Will public sector reforms make Lab & FG unelectable?

j1smithy

From RTE

Fine Gael and Labour have categorically ruled out participation in any government of national unity that would include Fianna Fáil.

Speaking at an IMPACT conference in Portlaoise, Fine Gael Deputy leader Richard Bruton said that the country did not need 'a second rate compromise' with the people who had got the country into the mess it is in.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore also told delegates that his party was considering reforms of government which would include cutting the number of paid full-time politicians.
Advertisement

Both Mr Bruton and Mr Gilmore were united in scotching any possibility of a government of national unity.

At the debate on public sector reform, both politicians acknowledged the scale of the economic challenge, and agreed that change would be painful and would include redundancies.

However, Mr Bruton said he would make no apology for arguing that mangers should 'shape up or ship out' if they failed to perform.

He said it was unacceptable that a school principal would allow an incompetent teacher to blight the lives of 30 children in a classroom. He said if they were serious about change they would have to be tough on managers.

Mr Gilmore warned delegates of the need to earn public support, rather than alienating it by taking industrial action.

Kenny rejects Cowen economy claims

Elsewhere, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny rejected claims by the Taoiseach that the Opposition parties are 'shaky' on the economy.

Mr Kenny said that during Brian Cowen's tenure Ireland has gone from a €9bn to a €20bn deficit.

He said that even in the current recession, he saw 'a brilliant opportunity' to get the country moving again, but it is not happening under the current Government.

Commenting on the economy, Mr Cowen said the Opposition has been electioneering by saying there is a painless solution to the corrective action being taken by the Government.

He said the ESRI and other independent commentators are best placed to analyse the current situation.

The Taoiseach said the measures being taken are needed and are the right decisions for the country in the current circumstances.

Its highly likely that FG & Lab will form the next coalition government. However its also quite clear that they will face tough choices and appear to want to tackle public sector reform head on with redundancies. However my question is this, by taking this course of action would they be resigning themselves to opposition for the following 10 or so years afterwards? The public sector makes up a substancial part of the workforce, and I don't think many people would be willing to forgive or forget losing their permanent pensionable jobs for life. While such reforms are needed attitudes economically, would a government be able to survive the political storm that would follow? Perlonged general strikes I feel would be highly likely

Finally I ask would Labour even have the ability or the balls to take on the unions? Would they be willing to bite the hand that feeds them (for those that don't know union subs fund the labour party).

is_that_so

It very much depends on how they do it. If anything can be learnt from this Govt is that you have to articulate in detail, clearly thought-out plans. If they make sense and are part of an overall jobs/economic development strategy I don't see why it wouldn't be accepted.

InFront

Quick question: Do you think that the average voter is concerned about the fate of a few thousand of the most inefficient and overpaid elements in the civil service that does not include teachers, doctors and gardai? And then allow that concern to swing their vote to Fianna Fail?

Quick answer: no, this won't impact (negatively)upon their election.

Guy:Incognito

is_that_so wrote: »

If they make sense and are part of an overall jobs/economic development strategy I don't see why it wouldn't be accepted.

Whats details would smeone have to include clearly to make you feel ok about losign your job?

is_that_so

That may well be part of it unfortunately if real public service reform ever occurs. That said widespread sacking of public servants will not occur which is why, IMO, it will be accepted provided it is properly worked out and properly explained.

Reducing 15,000 jobs or so will need to be done over the lifetime of a government and if they are lucky over 2 cycles or 10 years. Early retirement, redeployment, voluntary redundancies, embargoes in specific areas will all go some way towards meeting that target. The proposed plan will probably front load all of this and attempt to minimise mentioning possible job losses.

gerry28

Hi,

Does anyone know where labour stand with public sector reform?

I was planning on giving them my vote on local and possibly general elections but i have no idea what their plans for the public sector are.

