of staff to remove the need for taking extra people on when some areas are overstaffed while others are under-staffed.

Irish Rail train drivers not to receive bonuses for simple changes in their timetables. Same goes for bus drivers.

I also agree with everything posted by Danin... (can't remember his full username) in Economics, he posted some great ideas on where to save money.

Anyway, all of the above might help to make the public sector a bit more efficient, but tbh, I don't think it will help to save all the money required.

CDfm

BroomBurner wrote: »

They might rap us on our knuckles about the IMF scaremongering for helping to further devalue the Euro.

Anyway, wouldn't be too sure on these being solutions, but my suggestions on tackling the public sector would be:

Tackle the overstaffing problem in the HSE by consolidating administrative departments that are basically doing the same thing as each other. INdividuals that are not making the grade in terms of performance would be let go.

Acr

Anyway, all of the above might help to make the public sector a bit more efficient, but tbh, I don't think it will help to save all the money required.

Dickensian economics.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery"

However - the waste of money on public projects is awful.Take the new terminal at Dublin airport. 2 billion euro and the private sector would have built it for free. Jeez - the price difference seems extortionate. All projects should be reviewed for cost savings. As our Public Sevants dont seem to have done a great job with managing the finances -just of spending it.

321654

CDfm wrote: »

I was working yesterday. Am in the private sector dontcha know. Started at 9 am and finished at 11.15pm.

Didnt have time to read a paper or watch the news.

BTW it would be nice if you can post a link so us with jobs can have a look.

I hope you dont work with me. The rest of us would be sick carrying you. You must be costing your company a fortune with all the dossing off to post here. And you have the cheek to say others are being paid and not working enough.

CDfm

paid for being smart and my ability to multi-task and Im not even female

K4t

CDfm wrote: »

Dickensian economics.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery"

However - the waste of money on public projects is awful.Take the new terminal at Dublin airport. 2 billion euro and the private sector would have built it for free. Jeez - the price difference seems extortionate. All projects should be reviewed for cost savings. As our Public Sevants dont seem to have done a great job with managing the finances -just of spending it.

Don't generalise. You talked about waste of resources on the new terminal and then have the audacity to assume all public servants are to blame.

May I remind you who got the country into this mess? Hint: It wasn't the public sector, not by a long shot.

eoinbn

K4t wrote: »

Don't generalise.

You should of stopped there. The people that caused this are in both the public, government, and private, fat-cats, sectors. It wasn't the public, it wasn't the private, it was just a few pricks in both.
Unfortunately it can't be fixed by just punishing those responsible, everyone will end up paying for it which is why there is talks about cuts in public spending- not because they are the root of all our problems.

jmayo

K4t wrote: »

Don't generalise. You talked about waste of resources on the new terminal and then have the audacity to assume all public servants are to blame.

May I remind you who got the country into this mess? Hint: It wasn't the public sector, not by a long shot.

Yes we all know it wasn't the guy down the motor local tax office or some guy booking in goods in a OPW workshop.
But a lot of the mismanagement stemed from our politicans, our governments and I hope you remember that the next time they are around looking for a vote
Saying we are not at fault and why should we pay for the mistakes, mismanagement and greed of private sector developers and bankers is not going to help any of us.
We are all in the sh**, so sticking your head in the sand and digging your heels in won't help any of us.

eoinbn wrote: »

You should of stopped there. The people that caused this are in both the public, government, and private, fat-cats, sectors. It wasn't the public, it wasn't the private, it was just a few pricks in both.
Unfortunately it can't be fixed by just punishing those responsible, everyone will end up paying for it which is why there is talks about cuts in public spending- not because they are the root of all our problems.

Well said ...
Private sector workers that are suffering are not the ones that made the millions during the boom, they may have bought into it but they are paying the price for that now.
Workers in the public sector bought into the boom also, they bought houses, they got credit cards too and they are only feeling the pain in the fact that their houses are not worth as much as they paid for it, but they have been immune from the job losses, the pay freezes, pay cuts. And no I am not saying they should be fired. Some at the top and middle management may deserve it because they blew lots of taxpayers money.
But they will have to take a pay cut becuase we just cannot pay them.
It is that simple :rolleyes:

Sadly the fat cats, wherever they are, that created this aren't feeling the pain.
See Fitzpatrick, Fingelton, Goggins, Neary, McNamara, Biffo, Bertie, Molloy etc...

kippy

jmayo wrote: »

Seriously I just want to ask all public servants on this forum where they suggest the government find the money to continue paying for the day to day expense of running the country ?

