Will the government ever grasp the nettle of public sector pay ?

irish_bob

leitrim lad wrote: »

yes i see your point but bertie gave us all a good foundation ,

he did want votes and got them, but remember you do not need 1/10 people to work in such a sector,

1/50 would be plenty

would you accept that benchmarking was primarily an exercise in vote buying

bertie knew how promiscious the ps are when it comes to sleeping with whoever gives them the most pleasure

this was most recently shown by thier on mass transfer to the labour party

leitrim lad

so now its time to do to them what has been done to the labour party for the last 15 years

keep them out of power, unemploy them

traters

Dr Galen

what are you talking about?

Again with your fixation on the PS and forgetting about everything else that helped bloat the ranks, Bertie and his vote buying being a huge factor.

You have consistently failed to outline who you'd fire and why, and pretty much don't answer any questions or enter into any debate around your ideas. I'm waiting for Jeremy Beadle to pop out from behinds the boards logo anytime now.........

irish_bob

im begining to think leitrim lad is a HACK of the highest order , he wants to knock the public sector ( which i do ) but doesnt in any way wish to atribute blame to fianna fail for its size and culture of inneficency

BroomBurner

irish_bob wrote: »

im begining to think leitrim lad is a HACK of the highest order , he wants to knock the public sector ( which i do ) but doesnt in any way wish to atribute blame to fianna fail for its size and culture of inneficency

I think that goes without saying, bob. Sure who has an empire of businesses and the time to post here all day?

Also, FF wouldn't talk to someone his age

It's been fun though, L_L.

NewDubliner

leitrim lad wrote: »

i would wipe out entire sections and nearly all quangoes, and an taisce

Looking at their website, I'm not sure that An Taisce is public sector....seems to be privately funded by subscriptions.

LL - which quangos and which sections would you wipe out?

For example, should we get rid of 'RegTel', the premium-rate phone service regulator?

Dr Galen

he does have a point though, in fairness we seem to have far too many semi-state bodies, covering all sorts of things. All really nice to have when the money is rolling in, but in times of recession, some are little more than vanity.

Deciding which to cut though would be a tough one, as there will always be some interest group or another protesting for all their worth.

Does anyone know if An Bord Nua is looking into this as part of their remit?

NewDubliner

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

he does have a point though, in fairness we seem to have far too many semi-state bodies, covering all sorts of things. All really nice to have when the money is rolling in, but in times of recession, some are little more than vanity.

I agree. It's easy to say 'make cuts', any idiot with poor punctuation, grammar and spelling can say that.

Where exactly?

Which ones can we do without?

newname

This is turning into a right little therapy session. Bash the public sector, bash them some more, cut their wages, slash jobs, curse them for having the audacity to expect a wage after a weeks work.

Leitrim lad says cut 2/3 of public sector jobs and people agree with this rubbish. What sort of state would this leave the country in? 230,000 more on the dole, services at a stand still.

This country is in the shape its in because of the diabolical trinity; builders bankers and worst of all the government. But the masses dont understand the workings of this problem so they target the public service. Why? because its easier to say things like "they're getting paid too much", "there are to many of them" " they're working and i'm not" etc.

Its much more difficult for ordinary joe or mary to get their head around the true reasons why we are in this recession in the first place.

Have you all forgot about the banks???

Climate Expert

Leitrim lad says cut 2/3 of public sector jobs and people agree with this rubbish

The redundancy and social welfare bill for this alone would bankrupt the state. Didn't think of that did you LL?

NewDubliner

Climate Expert wrote: »

The redundancy and social welfare bill for this alone would bankrupt the state. Didn't think of that did you LL?

He did.

His (final?) solution is no redundancy & no dole for them.

Climate Expert

NewDubliner wrote: »

He did.

His (final?) solution is no redundancy & no dole for them.

haha, right I didn't read enough of his revolutionary ideas.

ixoy

NewDubliner wrote: »

His (final?) solution is no redundancy & no dole for them.

Actual question - are pre '95 CS employees allowed the same level of dole or would they be getting less given their PRSI contributions are lower?

grahamo

Pre 95 employees are not entitled to dole as they pay a different class prsi (Class C1 I think) Post 95 people pay class A1 same as private sector

K-9

newname wrote: »

This is turning into a right little therapy session. Bash the public sector, bash them some more, cut their wages, slash jobs, curse them for having the audacity to expect a wage after a weeks work.

Leitrim lad says cut 2/3 of public sector jobs and people agree with this rubbish. What sort of state would this leave the country in? 230,000 more on the dole, services at a stand still.

Maybe read the thread again.

newname

K.9

Rugbyman: in short ,leitrim lad is right about all he says. his way of putting it across upsets some.cut state employee numbers by 2/3 SPOT ON

SOC24:
Are you saying that this entirely inept government should saddle every other citizen who is still working in the private sector with extra tax/Income Levies, just to support a Fat, Bloated, Overpaid, Inefficient public sector that has about 60% to many employees - Not workers...

Agreed most are not talking this kind of rubbish.

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

Wrong! Not all the public sector is paid for by the taxpayer.