Are they for cutting jobs, cutting increment? Where do they stand on the pension levy, income levy etc??

truebluedub

Reforming the public sector:

We can end the cronyism that has seen the same people crop up on State boards, in semi-state companies, and on the boards of private companies by ending the practice of out-and-out political patronage. A person appointed to a state board should be appointed on merit, not because of who their friends are.
The Labour Party will shortly publish a bill to clean up corporate governance. We can start by limiting the number of executive boards a person can sit on. The potential for conflicts of interest is too great, if the corporate world is allowed to act as a cosy club for the select few.
And there is plenty of room for improvement in how we run the affairs of the country. Excessive or wasteful spending in the public sector were an affront to taxpayers in the good times. And they put front line services and jobs at risk in the bad times.
Labour would introduce a sunset clause on all quangos, giving them a specific period of time to justify their existence.
We would reduce the number of Junior Ministers to one per department; reduce the levels of staff assigned to the private and constituency offices of Ministers; reduce the number of Oireachtas committees to one per department; end special payments for Chairs, Vice Chairs and convenors of committees; and end the payment of Ministerial pensions to sitting members of the Oireachtas.
We would reform the public service, and start by opening up every promotional opportunity in the public sector. We would make it easier to move between employment in the private and the public sectors, and to move civil and public servants within the public service, so that they are deployed where they are needed most.

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1238181030371946.html

Date published:
Tuesday, February 17, 2009


News source:
The Irish Times


Region:
Republic of Ireland



The Labour Party is to table a Dáil motion today calling on the Government to reverse its decision to impose a pension levy on public servants.
Speaking at the weekend, party leader Eamon Gilmore said the reason it was pursuing the issue was because of what he said was the inequity and unfairness of the Government's proposals. He said his party supported the need for €2 billion in cuts but disagrees with how they should be achieved.
The salary-based charge will be calculated on gross pay and will mean a 3 per cent contribution for workers on €15,000 up to a maximum 9.6 per cent for staff earning €300,000 euro before tax.

http://www.cardi.ie/news/labourtotabled%C3%A1ilmotiononpensionlevy

Labour Party candidate for Kilkenny City Sean Butler, this week highlighted the fact that the government 1% income levy , the Public Service pension levy and the government’s proposed tax increases will mean even more jobs losses locally in Kilkenny City. “These steps will see a big reduction in take home pay, particularly for people on modest incomes. By introducing a 1% levy and the Public Service pension levy, the government had sought to deny that they are increasing income tax. However the mask slipped at the Fianna Fail Ardfheis this weekend and it is now very clear that the Fianna Fail / Green Party government plan to increase PAYE tax rates” Mr. Butler stated.

“These levies and tax increases will mean ordinary people getting less in their take home pay, if they are lucky enough to still have a job. Consumer spending is already taking a dive and this Christmas trading season locally was be one of the most challenging in recent memory. Meaning local shops are finding the trading conditions more and more difficult and leading to increased closures and job losses. It is also a fact that shoppers are crossing the border to take advantage of lower VAT rates and the sterling price differential even from as far south as Kilkenny. Instead of taking steps to reduce prices to increase consumer confidence which would in turn lead to increase consumer spending. The government is set to announce even more tax increases. Locally in Kilkenny and right across the country people are putting off non essential purchases. The drop of 67% in new car sales is a clear sign of this, which is having major job repercussion within the local motor trade. The more the government takes away from peoples net pay, the less disposable income there is within the Kilkenny economy. Which will in turn mean a loss of business locally and will have a knock on affect on jobs locally as well.” commented Mr. Butler

“While the government clearly will not listen to reason, locally the councils need to take action to stimulate spending in Kilkenny and help protect local jobs. The proposed charges for parking that will see people pay up to €500 a year to park their cars must be scrapped. Business rates should be frozen for the next three years to allow companies space to ride out the recession. For the construction sector, the rules on one off housing in rural areas should be relaxed. Coupled with this development levy taxes on building should be cut in half for the next three years for one off owner occupier homes. Thus giving an incentive to people to bring forward their plan to build new homes and help protect jobs in the local building trade. Nationally the government is set on taking more and more of people take home pay away from them in levy’s and taxes. Locally we must act to protect and promote consumer confidence and consumer spending. Otherwise job losses within Kilkenny are set to continue at the current alarming rate” concluded Mr. Butler

http://www.labour.ie/seanbutler/news/1236041802158972.html

nesf

InFront wrote: »

Quick question: Do you think that the average voter is concerned about the fate of a few thousand of the most inefficient and overpaid elements in the civil service that does not include teachers, doctors and gardai? And then allow that concern to swing their vote to Fianna Fail?

