It's Official: we have the EU's highest paid and least productive civil servants

P. Breathnach

ionix5891 wrote: »

how is it irrelevant? i don't care what they are called...

The fact that you don't care does not make inaccuracy valid.

[It's quite entertaining seeing you and jimmmy consistently thanking each other through this exchange; I think you are ganging up on me.]

thebman

capsubsidy.com wrote: »

You seem to be mixing up wealth with debt. They're not the same.

As for the increase in the PS bill, that's hardly a surprise. If you want to see the figures, just look here



All these figures were taken from the Irish Government's budget website.

Christ that is damning on the governments lack of investment in industry in the country :eek:

How the hell could they have not increased funding for industry during the boom years for industries to get them off the ground so they could replace construction after the property boom?

gurramok

They were too busy propping up Tom Parlons CIF to care.

Look at that social welfare bill, it skyrocketed even when unemployement was at 4%, talk about out of control!

And health. Evidence there of the army of HSE admins that were recruited.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The fact that you don't care does not make inaccuracy valid.

Thats only nit-picking. The point is we have the EU's highest paid and least productive government employees. Not only that, our public servants are among the highest paid in the world ....show me a country where their average pay is more.

Its ok for you PBreatnach...you get a pecentage of that pay, do you not, so you have a vested interest in maintaining the salary levels of what is probably world highest paid public service ? I put it to you that this country cannot afford such extravagance.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Thats only nit-picking.

No. It's a concern for truth and accuracy. The unargued fact that there are large numbers of administrators in the HSE is being used as a stick to beat the Civil Service, even though the HSE is outside the Civil Service.

The point is we have the EU's highest paid and least productive government employees.

What is the index of productivity? Or are you operating in rant mode?

Not only that, our public servants are among the highest paid in the world ....show me a country where their average pay is more.

Its ok for you PBreatnach...you get a pecentage of that pay, do you not, so you have a vested interest in maintaining the salary levels of what is probably world highest paid public service ? I put it to you that this country cannot afford such extravagance.

I have challenged you before on misrepresenting my position, but that also seems to have slipped through unnoticed by you. Show me any evidence that I have put my own financial interest ahead of the general good.

[Are you posting on your employer's time?]

thebman

jimmmy wrote: »

Its ok for you PBreatnach...you get a pecentage of that pay, do you not, so you have a vested interest in maintaining the salary levels of what is probably world highest paid public service ? I put it to you that this country cannot afford such extravagance.

Well he could concede your point a thousand times over here and it wouldn't make any difference in real life.

I don't doubt that public sector wage should be benchmarked against private sector and reduce accordingly.

Won't happen, government want to buy next election if possible (I really hope it isn't).

jimmmy

Come on P.Breatnach ; please answer the question below, which you have dodged :

ionix5891 wrote: »

does the taxpayer not have the right to point out bloat and/or demand better value for money?

Incidentally, I am not posting on any employers time, be it public service employer or private service employer. I wish you were so concerned about other people posting on company time eg the public sector employee who was last week caught making many and frequent posts at work.

P. Breathnach

thebman wrote: »

.. I don't doubt that public sector wage should be benchmarked against private sector and reduce accordingly...

I'd prefer adjusted to reduced. There are many types of work in the public service, and it is possible (it seems unlikely, I grant you) that some rates do not merit reduction. Benchmarking with a predetermined outcome is wrong.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Come on P.Breatnach ; please answer the question below, which you have dodged :
does the taxpayer not have the right to point out bloat and/or demand better value for money?

It is dishonourable to suggest that I dodge questions. I choose what I want to say, and I give my opinions on my own terms, not on terms set by you. You favour the "when did you stop beating your wife" approach to questioning.

Incidentally, I am not posting on any employers time, be it public service employer or private service employer.

Good to hear that.

I wish you were so concerned about other people posting on company time eg the public sector employee who was last week caught making many and frequent posts at work.

Why should I need to, when you are policing people already?

spank_inferno

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd prefer adjusted to reduced. There are many types of work in the public service, and it is possible (it seems unlikely, I grant you) that some rates do not merit reduction. Benchmarking with a predetermined outcome is wrong.

You must have hated the first round of benchmarking then?

Anyway.....
Whatever about the numbers employed in the public service or how much money is spent on them, the thing that bugs most is the relatively small amount of governance we get in exchange for our money.