80% of the 63 billion the government spends on public expenditure goes where ? lol

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

80% of the 63 billion the government spends on public expenditure goes where ? lol

You tell me, you 've got all the answers.
I do know however, that the government purchases 16 Billion worth of goods and services from the private sector each year and I know in 2007 the government spent 14 billion on health, 8 billion on education and 14 billion on welfare, but as I said, Not all the public sector is funded by the taxpayer. What about ESB, Bord Gais, also their are many state owned commercial bodies involved in R&D and other industries.

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

80% of the 63 billion the government spends on public expenditure goes where ? lol

how come your figures are different to Brian Lenihans?

Lenihan said the 2/3 of all borrowing is spend on the public service AND socoal welfare. no where near the 80% you seem to be constantly claiming :rolleyes:

gamblor1975

I don't have any confidence in the ability of this govt. to tackle either the SW bill or the Public sector pay issue. I think both of these issues need to be resolved to get the public finances in order so our kids and grandkids are not paying for this mess.

Can anyone tell me exactly what power the IMF would have if they were to get involved?

Could they cut the number of TDs to 100?

Could they change the law so that underperforming teachers/civil servant can be fired?

Could they change the amount of money wasted each year paying ridculous pensions to overpaid ex PS workers?

Could they defang the unions that have helped cause this mess with their inability to be flexible in the wake of changing times?

If yes is the answer to any of the above is yes, then they are already better than our govt. and should be brought in. We need leaders who are not afraid to be offended. This shower are not up to the job!

jimmmy

kceire wrote: »

how come your figures are different to Brian Lenihans?

They are not, they are the same.

kceire wrote: »

Lenihan said the 2/3 of all borrowing is spend on the public service AND socoal welfare. no where near the 80% you seem to be constantly claiming :rolleyes:

I never claimed 80% of " all borrowing is spend on the public service AND socoal welfare" ...please get your facts right before you accuse me of something.

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

They are not, they are the same.


I never claimed 80% of " all borrowing is spend on the public service AND socoal welfare" ...please get your facts right before you accuse me of something.

you stated that 80% is spent on the public service, which is and out and out lie....full stop.

jimmmy

kceire wrote: »

you stated that 80% is spent on the public service, which is and out and out lie....full stop.

I never stated 80% of all borrowing is spent on the public service...that is an out and out lie....full stop. You are missing the wood from the trees anyway. Public sector spending has increased from 36 billion in 03 to 63 billion and increasing this year....according to the RTE news. 80% is spent on pay and social welfare. Tax receipts are not going to be much more than 30 billion this year. When will the govt grasp the nettle of public sector pay ?

Anyone hear Eddie Hobbs on RTE this morning....he was very informative and was also of the opinion that public sector pay and pensions was way out of line.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

I never stated 80% of all borrowing is spent on the public service...that is an out and out lie....full stop.

You implied it.

jimmmy wrote: »

When will the govt grasp the nettle of public sector pay ?

They have cut pay, frozen recruitment and promotion, stopped renewing contracts, are cutting consultant fees and contracts and are encouraging people to leave voluntarily - does that not qualify?

Perhaps we should parade the redundant public-sector workers down the O'Connell street so you can enjoy the misery?

What do you mean by 'grasping the nettle'? Imagine you're Taoiseach - give details of how exactly you would go about it and what services (be precise) you would do without. Then, provide details of how you would plan for the gainful & productive employment of those you've fired.

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

They have cut pay, frozen recruitment and promotion, stopped renewing contracts, are cutting consultant fees and contracts and are encouraging people to leave voluntarily - does that not qualify?

You know well thats not enough to bring the deficit back.

You also forget the freebie benchmarking since 2002

€20bn is spent on the public service, do you support borrowing to pay for most of this?

ixoy

NewDubliner wrote: »

They have cut pay, frozen recruitment and promotion, stopped renewing contracts, are cutting consultant fees and contracts and are encouraging people to leave voluntarily - does that not qualify?

They should be freezing increments too - it galls a little to hear about a pay cut (in the form of a levy) which is then wiped out by an automatic "entitled" pay rise based on a pay scale (yes, I know not all with get a rise but many would).

They should also be reforming the likes of PMDS which is just a glorified paper exercise (admitted by many CS/PS here). It should produce more tangible goals (I've seen the form, goals are too abstract), apply it to a bell curve model when awarding ratings and chop the dead wood who get too low. This would probably take too much time but, in several years, it would make a more effective service (some exceptions may be needed to evaluate front-line staff).

They should be identifying the quangos and overlap in many departments, amalgamating resources and reducing them based on that. Yes it would place more people on the dole but that'd be cheaper than employing them for a purposeless task. It's not the employer's responsibility to find them new jobs unless the laws have changed (better tell Dell).

They should also look at how they handle certain outsourcing of their own work - I've seen how inefficient OPW can be and there should be accountability for that. They should be looking for the same accountability in all sub-contractors too: question why I saw seven men standing around at Grafton Street the other morning, all apparently idle.

They should look at some contractors that are being done through a middle agency and question if they can hire them directly, removing the middle tier of the consultancy firm. That would reduce costs too.

