Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
credit ratings downgraded soon
-
29-01-2009 2:10am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
....I saw that as well. No surprise either. As I said in another post either the Irish Governemnt introduces responsibility into spending policies in the Irish PS or the IMF will. As these ratings get further downgraded, no banker in their right mind will lend money to the Irish PS. Imagine a banker listening to Union leaders David Beggs, Jack OConnor, and Peter McCloone, asking to borrow money, with their insincere and false promises of new efficiencies to be delivered. Hopefully the bankers will know about the fraud inherent in benchmarking and will ask these guys to put up their own money. The Captains of waste in Ireland woudlnt be seen for dust. At that point the Irish PS runs out of money and the IMF get called in. They fire every second public servant until they get government spending in line with government revenues. They do not allow endless increases in taxes wither because 100 tax is communism. We all know what that leads to; queueing for bread, no fuel, 10 hour economics lectures from the labour party with special guest speakers David Beggs, Peter McCloone, and Jack O Connor, the government news media telling us how the fearless Irish worker will win the struggle, while peter Mc Cloone wines and dines in first class, learning his next speech.
When I say fraud in benchmarking I am talking about the lies, false promises and misleading statements made by the PS in respect of their intentions to improve working practices and improve productivity in the PS.
Have you studied previous IMF interventions in sovereign debt restructuring? Firing half of all public servants solves nothing, even they realise that. I'm interested in your claims about borrowings: What proportion of our national debt is a credit line from banks? What proportion of our national debt is held by banks? Since when have banks lent to the Irish Public sector? Since when has the Irish public sector had a credit rating? (As opposed to sovereign credit rating.)0 -
Économiste Monétaire wrote: »....
Have you studied previous IMF interventions in sovereign debt restructuring? Firing half of all public servants solves nothing, even they realise that. I'm interested in your claims about borrowings: What proportion of our national debt is a credit line from banks? What proportion of our national debt is held by banks? Since when have banks lent to the Irish Public sector? Since when has the Irish public sector had a credit rating? (As opposed to sovereign credit rating.)
Economist
Ok, I think you probably know more than I do, judging from your other posts. I am willing to learn. Here's what I know to be true, though always willing to be corrected.
The Irish governement/PS decides taxation and spending levels and borrowings as required. The Irish government sells bonds to international investors to fund borrowings for the operation of the public sector on the basis the loans and interest will be repaid. In 2009, the government/PS will spend 55 Bn and will take in 35 Bn, leaving it 20 Bn short. They hope to save 2Bn in spending, so they will have to borrow 18Bn or more in 2009, and also in 2010, 2011 etc. Borrowing for productive successful investments can be funded I imagine, as there is a good chance (but no guarantee) money can be made, but borrowing to shore up salaries, pensions and job security for public servants to run wasteful PS organisations (CIE, ESB, HSE, ETC., ETC) will not generate returns necessary to repay loans. (52 porters paid from public funds in a Limerick hospital, and one turns in for work on one occassion last year, does not generate wealth it wastes it). Furthermore, if O' Connor, McCloone, and Beggs really get into their stride calling for go slows, strikes etc., then the country ceases to function and cannot repay loans.
We have entered a new era economically, as Im sure you know better than I, where debt is not funded as easlily as before. The credit rating agencies have woken up and have already started to downgrade Ireland's debt making it more difficult (more expensive) to borrow in future. At some point difficult becomes impossible as international lenders no longer wish to fund Irish debt. Borrowing at a rate of 18 Bn per year in my view makes difficult into impossible within I guess 2 - 3 years. At that point the government has so much debt racked up and so much disarray in the economy that its borrowing capacity is nil. What it still has, however, is a bloated, overpaid and overprotected public sector, which it can no longer pay for. At that point the country's credibility that it can run its own affairs is lost and someone has to take over.
That is what I think the IMF do, and the first step is to make huge cuts in the public sector. If you can show me where I am wrong please do so. I am willing to learn.
The alternative is to make the necessary cuts in public spending now. In my opinion, 2 Bn is the very least that needs to be achieved immediately to avoid the scenario described above. Further cuts of 4 Bn are planned for next year and need to be delivered. I would argue that these cuts are needed rather than tax increases. The private sector is reeling and the last thing it needs are extra taxes. However, it was no surprise but nonetheless annoying, to hear public servants (the central bank) arguing that the current level of Government/ PS spending should shored up with tax increases.0 -
The debt is sovereign debt, which is distinct from "public service borrowing." What collateral can the public sector produce?The Irish governement/PS decides taxation and spending levels and borrowings as required. The Irish government sells bonds to international investors to fund borrowings for the operation of the public sector on the basis the loans and interest will be repaid.