Quick answer: no, this won't impact (negatively)upon their election.

What it'll impact isn't the election but the aftermath. FG's aspirations of major public sector reform will be stymied if Lab manage a decent number of seats. Honestly, a FG + micro coalition partner is a lot more likely to affect real reform on the public sector and the public finances. We could, if the country votes a particular way, end up with FG's intentions neutered by their more union friendly coalition partners.

Borstal Boy

It's easy for people to point the finger at the public sector and blame them for the current crisis. And, although no one is arguing against the need for reform, there is no evidence to suggest that FG have any plans to do so properly.

Good reform takes time and money. The right people and structures need to be put in place to ensure that we can operate more efficiently and effectively. Sacking 15,000 public sector workers isn't going to achieve anything other that adding to the dole queues.

Hopefully, now that Bertie is gone, we might see some progress in this area. But implementing FG's policies is akin to cracking a nut with a sledge hammer. We'll all suffer, and there will be no benefit to anyone.

truebluedub

j1smithy wrote: »

From RTE


Finally I ask would Labour even have the ability or the balls to take on the unions? Would they be willing to bite the hand that feeds them (for those that don't know union subs fund the labour party).

This is inaccurate, this comes from SIPO's annual reports:

Donation Statements furnished by Political Parties for 2007

Table 4 - Donations disclosed by the Labour Party

Value of Donation
€
Type of Donation
Name of Donor
Description of Donor
Address of Donor
6,300
Cheque
Barry Hickey
Company
Ballymore Project Services Ltd., Fonthill House, Old Lucan Road, Dublin 20
6,348
Cheque
Greg Sparks
Individual
22 Iona Drive, Glasnevin, Dublin 9
6,000
Cheque
SIPTU
Trade Union
Liberty Hall, Dublin 2
[URL="javascript:history.go(-1)"]
[/URL]

There SIPTU make a donation to Labour of around a third of their overall funding.

But

Donation Statements furnished by political parties for 2006

Table 4 - List of donations disclosed by the Labour Party

Value of Donation
€ Type of Donation Name of Donor Description of Donor Address of Donor 6,000 Cheque Thomas Byrne Company Solicitors 78 Walkinstown Road, Walkinstown, Dublin 12. 5,100 Cheque Con Pendred Company Derrynan House,
77 Lower Dorset Street, Dublin 1.
[URL="javascript:history.go(-1)"]
[/URL]

Strangely the unions don't figure here so it is inaccurate to say Labour is funded by union subsidies. I would compare this with FG but they don't reveal their donations in a transparent or honest manner by disclosing them to SIPO.

jimmmy

j1smithy wrote: »

Finally I ask would Labour even have the ability or the balls to take on the unions?

Time will tell. There is a groundswell of opinion from people outside the public sector that major reform / benchmarking ( with pay cuts , pension cuts + redundancies ) needs to be tackled.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Time will tell. There is a groundswell of opinion from people outside the public sector that major reform / benchmarking ( with pay cuts , pension cuts + redundancies ) needs to be tackled.

Here we go again!

irish_bob

Borstal Boy wrote: »

It's easy for people to point the finger at the public sector and blame them for the current crisis. And, although no one is arguing against the need for reform, there is no evidence to suggest that FG have any plans to do so properly.

Good reform takes time and money. The right people and structures need to be put in place to ensure that we can operate more efficiently and effectively. Sacking 15,000 public sector workers isn't going to achieve anything other that adding to the dole queues.

Hopefully, now that Bertie is gone, we might see some progress in this area. But implementing FG's policies is akin to cracking a nut with a sledge hammer. We'll all suffer, and there will be no benefit to anyone.

paying an ex surplus to requirements civil servant to do nothing on the dole costs half the price of paying them to do nothing in some goverment dept

its actually very simple

Martyr

P. Breathnach wrote:

Here we go again!

Do you think there will be many people left in this country to sponser the public sector if the government plans to just keep increasing taxes?

The government are not allowed to make sensible, necessary cuts to administrative staff, incase PS unions start crying and stamp their feet like a spoiled kid.

Do you know what the word defecit means, P. Breathnach?