That's just a few off the top of my head. Obviously it's hard to produce cost-saving figures but then I don't have access to government finances - but they're still measures of some sort.

Gumbo

ixoy wrote: »

They should be freezing increments too - it galls a little to hear about a pay cut (in the form of a levy) which is then wiped out by an automatic "entitled" pay rise based on a pay scale (yes, I know not all with get a rise but many would).

They should also be reforming the likes of PMDS which is just a glorified paper exercise (admitted by many CS/PS here). It should produce more tangible goals (I've seen the form, goals are too abstract), apply it to a bell curve model when awarding ratings and chop the dead wood who get too low. This would probably take too much time but, in several years, it would make a more effective service (some exceptions may be needed to evaluate front-line staff).

They should be identifying the quangos and overlap in many departments, amalgamating resources and reducing them based on that. Yes it would place more people on the dole but that'd be cheaper than employing them for a purposeless task. It's not the employer's responsibility to find them new jobs unless the laws have changed (better tell Dell).

They should also look at how they handle certain outsourcing of their own work - I've seen how inefficient OPW can be and there should be accountability for that. They should be looking for the same accountability in all sub-contractors too: question why I saw seven men standing around at Grafton Street the other morning, all apparently idle.

They should look at some contractors that are being done through a middle agency and question if they can hire them directly, removing the middle tier of the consultancy firm. That would reduce costs too.

That's just a few off the top of my head. Obviously it's hard to produce cost-saving figures but then I don't have access to government finances - but they're still measures of some sort.

i too would like to see PMDS improove. ive set targets on mine and have already started to achieve them.

i hate the culture that another guy gets the promotion simply because he is here longer never mind that i could be more qualified to do it with much more experience from previous job titles etc etc

dresden8

ixoy wrote: »

They should be identifying the quangos

This is the one that annoys me.

Quangoes serve to remove the decision making process and therefore blame from government ministers but at the same time they are political appointees within the remit of government ministers.

Celia Larkin in her "voluntary" job within the consumer agency didn't receive a salary but got a shed load of expenses.

Probably the same expenses the Eddie Hobbs, the scourge of the public sector, got. Plain straight forward hypocrisy from top to bottom. The Irish disease. But, hey Eddie, slag off the public service a bit more why don't you! How're the property investments going?

NewDubliner

gurramok wrote:

€20bn is spent on the public service, do you support borrowing to pay for most of this?

I thought this was being borrowed for the infrastructural projects and to pay dole money?

ixoy wrote: »

They should be freezing increments too - it galls a little to hear about a pay cut (in the form of a levy) which is then wiped out by an automatic "entitled" pay rise based on a pay scale (yes, I know not all with get a rise but many would).

The increments are being taxed and levied at about 60%.

ixoy wrote: »

They should also be reforming the likes of PMDS which is just a glorified paper exercise (admitted by many CS/PS here).

Agreed, it's a system that has benefitted many bluffers & destroyed morale among specialist staff.

ixoy wrote: »

It should produce more tangible goals (I've seen the form, goals are too abstract),

That would be OK if a job involves tangible outputs. How do you apply metrics to legal draughtsmen or knowledge workers? Number of lines of law written?

ixoy wrote: »

This would probably take too much time but, in several years, it would make a more effective service (some exceptions may be needed to evaluate front-line staff).

You mean fire the least-performant 5% etc? OK in theory if you're dealing with piece workers or burger flippers and it's possible to compare like with like from one agency to another.

ixoy wrote: »

They should be identifying the quangos and overlap in many departments, amalgamating resources and reducing them based on that.

Firm proposals in this are seem hard to come by. None of the PS critics seem to be able to grasp this nettle. And if the quango is nestling in a favoured decentralistion town, well....good luck with that.

ixoy wrote: »

It's not the employer's responsibility to find them new jobs

But it is what we elect a government to do.

ixoy wrote: »

They should also look at how they handle certain outsourcing of their own work - I've seen how inefficient OPW can be and there should be accountability for that.

We could out-source to Mumbai, I hear pension costs are low there.

ixoy wrote: »

They should be looking for the same accountability in all sub-contractors too: question why I saw seven men standing around at Grafton Street the other morning, all apparently idle.

What were the OPW doing in Grafton Street?

ixoy wrote: »

They should look at some contractors that are being done through a middle agency and question if they can hire them directly, removing the middle tier of the consultancy firm. That would reduce costs too.

The problem is that this would give the contractors access to employee status, something everyone wants to avoid now. Getting them through a consultancy contract also makes it easier for them to have tax-efficient arrangements. It's also impossible to head-hunt via the Civil Service commission. In IT, the consultancy companies can hire specific experts.

ixoy wrote: »

That's just a few off the top of my head. Obviously it's hard to produce cost-saving figures but then I don't have access to government finances - but they're still measures of some sort.

Some worthy ideas but nothing that could be applied in a month.

dresden8

Another aside on quangoes.

They are not the public service. They do not conform to public sector recruitment guidelines and procedures.

They are political appointees who get paid to take the grief for politicians.

In short they are FF hacks paid to take the fall for FF ministers.

They are not the public service.