An example is national development finance agency and capital projects, not borrowing to fund wages. The NTMA controls government finance allocation to semi-state bodies (borrows on behalf of, for example, the HFA), I've not heard of a public sector department borrowing in its own right.
They’re projecting net current expenditure to be €49bn and net capital expenditure to be ~€10bn, in 2009. They’re hoping not to borrow ~€18bn a year. The only information we have on future borrowings is the “Addendum to the Irish Stability Programme Update,” which proposes to save €2bn, €4bn, €4bn, €3.5bn, €3bn, in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively. Can we borrow ~€18 a year? As Colm McCarthy said, “who wants to find out?” I'd advise to take a look at it on the Dept. of Finance site.In 2009, the government/PS will spend 55 Bn and will take in 35 Bn, leaving it 20 Bn short. They hope to save 2Bn in spending, so they will have to borrow 18Bn or more in 2009, and also in 2010, 2011 etc.
Of course I agree with borrowing to fund capital investment only, i.e. a good rate of return. You can argue that education and health care, even their wages, are capital investment and not waste. Health and Education are the largest areas of expenditure in the wages and salaries bill. Borrowing for current expenditure is generally frowned upon, but we would have a current budget deficit anyway because we have large transfer programmes, e.g. unemployment benefit. This is true for all of Europe—these type of injections of cash are called automatic stabilisers, and are mini-stimulus packages on their own.Borrowing for productive successful investments can be funded I imagine, as there is a good chance (but no guarantee) money can be made, but borrowing to shore up salaries, pensions and job security for public servants to run wasteful PS organisations (CIE, ESB, HSE, ETC., ETC) will not generate returns necessary to repay loans. (52 porters paid from public funds in a Limerick hospital, and one turns in for work on one occassion last year, does not generate wealth it wastes it). Furthermore, if O' Connor, McCloone, and Beggs really get into their stride calling for go slows, strikes etc., then the country ceases to function and cannot repay loans.
I agree with the point of stressed capital markets. This thread has some discussion on bond markets, and in particular, the increased level of borrowings by the large countries this year. For example, Germany has an estimated issuance of €323bn in debt this year, and the U.S. has ~€2.5tn. Large countries are squeezing emerging markets, and the smaller nations. There’s a graph in that thread, from the ECB monthly bulletin, with projections of long-term interest rates benchmarked against government debt. With probable deflation, i.e. a lowering of interest rates later in the year, the rise in rates is quite dramatic. I'll attach Germany's expected issuance in a pdf, I can't find the link. My point is that banks aren't the sole source of funding for our bonds; they accounted for approx. 25% of purchasers of the issuance in December 2008, if I recall correctly.We have entered a new era economically, as Im sure you know better than I, where debt is not funded as easlily as before. The credit rating agencies have woken up and have already started to downgrade Ireland's debt making it more difficult (more expensive) to borrow in future. At some point difficult becomes impossible as international lenders no longer wish to fund Irish debt. Borrowing at a rate of 18 Bn per year in my view makes difficult into impossible within I guess 2 - 3 years. At that point the government has so much debt racked up and so much disarray in the economy that its borrowing capacity is nil. What it still has, however, is a bloated, overpaid and overprotected public sector, which it can no longer pay for. At that point the country's credibility that it can run its own affairs is lost and someone has to take over.
If you want an interesting read about IMF austerity programs (massive cuts in spending, et cetera) then I heartily recommend Joe Stiglitz’s Globalization and its Discontents, and Making Globalization Work; there's also a review by the World Bank on conditionality for loans, which was quite negative, and holds true for the analogous IMF approach. If you look at recent IMF actions, e.g. Iceland, conditionality was non-existent due to lessons learned from the Asian currency crisis. The fund they’re using to support countries came about from that situation, "Crisis Lending." That level of conditionality, i.e. halving the public sector, isn't really paradigm anymore because of the social unrest it causes, which doesn't play to investors.That is what I think the IMF do, and the first step is to make huge cuts in the public sector. If you can show me where I am wrong please do so. I am willing to learn.