Is there anywhere else in Europe where so many deliver so little output at such cost?

jmayo

thebman wrote: »

Christ that is damning on the governments lack of investment in industry in the country :eek:

How the hell could they have not increased funding for industry during the boom years for industries to get them off the ground so they could replace construction after the property boom?

Jeeze what age are you ?
Have you not figured out yet FF and the public sector (including those subset called the civil service) don't plan ahead in this country.
Otherwise someone in the Dept of Finance might have actually plugged in a few figures and worked out that when building bubble burst we would be f***ed.

P. Breathnach

spank_inferno wrote: »

You must have hated the first round of benchmarking then?

I didn't approve of it. Nor do I respect cheap shot approaches to serious debate.

Anyway.....
Whatever about the numbers employed in the public service or how much money is spent on them, the thing that bugs most is the relatively small amount of governance we get in exchange for our money.

Is there anywhere else in Europe where so many deliver so little output at such cost?

How little do we get? What are your outcome measures, or the outcome measures on which you base your judgement? Does the criticism apply evenly across the whole range of public services, or can you say where the deficiencies are?

spank_inferno

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I didn't approve of it. Nor do I respect cheap shot approaches to serious debate.

Grand.... I don't care whether you respect it or not

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How little do we get? What are your outcome measures, or the outcome measures on which you base your judgement? Does the criticism apply evenly across the whole range of public services, or can you say where the deficiencies are?

Measurements? Nope... I've none of those.
but then, does the public sector even know how to measure its own outputs?
Does the public sector even know how many people work for it?!

Instead if running down everyone else here perhaps you could be the clever cloggs and prove me wrong? Or is writing with such gravitas hard enough work as it is?

P. Breathnach

spank_inferno wrote: »

... Instead if running down everyone else here perhaps you could be the clever cloggs and prove me wrong?

I say that you are wrong. That's sufficient disproof of any unsubstantiated claim.

Or is writing with such gravitas hard enough work as it is?

It's quite easy. You should try it.

jimmmy

Come on P.Breatnach ; please answer the question below, which you have still not answered :


Quote:
Originally Posted by ionix5891
does the taxpayer not have the right to point out bloat and/or demand better value for money?

BroomBurner

Hooray, another "all public servants are nasty, sly leaches stealing our monies" thread! It's a topic we've never covered before

ionix5891

BroomBurner wrote: »

Hooray, another "all public servants are nasty, sly leaches stealing our monies" thread! It's a topic we've never covered before

now now no need to generalize

tho trimming the fat to the EU average wouldn't do any harm, continuing borrowing money from abroad to pay for the gravy train will do harm and cost and arm and leg as time goes back and interest will have to be paid on them billions

BroomBurner

ionix5891 wrote: »

now now no need to generalize

tho trimming the fat to the EU average wouldn't do any harm, continuing borrowing money from abroad to pay for the gravy train will do harm and cost and arm and leg as time goes back and interest will have to be paid on them billions

I'm all for trimming the fat. The only problem is, the wrong people will get trimmed. As someone posted in the FG/Labour thread, it will be cheaper to get rid of those newest in, and not the long-timers who have a certain mind-set.

Also, people need to calm down their hatred a bit and look at things more objectively. At least for their own blood-pressure's sake.

Oh, where did your man get his figures? Is his report available to read? Not disputing it, but don't want to comment on it until I've read around the subject myself. An action that others here should do also before jumping on the coat-tails of whatever happens to back up their preconceived ideas.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Come on P.Breatnach ; please answer the question below, which you have still not answered :


Quote:
Originally Posted by ionix5891
does the taxpayer not have the right to point out bloat and/or demand better value for money?

No. I state my views in my own way. Dealing with things on your terms is too simplistic.

Now go and find another silly game to play, because I am not playing this one.

The_Conductor

ionix5891 wrote: »

now now no need to generalize

tho trimming the fat to the EU average wouldn't do any harm, continuing borrowing money from abroad to pay for the gravy train will do harm and cost and arm and leg as time goes back and interest will have to be paid on them billions

If you go trimming the fat to the EU average in the civil service (on a per head of population basis), you would have just over 18,000 more civil servants. Ireland actually has the lowest number of civil servants per head of population in the whole OECD.

