The Deficit and public-sector pay

nesf

monkeytronics wrote: »

I really don;t know where your coming up with the idea that I have provided any logic that those who work hard should get more money?

I am not nor have advocated pay increases for anyone. But taking a good worker and bad worker side by side and paying them the same (public or private) is not fair firstly, but secondly doesn't provide value for money nor does it motivate anyone.

Please don't make up logic and apply it to me. Thanks!

Think of it this way, flat increases for everyone at a certain pay grade, almost by definition overpays the weakest members of that pay grade and underpays the best ones. If each worker was rewarded with a pay increase that actually reflected their ability, work ethic etc, the distribution of the pay increase across the pay grade would not be even.

mountainyman

monkeytronics wrote: »

I assume your last paragraph is meant to be the opposite way round?

I really don't understand your comment bolded above?

The public sector attracted FDI to Ireland, FDI is the source of our wealth.
The public sector created the money.

The private sector took that money (on deposit in the bank) and used to create a property ladder which is now a property snake.
They misallocated and vaporised the wealth the public sector created.

As for those who earn most being the most underpaid: there are many people at the bottom in the public sector who'd just be sacked in the private sector. A 45 year old EO with a drinking problem earning in the low 40s for example. (An extreme but not rare example).
Alternatively the 55 year old Assistant Secretary on 135K would be earning more in the private sector (or so the logic goes) and is alot more than three times as effective as the EO.

MM

Time Magazine

mountainyman wrote: »

The public sector attracted FDI to Ireland, FDI is the source of our wealth.
The public sector created the money.

Correction. The public sector found the source of the money, and the private sector created it.

No public servants work in Intel.

bigstar

i think its shameful to say 'i deserve my wages, take money from someone else' everyone is going to have to take a hit, public and private workers. the ESRI say public servants get more money compared to private workers overall (44%), not in like for like jobs, so i imagine the top earners in private sector, bankers/developers etc, must earn ridiculous wages. nobody needs over €100k so public servants earning over that get cuts. i think a nurse who earns €30k shouldnt be asked to accept a 10% cut without others on higher wages doing so. the private sector must shoulder most of the burden in this recession especially the highest earners. the tax system should be changed to reflect this and again earners over €100k should pay more tax and over €500k more tax and so on.

Time Magazine

bigstar wrote: »

i think a nurse who earns €30k shouldnt be asked to accept a 10% cut without others on higher wages doing so.

To be fair nobody's saying we're going to enjoy cutting nurses' wages. We're saying we simply cannot afford to keep paying them. It's that simple. We can't afford it.

mountainyman

The Economist wrote: »

Correction. The public sector found the source of the money, and the private sector created it.

No public servants work in Intel.

No public servants no intel at least in Ireland and the rest of the world is theory.

monkeytronics

bigstar wrote: »

i think its shameful to say 'i deserve my wages, take money from someone else' everyone is going to have to take a hit, public and private workers. the ESRI say public servants get more money compared to private workers overall (44%), not in like for like jobs, so i imagine the top earners in private sector, bankers/developers etc, must earn ridiculous wages. nobody needs over €100k so public servants earning over that get cuts. i think a nurse who earns €30k shouldnt be asked to accept a 10% cut without others on higher wages doing so. the private sector must shoulder most of the burden in this recession especially the highest earners. the tax system should be changed to reflect this and again earners over €100k should pay more tax and over €500k more tax and so on.

I hope that isn;t directed at me. I am not saying that I deserve what I get feck off. But what I am saying is I wont take a pay cut for anyone who turns around and says I should take it cos I am overpaid (relative to the work I do), lazy or any of the other genarlised comments directed towards public sector employees.

mountainyman

The Economist wrote: »

To be fair nobody's saying we're going to enjoy cutting nurses' wages. We're saying we simply cannot afford to keep paying them. It's that simple. We can't afford it.

It seems we need much more aggressive cost cutting than a 10% pay cut. Should we scrap free gerontological services?

We also need to raise taxes.

gurramok

nesf wrote: »

What do you mean by "80% of this economy"?

What i meant was that 80% of the employment is in the private sector.
Was it half a milllion employees in the public sector(including health) out of a workforce of 2.1million at last count?

monkeytronics wrote:

My problem here, is that the finger is being pointed at individuals who are being "overpaid" etc... or this whole public vs private bull**** that continues to be spouted.