I'm guessing that the solution is to keep those worthless staff that we obviously don't need and instead cease particular services that people do need? :rolleyes:

Then we can blame it on a lack of money..as always, nothing to do with inflated wage packets and being incompetent at your job...nothing at all like that, oh no..of course not.

How could we even suggest that, our services are the best in the world..:D

InFront

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Here we go again!

Your first post in the thread, and that's your argument? It's a valid point that he makes, the public service is inflated and must be tackled. How can any reasonable person deny that?

The vast majority of civil servants have an interest in seeing the system cleaned up because the vast majority wll not get the sack and will be better off for the waste of their tax euros through inefficiency being corrected. Unless you have an interest in preserving inefficiency, what could your problem be?

P. Breathnach

Martyr wrote: »

... Do you know what the word defecit means, P. Breathnach?...

I even know how to spell it.

P. Breathnach

InFront wrote: »

Your first post in the thread, and that's your argument?

I don't even pretend that it's an argument. It's a comment on jimmmy's post -- a comment that is based on his many previous posts on the public service.

It's a valid point that he makes, the public service is inflated and must be tackled. How can any reasonable person deny that?

Read carefully: that's not actually the point he was making. He was merely tub-thumping.

The vast majority of civil servants have an interest in seeing the system cleaned up because the vast majority wll not get the sack and will be better off for the waste of their tax euros through inefficiency being corrected.

I think you omitted a "not" somewhere.

If you want a reasonable discussion, you need to distinguish the various strands of the public service. The civil service is about 10% of the public service. And how can you establish that the vast majority might get the sack if inefficiency were corrected? Have you got any basis for that?

Unless you have an interest in preserving inefficiency, what could your problem be?

To impute motives to me without having any basis for so doing, or to suggest that I have a problem, is no way to discuss a question.

BroomBurner

Labour have some cheek going on about ending cronyism, they obviously have very short memories regarding when they were last in power.

As for the commenter who classes civil servants not as "regular voters", you're gas.

Let's keep this on topic, for a change.

I have to agree with the second poster on the detail. Labour and FG need to outline, in concise detail, what they plan by reform. They should also keep in touch with the unions. Regardless of what they think of them, or what voters think of them, they do represent a massive chunk of society, both private and public.

If Labour/FG are able to give a detailed break-down as to where they intend to make cuts, the reasoning behind it and how they'll deal with the fall-out from it (i.e. more people on social welfare short-term at least), then they may not feel the wrath of the public sector.

Martyr

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I even know how to spell it.

LOL you got me there :P

Apart from the misspelling, you are ALL overpaid and you know it.

InFront

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you omitted a "not" somewhere.

No. Where did you get that impression?

If you want a reasonable discussion, you need to distinguish the various strands of the public service.

Personally I would offer immunity to Gardai, Nurses, Doctors and those in a small number of key areas like child protection and resource learning. After that everyone gets subject to a performance testing scheme such as the one that thousands of civil servants are trying to avoid at present. There should also be a cost benefit analysis applied across the board.

And how can you establish that the vast majority might get the sack if inefficiency were corrected?

What are you talking about? The vast majority of public service workers would never get the sack under any circumstances, that's what I said.

Firetrap

The danger here is that they won't sack the dead wood (it could prove to be more difficult to prove someone's inefficient than you'd think) but will target young people who aren't in the door very long. After all, which is cheaper to get rid of? Someone who's in the place 4 years and on less than €30k or someone who's been working for 20 years and earning a lot more. Think of the monster redundancy the latter will get.

j1smithy

truebluedub wrote: »

There SIPTU make a donation to Labour of around a third of their overall funding.

I take your point, But if Labour lost a third of their funding it would seriously hurt them... Just ask the government what its like to lose that kind of percentage of income! That said it kind of misses the point I was attempting to make, the fact that SIPTU even makes donations to a political party shows the link in ideoligy and aims. Even Eamonn Gilmore has a huge poster on the side of liberty hall. Its just that makes me think they would be unable to take on the unions with necessary resolve. Someone else said let voluntary redundancy, retirement and redeployment get numbers down. Well the current govt have that policy in place effectively with the recruitment ban, but the natural wastage isn't working fast enough.

Another poster said that it would affect only a a number of people in the public service... the dead weight so to speak. Redundancies either on an arbitraty or performance related basis would strike terror into all PS workers. They all would lose one of the greatest perks of their job, "the job for life".

People have long memories, and although I have no stats to back this up, I would imagine that PS workers would be among the largest voting blocs that actually vote.

I'm not doubting the need for reform and redundancies in the PS. All I'm asking is that the government that does it resigning themselves to opposition for a long time afterwards, ala the conservatives after black wednesday. Personally I think unless FG and Lab come up with some sort of "invisible" way of doing so, they will get their one term in office and thats it for a very long long time.

NewDubliner

j1smithy wrote: »

Its highly likely that FG & Lab will form the next coalition government. However its also quite clear that they will face tough choices and appear to want to tackle public sector reform head on with redundancies. ....The public sector makes up a substancial part of the workforce, and I don't think many people would be willing to forgive or forget losing their permanent pensionable jobs for life.

That's not the only source of trouble/lost votes. Much of the fat is outside of Dublin in provincial towns where extra people were recruited to fulfill 'decentralisation' quotas or where people are under-employed (such as in Agriculture) and cannot be as easily re-deployed as if they lived in one of the major cities such as Dublin, Cork or Limerick.

lmtduffy

InFront wrote: »

Your first post in the thread, and that's your argument? It's a valid point that he makes, the public service is inflated and must be tackled. How can any reasonable person deny that?

The vast majority of civil servants have an interest in seeing the system cleaned up because the vast majority wll not get the sack and will be better off for the waste of their tax euros through inefficiency being corrected. Unless you have an interest in preserving inefficiency, what could your problem be?

Its not inflated, it misdirected and inefficient.

lmtduffy

j1smithy wrote: »

I take your point, But if Labour lost a third of their funding it would seriously hurt them... Just ask the government what its like to lose that kind of percentage of income! That said it kind of misses the point I was attempting to make, the fact that SIPTU even makes donations to a political party shows the link in ideoligy and aims. Even Eamonn Gilmore has a huge poster on the side of liberty hall. Its just that makes me think they would be unable to take on the unions with necessary resolve. Someone else said let voluntary redundancy, retirement and redeployment get numbers down. Well the current govt have that policy in place effectively with the recruitment ban, but the natural wastage isn't working fast enough.

Another poster said that it would affect only a a number of people in the public service... the dead weight so to speak. Redundancies either on an arbitraty or performance related basis would strike terror into all PS workers. They all would lose one of the greatest perks of their job, "the job for life".

People have long memories, and although I have no stats to back this up, I would imagine that PS workers would be among the largest voting blocs that actually vote.

I'm not doubting the need for reform and redundancies in the PS. All I'm asking is that the government that does it resigning themselves to opposition for a long time afterwards, ala the conservatives after black wednesday. Personally I think unless FG and Lab come up with some sort of "invisible" way of doing so, they will get their one term in office and thats it for a very long long time.

I would argue that labour has the foresight, the intent and they want to move people into meaningful jobs across the board rather than leave people on the dole. If we get work done now and invest in the country and support indigenous industry now we will receive great returns in the next boom and the next bust will hurt us much less.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's not the only source of trouble/lost votes. Much of the fat is outside of Dublin in provincial towns where extra people were recruited to fulfill 'decentralisation' quotas or where people are under-employed (such as in Agriculture) and cannot be as easily re-deployed as if they lived in one of the major cities such as Dublin, Cork or Limerick.

The cuts and redundancies should be done across the board, without fear or favour, for the good of the country. Re decentralisation, thats a different argument ; if rent and transportation costs etc are cheaper outside the traffic-clogged city of Dublin, and country people wish to stay outside Dublin, then thats a win-win situation.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... Re decentralisation, thats a different argument ; if rent and transportation costs etc are cheaper outside the traffic-clogged city of Dublin, and country people wish to stay outside Dublin, then thats a win-win situation.

You want efficiency, and you want decentralisation? The model of decentralisation proposed by Charlie McCreevy does not aid efficiency.

solice

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You want efficiency, and you want decentralisation? The model of decentralisation proposed by Charlie McCreevy does not aid efficiency.

How so?