Far more pertinent- and instead of trying to lump the civil service, or even the public sector, as a whole- would be to focus on the elephant in the room- the HSE. It employs more people than the rest of the public sector combined, and at average salaries (despite what the media would have you believe) ~18% higher than the average salary elsewhere in the public sector.

There are shocking numbers of administrators pushing paper (or whatever it is they do to justify their existence). They are the people who give everyone else in the public sector a bad name...... The idea when all the old health boards were merged was that ~14,000 jobs could be eliminated (largely due to duplication of admin functions (notice a trend here?) and this would be implemented by non-replacement policies as people retired, contracts ended etc. Instead- guess what? 4 years later- not only were there not fewer people employed- there were 46,000 additional staff members- doing god only knows what.

The HSE is the elephant in the room.

Different parts of the public sector deliver benefits to the public at large in different manners. Just because a particular sector is not income generating- does not necessarily mean its evil- or that its function could be supplied in an efficient by the private sector. Some people here seem to have very black and white views of things. Certainly there are many things wrong in the public sector- but so too are there in the private sector (as is evidenced by all the money the government has to borrow to bail out the financial sector- that bastion of capitalism- and in the process drag the financial reputation of this country through the mud).

Certainly- there should be greater accountability among public sector employees- but with greater accountability- there should also be recognition too- both are very deficient. As pointed out earlier in this thread- the problem with implementing a last-in-first-out policy- is the people in set mindsets, who aren't interested in change- are left to fester in their set routines. Those who are in a position to make a difference- are out the door...... It doesn't work......

The big problem as I see it- is parochial politics. Every politician represents their constituents- and no-one represents Ireland as a whole. Everyone wants everything for their own constituency- and voters in turn have the power to reward or punish those who do or don't deliver the perceived bacon. This means- where we should have a cohesive policy for Ireland Inc- we don't and the will is not there to deliver. This is destroying us.

jimmmy

smccarrick wrote: »

If you go trimming the fat to the EU average in the civil service (on a per head of population basis), you would have just over 18,000 more civil servants. Ireland actually has the lowest number of civil servants per head of population in the whole OECD..

Many other countries have conscription for a period of time for young people. Most of the other EC countries spend more on defence / Nato forces etc. The fact is our public servants are the highest paid in Europe, if not the world.

smccarrick wrote: »

Far more pertinent- and instead of trying to lump the civil service, or even the public sector, as a whole- would be to focus on the elephant in the room- the HSE. It employs more people than the rest of the public sector combined, and at average salaries (despite what the media would have you believe) ~18% higher than the average salary elsewhere in the public sector.

There are shocking numbers of administrators pushing paper (or whatever it is they do to justify their existence). They are the people who give everyone else in the public sector a bad name...... The idea when all the old health boards were merged was that ~14,000 jobs could be eliminated (largely due to duplication of admin functions (notice a trend here?) and this would be implemented by non-replacement policies as people retired, contracts ended etc. Instead- guess what? 4 years later- not only were there not fewer people employed- there were 46,000 additional staff members- doing god only knows what.

The HSE is the elephant in the room.

yawn. Blame the HSE if you want ...it is only part of the public service. The fact that the whole of the public service is overpaid compared to all comparables , seems to have escaped you.

The_Conductor

jimmmy wrote: »

Many other countries have conscription for a period of time for young people. Most of the other EC countries spend more on defence / Nato forces etc. The fact is our public servants are the highest paid in Europe, if not the world.

Sorry whats your point? I think conscription serves a very useful purpose. What has this got to do with the current topic though?

Vis-a-vis defence expenditure- we spend a similar amount per head of population to several of the NATO member states. We have a smaller population of course.....

Our politicians are the highest paid in the world. Certain sectors of the public service are overpaid. The average figure is distorted by the HSE.

jimmmy wrote: »

yawn. Blame the HSE if you want ...it is only part of the public service.

Its not only part of the public service- in numbers its as large as the rest of the public sector combined. Yawn, back to you.

jimmmy wrote: »

The fact that the whole of the public service is overpaid compared to all comparables , seems to have escaped you.

How has it escaped me- you haven't provided any comparables? Some sectors of the public sector are overpaid- certainly- others are underpaid (when compared with the private sector). This is why its so difficult, even in the current climate, to keep IT, Legal staff, auditors or linguists- they can earn far better money elsewhere. Those that do stay- get slated for it....... Why bother......

thebman

I think its telling that people here keep going on about posting on boards from work etc... yet it is just after 5 now and almost all activity has ceased on the thread.