Where would public servants cut expenditure ?

Do public servants suggest the government increase borrowing to run the country and pay for day to day expenditure ?


What will happen when the ECB/EU/IMF demand we do something about our borrowing if we continue ?

I just wonder how many people on here would try and borrow more money when their wages and income don't cover their household expenses ?

Hi jmayo,
I dont think your comment is fair. ie Public servants have come on here and gone into detail on where cuts could be made....nobody wants to listen though....
I'll go through them again...
1. There are a serious amount of state bodies out there. All using their own premises, their own IT systems, their own bank accounts etc.... A merger of functions/roles would cut down on building (rent and upkeep) costs, IT costs, Bank account costs and anything that was previously duplicated across the old functions.
2. A general review of where the money (outside of wages is going). For example, almost all state bodies us Microsoft software on IT hardware that is probably more expensive than what they could actually use. Cut out the microsoft software, reduce the hardware bill,share servers and data hosting with other bodies. Again, require retraining and a time frame to bring in these changes (This kinda stuff should have been done in the good times), knock on effect of this is reduced spend from the public sector into the private sector.
3. Centralised HR and Payroll functions amoung certain public sector bodies.
4. A complete review of the amount of money spent on printing brochures and leaflets-why use to many-most are thrown away.
5. A review of travel payments. Why isnt video conferencing/teleconferencing more embraced in the Public (The answer is obvious)

All of these can be looked at without job cuts. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Public Sector spend is on wages and what is spend on other things and what these things are.
The political will has never been there to do these things. Its also extremely difficult to get past unions when changing something. Theres also no "Benefit" for a staff member to come up and implement cost savings in the Public sector (as there is in the private sector) and generally implementing these changes is a heap of hassle anyway so its generally not done.

All of the above COULD be coupled with a reduction in pay for certain earners. The vast majority in the public sector though would earn LESS than the average (even with all the alleged "BENEFITS" that are being spoken about.)

Public sector workers know they have a part to play and the Unions will ensure that the workers are treated fairly.

Kippy

BroomBurner

Most of those suggestions are good, Kippy. The main reason though for not reviewing expenditure outside of the wage bill would be that this expenditure is money paid for private sector contractors (either IT, environment, etc.). If the government decided to cull what outside services were unnecessary (and there are many), then it will leave more private sector workers' jobs in trouble.

If the government were to become a more efficient machine, there would be a loss of private sector jobs in certain areas that are dependent on public sector contracts.

kippy

BroomBurner wrote: »

Most of those suggestions are good, Kippy. The main reason though for not reviewing expenditure outside of the wage bill would be that this expenditure is money paid for private sector contractors (either IT, environment, etc.). If the government decided to cull what outside services were unnecessary (and there are many), then it will leave more private sector workers' jobs in trouble.

If the government were to become a more efficient machine, there would be a loss of private sector jobs in certain areas that are dependent on public sector contracts.

Thats something I have said before Broomburner and its probably the main reason as you say why these other costs havent been looked at.. Sadly if costs are to be saved in the public sector, this is one way of achieving it and in fairness, I think far more money can be saved through this method than through wage and indeed job cuts.....but it would have a knock on effect.

BroomBurner

kippy wrote: »

Thats something I have said before Broomburner and its probably the main reason as you say why these other costs havent been looked at.. Sadly if costs are to be saved in the public sector, this is one way of achieving it and in fairness, I think far more money can be saved through this method than through wage and indeed job cuts.....but it would have a knock on effect.

I do agree with you. There are many, many qualified people working in the public service doing jobs that are nothing to do with their college qualifications (EOs and HEOs must have a third level degree when applying through Open Competition). If these people were deployed where their skills could be effectively used, it would descrease the need for outside contractors.

What would the overall reaction from private sector workers be to this suggestion?

FlutterinBantam

When all is said and done it's like this

Costs 55 bill to run the day to day spending of the State

projected income is 35 bill from all sources.

leaves a hole of 20 bill which cannot be borrowed indefinitely if at all.

Something has to change and quick.

Expect a freeze on PS wages and possible 5% cut in wages over a certain threshold in the near future.

has to happen.

kippy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

When all is said and done it's like this

Costs 55 bill to run the day to day spending of the State

projected income is 35 bill from all sources.

leaves a hole of 20 bill which cannot be borrowed indefinitely if at all.

Something has to change and quick.

Expect a freeze on PS wages and possible 5% cut in wages over a certain threshold in the near future.

has to happen.

