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

jmayo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

....
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?

Yes you are right that the HSE is a mess and a lot of it is down to the way the Health Boards were subsummed into the HSE.
Might I suggest part of the big problem is the fact that when all these helth boards were brought in under the umbrella of the HSe was that some politicans and unions came to the nice little understanding that nobody would lose their jobs.
In other words they would be no beneficial savings made by cutting out the duplication.
Ah it's such a pity that the pesky families of patients left to die needlessly go public, is that what 6you are implying by your comment.
HSE tenders are a joke, the level and detail of some of the questions is unbelievable.

kippy wrote: »

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.

I never wanted to work in public sector, because I do not want to work in a heavily unionsed beuacratic landscape, where often you only get ahead on ass l***ing and playing golf. I have done contract work in public sector bodies and I found them depressing places to work.
Listening to someone spouting they will go on strike if management bring in small work practice change is depressing.

Yes and money spent in public sector bar a few self sustainaing ones like ESB, (oops sorry I forgot we all pay high electricity charges to keep non working viable peat burning power stations ticking over in the bogs of Offaly so that some minister or taoiseach can get a few votes) is money raised from workers in the private sector, from companies producing goods and services for resale.
If the private sector only relied on money from public sector then we would have a very sorry economy.
It is almost as ludricous an idea as assuming building houses for each other is a basis for an economy :rolleyes:
We do need a good public sector but we need a lean, productive one that is not a just a jobs for the boys club e.g Fás.

What cuts in public sector have the government mooted ?
Cuts in teacher numbers is about the only thing so far.
BTW would these be temporary contract teachers by any chance ?

jim o doom

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

kippy

jmayo wrote: »

Yes you are right that the HSE is a mess and a lot of it is down to the way the Health Boards were subsummed into the HSE.
Might I suggest part of the big problem is the fact that when all these helth boards were brought in under the umbrella of the HSe was that some politicans and unions came to the nice little understanding that nobody would lose their jobs.
In other words they would be no beneficial savings made by cutting out the duplication.
Ah it's such a pity that the pesky families of patients left to die needlessly go public, is that what 6you are implying by your comment.
HSE tenders are a joke, the level and detail of some of the questions is unbelievable.



I never wanted to work in public sector, because I do not want to work in a heavily unionsed beuacratic landscape, where often you only get ahead on ass l***ing and playing golf. I have done contract work in public sector bodies and I found them depressing places to work.
Listening to someone spouting they will go on strike if management bring in small work practice change is depressing.

Yes and money spent in public sector bar a few self sustainaing ones like ESB, (oops sorry I forgot we all pay high electricity charges to keep non working viable peat burning power stations ticking over in the bogs of Offaly so that some minister or taoiseach can get a few votes) is money raised from workers in the private sector, from companies producing goods and services for resale.
If the private sector only relied on money from public sector then we would have a very sorry economy.
It is almost as ludricous an idea as assuming building houses for each other is a basis for an economy :rolleyes:
We do need a good public sector but we need a lean, productive one that is not a just a jobs for the boys club e.g Fás.

What cuts in public sector have the government mooted ?
Cuts in teacher numbers is about the only thing so far.
BTW would these be temporary contract teachers by any chance ?

In a number of posts up above you highlight the major benefits of working in the public sector.
Its not my fault that people in the private sector dont get the same benefits....thats why I got out of the private sector, cos the benefits were better (in general) else where. It's what someone in the private sector would do were they not happy with their terms and conditions of employment surely? I'm willing to accept the other side of these benefits as well (which you also pointed out in your last post)

Jaysus I am not saying that the private sector only relied on money from the public sector, I just highlighted that it does....you have a very very poor grasp of reality if you think that the private sector are not exposed in a large way to any job/spending cuts in the public sector....
While we're at it, the current woes in our economy could be as easily leveled at CERTAIN areas of the private sector and certain levels within these areas. Banking Executives for example.

Again, I'll say it, knee jerk and cack handed policies and media stories do nothing to improve this country. Cost savings and cuts need to be analysed carefully and proper procedures need to be put in place to make sure that the savings are made in services that can be scaled back.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

Ah it's such a pity that the pesky families of patients left to die needlessly go public, is that what 6you are implying by your comment.

I didn't mean that. I simply meant to point out that the HSE is not always free to tell its side of the story. And I don't mean that the HSE necessarily has a good response which it is prevented from giving.