Say that we did fire half of all public servants, and assume that wages are uniform enough so that we exactly halve the bill. Now consider that the average public sector wage is around the €40k mark (the actual figure is in one of the public sector threads, or in the ESRI paper I linked in there), so they pay a decent amount of tax. You won’t save the full €10bn, net. Take out income tax, and indirect taxes from consumption by those employees, and then factor in social welfare support for the workers (especially in the current employment environment), you would be lucky to save ~€4-5. A lot of those cuts will land in Education, Police, and Health Care. Not only will you have protests from making ~150,000 people redundant, you’ll also have riots on the streets by people unable to get into hospital and kids not being able to go to school.The alternative is to make the necessary cuts in public spending now. In my opinion, 2 Bn is the very least that needs to be achieved immediately to avoid the scenario described above. Further cuts of 4 Bn are planned for next year and need to be delivered. I would argue that these cuts are needed rather than tax increases. The private sector is reeling and the last thing it needs are extra taxes. However, it was no surprise but nonetheless annoying, to hear public servants (the central bank) arguing that the current level of Government/ PS spending should shored up with tax increases.
Wages are the primary issue. This paper illustrates the public sector wage premium, and the effect on wage inflation by private sector workers following the public sector. The central bank is reiterating what other macroeconomists have said—read Philip Lane’s paper on the future of Ireland’s fiscal position here. The tax argument is treated in that paper, I think.0 -
Économiste Monétaire wrote: »The debt is sovereign debt, which is distinct from "public service borrowing." What collateral can the public sector produce? An example is national development finance agency and capital projects, not borrowing to fund wages. The NTMA controls government finance allocation to semi-state bodies (borrows on behalf of, for example, the HFA), I've not heard of a public sector department borrowing in its own right.
Interesting. However, whatever the mechanics of the cash flow, the public services/Government is seriously overspending and the shortfall has to be made up from borrowings or higher taxes. The govt will issue sovereign debt and hand over the loans received to the public service who spend it. These laons and interest have to be repaid, so all funding shortfalls end up in higher taxes.Économiste Monétaire wrote: »They’re projecting net current expenditure to be €49bn and net capital expenditure to be ~€10bn, in 2009. They’re hoping not to borrow ~€18bn a year. The only information we have on future borrowings is the “Addendum to the Irish Stability Programme Update,” which proposes to save €2bn, €4bn, €4bn, €3.5bn, €3bn, in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively. Can we borrow ~€18 a year? As Colm McCarthy said, “who wants to find out?” I'd advise to take a look at it on the Dept. of Finance site.
I will, thanks for the reference.Économiste Monétaire wrote: »Of course I agree with borrowing to fund capital investment only, i.e. a good rate of return. You can argue that education and health care, even their wages, are capital investment and not waste. Health and Education are the largest areas of expenditure in the wages and salaries bill. Borrowing for current expenditure is generally frowned upon, but we would have a current budget deficit anyway because we have large transfer programmes, e.g. unemployment benefit. This is true for all of Europe—these type of injections of cash are called automatic stabilisers, and are mini-stimulus packages on their own.
Wages and salaries are not a capital investment, they are a current cost and borrowing money to pay wages is not sustainable, particularly when there is clear evidence of overstaffing and overpaying of staff.Économiste Monétaire wrote: »I agree with the point of stressed capital markets. This thread has some discussion on bond markets, and in particular, the increased level of borrowings by the large countries this year. For example, Germany has an estimated issuance of €323bn in debt this year, and the U.S. has ~€2.5tn. Large countries are squeezing emerging markets, and the smaller nations. There’s a graph in that thread, from the ECB monthly bulletin, with projections of long-term interest rates benchmarked against government debt. With probable deflation, i.e. a lowering of interest rates later in the year, the rise in rates is quite dramatic. I'll attach Germany's expected issuance in a pdf, I can't find the link. My point is that banks aren't the sole source of funding for our bonds; they accounted for approx. 25% of purchasers of the issuance in December 2008, if I recall correctly.
Fair enough, but someone has to provide cash to shore up the shortfall in public service revenues, either in the form of taxes or loans. Lenders will expect the loans and interest to be repaid so loans become taxes. I will deeply resent any increase in taxes, when there is evidence of serious waste, overstaffing and overpaying of staff in the PSÉconomiste Monétaire wrote: »If you want an interesting read about IMF austerity programs (massive cuts in spending, et cetera) then I heartily recommend Joe Stiglitz’s Globalization and its Discontents, and Making Globalization Work; there's also a review by the World Bank on conditionality for loans, which was quite negative, and holds true for the analogous IMF approach. If you look at recent IMF actions, e.g. Iceland, conditionality was non-existent due to lessons learned from the Asian currency crisis. The fund they’re using to support countries came about from that situation, "Crisis Lending." That level of conditionality, i.e. halving the public sector, isn't really paradigm anymore because of the social unrest it causes, which doesn't play to investors.