I dont think anyone is under the illusion that something like that doesnt need to happen.
A PS pay cut saves nothing, and a 5% reduction over a certain level is not 20Bill filled.
There are other areas that will have to be looked at.

K-9

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

When all is said and done it's like this

Costs 55 bill to run the day to day spending of the State

projected income is 35 bill from all sources.

leaves a hole of 20 bill which cannot be borrowed indefinitely if at all.

Something has to change and quick.

Expect a freeze on PS wages and possible 5% cut in wages over a certain threshold in the near future.

has to happen.

Indeed, people don't grasp the severity of the situation. One of the posters on the Economics forum put in stark detail.

Education costs about €8 Billion, Guards etc. €2 Billion, Defence less than €1 Billion.

If we get rid of the Guards, Teachers and Army that's about half of the deficit.

The reason it is so big is everybody including Public Servants have being living of unrealistic and unsustainable tax receipts from Property.

The main jobs created in the last 5/6 years have been in Construction, Public Service or Private Sector Services.

The tax receipts from Construction have stopped and the Private Sector Services are now being hit.

Until people grasp how severe it is, nothing will be done and we'll expect others to do something.

kippy

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, people don't grasp the severity of the situation. One of the posters on the Economics forum put in stark detail.

Education costs about €8 Billion, Guards etc. €2 Billion, Defence less than €1 Billion.

If we get rid of the Guards, Teachers and Army that's about half of the deficit.

The reason it is so big is everybody including Public Servants have being living of unrealistic and unsustainable tax receipts from Property.

The main jobs created in the last 5/6 years have been in Construction, Public Service or Private Sector Services.

The tax receipts from Construction have stopped and the Private Sector Services are now being hit.

Until people grasp how severe it is, nothing will be done and we'll expect others to do something.

Where is that 10 Billion to recapitilise banks coming from?

CDfm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, people don't grasp the severity of the situation. One of the posters on the Economics forum put in stark detail.



The main jobs created in the last 5/6 years have been in Construction, Public Service or Private Sector Services.

The tax receipts from Construction have stopped and the Private Sector Services are now being hit.

Until people grasp how severe it is, nothing will be done and we'll expect others to do something.

Great and very simple and well made point.

Tax Revenue=Public Sector Pay. If the Tax Revenue isnt there you cant get paid. It doesnt add up.

The figures Civil Servants and their representatives want dont add up. Its like a young wan who gets drunk and crashes her car and is arrested. She wishes she hadnt but she cant change it.Thats how severe it is.

THe choice should be pay cuts or redundancy. Last in first out cos or whatever is the cheapest to pay off.

K-9

kippy wrote: »

Where is that 10 Billion to recapitilise banks coming from?

It was €8 Billion at least before that. So we'll just get rid of the Teachers then!

jmayo

kippy wrote: »

Hi jmayo,
I dont think your comment is fair. ie Public servants have come on here and gone into detail on where cuts could be made....nobody wants to listen though....
I'll go through them again...
1. There are a serious amount of state bodies out there. All using their own premises, their own IT systems, their own bank accounts etc.... A merger of functions/roles would cut down on building (rent and upkeep) costs, IT costs, Bank account costs and anything that was previously duplicated across the old functions.
2. A general review of where the money (outside of wages is going). For example, almost all state bodies us Microsoft software on IT hardware that is probably more expensive than what they could actually use. Cut out the microsoft software, reduce the hardware bill,share servers and data hosting with other bodies. Again, require retraining and a time frame to bring in these changes (This kinda stuff should have been done in the good times), knock on effect of this is reduced spend from the public sector into the private sector.
3. Centralised HR and Payroll functions amoung certain public sector bodies.
4. A complete review of the amount of money spent on printing brochures and leaflets-why use to many-most are thrown away.
5. A review of travel payments. Why isnt video conferencing/teleconferencing more embraced in the Public (The answer is obvious)

All of these can be looked at without job cuts. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Public Sector spend is on wages and what is spend on other things and what these things are.
The political will has never been there to do these things. Its also extremely difficult to get past unions when changing something. Theres also no "Benefit" for a staff member to come up and implement cost savings in the Public sector (as there is in the private sector) and generally implementing these changes is a heap of hassle anyway so its generally not done.

All of the above COULD be coupled with a reduction in pay for certain earners. The vast majority in the public sector though would earn LESS than the average (even with all the alleged "BENEFITS" that are being spoken about.)

Public sector workers know they have a part to play and the Unions will ensure that the workers are treated fairly.