It's one of those difficult problems for which there is no good solution.

Devious

jim o doom wrote: »

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

We're talking about the need to reduce a bloated and inefficient public sector, not the reasons behind the economic downturn.

jim o doom

Devious wrote: »

We're talking about the need to reduce a bloated and inefficient public sector, not the reasons behind the economic downturn.

Eh, correct me if I am wrong but; "Is "rip off ireland" really "rip off by the public sector" and the rant at the start, certainly seems to indicate that the OP is of the point of view that the only thing causing problems is the Public sector, as made clear by the title of the thread, which directly compares the public and private sectors. Forgive me for reading the thread title & answering the OPs insane/inane & pointless ranting. Sure the Public sector is unnecessarily bloated, but people seem to be going on like fixing the public sector is going to fix the bad decision makers in government, or the problems of the economy caused by the private sector. It isnt, all it will mean is that less money will be spent in the public sector, which won't fix the problems in governmental decision making, which won't fix the economy, but which will succeed in making those who have lost their jobs (due to private banking and the ever moronic decision makers) feel a little better, because they were distracted from the real issues. how wonderful, and the sleight of hand continues.

gazzer

jim o doom wrote: »

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

Well said Jim O Doom. There are plenty of CO's in the civil service who have never got promoted due to the location of their office, amount of staff in the office, internal policy on promotions. If a CO retired today (after 40 years service) they would get a pension of 361 euro. If a person in the private sector who didnt pay any pension contributions retired they would get 212 euro. So for working for 40 years you get the massive difference of 139 euro a week.

Of course there are lazy shi*ts in the civil service but the majority of people are not. I hate the way civil servents get generalised by some posters here.

Devious

gazzer wrote: »

Of course there are lazy shi*ts in the civil service but the majority of people are not. I hate the way civil servents get generalised by some posters here.

Theres a big difference between complaining about the size of the public sector and saying all civil servants are lazy. My issue is that the public sector has grown out of all proportion to actual requirements. This is a failing of the various governments over the years. Of course people are going to apply for jobs in the civil service if they are available, thats perfectly understandable. My point is that these jobs should not have been created in the first place and that it is time they were eliminated.

P. Breathnach

Devious wrote: »

My point is that these jobs should not have been created in the first place and that it is time they were eliminated.

Which ones?

My understanding is that this forum is for discussion, so why not try discussing things?

[And while we are at it, let's not confuse "civil service" and "public service".]

jim o doom

Devious wrote: »

Theres a big difference between complaining about the size of the public sector and saying all civil servants are lazy. My issue is that the public sector has grown out of all proportion to actual requirements. This is a failing of the various governments over the years. Of course people are going to apply for jobs in the civil service if they are available, thats perfectly understandable. My point is that these jobs should not have been created in the first place and that it is time they were eliminated.

Yeah, but a lot of work in the civil service is dependant on what the private sector generates. Take taxes; VAT, or Income Tax or RCT or whatever you want; VAT - it's relatively quiet for a 2 month period, until people file their returns - then there is a massive workload & people in the private sector demanding & needing their refunds. The people needed for these refunds have a lesser workload for a period but are totally necessary for the end of each period; solutions (a) Keep it as it is (b) fire a few people, causing massive delays in refunds and uproar from the private sector. The workload is seasonal. People posting about the "bloated civil service" go on like the work 120% of the time in their own jobs & are clearly imagining that all the people in the services are riding the gravy train home every day. Sure a lot of the management are, but like I said, by far the LARGEST group of employees the state has, are the low level CO's with very few benefits whatsoever; these are the frontline (so to speak) & these are the people who will be cut, not the decision makers (because well, it's THEIR decision isn't it?). Sure reform is needed, but the amount of venting people seem do need, in relation to the public services, seems to stem from ignorance & frustration at their own situations, which is not the fault of the service. The country is fooked & fixing the service is not going to fix the underlying problems of society - I repeat again, this is all just a big hullabaloo to take the blame away from government & the banks. Do you really feel that public sector reform is going to fix ANYTHING at all? is your view in any way tempered by how government has acted "with all of our best interests at heart" so far? pah.

Devious

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Which ones?

You are aware of these delightful quangos, yes?

P. Breathnach

Devious wrote: »

You are aware of these delightful quangos, yes?