Good point and thanks for the references, I will look at them. However, this is not an excuse for waste in the PS. Only one of 52 porters paid in a limerick hospital bothers to turn in for work on one occassion last year? The OECD cannot establish what HSE managers and administrators are doing, who reports to them, who they report to, what information they should process etc etc. Teachers paid 37% more than teachers in our main trading partner Britain. There is ample scope to cut numbers and pay levels in the Irish PS, and that needs to be done now.Économiste Monétaire wrote: »Say that we did fire half of all public servants, and assume that wages are uniform enough so that we exactly halve the bill. Now consider that the average public sector wage is around the €40k mark (the actual figure is in one of the public sector threads, or in the ESRI paper I linked in there), so they pay a decent amount of tax. You won’t save the full €10bn, net. Take out income tax, and indirect taxes from consumption by those employees, and then factor in social welfare support for the workers (especially in the current employment environment), you would be lucky to save ~€4-5. A lot of those cuts will land in Education, Police, and Health Care. Not only will you have protests from making ~150,000 people redundant, you’ll also have riots on the streets by people unable to get into hospital and kids not being able to go to school.
Good point. Nevertheless this is not an excuse for waste as discussed above.Économiste Monétaire wrote: »Wages are the primary issue. This paper illustrates the public sector wage premium, and the effect on wage inflation by private sector workers following the public sector. The central bank is reiterating what other macroeconomists have said—read Philip Lane’s paper on the future of Ireland’s fiscal position here. The tax argument is treated in that paper, I think.
I will do, thanks for the references. Its not just wages though it is also waste. Remember ppars? Or the latest report on Dublin Bus showing waste of 2m euro pa on one route and crazy public transport planning arrangements that lead to empty buses following one another around the streets of Dublin. Yet, the PS unions use their power to prevent private sector transport providers from entering the public transport market. Here's why;
UK's "Go ahead" (a private sector public transport provider) says it achieved 33,450 passenger journeys per employee (920 million passenger journeys and 27500 employees) in 2008. In contrast CIE achieved 24,600 journeys per employee (288 m passenger journeys and 11700 employees) in 2007 (latest figures I can see on the CIE website). The average pay roll cost per employee in Go Ahead is £29,500, which currently equates to 32,777 euro, whereas the average pay roll cost in CIE is 50,256 euro. Therefore, the UK private sector employee achieves 50% more and is paid 34% less compared to a CIE employee. Or in other words, each employee in Go Ahead costs approx 1 euro per passenger journey while the Union guy in CIE costs 2.
This would be ok, if CIE provided a first class public transport system and the unionised staff worked effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately they do not, the worst example of its ineptitude as an organisation being the wildcat strikes by highly paid train drivers in Cork last year.
You can see why private sector workers like my self are becoming increasingly disturbed at what is happening in the public service.
I appreciate your informed comment.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Of course. If we borrow for unproductive purposes then the country loses out in the long-run. Reductions in income taxes were a contributory factor in our boom (1994-2001), no one wants to reduce labour force participation rates, but some increase is inevitable as we can't achieve all the reduction in the deficit from spending cuts alone. Social welfare (transfer spending in general) is equivalent in € terms as the public sector wage and pension bill. I don't know if it's politically possible to cut that part of the budget, to any meaningful extent, at the moment.Interesting. However, whatever the mechanics of the cash flow, the public services/Government is seriously overspending and the shortfall has to be made up from borrowings or higher taxes. The govt will issue sovereign debt and hand over the loans received to the public service who spend it. These laons and interest have to be repaid, so all funding shortfalls end up in higher taxes.
Spending on education and health care is an investment in human capital. The economic accounting for public sector wages and salaries is our ubiquitous G, or current government expenditure. I think you might be confusing I (investment) and the idea of human capital. I don't really want to drag it off-topic to health economics, it's boringWages and salaries are not a capital investment, they are a current cost and borrowing money to pay wages is not sustainable, particularly when there is clear evidence of overstaffing and overpaying of staff.
. Borrowing for the purposes of G is unsustainable, to a greater extent than capital investment (roads, bridges, et cetera) by government, for sure. The state of California, for example, might default on its debt due to an analogous problem.