Its based on reality. Your comrades in Euroland are paid alot less for the same job. If ye (and ye is meant as majority of public sector workers, not 25kpa clerks) were paid around the same, there would not be any justifiable 'attacks' on the public sector.
From the ginger one:
http://www.politics.ie/economy/38595-david-mcwilliams-irish-public-sector-pay-eus-highest.html

[]Ireland's average public sector pay in 2004 of €45,643 is the highest in the range of six advanced EU countries and compares with Britain at €35,189 and Germany €33,905. Irish public sector pay is 30% higher than Britain's.

[]Ireland is unique in the group of six in paying its public sector more than private sector pay,a whopping 28% more. And that's before valuing jobs for life security and gold plated final salary pensions.This is a form of state orchestrated looting of the private sector.

[]In the other countries, private sector pay is higher than the public sector's: in Britain by 8%,Germany 5%,Denmark 8%,Finland 12% and Netherlands 0.4%.

Before you say its BS, its quoted from another forum who in turn quoted the ginger fella(his source is Eurostat), is he wrong?

That's why the wage bill of the public sector has to be tackled as well as trying to generate strong private enterprise and yes reform of the taxation system.

bigstar

The Economist wrote: »

To be fair nobody's saying we're going to enjoy cutting nurses' wages. We're saying we simply cannot afford to keep paying them. It's that simple. We can't afford it.

i agree with that, and to be honest cutting the lower paid in the public wont save much its the higher wage earners who must accept cuts. the problem i have is that the unions will ask the rank and file to take cuts but the top earners should take the bigger sacrifice because they can afford it more than nurses/guards/teachers. i think staff cuts/redundancies are detrimental to the public service because for any real saving to made the more expensive and more experienced pay grades will be targeted.

bigstar

monkeytronics wrote: »

I hope that isn;t directed at me. I am not saying that I deserve what I get feck off. But what I am saying is I wont take a pay cut for anyone who turns around and says I should take it cos I am overpaid (relative to the work I do), lazy or any of the other genarlised comments directed towards public sector employees.

it was, but not because i disagree with you about the job you do. everyone in the country will have to adjust not just the public sector, we all have to be willing to take some pain. i just dont think its helpful to say im worth such and such thats all i meant (why pay attention to people who criticise public sector workers theyve never met)

Time Magazine

mountainyman wrote: »

No public servants no intel at least in Ireland and the rest of the world is theory.

1. You're over-selling the importance of the IDA. The industrial sector is not as important as the services sector, and the IDA is not responsible for the anywhere near the entire industrial sector.
2. The IDA will become increasingly less important as Ireland moves up "the value-chain" and away from manufacturing.
3. Nobody is arguing that government expenditure cannot be productive. Building motorways brings a positive return to the economy, as do universities. However, just like the IDA, motorways and universities facilitate private sector creation of wealth. The public sector does not, in itself, create wealth.
4. This is all really quite irrelevant. Regardless of what the IDA may have done in the past, Dell have pulled out. We simply cannot afford everything we could have last year, and this is the focus of this thread.

mountainyman

bigstar wrote: »

i agree with that, and to be honest cutting the lower paid in the public wont save much its the higher wage earners who must accept cuts..

Bad news mate you've got that backwards it is the low and middle paid whose wages constitute most of the spending.

mountainyman

The Economist wrote: »

1. You're over-selling the importance of the IDA. The industrial sector is not as important as the services sector, and the IDA is not responsible for the anywhere near the entire industrial sector.

4. This is all really quite irrelevant. Regardless of what the IDA may have done in the past, Dell have pulled out. We simply cannot afford everything we could have last year, and this is the focus of this thread.

The internationally traded services sector is IDA driven.

As for point 4 isn't this kind of pro cyclical spending what got us into this mess?
We can borrow the money for wages: UNLESS we believe that the tax take to pay them will never come back.

Maybe it won't.

Time Magazine

bigstar wrote: »

i agree with that, and to be honest cutting the lower paid in the public wont save much its the higher wage earners who must accept cuts.

Unfortunately this isn't true. It would be fine if we could say "right, anyone on more than €100k take a 20% pay cut." But that will go nowhere near filling the hole. The rank and file have to take a cut as well. I agree, the higher-ups should take a bigger hit (see my original post, I said 15% for those above €50k) but because there are so many rank and file and so few higher-ups, this isn't just a fairness issue. It's a simple "we can't afford this" problem.

As for your point about being detrimental to public services, nobody is doubting that. Nobody is suggesting that the public sector could take a €2bn hit and offer the same level of services. We're poorer and we'll have to accept longer waits on the phone etc. as a result.

I've read other people suggesting that we shouldn't make education cuts etc. because they're good investments. Nobody is doubting that they're good investments. It'd be a good investment for me to set up a factory in China right now, but I can't afford the €1m needed to do it. I just don't have it. Similarly the country can't afford all off the good investments it could otherwise have made.

P. Breathnach

This thread, like the one it replaced, seems to have been hijacked by people who want to slag one another off rather than consider the economic questions. Now to get back on-topic:

On cutting the public pay bill:
- If you cut public sector salaries by means of a cut in pay for all, the state then loses revenue streams as follows: tax at the effective rate for each worker (most often the top rate); income levy; pension contributions to retirement and spouse's and orphans' schemes. That would probably average out at about 50% of the nominal saving.
- If you cut public sector salaries by means of making people redundant, similar loss of revenue would be involved except that the tax foregone would be at the average effective rate rather than the marginal rate. But then the state would incur the costs of SW support for those now unemployed. Another ballpark estimate: 50%.

It is wrong to say that the public sector is unproductive. A huge proportion of the activity of the public sector is involved in providing services that we would consume anyway. If the state did not fund education, then families would have to do so. If the state did not provide health care, then individuals would have to pay. These are examples of potentially-tradable services provided in the public sector. We can calculate or estimate their exchange value.

asdasd

The internationally traded services sector is IDA driven.

The IDA nonsense has to stop. Lets agree to keep IDA pay high, in fact it is one of the areas where public sector performance can be measured. Give them performence benefits for getting in companies. This is unrelated to the rest of the Public Sector however.

Mountainyman's argument that entrepeneurs don't create wealth but the IDA do is still a large source of amusement to people who post, and lurk, on this thread. I imagine.

asdasd

If you cut public sector salaries by means of a cut in pay for all, the state then loses revenue streams as follows: tax at the effective rate for each worker (most often the top rate); income levy; pension contributions to retirement and spouse's and orphans' schemes. That would probably average out at about 50% of the nominal saving.

The public sector pay bill excludes all tax. I explained this earlier in the thread.

Time Magazine

mountainyman wrote: »

The internationally traded services sector is IDA driven.

I'll let you have that point, not because I necessarily agree with it but because it's off-topic.

As for point 4 isn't this kind of pro cyclical spending what got us into this mess?
We can borrow the money for wages: UNLESS we believe that the tax take to pay them will never come back.

Maybe it won't.

Yes pro-cyclical policies got us into this mess. However the main problem facing us now is the budget deficit rather than the recession. The recession isn't nice and plenty of people are going to lose their jobs. However the budget deficit is just fuppin' massive. The recession is like us having to move to a smaller house, but the budget deficit is like the house being on fire.

We simply can't spend our way out of this one. We need to either increase tax, make cutbacks, or a mixture of both. Of course most people agree a mixture of both is needed. I'm suggesting the problem is so big that we need for example to increase taxes by about 3% for all grades, basically put the NDP on hold and save about €2bn on the public pay bill. That will worsen the recession slightly, agreed. It'd make the recession go from something like a 3% decline in output to 4%. However it'll cut the budget deficit by a much bigger amount.

mountainyman

But why can't we just borrow money and carry on regardless. Surely the recession will end in a couple of years.

bigstar

i agree that the public service bill is too high and the deficit must be tackled. the only real solution is to raise taxes and cut spending. as said already 10% cuts in the public service saves €2bn, that leaves €17bn, taxes have to raise simple as that. i think the tax system should be restructured, over €100k pay an extra 2%, over €500k an extra 2% again. im not sure of the figures but whatever needs to be raised should be raised and it has to be raised through tax. i think a capital spending program would provide jobs and a small amount of growth during these few years and more taxes and an infrastructure for when the recession ends

Économiste Monétaire

mountainyman wrote: »

But why can't we just borrow money and carry on regardless. Surely the recession will end in a couple of years.

I really, really hope that's a joke. Please say it is.

Time Magazine

mountainyman wrote: »

But why can't we just borrow money and carry on regardless. Surely the recession will end in a couple of years.

Countries aren't all that different to individuals. There's a limit to how much they can borrow.

johnnyc

monkeytronics wrote: »

I don't know where you are getting this notion that I am contradicting myself. Yes the entity known known as the public service provides services to everyone in the state and yes as an element of the cost of providing such services the human resource factor should be and requires payment.

Redundancies has nothing to do with any of that. I am not going to repeat my point on redundancies again re-read all of my previous posts where I have explained my viewpoint regarding public sector redundancies.

My point with you is simple. You like to enforce competiveness and bash the public off the private sector. These non-sensical, simplistic points that you put forward do not form any part of a solution to any problem being addressed. Your posts soaked in obvious dislike of the entity of the public sector.

Oh and:
"Imagine having no private sector, the standard of living will stagnate or drop Soviet style" Again further highlights that your contribution to a debate on the necessary actions to improve the short and long term finances of the country is to spout a private versus public sector bull**** arguement.

As I've said to you before, its non-sensical short sighted view point. I could just as easily jump on such a wobbly band wagon by suggesting that the only reason why we are even needing to discuss the fundamentals of a recession is due to the downright greed of the private sector. But I won't bother getting into the same level of stupidity that you spout.

Your wrong.... U should head off to china

nesf

gurramok wrote: »

What i meant was that 80% of the employment is in the private sector.
Was it half a milllion employees in the public sector(including health) out of a workforce of 2.1million at last count?

I think it's somewhere around 12-13% of the workforce is employed in the public service but I could be wrong. I'm not sure I like identifying the economy with the workforce though. There are other factors involved other than people earning salaries.

Also, 2.1 million employed was the figure from the middle of last year. I imagine it's lower now.

bigstar

yesterdays times had 300 odd thousand public servants

nesf

bigstar wrote: »

yesterdays times had 300 odd thousand public servants

Yeah, I think Ed Walshe mentioned something like 350,000 as the figure for total employed in the Public Service on Q&A last Monday.

P. Breathnach

asdasd wrote: »

The public sector pay bill excludes all tax. I explained this earlier in the thread.

No, you did not explain: you asserted.

gurramok

If my maths is correct, that a majority of the 16%(the overpaid ones, not the 25k clerk) of the workforce holds the other 84% to ransom in disagreeing over their high pay being cut?

We're not just expensive in relation to China, we're no 2 after tiny Luxembourg in the Eurozone!

MG

This thread is very depressing. There seems to be little appreciation of the scale of the problem and few ideas of how to bridge the 19Bn gap.

Last October, when the department of Finance published their (hopelessly optimistic) estimates for 2009, the estimated income tax take was estimated at 13.4 Bn. The hole is 19Bn. That's the scale of the problem.

The public sector can't bury their heads in the sand and bury the country.

bigstar

the entire public sector would have to be cut to save €19bn. this isnt a simply public sector issue, taxes must be raised

doncarlos

MG wrote: »

The public sector can't bury their heads in the sand and bury the country.

I don't think its a case of burying our heads in the sand its a case of not wanting to give up wages? Who in their right mind would be willing to give wages that they feel they have earned?

jayok

My first post here be kind. Also, I've never studied economics so my views here might be vastly simplistic and I welcome feedback as I learn.

From the outset I'd like to state that the solution to this problem requires both the public and private sectors working together.

I have and do run companies so I'd like to give my take how to address this. There are both tactical and strategy steps we need to take. Firstly, as I see it, the big problem isn't so much the €19bn debt, but the rate at which that debt is growing. We need to get to a position where by we minimize the the growth of this debt asap and get stable. The only way we can minimize any debt growth is to cut spending and/or increase income. These are the short term tactics.

1. Raise taxes, this will apply across the board with higher income earners paying more in a percentage. Yes this can/will add to deflation but also raises income directly at 20/41% (not like VAT, etc).
2. Cut costs. - This can be done in a number of ways:
- Increase the working week. It allows the wages to remain the same with increases in output. For example, a 35 hr week no at 40 hours is a 15% increase in output
- Remove quangos, etc the odd million here will help reduce the rate of the loss
- Reduce the higher paid public servant salaries by a reasonable amount
- Opt out of things like Koyoto. While our environment is vital, a proper strategy is need not some ad-hoc government green policy


Ok, some cruel and blunt ideas there but it should slow the rate of the losses.

Now some strategic notions. These would be longer term ideas to help revert the loss and perform a recovery. As stated previosuly we need a strong private sector to generate taxes to pay for civic services. But the public service has a critical role in this success.

1. Upskills and training. Education is the key here. We need to create a culture of idea creation and innovation. An educated workforce with a broad view of the world and technologies will result in new innovations. The public service can help foster such innovation (Through FAS and Universities).
2. Exploitation of Ireland natural resources. We are surrounded by water with an impressive ocean to the west. Resources such as fishing, wind/tidal power, need to be explored with point 1 above. Same applies to agriculture. We need new technologies here.
3. Improve infrastucture. Not just road but comms, water, recycling, etc.
4. Focus on exporting out technologies and skills. Correct me if I am wrong but for a positive balance sheet we need to sell more than we buy.


Ideally, we'd minimise the growth of the losses to a point whereby eventually they start to turn around and stop growing. Then by focusing the scare money on what we actually have (human capital) and natural resources, create more stable ecomony with more consistent and stable growth.

I know the ideas are simply and I've tried to but this in economic "terms" and there are holes in the ideas, but could such a simply strategy be viable?

bug

The Economist wrote: »

In 2009 the government faces a budget deficit of €19bn

The enormity of this deficit cannot be understated. The entire public sector wage bill is €20bn, so to the change needed is the equivalent of sacking 95% of the public sector. Obviously this can't happen. We need to make cuts everywhere.

The Gardaí's entire budget for 2008 is €1.6bn. The Department of Education spent €7.9bn in 2006. In 2007 the Department of Defence spent €817m. If we were to scrap the Department of Agriculture that saves us another €1.24bn. We spend about €870m on Development Aid. So if we scrapped the Gardaí, bulldozed every school and university, disbanded the army, let the farmers starve and stop helping out Ethiopia... we'd still another €6.5bn, or go round and collect €150 for every man, woman and child in the country every month. It's a serious situation.

I suggest we need to make serious changes everywhere. The primary concern here is public sector pay. Having worked in the public sector I know how hard many people work. I also know that I was paid more than necessary. So this is not some sort of über-capitalist rampage against big government, and conversely I hope it doesn't become an über-socialist rant about the benefits of social democracy. Let's keep this a discussion about the facts of the government finances -- that 's what this forum is for.

I suggest, in light of the seriousness of the situation, that all public servants take a 10% pay cut. Moreover, I think all public servants above the grade of AO (that's basically "those on more than €50k") take a further 5% cut. This would save over €2bn.

There is no debate that most public servants are hard-working individuals. There is similarly no doubt that there are many hundreds, probably thousands, of people who are not necessary for the effective running of the State. There is some debate about whether public sector workers are over-paid, but the evidence points clearly in line that at least some are well-over paid. For example, the average public sector wage now stood at €49,026, some 44 per cent higher than the average industrial wage of €34,018. Now, on the other hand, there are no minimum wagers in the public sector -- so how much is the true difference? Well the ESRI report that:



So it's clear that there is a strong case for lowering public sector pay. It's not a presumption of laziness, but it would seem like a better target than closing schools, cancelling surgeries, or cutting payments to the disabled.

Let's try and keep this debate civil, and a reasonable high level. I think the best way to kick this off is to put it to those working in the public sector who suggest that there should be no pay cuts: where do you suggest we get the €19bn from?

OK.
As a public servant I agree. I'll take a 10% pay cut for four years, I say four years because within those four years I want to see my personal conditions met This is all theoretical because the unions will bring the country to a standstill... so I'm saying what I really think.

These are my personal conditions - non unionised ones, as Im not a member of any union and personally don't understand who they represent.

1) deliver the public service reform that staff and the public alike have been waiting for the the last - god knows how many years...
Try not to employ consultants, just ask us, we do the job - we know what people want and need to improve.

Oh, and try and get people you already pay to implement it there are plenty of clever logistical people in the PS who you already pay a fortune who could undertake this job for you/us.

2) Education, consolidate the IT's. Force them to work from one board/governance council, even if its to consolidate their procurement. This would further cut costs as one body together in the market can competitively tender. Make the universities do the same accross the board on all areas of procurement where possible.

there's two small ideas for 10% I'd happily give back to the idiots who allowed the public sector to become what it is, along with the reams of other stuff they messed up.

BroomBurner

bug wrote: »

OK.
As a public servant I agree. I'll take a 10% pay cut for four years, I say four years because within those four years I want to see my personal conditions met This is all theoretical because the unions will bring the country to a standstill... so I'm saying what I really think.

These are my personal conditions - non unionised ones, as Im not a member of any union and personally don't understand who they represent.

1) deliver the public service reform that staff and the public alike have been waiting for the the last - god knows how many years...
Try not to employ consultants, just ask us, we do the job - we know what people want and need to improve.

Oh, and try and get people you already pay to implement it there are plenty of clever logistical people in the PS who you already pay a fortune who could undertake this job for you/us.

2) Education, consolidate the IT's. Force them to work from one board/governance council, even if its to consolidate their procurement. This would further cut costs as one body together in the market can competitively tender. Make the universities do the same accross the board on all areas of procurement where possible.

there's two small ideas for 10% I'd happily give back to the idiots who allowed the public sector to become what it is, along with the reams of other stuff they messed up.

That's a great post, in particular the emboldened part.

There is such a feeling of depression in parts of the PS. You work hard, you try to improve things, you get caught in red tape, you have to try to explain this red tape to members of the public who treat you like a useless drone who doesn't deserve your wage.

gurramok

I think whats needed to help plug the deficit is indeed the dreaded property tax.

We had about 17% of tax revenue from the property bubble at its peak and that has collapsed now.
Other countries which went through boom and bust like the UK still have a constant revenue stream through a property tax despite a bust which accounts for around 15% of tax revenues according to the competitiveness report posted here in another thread.

Now whether the average Irish person is willing to fork out maybe a grand in tax per yr to live in a 3bed semi for this is a huge obstacle for any govt to persuade.

Without touching PPR's first, it could be gradually introduced for 2nd and subsequent properties as lets face it there are hundreds of thousands of them out there. This will help stabilise the housing market(buy and rent sector) when it recovers as well as providing a steady revenue stream.

So the property tax in whatever form it takes. Obstacles are
1 - a public does not want to pay for the govt mistakes on the economy
2 - it will mean less money in pocket of workers(owners & renters) hence depressing economic activity especially on the consumer side a bit. (allegedy 60%+ of the economy is consumer spending). Depression won't last long but it will weigh down on any boom in spending
3 - political suicide.

Tax rises cannot happen for the majority of earners because of the record personal debt that is out there, all €400bn of it. And if taxes are raised either through income tax or the usual indirect taxes or the property tax, it will not lead to a surge in consumer spending.
Alas, as i said in my first post on this deficit thing, we're snookered without public sector pay cutbacks and/or 'modest' tax rises and the former looks more likely along with a 'tiger' Enterprise Ireland to get us out of this mess.

dfbemt

19bn savings needed and all the posts are talking about short term to long term solutions. What about the immediate savings that can be made. As and from Monday, the government call in the unions and tell them
1. Increments are now stopped, no more for the forseeable future
2. No vacancies will be filled
3. Each job sharer will be counted as 1 for head count purposes, not half
4. We have just purchased X amount of low fuel consumption vehicles. Use these for pooled travel, no more mileage expenses (say 1 vehicle per 50 workers who regularly travel)
5. All subsistence expenses to be vouched
6. VER for staff with less than 10 years to go (they are mostly on the max of their pay scales)

Can anybody think of any more immediately achieveable savings that can stop the rot. Once done and savings appear then we can work on the next step. The unions might complain but that will be the extent of it, nothing more.

bug

dfbemt wrote: »

19bn savings needed and all the posts are talking about short term to long term solutions. What about the immediate savings that can be made. As and from Monday, the government call in the unions and tell them
1. Increments are now stopped, no more for the forseeable future
2. No vacancies will be filled
3. Each job sharer will be counted as 1 for head count purposes, not half
4. We have just purchased X amount of low fuel consumption vehicles. Use these for pooled travel, no more mileage expenses (say 1 vehicle per 50 workers who regularly travel)
5. All subsistence expenses to be vouched
6. VER for staff with less than 10 years to go (they are mostly on the max of their pay scales)

4. No more mileage expenses full stop, you don't see many private sector workers trying to get money back for a car trip, besides the logistics of pooled transport will only involve.. you guessed it, hiring consultants to figure it out. Just cut it out and dont offer an alternative. In my building there is one person out on the road that should be. Thats it.

5. Subsistance is already "vouched" for. It doesn't take away from the problem.
Subsistence rates are determined by the department of finance as far as Im aware. Any job spec that includes that international travel is part of the job are the only ones that should be claiming travel expenses/subs. Other than that it should be an immediate no go. Conference calls suffice for most things - look how well Intel did with phone conference meetings.

Oh I thought of another one in most PS bodies - non-pay, (non-salary) budgets for 2009 should have been planned submissions. i.e. each department within a body look at their own outgoings for 2009 and make a submission on that basis and it submitted as a proposal to the department of finance - An in detail, what we'll be spending on this year (backed up with quotes), since your in the ****house, budget - proposal stylee.

If you dont want to do it you dont get a budget. If a call had gone out in Oct they would have had no choice but to do it.
They could have provided for an interim review where ommissions would be reviewed in...June... perhaps.

dfbemt

gurramok wrote: »

I think whats needed to help plug the deficit is indeed the dreaded property tax.

Without touching PPR's first, it could be gradually introduced for 2nd and subsequent properties as lets face it there are hundreds of thousands of them out there. This will help stabilise the housing market(buy and rent sector) when it recovers as well as providing a steady revenue stream.

So the property tax in whatever form it takes.

Did the government not do this in Budget 2009 - a €200 levy, payable to local council, on non PPR's?

book smarts

I remember some report published during the boom said that 1 in 7 public sector workers weren't needed or something. I'd say the real number is more like 1 in 2. It's a bloated, inefficient, wasteful dinosaur.

Most of the people I know in the public sector sit on their arse all day twiddling their thumbs. They literally do nothing some days. They have a ridiculous flexitime system that wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector. Once their probation is over they are virtually unsackable. They try and "look busy" by pretending to be doing something. They have meetings where would be "go-getters" suggest greater bureaucracy and waste, and no-one dares object, or they face hostility. I am sick of hearing how hard these people work. The majority don't. They probably think recycling meaningless paperwork is real work.

One time in Tallaght hospital I saw 4 people take 30 mins to clean up a small water spill. One cleaner, and 3 middle managers to watch and have a mini-conference session about it. It would have been funny if it wasn't so sad. It's not for nothing that the old joke about council workers sitting in a hut at the side of the road all day drinking tea was made. It's true. But you daren't say this or your shouted down by militant union members, protecting their gravy train.

The money wasted by this government was sickening. One example-The LUAS-the Springfield Monorail. The people who use it were using the bus anyway!
And everyday more is wasted...

nesf

bug wrote: »

4. No more mileage expenses full stop, you don't see many private sector workers trying to get money back for a car trip,

Actually it's fairly standard in the private sector in many areas, especially sales. Anyone who has to do work regularly away from "base" generally can expect some kind of expenses paid for it. Rates in the private sector tend to be based on (but often less) than the civil servant rate.

That said, there's a big difference between a sales person who spends a lot of time on the road getting mileage and an office worker claiming it for a short drive to a meeting.

nesf

book smarts wrote: »

I remember some report published during the boom said that 1 in 7 public sector workers weren't needed or something. I'd say the real number is more like 1 in 2. It's a bloated, inefficient, wasteful dinosaur.

Eh, so we fire a bunch of teachers, nurses, doctors and gardaí then yeah? Because it 1 in 2 isn't needed, you're talking about a lot of those. There aren't as many paper pushers as people think.

MG

doncarlos wrote: »

I don't think its a case of burying our heads in the sand its a case of not wanting to give up wages? Who in their right mind would be willing to give wages that they feel they have earned?

The public sector have the privilage of being able to discuss whether they want to give something up. Most in the private sector are taking cuts or losing their jobs. They are giving up wages they feel they have earned but they have no say in the matter.

In any case, the fact remains that a 19 bn deficit cannot be plugged without cuts - to deny this is burying your head in the sand.

BroomBurner

bug wrote: »

Oh I thought of another one in most PS bodies - non-pay, (non-salary) budgets for 2009 should have been planned submissions. i.e. each department within a body look at their own outgoings for 2009 and make a submission on that basis and it submitted as a proposal to the department of finance - An in detail, what we'll be spending on this year (backed up with quotes), since your in the ****house, budget - proposal stylee.

They already do this. Every department has to submit something similar to a business plan for the year ahead. Do you think people that work in the public sector were born yesterday?

rkevin

tell you what i think we should privatise all the public service
when the people that are bashing the public service have to pay massive money to educate they kids, drive on the roads, and pay massive money to private hospitals they will be shouting why did the privatise them.
going by the way the private sector have ripped off the people when they get there hands on the public service e will be all screwed
private sector employees have bought this county to it knees with inflated prices and have all given irish people a mad name across the world
one example i was in poland and i see signs in shops "No irish need Apply"
why?????/
because the way the private employees treated polish workers
shame on all of yea and it was all for greed

MG

rkevin wrote: »

tell you what i think we should privatise all the public service
when the people that are bashing the public service have to pay massive money to educate they kids, drive on the roads, and pay massive money to private hospitals they will be shouting why did the privatise them.
going by the way the private sector have ripped off the people when they get there hands on the public service e will be all screwed
private sector employees have bought this county to it knees with inflated prices and have all given irish people a mad name across the world
one example i was in poland and i see signs in shops "No irish need Apply"
why?????/
because the way the private employees treated polish workers
shame on all of yea and it was all for greed

Disgraceful post. The idea that all private sector employees are racists is the product of a twisted mind.

And as for greed.....well one could argue that this thread is all about greed.

We need to get real about the scale of the problem. We have a 19Bn hole to fill, cuts can't be avoided. Everyone needs to take some pain.

Time Magazine

I issued a couple of infractions. Please stay on-topic - we've already run one thread into the ground talking crap. Most posters here are having a good discussion so please don't ruin it for us.

Thanks.

ixoy

bug wrote: »

Try not to employ consultants, just ask us, we do the job - we know what people want and need to improve.

Actually on this: I'm a consultant working with the public service. I have a background in IT that many COs/EOs would lack because it's not what they would have studied in college. Therefore the PS would need to make a program to specifically target IT grads or to spend a lot of time and money upskilling existing workers, many of whom may not be up to the task given IT requires a certain temperament at times.

There's also other factors - I could be asked to work long hours at short
notice and I imagine that in the more cosseted world of the PS, you'd have greater difficulty telling some what to do; you could only ask. I've seen that first-hand myself.

Then there's that great advantage of employing outside consultants - although you're paying a high daily rate (I imagine I cost far more than I earn...), you have the advantage of letting them go at short notice, no need for pension, PRSI, etc. That's great for short-term projects: would it be economically advantageous to be able to employ SOs/EOs/AOs etc to do the same job given it'd be much harder to remove them?

What I would imagine is a better approach - and I'm open to correction - is that the government draws up short-term contracts for some of these projects and employs them directly, rather than through an intermediary whilst upskilling their own workers. Medium- to long-term projects (e.g. maintenance) could be assumed by their own staff whilst short-term ones would be completed by contract workers. Even better suggestion: Target the workers (like myself) and make them employment offers. Most likely the wage they get in hand is more than they're on, without having to pay consultancy overheads. Also no need to train them in as they already have all the skills and knowledge required.

MG

I thought it might be helpful to give a private sector insight into why we want a public sector pay cut.

Looking at the history of pay of the last few years, there was upward market pressure on private sector pay during the "boom". Public sector employees felt they lagged behind and probably with some justification. This gap was bridged by wage agreements and benchmarking. Benchmarking is theory can be welcomed but there was some scepticism that it could be objectively implemented. the test of this would be whether some public sector wages would be adjusted down as well as up. As far as I know there were no downward adjustments. This undermined the process and put wage levels on par with the private sector in the peiod of high upward pressure, often illogically so. Also the numbers in the public sector increases on the back of revenue from the illusory boom.

We were given lots of warnings it couldn't last but 99% of people didn't want to listen. Benchmarking increases were given and accepted without accounting for the fact that the tax revenue from the private sector paying for them were unsustainable in the medium term.

So the bubble burst and there is now huge downward pressure on private sector wages and the tax revenues from the private sector. The building labourer is no longer earning 50k, he's on the dole and with little prospect of working in the foreseeable future.

So we are facing a huge budget deficit, an estimated 19 Bn. Clearly this is unsustainable or we will find ourselves back with a huge national debt crushing us for a generation. Tax revenue will not recover quickly, it may never get back to the level of the boom years in real terms. We need to readjust expenditure to align to the realities of lower income.

So we need to act quickly. Public sector pay is about one third of the expenditure of the state so it must naturally be looked at. All the private sector is really looking for is benchmarking again, except this time to account for the recession rather than the boom.

book smarts

nesf wrote: »

Eh, so we fire a bunch of teachers, nurses, doctors and gardaí then yeah? Because it 1 in 2 isn't needed, you're talking about a lot of those. There aren't as many paper pushers as people think.

If you really streamlined the service you probably could fire a lot of those. I am also sick of hearing how "good" a job they do. They have a title so everyone gives them respect they don't actually deserve.

Teachers- get 3 months holidays for fcks sake! Finished at 4pm everyday! And from what I hear there's plenty of pointless paperwork and bureaucracy there to. I heard a story about a ridiculous teachers meeting where they argued for an hour about what meeting about a meeting they were going to have!

Nurses- I don't know how many times I've seen them sitting around gossiping while people wait on trolleys. I've heard numerous stories of how little they know compared to days of old. I've also heard (from nurses) that many people have died in hospitals due to fckups and it's kept quiet.

Doctors- GPs just seem to write prescriptions or refer you to a consultant. They're hardly ever open. You could scrap the GP system and have local clinics. And as for consultants- they visit the hospital 4 days a month and spend the rest of their time in the private clinics- and they get paid a fortune for those 4 days. They hold the HSE to ransom.

Guards- The only ones who do good are the detectives who interview informants. The rest hassle drivers and teenagers, and rip the system off with huge overtime.

Every modern organisation has pencil pushers, even the private sector. Humans, and particularly groups of humans, are inefficient by nature. This is well known. Have you never heard of the 80/20 rule? 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. Or that work expands to fill the time available, or seems to? You could easily streamline those sectors.