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

Dougiehowlett · 13-01-2009 12:37am

CDfm wrote: »

really - i thought the government departments implemented policy formed by government and now I find they implement EU directives and we dont need a government

There are effectively 3 streams in the civil service.

a) Operations: Social welfare, revenue, person on the end of the phone etc. These are the majority and are involved in processing etc, and are critical to the running of the country on a daily basis.

b) Support services e.g. IT, HR etc. as in any large organisation. There is a strong case for shared services to reduce costs here.

c) Policy specialists - Policy advisors put forward policy options to Ministers (if requested), or evaluate policy options that have been put to Ministers, or in a Programme for Govt. Look at the pros and cons, alternatives etc. Policy specialists are also involved in drafting legislation, public consultations, meeting with industry/stakeholders etc.

Policy advisors negotiate EU Directives, and provide advice to Ministers before attending EU Council meetings. The Dail also has a role in this through the EU Scrutiny Committee.

On all three, there are some options for staff savings, but it would be foolhardy to have a random cut.

PS. I (as a civil servant) could agree some pay cuts, but I think that it needs to be across the wider public service/semi states and the savings need to be used to help business by increasing competitiveness (lower commerical rates and energy costs). Last thing anyone needs is more money out of the economy without any real benefits.

CDfm · 13-01-2009 12:46am

Dougiehowlett wrote: »

There are effectively 3 streams in the civil service.

a) Operations: Social welfare, revenue, person on the end of the phone etc. These are the majority and are involved in processing etc, and are critical to the running of the country on a daily basis.

b) Support services e.g. IT, HR etc. as in any large organisation. There is a strong case for shared services to reduce costs here.

c) Policy specialists - Policy advisors put forward policy options to Ministers (if requested), or evaluate policy options that have been put to Ministers, or in a Programme for Govt. Look at the pros and cons, alternatives etc. Policy specialists are also involved in drafting legislation, public consultations, meeting with industry/stakeholders etc.

Policy advisors negotiate EU Directives, and provide advice to Ministers before attending EU Council meetings. The Dail also has a role in this through the EU Scrutiny Committee.

On all three, there are some options for staff savings, but it would be foolhardy to have a random cut.

PS. I (as a civil servant) could agree some pay cuts, but I think that it needs to be across the wider public service/semi states and the savings need to be used to help business by increasing competitiveness (lower commerical rates and energy costs). Last thing anyone needs is more money out of the economy without any real benefits.

I think a real issue for lots of people is the complexity of the Public Services.

Its failure to realise efficencies thru technological advances and its inflexibility in the face of change.

BTW -good of you to post as a CS. My problem with the CS is that it contract in terms of funding and programmes entered into min the good times which should be done.

Dougiehowlett · 13-01-2009 12:56am

CDfm wrote: »

I think a real issue for lots of people is the complexity of the Public Services.

Its failure to realise efficencies thru technological advances and its inflexibility in the face of change.

BTW -good of you to post as a CS. My problem with the CS is that it contract in terms of funding and programmes entered into min the good times which should be done.

Re. the first point. I both agree and disagree with you. Revenue for example has less staff than 10 years ago, yet there are twice as many tax payers as there were then. Thats pretty good going. I read recently that the admin costs of collecting tax in ireland are among the lowest in the world. Used PAYE Anytime recently and was very impressed, yet had a bad experience on the phone.

However, I do think that best practice is not always transferred across Departments. There is a lot of good being done, it just needs to be across the board.

On your second point, I have been saying that for years. But, what happens is that human resources are not moved on quickly enough i.e. there is too much fat for a policy area that is no longer prioritised. This needs to change.

CDfm · 13-01-2009 1:06am

Dougiehowlett wrote: »

On your second point, I have been saying that for years. But, what happens is that human resources are not moved on quickly enough i.e. there is too much fat for a policy area that is no longer prioritised. This needs to change.