The ideas that I've seen so far, vis-a-vis taxes, have contained some progressive ideas such as, for example, a broader property tax base. Hopefully it will be relatively less cyclical and, thus, help to avoid situations, like the one we're in now, whereby current spending is based on unsustainable revenues from houses constantly changing hands. Taxes will have to increase if people still want the same level of overall services, e.g. large social welfare programs. It's a trade-off that all countries accept in different ways, low taxes and low government spending, or high taxes and high public service provisions.Fair enough, but someone has to provide cash to shore up the shortfall in public service revenues, either in the form of taxes or loans. Lenders will expect the loans and interest to be repaid so loans become taxes. I will deeply resent any increase in taxes, when there is evidence of serious waste, overstaffing and overpaying of staff in the PS
Well, it's a good idea to cut down on back office staff, like the HSE managers, but I don't know about slashing front line staff numbers. The wages of the public sector, overall, are inflated, to different extents. The government are to blame for overpaid physicians. Any game theorist will tell you not to announce a policy scheme and then begin to negotiate with doctors about that (€€€€€). There are stories of waste in every sector of the economy, though; just look at the number of people posting on boards.ie when they're supposed to be in work :PGood point and thanks for the references, I will look at them. However, this is not an excuse for waste in the PS. Only one of 52 porters paid in a limerick hospital bothers to turn in for work on one occassion last year? The OECD cannot establish what HSE managers and administrators are doing, who reports to them, who they report to, what information they should process etc etc. Teachers paid 37% more than teachers in our main trading partner Britain. There is ample scope to cut numbers and pay levels in the Irish PS, and that needs to be done now.
I don't know a lot about Dublin Bus, to be honest. The Economist wrote something about breaking up the Dublin Bus monopoly in the Politics forum, it seemed to make sense. I would just say that, when comparing wages between Ireland and the UK, it's best to consider the nominal figure in purchasing power parity terms (to whatever extent you can do that). I don't doubt the inefficiencies of closed shop work places.I will do, thanks for the references. Its not just wages though it is also waste. Remember ppars? Or the latest report on Dublin Bus showing waste of 2m euro pa on one route and crazy public transport planning arrangements that lead to empty buses following one another around the streets of Dublin. Yet, the PS unions use their power to prevent private sector transport providers from entering the public transport market. Here's why;
UK's "Go ahead" (a private sector public transport provider) says it achieved 33,450 passenger journeys per employee (920 million passenger journeys and 27500 employees) in 2008. In contrast CIE achieved 24,600 journeys per employee (288 m passenger journeys and 11700 employees) in 2007 (latest figures I can see on the CIE website). The average pay roll cost per employee in Go Ahead is £29,500, which currently equates to 32,777 euro, whereas the average pay roll cost in CIE is 50,256 euro. Therefore, the UK private sector employee achieves 50% more and is paid 34% less compared to a CIE employee. Or in other words, each employee in Go Ahead costs approx 1 euro per passenger journey while the Union guy in CIE costs 2.
This would be ok, if CIE provided a first class public transport system and the unionised staff worked effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately they do not, the worst example of its ineptitude as an organisation being the wildcat strikes by highly paid train drivers in Cork last year.
You can see why private sector workers like my self are becoming increasingly disturbed at what is happening in the public service.
I appreciate your informed comment.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Économiste Monétaire wrote: »True, they have to find double that amount next year, which can't all come from the public sector. They really need to issue more information than the "addendum."
On a more general note about our borrowings, the exchequer figures for January have been released. Find them here (pdf). ~19% decrease in tax revenue, in comparison to January '08.
Not so sure about that. I went through the budget figures from the budget.gov site from 2002 and the increases are stunning:
That's a 10% year on year increase.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
However, increased costs without improvements in work practice have made the Irish PS a fat, lazy and very expensive organisation. While the construction boom was in place the tax bonanza made the PS excesses unimportant, now that they're gone the PS costs are very much top of the economic agenda in this country. And make no mistake regaining control of government/PS spending is a do or die effort for this country.
Oh, you are so funny man - you should become a comedian!!!
So the private sector (you seem to be very general in you comments mind you!) is a shining example is it???
...like the M50 upgrade works (Phase 1); :rolleyes:
...like the great customer service in much of the retail sector, not to mention prices; :rolleyes:
...like many overpriced and sub-standard restaurants; :mad:
...like so many goods that keep on breaking down (like cars etc); :mad:
...like many commercial building projects that seem to take longer and longer - would the Pavillions in Swords and Scotch Hall in Drogheda come to mind? :rolleyes:
...like so many services (ie. dentists and key cutters etc) where service charges are totally excessive; :mad:
...oh, but this is the great and mighty private sector...