Keep going:
- which quangos would you eliminate?
- for each one eliminated, can you say if we can do without the work they have been set up to perform, or will the work have to be done by somebody else?
- if the work is to be done by some other body, what other body?
- how many jobs might be eliminated?

Should we, for example, abolish the office of the Financial Regulator, whose hands-off or light-touch approach allowed our banks get to where they now are, or should we go the other direction and beef up that office?

Come on, Devious: get past generalisations and get closer to the question.

irish_bob

jim o doom wrote: »

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

just because the banks were a key instigator of this economic mess we find ourselves in , doesnt excuse the excessive waste and staff numbers in the public service this past 7 or 8 years , lets not benchmark against bad behaviour , a frequent line trotted out by public servants theese days is , the banks are worse with what they did

jmayo

kippy wrote: »

In a number of posts up above you highlight the major benefits of working in the public sector.
Its not my fault that people in the private sector dont get the same benefits....thats why I got out of the private sector, cos the benefits were better (in general) else where. It's what someone in the private sector would do were they not happy with their terms and conditions of employment surely? I'm willing to accept the other side of these benefits as well (which you also pointed out in your last post)

Jaysus I am not saying that the private sector only relied on money from the public sector, I just highlighted that it does....you have a very very poor grasp of reality if you think that the private sector are not exposed in a large way to any job/spending cuts in the public sector....
While we're at it, the current woes in our economy could be as easily leveled at CERTAIN areas of the private sector and certain levels within these areas. Banking Executives for example.

Again, I'll say it, knee jerk and cack handed policies and media stories do nothing to improve this country. Cost savings and cuts need to be analysed carefully and proper procedures need to be put in place to make sure that the savings are made in services that can be scaled back.

So are you saying that the private sector, and indeed yourself as a tax payer, should pay more taxes to keep a bloated inefficient public sector going because there are some in the private sector who may benefit from it ?
You really do sound like the standard union rep of public sector, when you state we need to put procedures in place, analyse this that and the other, 18 months later we have a few more committees, a few more quangoes and sod all else to show for it but more taxes.

Has anybody here blamed anyone in public sector other than maybe Financial Regulator and our elected representatives for the mess the country's economy is in. I would also blame the NRA etc who have managed to blow huge quantitie of taxpayers money and yet we are having to pay tolls but that is another topic.
The economy is a mess becuase bankers, developers, builders, landbank owners, auctioneers were able to run amuck.
We as a nation all added to it by buying into the crazy sh** of getting on the great property ladder at all costs.
The workers in the public sector did not create that mess but they have wasted huge amounts of money, which at this stage cannot continue.
The guy at the bottom rung never has the chance to really waste money, he may dodge doing a bit of work but that is about it.
It is up the chain where the real wastage occurrs either in doctoring expenses, not watching what is spent on projects or creating useless jobs underneath.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I didn't mean that. I simply meant to point out that the HSE is not always free to tell its side of the story. And I don't mean that the HSE necessarily has a good response which it is prevented from giving.

It's one of those difficult problems for which there is no good solution.

The fact that the HSE top echelon and PR types try and manage the exposure of these, what they see as bad news, stories is what gets me.
To me their side of the story is that they are inept, inefficient, self serving and general put their own requirements before those of the patients.
And in this I mean everyone within the HSE, from admin staff, nursing, consultants, management and the unions.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Which ones?

My understanding is that this forum is for discussion, so why not try discussing things?

[And while we are at it, let's not confuse "civil service" and "public service".]

Can you answer why Health Dept/HSE etc employment levels rose by AFAIK 67% odd between 1997 to 2007 ?
Where are the huge improvements in services that should result from such a huge increase in employment numbers ?
If anything services have disimproved, well that would be the way most people that use the criteria of people being allowed to needlessly die would see it.

BTW I think a lot of people here would use the words civil service, public service and public sector in the same fashion, which I do know would not be correct.

What about An Comisineir Teanga established 2004, an ambusman to make sure public bodies use Irish correctly ?

What about BASIS (website for business information) and REACH, the cross-departmental agency established by Government to improve the quality of service to customers of the Irish Public Service ?

What about the Border Regional Authority and all the other 8regional authorities ? Aren't the county councils not enough ?
Why do we have COFORD and Coillte ?
Why do we need Committee for Public Management Research ?