Lets not forget - any suggestion will get huge opposition from the highly Unionised CS. SIPTU etc have already come out against any proposals.

Any change needs tackling the unions head on as they exercise too much power.

The HR functions in the CS seem to be staffed by wusses.

SeanW · 13-01-2009 1:18am

I totally agree that Ireland is getting ripped off by the public sector. Not all of it - there are nurses who are run off their feet, teachers with no backup, schools and universities with skeletal budgets, we don't have anything resembling enough Gardai, but I think there are some parts of the public sector that need to faced down for the common good.
Three examples off hand:
1) Useless semi-state workers. On the Rail Users Ireland board, there's a story about one particularly bad Irish Rail station master in Maynooth, nicknamed Mr. Grumpy, who hates his company's passengers. There is a similar story in Coolmine and companywide there are some of what might be referred to as "jobsworths."
2) I read on here somewhere that when the HSE was founded, supposidly to streamline the health services, a whole bunch of new middle managers and admin staff were added. What value do they provide?
3) The Driver Testing Service.
As part of the farce to pretend that the government was going to give learner drivers a fair deal as part of their Oct 2007/June 2008 crackdown, the government contracted out part of the driver testing system to SGS.
Now with the new rules firmly in place they are happy to allow the old waiting times to return.
In particular, Road Safety Authority testers were paid 50% more (before overtime, which can be steep) than the SGS setup, and each SGS tester did 47 tests per week versus 30 by the RSA.

If this were the private sector, where the "in house" crowd was doing a job less efficiently and at minimum of 50% higher cost than an outside operation, it's not too hard to figure out what would happen.

But, with this being a government operation, SGS was informed just before Christmas that their services would no longer be required. In short, the inefficient, overpaid, fat and lazy RSA operation has just been handed it's monopoly back. Costs to the taxpayer and waiting lists for test applicants will both begin to climb again. Three Cheers for FF and the Minster for Transport! We couldn't afford this crap even in the good times when people were waiting over a year for a driving test, when people were croaking on hospital trollies because money needed for frontline service is being wasted on useless middle managers and back office staff.
We REALLY cannot afford these overpaid wasters now and IMO a cull, or a threat of "get your house in order or here is your P45" is required.

icanchange49 · 13-01-2009 1:18am

tis very interesting to see the change of tone in these blogs over the last 12 to 18 months. back then there was no mention of the privileges supposedly enjoyed by public servants when you private sector lot were flying by in your 4wds and stuffing yourselves and your fat kids. now the wobble has come - and long overdue - and youre starting to remind me of the 70s and 80s with your irrational ranting you vulgar ungrateful shower. if the public sector is so good get in there and then shut the **** up!

K-9 · 13-01-2009 1:47am

Dougiehowlett wrote: »

Re. the first point. I both agree and disagree with you. Revenue for example has less staff than 10 years ago, yet there are twice as many tax payers as there were then. Thats pretty good going. I read recently that the admin costs of collecting tax in ireland are among the lowest in the world. Used PAYE Anytime recently and was very impressed, yet had a bad experience on the phone.

However, I do think that best practice is not always transferred across Departments. There is a lot of good being done, it just needs to be across the board.

On your second point, I have been saying that for years. But, what happens is that human resources are not moved on quickly enough i.e. there is too much fat for a policy area that is no longer prioritised. This needs to change.

Revenue are very good, though on the phone I'd advise getting name and address (though it's pointless) but more importantly, a second opinion.

Social Welfare are terrible. Though I think it is more to do with a different philosophy in Revenue. Revenue are willing to give you tax back, SW aren't!

Revenue publicise entitlements, SW don't.

icanchange49 wrote: »

tis very interesting to see the change of tone in these blogs over the last 12 to 18 months. back then there was no mention of the privileges supposedly enjoyed by public servants when you private sector lot were flying by in your 4wds and stuffing yourselves and your fat kids. now the wobble has come - and long overdue - and youre starting to remind me of the 70s and 80s with your irrational ranting you vulgar ungrateful shower. if the public sector is so good get in there and then shut the **** up!

Nah, the Public Sector pay debate was always there. Even the media pointed to it. It seems you where ignoring it by the sounds of it!

The same people where often warning about 4wd's etc. but I suppose ignoring that suits your agenda!

gurramok · 13-01-2009 9:00am

SeanW wrote: »

I totally agree that Ireland is getting ripped off by the public sector. Not all of it - there are nurses who are run off their feet, teachers with no backup, schools and universities with skeletal budgets, we don't have anything resembling enough Gardai, but I think there are some parts of the public sector that need to faced down for the common good.

Funnily enough, the nurses, gardai and the teachers are among the best paid.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0523/breaking59.htm

The HSE alleges the average nurse gets 56k including shift work and there are too many of them. http://www.hse.ie/eng/newsmedia/2007_Archive/March_2007_/Current_Nurses_Dispute.html

Thing is, if the axe is wielded to these sectors, they cannot really emigrate as their comrades abroad are allegedly paid alot less!

And yeh, i'd be the first to put my hand up to axe the army of admins in the HSE out of the whole lot.

CDfm · 13-01-2009 9:04am

Seanies32 wrote: »

Nah, the Public Sector pay debate was always there. Even the media pointed to it. It seems you where ignoring it by the sounds of it!

its about time the public service was taken down a peg.

it needs to be wound down and unnesscessary jobs need to be scrapped- government policy should be reduce the CS by 30% in the next 5 years

pay and benefits should be set at levels not to make CS emplyment more attractive than the private sector.

redundant workers on statutory redundancy terms

DeirdreD · 13-01-2009 9:09am

Reading this thread I can see persuasive arguments from both sides, however I think we need to remember that whatever sector one is in there are many commonalites in that we have mortgages to pay, children to support etc etc. I consider myself fortunate to be in the public sector in that hopefully my job is secure, however my partner is now jobless and my income is supporting him, 3 kids and a mortgage ( a mortgage based on an income which if it was reduced further would not be feasible to pay - even now things are tight , tight , tight - and if a residential tax is to be mooted forget it altogether).
Naturally everyone has their own story and at least we have one income but please dont just knock the public sector altogether - its not necessarily ' Bali for how long and Barbeque for how many; - we are all being challenged to survive in these times

CDfm · 13-01-2009 9:16am

DeirdreD wrote: »

Reading this thread I can see persuasive arguments from both sides, however I think we need to remember that whatever sector one is in there are many commonalites in that we have mortgages to pay, children to support etc etc. I consider myself fortunate to be in the public sector in that hopefully my job is secure, however my partner is now jobless and my income is supporting him, 3 kids and a mortgage ( a mortgage based on an income which if it was reduced further would not be feasible to pay - even now things are tight , tight , tight - and if a residential tax is to be mooted forget it altogether).

Deirdre - its work and why should our taxes treat you better then someone in the private sector .

Public sector pay rates need to come down by 30 to 50% -why should you be subsidised and others in the private sector not?

Matt Holck · 13-01-2009 9:20am

higher public pay rates
set a limit to what private businesses can offer
and still be able to recruit employees

CDfm · 13-01-2009 9:22am

Matt Holck wrote: »

higher public pay rates
set a limit to what private businesses can offer
and still be able to recruit employees

the public service hire the brightest and the laziest

maybe it would still attract workers for non jobs

public service jobs are no wealth creating and thats why the private sector should pay more

cyclopath2001 · 13-01-2009 9:23am

CDfm wrote: »

Come on - civil servants exercise a lot of executive power and have discretion over major policy areas.

The big decisions, the ones that wasted our money were taken by politicians.

CDfm · 13-01-2009 9:29am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The big decisions, the ones that wasted our money were taken by politicians.

based on the advice of Civil Servants and civil servants dont take any responsibility -so why should be paid for responsibility they dont have

Matt Holck · 13-01-2009 9:31am

most of my money goes to rent

tororosso · 13-01-2009 9:33am

A typical and arrogant view of public sector workers. The line "Im paying your wages comes to mind":rolleyes: Who exactly is being subsidised here? So Pay Rates should come down by up to 50%?! Whose pay rates?
General Operatives? Staff Officers? Higher Executive Officers?
Nurses? Gardai?
I think Public Sector workers pay taxes too do they not?

CDfm wrote: »

Deirdre - its work and why should our taxes treat you better then someone in the private sector .

Public sector pay rates need to come down by 30 to 50% -why should you be subsidised and others in the private sector not?

cyclopath2001 · 13-01-2009 9:42am

CDfm wrote: »

based on the advice of Civil Servants and civil servants dont take any responsibility -so why should be paid for responsibility they dont have

Are you quite certain about that?

gurramok · 13-01-2009 9:50am

tororosso wrote: »

A typical and arrogant view of public sector workers. The line "Im paying your wages comes to mind":rolleyes: Who exactly is being subsidised here? So Pay Rates should come down by up to 50%?! Whose pay rates?
General Operatives? Staff Officers? Higher Executive Officers?
Nurses? Gardai?
I think Public Sector workers pay taxes too do they not?

And look who pays their salries through taxes, the shrinking private sector. The 120,000 increase on the dole in the last year is not majorly from the public sector!

Where do you expect the money to come from to pay the public sector wages?

Grows on trees?

A public sector union leader said a sensible thing today. They have copped on that to be sensible in getting pay cuts for the overpaid section now or the IMF will come in and do it for them.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0113/economy.html

A public service union leader has warned senior members that the International Monetary Fund could be brought in to order the 'mass dismissal' of public service workers.

In a letter to branch secretaries of the Public Service Executive Union, the union's general secretary Dan Murphy said that the action might happen if the Government's level of borrowing is not curtailed.

In the letter - seen by The Irish Times - the General Secretary of the PSEU acknowledged the country's 'major economic problems', quoting a possible deficit of €15.5bn in 2011 unless changes are made in taxes and expenditure.
Advertisement

Dan Murphy said that unions are prepared to be constructive providing 'no unilateral actions' are taken to make their co-operation 'impossible'.

However, he also said that the financial running of the country could be taken over by the IMF if Government spending is not brought under control.

He warned that such a measure could see 'mass dismissals from the public service' and pay cuts for remaining workers.

While Mr Murphy insisted that public service pay cuts would provoke strike action, he said it was 'very much in the interests' of union members that a 'solution' be found to the financial crisis.

tororosso · 13-01-2009 10:42am

The IMF cant come in to Ireland to do squat. What it means is that if the Government wants a handout it will be advised to enact pay cuts and dismiss public sector workers.

CDfm · 13-01-2009 11:22am

tororosso wrote: »

The IMF cant come in to Ireland to do squat. What it means is that if the Government wants a handout it will be advised to enact pay cuts and dismiss public sector workers.

the problem arises when the government needs to borrow to fund day to day spending and no one wants to buy the debt it wants to issue

this is an issue

CDfm · 13-01-2009 11:23am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Are you quite certain about that?

i am just reiterating whats vbeen posted on the thread

gurramok · 13-01-2009 11:27am

Exactly Cdfm.

Tax revenue will not support paying the cost of the public sector for the next few years, about 20% of the cost will be borrowed per year.
Borrowing that money can only go on for so long and depends on that debt been bought by investors.
I'm afraid the sections of the public sector who are overpaid and then go on strike at paycuts have no choice, the money simply ain't there when the country will go bankrupt.

jmayo · 13-01-2009 11:28am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Civil Servants are not paid to make policy. That's the job of the politicians. The job of civil servants is to implement government policy, no matter how idiotic.

You keep making the point that the civil servants only implement policy and don't make it. You do conceed somewhere that there are a few that advise.
What about the civil servants in the Dept of Finance that over the last 7 odd years have managed to get the tax take wrong almost every year.
Thus the minister of finance and his mandarins (his building buddies most likely) concoct a budget that is based on wrong figures.
This of course wasn't a problem when the tax take was greater than expected, but it is a huge problem when the over estimate as in the last 8/9 months.
Are the ones collating these figures not civil servants ?
When I think of the Irish civil service higher echelons I think of "Yes Minister".

If a minister goes totally against his civil service then he would be doomed, n'est pas ?

I do think the greatest problem is not in the Civil Service and as you mentioned the Revenue Commissioners are a shining example of efficeincy.
The greatest problem is in the likes of ESB, CIE, HSE.
The working conditions enjoyed by some in thses institutions are beyond believe.
Examples:
- Train drivers that refuse any retraining on new trains until they get a sweetner bonus.
- ESB workers being paid to go to work in a defunct power station
- HSE workers refusing to move to new premises/hospital until they get a cash payment (this has happened all over the country and was one of the reasons new maternity hospital in Cork was delayed opening).

If someone in normal private sector companies, bar of course those that were once semi state i.e. Eircom, Aer Lingus, tried to pull that sh** they would be out on their ear.

icanchange49 wrote: »

tis very interesting to see the change of tone in these blogs over the last 12 to 18 months. back then there was no mention of the privileges supposedly enjoyed by public servants when you private sector lot were flying by in your 4wds and stuffing yourselves and your fat kids. now the wobble has come - and long overdue - and youre starting to remind me of the 70s and 80s with your irrational ranting you vulgar ungrateful shower. if the public sector is so good get in there and then shut the **** up!

Someof the privledges enjoyed include defined benefit pensions for a start and no sign of redundancy, demotion or censure for incompetence :rolleyes:

And who exactly are going to pay the wages of all those in the public sector ?
Will we borrow even more and then hump up the tax rates to 65% ?
And who paid for all the extra employees, employed by the public sector over last 12 years, i.e. since bertie came into power in 1997 ?
Who paid in the end for the benchmarking awards ?
Did you ever care to think it was largely a lot of the taxes of these "vulgar ungrateful shower" in the private sector that paidf for the above :rolleyes:

It is you irrational ranting that reminds me of the pot and kettle :rolleyes:

grahamo · 13-01-2009 11:38am

Nermal wrote: »

Find an actuary, and ask him how much a defined benefit pension of 50% of salary minus the state pension (indexed to wage increases) and a lump sum of 50% of salary (you'll get this also) would cost you in the private sector.

It will be at minimum six times what you're paying at the moment. The private sector is picking up the tab for you.

I really resent this "I'm paying for you" attitude.
I've spent most of my working life in the private sector so I won't have the service for a full public sector pension. I think I've paid my dues. Nobody pays for me. The job I'm in supplies a commercial service which would more than cover what I'm paid. I cost the taxpayer nothing!

jmayo · 13-01-2009 12:40pm

grahamo wrote: »

I really resent this "I'm paying for you" attitude.
I've spent most of my working life in the private sector so I won't have the service for a full public sector pension. I think I've paid my dues. Nobody pays for me. The job I'm in supplies a commercial service which would more than cover what I'm paid. I cost the taxpayer nothing!

Who pays for this service you provide ?
Has it's price drastically increased over the last 8 years ?

grahamo · 13-01-2009 1:03pm

jmayo wrote: »

Who pays for this service you provide ?
Has it's price drastically increased over the last 8 years ?

My job came about originally through an EU research grant. as we provide a service to industry we only charge enough to cover our costs/salaries etc.

BroomBurner · 13-01-2009 1:39pm

These questions aren't for the level-headed among the group, but more for those with a certain unsubstantiated spite for the public sector, in particular civil servants -

Who would you like to see providing the services the government currently does?
Who would you like to see make decisions at the top?
How would you like the aforementioned services, provided by the government, to be paid?

I'm not looking for cop-out answers from those so detesting our public service either, such as "well, I'm fine with the public sector, if only they didn't waste so much money", because, lets face it, we've all heard that one a million times.

thebman · 13-01-2009 1:51pm

grahamo wrote: »

I really resent this "I'm paying for you" attitude.
I've spent most of my working life in the private sector so I won't have the service for a full public sector pension. I think I've paid my dues. Nobody pays for me. The job I'm in supplies a commercial service which would more than cover what I'm paid. I cost the taxpayer nothing!

Its not "I'm paying for you", its "we are paying for you". There is a significant difference.

And they are in most cases (probably not all but then look at the size of the public service or private sector, always exceptions). If you work for the government then tax is really just so that it is easier to compare your wages to someone in the private sector. They pay you money and then they take some of the money they paid you back.

In the private sector, your employer pays you and the government tax part of what your employer pays you. The employer isn't the government in other words so the money is coming from somewhere else.

Nobody is saying every public sector worker should be let go but there needs to be an evaluation done on who isn't pulling their weight. Not every employee is paying for themselves or performing an essential service. That is the dead weight.

There seems to be an impression from public sector people on here that the private sector is asking for them all to be axed. Not really, just the useless ones. If your not useless you have nothing to worry about.

jmayo · 13-01-2009 2:31pm

grahamo wrote: »

I really resent this "I'm paying for you" attitude.
I've spent most of my working life in the private sector so I won't have the service for a full public sector pension. I think I've paid my dues. Nobody pays for me. The job I'm in supplies a commercial service which would more than cover what I'm paid. I cost the taxpayer nothing!

But you do cost and you mention that the commerical service more than covers your salary...then see below you say what your organisation charges industry only covers costs and salaries.

grahamo wrote: »

My job came about originally through an EU research grant. as we provide a service to industry we only charge enough to cover our costs/salaries etc.

So industry pays for you and who exactly is industry ?
Fair enough your organisation and your job provides a service to customers i.e. industry, but who is to say that your costs aren't very high since your salary base is very high ?
Can industry get a competing service from another organisation ?

BroomBurner wrote: »

These questions aren't for the level-headed among the group, but more for those with a certain unsubstantiated spite for the public sector, in particular civil servants -

Who would you like to see providing the services the government currently does?

I know there are a few on here who would like to see most state services privatised e.g health, education, transport, water, power.
Personally I would not like to see that, since I believe certain things should be state controlled and provided.

But, and it's a big but, that does not mean I want a sloppy service, a system where the workers are the primary beneficiary rather than it is for the benefit of all.
In other words the taxpayers, whether they be the workers or the consumers.

BroomBurner wrote: »

Who would you like to see make decisions at the top?

I believe that certain politicans, bertie being a major one, have a huge amount to answer for...
they bred the notion that no one is ever responsible, no matter what they do or don't do.
The notion that people are immune from critism, and worse still immune from sanction means that incompetence, negligence, wastage and worse still downright skulldugery and amoral behaviour are rife becuase people know they can get away with it.
This started with government ministers, dodgy tds, and has spread to the ones that run public sector bodies ala the executives and board of Fás.
The same privledged attitude has been adopted by the top layers of executives within certain private sector organisations such as the banks.

Being honest I don't know who I want making decisions at the top, since all of the ones at the top of late have been part of the whole cosy little cartel that have been faethering their own nests :mad:
BTW this includes priavet sector executives, public sector executives, government ministers and union leaders.

BroomBurner wrote: »

How would you like the aforementioned services, provided by the government, to be paid?

By taxes, but the taxes need to be equitable and not just aimed at the easy targets of the ones that cannot afford expensive tax lawyers and tax accountant specialists.
The joke of the tax exiles ran for too long.
PS I would also give Bono a kick in the ar** the next time he pronounces to the Irish taxpayers how are taxes should be spent :rolleyes:

Value for money would be my primary concern.

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

Comments