...GET A GRIP MAN!!! :mad:
Of course parts of the public sector is in need of major reform, but so too is the private sector!
Regards!0 -
-
-
The point of this forum is for intelligent debate. We left the school yard years ago; don't insult other posters.Irish and Proud wrote: »Oh, you are so funny man - you should become a comedian!!!
Of course the private sector needs reform. The private sector is a hugely decentralised machine consisting of thousands of companies and owners. All of the public sector are ultimately responsible to fifteen ministers. Reform in the public sector ultimately thus comes down to fifteen elected officials, and these people must force that change.Of course parts of the public sector is in need of major reform, but so too is the private sector!
On the other hand, the private sector will reform itself by the market. Sub-standard restaurants will go out of business. People will naturally lose their jobs because they're not generating enough profit, or at least accept lower profits because the economy is in the hole. This will not happen with the HSE or the Department of Education because they don't lose their jobs if there's not enough money coming in. That's why public sector reform is on the agenda; it has to be forced.0 -
Irish and Proud wrote: »Oh, you are so funny man - you should become a comedian!!!
Unfortunately, the current situation is no laughing matter. It will get worse, and dont think the power of the unions will make the PS immune from the imminent crash. Look out.Irish and Proud wrote: »So the private sector (you seem to be very general in you comments mind you!) is a shining example is it???
...like the M50 upgrade works (Phase 1); :rolleyes:
I heard that it was only when the private sector took over the road building that projects were completed on time and on budget. This was why the projects were done privately.Irish and Proud wrote: »...like the great customer service in much of the retail sector, not to mention prices; :rolleyes:
In the private sector, if you are not satisfied with one retailer you can try another or you can buy goods abroad on line. Contrast this with buying goods from the public sector. If bus and train services in Dublin are bad, what other company can I switch to? If ESB prices are too high who else do I buy from? If I dont like RTE, can I stop paying the license fee?Irish and Proud wrote: »...like many overpriced and sub-standard restaurants; :mad:
As per my comment above shop around. In the private sector there are good restaurants with good prices but you have to shop around.
My car has not broken down...too often. In fact the private sector has produced so much more and so much better forms of private transportation that most people prefer to use their car to get to work instead of waiting for the union guy in Dublin bus.Irish and Proud wrote: »...like so many goods that keep on breaking down (like cars etc); :mad:Irish and Proud wrote: »...like many commercial building projects that seem to take longer and longer - would the Pavillions in Swords and Scotch Hall in Drogheda come to mind? :rolleyes:
No they wouldnt come to my mind, I dont know anything about them. I had a construction project completed by a private sector operator, it completed on time. Even Bertie Ahern the Union collaborator in the great benchmarking fraud, stated he was dissapointed that the public sector never seems to get the job done on time or on budget, when compared to the private sector who seemed to deliver most of the time.Irish and Proud wrote: »...like so many services (ie. dentists and key cutters etc) where service charges are totally excessive; :mad:
These are good union people...did you not know that? The dentists and pharmacists are fully unionised and reject any reductions in pay or fees from Government. They play rough too if there is any attempt to reduce fees, like not serving medical card holders. They must have learned at the feet of David Beggs, Peter McCloone, Jack O Connor, Michael Halpenny.Irish and Proud wrote: »...oh, but this is the great and mighty private sector...
...GET A GRIP MAN!!! :mad:
Not sure I know what you mean here.Irish and Proud wrote: »Of course parts of the public sector is in need of major reform, but so too is the private sector!
Regards!
Not parts of the PS is in need of major reform, all of it is.
What parts of the private sector are in need of reform and what kind of reform do you have in mind?
In broad terms can I suggest that you have missed the point. Competition in the private sector means you can shop around. PS monopolies, Dublin Bus, CIE, Dublin Airport, ESB, HSE, ETC ETC on the other hand have a captive market and do not care about the customer, where else can they go? This engenders a lazy, unresponsive attititude. Example:
In 2008, I asked an post to redirect mail, which they did. When it finished they had my mail posted return to sender rather than to the original address as the procedure states should happen. I had bank statements posted return to sender and my bank account was frozen. I rang an post to get it sorted out and guess what? Nothing happened. I had to ring again two weeks later and had to send a test mail to check these guys were doing their job. And I am paying for their guaranteed pensions?
Unjust and unfair and in bad need of major reform. Given the reform did not happen in the good times, although promised in return for benchmarking, it is clear there is an attitude of sod the customer and the taxpayer in the PS. It will require a good washout to correct this, as might be provided shortly courtesy of this upcoming economic catastrophy.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement