Public servants opinions please?

Dannyboy83

To the public servants of this country, would you vote Fianna Fail out of office if you believed they were doing a bad job, even if it could mean losing your own job? (i.e. assuming a different party would seek reform and restructuring upon coming to power)

Kimbot

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

To the public servants of this country, would you vote Fianna Fail out of office if you believed they were doing a bad job, even if it could mean losing your own job? (i.e. assuming a different party would seek reform and restructuring upon coming to power)

YES!!

warrenaldo

I didnt vote for them in the last election. And i wont vote for them in the next election.

grahamo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

To the public servants of this country, would you vote Fianna Fail out of office if you believed they were doing a bad job, even if it could mean losing your own job? (i.e. assuming a different party would seek reform and restructuring upon coming to power)

I've never voted for fianna fail or fianna gael. Both are as bad as each other! Self serving cnuts who pander to the well off!

Rob_l

grahamo wrote: »

I've never voted for fianna fail or fianna gael. Both are as bad as each other! Self serving cnuts who pander to the well off!

I may be a civil servant but this country should be a long way away from civil war politics

I wouldn't vote fianna gael or fianna fail before the current situation and I wont be now.

gazzer

I have been a CS since 1991. Never voted for Fianna Fail and never will.

gerry28

I voted Fianna Fail since I turned 18, but i'm done with them now. If they come near my door in any of the coming elections they will be frog marched out the gate.

grahamo

It must be the private sector that keeps voting them in so!!:D

Bally8

Im also a public sector worker and have never voted Finna Fail either.

jim o doom

I'm a public servant; Never voted FF, Never will. However if it meant the certain loss of my job - I would think again - I have a mortgage and I'm not going to end up on the f/king street on principal.

jaqian

grahamo wrote: »

I've never voted for fianna fail or fianna gael. Both are as bad as each other! Self serving cnuts who pander to the well off!

Doesn't leave a whole lot of choice. All thats left is Labour and some fringe loony parties. I'd vote one of the big three but wouldn't vote anyone else except maybe Greens.

Foghorn Leghorn

i'm a public servant and no way would I vote FF,
The problem we have now is do we really believe any of the others would a better job....

Langerland

I'm not Public Service, but I am definitely not voting FF. I want a party who has the guts to come in and rapidly cut costs and slash the numbers employed in an over staffed and inefficient public service.

jaqian

Langerland wrote: »

slash the numbers employed in an over staffed and inefficient public service.

So would you prefer them to be drawing the dole instead?

Far better if numbers are reduced through attrition, maybe even offer early retirement as well. It also should be easier to move to different departments (so if one dept. has too many employees, they could move to another where they'd be needed), which isn't currently the case.

Langerland

jaqian wrote: »

So would you prefer them to be drawing the dole instead?

Far better if numbers are reduced through attrition, maybe even offer early retirement as well. It also should be easier to move to different departments (so if one dept. has too many employees, they could move to another where they'd be needed), which isn't currently the case.

It would cost less in the long term rather than needlessly employing them.

We don't have time for natural attrition to take its course.

Shifting them to other departments is only shifting the problem. In some cases, there may be departments that need extra head count, but that would be rare enough.

gerry28

Langerland,

There would only be quite small savings letting clerical officers and other low paid public servants go. Unemployed they would cost the state social welfare payments, rent allowance, medical cards, fuel allowance etc. The savings to the government would be negligible.

Langerland

gerry28 wrote: »

Langerland,

There would only be quite small savings letting clerical officers and other low paid public servants go. Unemployed they would cost the state social welfare payments, rent allowance, medical cards, fuel allowance etc. The savings to the government would be negligible.

Why not make up imaginary, lala land, wishy washy jobs for all the newly unemployed from the private sector so and give them job security and a guaranteed pension. If it's cheaper than the dole, why not.

gerry28

Why not make up imaginary, lala land, wishy washy jobs for all the newly unemployed from the private sector so and give them job security and a guaranteed pension. If it's cheaper than the dole, why not.

Yeah thats the answer langerland... you should run for office???

Langerland

gerry28 wrote: »

Yeah thats the answer langerland... you should run for office???

Clarify please. You seem to be the one with all the answers.

Does paying them dole cost more than playing them above the odds for a job they are not needed for and give them a sweet pension on top of it?

gerry28

job they are not needed for

Nobody should be kept in a job they are not needed for I am talking about cutting legitimate jobs just to save money

woodseb

Langerland wrote: »

I'm not Public Service, but I am definitely not voting FF. I want a party who has the guts to come in and rapidly cut costs and slash the numbers employed in an over staffed and inefficient public service.

it's a bit naive to think any party will do this after winning a general election where they will rely on public service for votes. At the moment FF are the best ones to be in power, not because they are competent, but because they are on a hiding to nothing and can afford to make difficult decisions and piss of the interest groups which is what is needed

warrenaldo

gerry28 wrote: »

Langerland,

There would only be quite small savings letting clerical officers and other low paid public servants go. Unemployed they would cost the state social welfare payments, rent allowance, medical cards, fuel allowance etc. The savings to the government would be negligible.

I dont think it matters what the savings would be - initially at least.
I think the point is that if the public service is over staffed, with some inefficient workers - then they should be let go.
How much they get paid is irrelevant.
This is how a private company would be run, I dont see why their should be a difference.
If it was your company you would have a different attitude towards it, im sure.

Langerland

I am not talking about cutting legitimate or required jobs. I am talking about the huge number of people who are employed in the public sector who are not required and add no value. Exactly as warrenaldo stated, the type of people or roles that would not survive in the private sector. These are protected because the public S is so heavily unionised. I find it insulting (and a tad ironic) that these very same people, who are just an economic black hole, have the nerve to protest and picket over the levy amongst other things.

If (god forbid) the IMF did eventually have to step in, these people and many more would be wiped of the Public Sector payrolls unscrupulously.

Cardinal Blue

Langerland wrote: »

It would cost less in the long term rather than needlessly employing them.

We don't have time for natural attrition to take its course.

Shifting them to other departments is only shifting the problem. In some cases, there may be departments that need extra head count, but that would be rare enough.

Someone said that the social wefare dept. are shortstaffed at the moment.

gerry28

I think the point is that if the public service is over staffed, with some inefficient workers - then they should be let go.

I would like to see the public service reformed. It would be a better place to work if lazy or incompetent people could be let go. Staff rarely leave and nobody gets sacked so promotional opportunities are few and far between.

Foghorn Leghorn

In terms of getting rid of the lazy system abusers out of the public service I couldn't agree more but the simple fact is thats not how the system works.
If cuts are made (we recently lost 40 people from my public sector workplace) its strictly on a last in first out, so in my own department we lost some very good workers who would be a credit to any workplace and are stuck with others who to be polite wouldn't be

Traumadoc

grahamo wrote: »

It must be the private sector that keeps voting them in so!!:D

Was in the last election : "Breakfast Roll Man" :rolleyes:

irish_bob

Langerland wrote: »

Clarify please. You seem to be the one with all the answers.

Does paying them dole cost more than playing them above the odds for a job they are not needed for and give them a sweet pension on top of it?

ive been asking this question for months

BroomBurner

Langerland wrote: »

I am not talking about cutting legitimate or required jobs. I am talking about the huge number of people who are employed in the public sector who are not required and add no value. Exactly as warrenaldo stated, the type of people or roles that would not survive in the private sector. These are protected because the public S is so heavily unionised. I find it insulting (and a tad ironic) that these very same people, who are just an economic black hole, have the nerve to protest and picket over the levy amongst other things.

If (god forbid) the IMF did eventually have to step in, these people and many more would be wiped of the Public Sector payrolls unscrupulously.

So what are all these extra jobs that you're talking about that are unnecessary yet protected? You say you want answers from other posters that make throwaway comments but you don't give any evidence to support your own throwaway comments.