Kippy

Kippy, I know you and the likes of broombroomer have made suggestions but some others are just shouting either ...
"it is nothing to do with us", "why should we pay for the private sector mismanagement", "the private sector and the bankers made all the money so why should we pay now" or "we bailed out the banks, isn't that enough for you".

As for your points, the difficulty with some of them as you stated quiet well, is that if you go to reform IT for instance you have to deal with heavily unionised employees who will refuse to adopt new practices or technologies unless they get compensated.
Trust me, I know from ex-colleagues that work within public sector bodies that this can occurr.

Just look at mess of PPARS, where the system was a collosal money sponge.
So just imagine how much money would you have to give the public sector employees to retrain them in using non microsoft applications :eek:

kippy

jmayo wrote: »

Kippy, I know you and the likes of broombroomer have made suggestions but some others are just shouting either ...
"it is nothing to do with us", "why should we pay for the private sector mismanagement", "the private sector and the bankers made all the money so why should we pay now" or "we bailed out the banks, isn't that enough for you".

As for your points, the difficulty with some of them as you stated quiet well, is that if you go to reform IT for instance you have to deal with heavily unionised employees who will refuse to adopt new practices or technologies unless they get compensated.
Trust me, I know from ex-colleagues that work within public sector bodies that this can occurr.

Just look at mess of PPARS, where the system was a collosal money sponge.
So just imagine how much money would you have to give the public sector employees to retrain them in using non microsoft applications :eek:

jmayo, I am fully aware of the difficulties in implementing these changes, just as I am aware of implementing any other changes that are being talked about.
PPARS was a complete joke and a very very bad mismanagement of funds as have a large amount of Public Sector IT projects. (the majority of which relied on external contractors which was a very very expensive solution)
But I dont think pay and redundancies need to be looked at in isolation, there are other costs cutting that could in theory be introduced without major retraining. Phone systems for example.
Again, a lot of this should have been done when the times were better.

Kippy

gurramok

The money for the bank bailouts is coming from the National Pension Reserve Fund which is used for public sector pensions(how ironic) and social welfare.
http://www.nprf.ie/Publications/2008/Press_Rel_End_2008.pdf

€20bn in cash in reserve, oops, make that €14.5bn after the bank bailouts. If all the cash was used, it will save the deficit for just one year.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote: »

The reason it is so big is everybody including Public Servants have being living of unrealistic and unsustainable tax receipts from Property...The main jobs created in the last 5/6 years have been in Construction, Public Service or Private Sector Services.

Indeed, the government used some of the money to hire people to fill the new public service offices in favoured consituencies. More again was used to give tax refunds to property speculators.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

Indeed, the government used some of the money to hire people to fill the new public service offices in favoured consituencies. More again was used to give tax refunds to property speculators.

And to give everybody in all the Health Boards jobs in the HSE. So much for efficiency.

Nermal

kippy wrote: »

Where is that 10 Billion to recapitilise banks coming from?

NPRF - hilarious that you're chomping at the bit to use your pension to pay your salary, says it all really. This country will actually have to be bankrupt before you take a paycut.

FlutterinBantam

And even then he won't take one:D

NewDubliner

Instead of a pay cut for high-salary public servants, defer 20% of their wages and give them government bonds in lieu.

kippy

Nermal wrote: »

NPRF - hilarious that you're chomping at the bit to use your pension to pay your salary, says it all really. This country will actually have to be bankrupt before you take a paycut.

FFS,
What are you alleging here? I just asked an honest question as I didnt know where the 10 bill came from nor did I know if it was part of the 19bill figure that is being mentioned.

I have said COUNTLESS times on this and other threads that I have no issue in taking a pay cut........and Ive also in this and other threads gone into some detail on how further cost savings could be made.

And even then he won't take one

Sorry, I dont find that in anyway funny.

gurramok

Here's a gorgeous graph of some public sector wages
http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/finacial-statistics-for-ireland/19/Ireland-Public-Sector-Average-Weekly-Earnings-2006.html

not yet

I really do laugh when I hear all the sniping at the pulic sector....

Let me point out just a couple of things.

1: we pay a thing called superannuation(pension) at the moment I pay 65 euro per week,so this bollocks of big fat free pensions is a pile of ****e.

2: 95% of public sector workers have a minimun of leaving cert standard. Alot more have 3rd level etc. most have to train for anything up to 5 years i.e nurses,guards,teachers. and whilst trainning get a minimum wage. first entry point on their pay scale is 22k a year, only after 7 years do they go on the top of the scale. Now if you want well trained,well motivated,well skilled staff is it not worth paying them a decent wage.