Why do we need Crisis Pregnancy Agency, could this not be covered by Social services divison within our great HSE ?

What exactly does the The National Advisory Committee on Drugs (NACD) do ?

Why have to create National Centre for Technology in Education to get broadband to schools ?

These are a only a few of the committees, commissioners that I have pulled out. There seems to be overlap between someof the areas and so why create new ones ?

E.T.

jmayo wrote: »

What cuts in public sector have the government mooted ?
Cuts in teacher numbers is about the only thing so far.
BTW would these be temporary contract teachers by any chance ?

No, these aren't temporary contract teachers. They're class teachers who will lose their jobs because of the increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. The other education cuts in the budget are:

The Dirty Dozen Education Cuts

Increase class sizes in primary schools
Abolish substitute cover for teachers
Increase school transport charges
Axe English language teachers
Reduce funding to special needs children
Slash Traveller education funding
Cut teacher numbers by at least 1,000
Eliminate the free book scheme
Stop books for school libraries
Halt the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act
Abandon funding for school computers
Cut funding for primary school building by 5%

(I know these are slightly off the point of this topic, but I put them up because so few people seem to know about them)

murphaph

Nightwish wrote: »

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.

Well that's bad management, and the government ultimately manages the public service. I know there are loads of public servants like you NW who are worth their weight in gold to the public they serve. Getting shot of the lazy ones and (when times are good) rewarding the good ones should be a national priority.

There is now a public appetite for reform of the public service like never before. This government needs to take that and run with it and eek out the dead weight and innefficiency ao our public service can be lean and fit. This needs the TOTAL support of the very many good public servants and a reluctance to strike at the behest of their unions when sanctions (up to and including dismissal) are taken against the lazy lumps who give all public servants a bad name.

However, we still see protests at Mary Harney's plans to serve cancer patients in 'just' EIGHT centres of excellence across this small country. People want public services in their own parish and don't want to have to travel for quality services. Until we become less parochial as a nation we'll get nowhere-so the public service aren't all to blame for the innefficiencies in the system.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

The fact that the HSE top echelon and PR types try and manage the exposure of these, what they see as bad news, stories is what gets me.
To me their side of the story is that they are inept, inefficient, self serving and general put their own requirements before those of the patients.
And in this I mean everyone within the HSE, from admin staff, nursing, consultants, management and the unions.

I think you are being unfair. The HSE has often acknowledged mistakes and problems. But is is often the case that an event is unfairly represented in the press. For example, I understand that cancer diagnosis is not a wholly accurate science anywhere in the world, that some small percentage error is to be expected. A missed case can have devastating consequences for the individual, but that does not prove that overall the system is failing. Some misdiagnoses are the result of insufficient skill or lack of care, and the HSE should own up to them; others are attributable to the limitations of the diagnostic methods.

Can you answer why Health Dept/HSE etc employment levels rose by AFAIK 67% odd between 1997 to 2007 ?
Where are the huge improvements in services that should result from such a huge increase in employment numbers ?
If anything services have disimproved, well that would be the way most people that use the criteria of people being allowed to needlessly die would see it.

BTW I think a lot of people here would use the words civil service, public service and public sector in the same fashion, which I do know would not be correct.

What about An Comisineir Teanga established 2004, an ambusman to make sure public bodies use Irish correctly ?

What about BASIS (website for business information) and REACH, the cross-departmental agency established by Government to improve the quality of service to customers of the Irish Public Service ?

What about the Border Regional Authority and all the other 8regional authorities ? Aren't the county councils not enough ?
Why do we have COFORD and Coillte ?
Why do we need Committee for Public Management Research ?

Why do we need Crisis Pregnancy Agency, could this not be covered by Social services divison within our great HSE ?

What exactly does the The National Advisory Committee on Drugs (NACD) do ?

Why have to create National Centre for Technology in Education to get broadband to schools ?

These are a only a few of the committees, commissioners that I have pulled out. There seems to be overlap between someof the areas and so why create new ones ?

Confusing the civil service, the public service, and the public sector, whether through ignorance or carelessness, often results in distorted perceptions.

I am not an expert on health (come to think of it, I'm not an expert on anything in particular), so I cannot respond knowledgeably to your challenge of the Dept. of Health and HSE. I have already agreed that there is probably an excess of administrators. I suspect that there is probably more service delivered to patients than there was 10 years ago, but I agree that there are still some great problems in the system. Our national spend on health is still lower than in many other developed countries (and our doctors, especially the consultants, cost us more than in almost any other country).

I'll give you something on An Coimisinéir Teanga, even though I am pro-Irish. I object to The Official Languages Act and much that flows from it. We should be able to give place to Irish as an official language without some of that nonsense.

I don't know much about REACH but if it works (and I'll give you that that's a big condition) it seems worth doing. Don't we want our public services to be joined up?

Regional Authorities are a big question, and I don't know the best answer. I don't think the county councils (and city and town councils) as they work at present are a great system. They kind of happened over the years, an almost accidental development. I am disillusioned with the quality of our local government.

That's enough for now. I want my dinner. But perhaps you get my drift: I'm not against reform; I'm simply concerned that swinging an axe wildly might result in the wrong heads being cut off.

Devious

E.T. wrote: »

No, these aren't temporary contract teachers. They're class teachers who will lose their jobs because of the reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. The other education cuts in the budget are:

The Dirty Dozen Education Cuts

Increase class sizes in primary schools
Abolish substitute cover for teachers
Increase school transport charges
Axe English language teachers
Reduce funding to special needs children
Slash Traveller education funding
Cut teacher numbers by at least 1,000
Eliminate the free book scheme
Stop books for school libraries
Halt the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act
Abandon funding for school computers
Cut funding for primary school building by 5%

(I know these are slightly off the point of this topic, but I put them up because so few people seem to know about them)

Apart from the funding for computers (maybe) I would be quite happy to see the above changes implemented. And dont you mean increase in pupil/teacher ratio?

Mr.Micro

The fact that the HSE top echelon and PR types try and manage the exposure of these, what they see as bad news, stories is what gets me.
To me their side of the story is that they are inept, inefficient, self serving and general put their own requirements before those of the patients.
And in this I mean everyone within the HSE, from admin staff, nursing, consultants, management and the unions.

I tend to agree, its all about hanging on to the job and justify the role, when in reality the axe should have been wielded long ago and total reform of the HSE put in place. The HSE was created oout of the Health Board system and its already a dinosaur with too many heads.

E.T.

Devious wrote: »

Apart from the funding for computers (maybe) I would be quite happy to see the above changes implemented. And dont you mean increase in pupil/teacher ratio?

Yep, I meant increase - that's what happens when I type faster than I think!
Are you serious when you say you'd be quite happy to see the funding to special needs children reduced? Do you realise the budgets for supplies for Resource/Learning Support teachers is going to be GONE next year?

Devious

E.T. wrote: »

Are you serious when you say you'd be quite happy to see the funding to special needs children reduced? Do you realise the budgets for supplies for Resource/Learning Support teachers is going to be GONE next year?

Ok that was a bit cold hearted, but the education budget does need substantial reductions.

E.T.

Devious wrote: »

Ok that was a bit cold hearted, but the education budget does need substantial reductions.

Have you been in a school here in the last few years? It's not as if there's wads of cash being thrown around on trips to Florida! We couldn't turn the heating on in our school til the end of October because the school couldn't afford it - and I'm not in a deprived area! I have to attend a mandatory day next week on the child protection guidelines (2 representatives from each school must receive this training) - the Department won't pay for a sub, so my kids will be divided between the other classes for the day. This isn't fair on the kids, or on the other teachers.

The children we're educating today are the ones who'll be paying taxes when we're all old and decrepit! What do you propose to take away? I've heard of counties in less well off states in the US which go back to basics in times of financial strain - they only teach English and Maths. Is that where you'd like to see our education system heading?

Devious

E.T. wrote: »

Have you been in a school here in the last few years? It's not as if there's wads of cash being thrown around on trips to Florida! We couldn't turn the heating on in our school til the end of October because the school couldn't afford it - and I'm not in a deprived area! I have to attend a mandatory day next week on the child protection guidelines (2 representatives from each school must receive this training) - the Department won't pay for a sub, so my kids will be divided between the other classes for the day. This isn't fair on the kids, or on the other teachers.

The children we're educating today are the ones who'll be paying taxes when we're all old and decrepit! What do you propose to take away? I've heard of counties in less well off states in the US which go back to basics in times of financial strain - they only teach English and Maths. Is that where you'd like to see our education system heading?

Look, the education system in Ireland is fundamentally flawed. I personally believe that Irish people do well later in life despite the education system, not because of it. Child protection guidelines - you need training on this, really? Here we go again, more useless initiatives to justify another public servant (now theres a misnomer) salary. And don't give me that crap of "its not fair on the kids" when really whats meant is "its not fair on us teachers to have to look after a class of 35 instead of 30".

E.T.

Devious wrote: »

Look, the education system in Ireland is fundamentally flawed. I personally believe that Irish people do well later in life despite the education system, not because of it. Child protection guidelines - you need training on this, really? Here we go again, more useless initiatives to justify another public servant (now theres a misnomer) salary. And don't give me that crap of "its not fair on the kids" when really whats meant is "its not fair on us teachers to have to look after a class of 35 instead of 30".

Yes, I would like training on the child protection guidelines, seeing as I volunteered for the post in school. I'm not getting paid for it, and I wouldn't expect to be paid for it. Why on earth do you think child protection guidelines are useless? And, it isn't fair on kids to have almost 50 of them in a room. You still haven't given any concrete ideas of where you'd cut funding for education - and don't bother with the argument about cutting teacher's salaries - there are already enough threads about that on every forum in Ireland. Come up with some practical, intelligent ideas and then people might listen.

P. Breathnach

E.T. wrote: »

Come up with some practical, intelligent ideas and then people might listen.

Don't hold your breath!

Devious

E.T. wrote: »

You still haven't given any concrete ideas of where you'd cut funding for education - and don't bother with the argument about cutting teacher's salaries - there are already enough threads about that on every forum in Ireland. .

I dont have to - you already listed 12 of them above. And cutting teachers salaries is probably the single most important reduction to be made in the education budget.

zootroid

Jim o doom, and P breathnach - have you any suggestions to stop the deterioration of the state finances, or help the economy out of recession? It's easy to criticise without offering any suggestions. It seems to me that any criticism levelled against the public sector is taken personally. Why should they be immune from criticism?

RobBrn

zootroid wrote: »

Why should they be immune from criticism?

They are certainly immune from any cut in their huge salaries.

silverharp

There is plenty of fat in RTE etc. these organisatios should stand or fall on commercial realities. People must remember that everytime you use a CIE service or use electricty or the post office you are being "mugged" a little.
The only way to prosperity/survival is by being as effecient or more efficient then your competitors, its time to ask if we can afford the numerous public secotor fiefdoms that exist or white elephants like TG4/RTE, even organisations like Bord Failte should be wound up now, honestly have you ever picked a holiday destination based on a TV advert? let the holiday industry fund bord failte if they think it is a useful service

jim o doom

zootroid wrote: »

Jim o doom, and P breathnach - have you any suggestions to stop the deterioration of the state finances, or help the economy out of recession? It's easy to criticise without offering any suggestions. It seems to me that any criticism levelled against the public sector is taken personally. Why should they be immune from criticism?

I don't have any particularily good suggestions. However, what was annoying me is that the discussion here, much like what I am reading in the papers regularily at the moment is constant bashing of the civil service. I know a lot of what's done is pointless & waste, however when they introduce cuts, it will not be the rich bosses that suffer from it, but the considerably lower paid frontline staff & the public receiving their services from those staff that will suffer. the reason? because those bosses with the money are the ones making decisions. i don't excuse the waste AT ALL, but so much time and energy, in both the papers & even here on boards has been spent recently, complaining about the state of the service, you would assume it had caused the downturn & that by fixing it, everything would be fine. That simply isn't the case & can you REALLY honestly see those fat cat ministers & high up bosses in the civil service doing anything to erode their comforatble financial situations, despite what they have been doing to basically rape the economy and reap the rewards themselves, for so so long? of course they won't, that is NOT in their best interests at all. And please, just because someone is doing something stupid, doesn't mean a critic needs a good alternative - if it's stupid, call it stupid.


the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people are blaming the service (not entirely unfairly) for a lot more than it is due. The people to blame are the ministers of state. When cuts come in, these ministers will not be affected - despite being the culpable ones. So like I said in my earlier posts, this is just a big game of "shift the blame". The ministers get off scott free, the public feels like something has been done & the hapless low level civil servants get it in the rear. perfect (from the perspective of the government).