Some people are telling porkies I think :P

Not that it matters in the slightest as it isn't a relevant metric of work activity give you could be emailed updates and only read them from your inbox and reply if necessary.

I'm for intelligent cuts being made rather than just massive cuts for the sake of it and I'm for proper analysis of each department and reducing wages if necessary rather than blanket cuts.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... The fact that the whole of the public service is overpaid compared to all comparables , seems to have escaped you.

Fact?

If that's the case, some evidence would be relevant. Loose generalisations don't cut it.

The_Conductor

thebman wrote: »

I'm for intelligent cuts being made rather than just massive cuts for the sake of it and I'm for proper analysis of each department and reducing wages if necessary rather than blanket cuts.

Personally- I'd actually be in favour of blanket cuts- in lieu of bizarre levies etc. Get rid of all the weird levies that have been introduced in the 2 budgets- and give the entire public sector a 15-20% paycut. It would be fairest- it would be an accurate reflection of people's take home pay- probably knock vast swathes of the public sector wholly into the lower tax bracket, and silence the media in one foul swoop. In the same sweep- all those pensioners who got 'benchmarking' on their payment- would have to swallow the same pill as those incumbents to whom their pensions are relative to- and swallow a cut too. Seems fair to me.

Vis-a-vis the public sector and all those gold-plated pensions that Jimmmy likes to go on about- could someone please explain the distinction between pre and post 1995 people- and the different rights post 2002 and 2005. If pension rights were accurately explained- for someone employed say in 2005- in comparison to someone 10 years previous- it makes for a very sobering comparison altogether. People don't like this though.

P. Breathnach

smccarrick wrote: »

... Vis-a-vis the public sector and all those gold-plated pensions that Jimmmy likes to go on about- could someone please explain the distinction between pre and post 1995 people- and the different rights post 2002 and 2005. If pension rights were accurately explained- for someone employed say in 2005- in comparison to someone 10 years previous- it makes for a very sobering comparison altogether. People don't like this though.

The provision is worth the same to pre- and post-1995 recruits except for recent recruits who choose to retire before the age of 65, who will do a bit less well under the new arrangements.

There are differences in that post-1995 people pay full PRSI instead of a reduced rate (but are paid a little bit more, which covers the cost) and their pension is a combination of a Social Welfare Contributory OAP and a PS pension, whereas pre-1995 people receive just a PS pension. But in each case, the total pension for those who have completed 40 years of pensionable service adds up to 50% of final salary, and both categories receive a lump sum of 150% of final salary.

jimmmy

smccarrick wrote: »

Sorry whats your point? I think conscription serves a very useful purpose. What has this got to do with the current topic though?

It was not me who mentioned numbers employed in the public service. Conscription + higher figures in "the services" push up public figure numbers abroad.

Our public service pay etc etc , as in the O.P. , and confirmed by the source, are shameful.

P. Breathnach

smccarrick wrote: »

Personally- I'd actually be in favour of blanket cuts- in lieu of bizarre levies etc. Get rid of all the weird levies that have been introduced in the 2 budgets- and give the entire public sector a 15-20% paycut. It would be fairest- it would be an accurate reflection of people's take home pay- probably knock vast swathes of the public sector wholly into the lower tax bracket, and silence the media in one foul swoop. In the same sweep- all those pensioners who got 'benchmarking' on their payment- would have to swallow the same pill as those incumbents to whom their pensions are relative to- and swallow a cut too. Seems fair to me.

I don't entirely agree. I'd favour another round of benchmarking. It would almost certainly result in a large reduction in public sector pay, but it might not hit every category evenly. One grade might be cut by 15%, and another might be cut by 25%. I do agree with working the pensions levy into it. Under benchmarking 2, the value of job security and the pension package were supposedly reckoned into the calculations. I'd say that we should continue with that, and strike new rates that take those things into account.

Yes, I'm probably talking down my PS pension. That's the way things go. I can live with that.

I further believe that there is need for strategic review of all PS provision. There are places where arrangements can be considerably improved, and there may be things we can do without. There are also things that we need, and are failing to provide sufficiently well.

The_Conductor

jimmmy wrote: »

It was not me who mentioned numbers employed in the public service. Conscription + higher figures in "the services" push up public figure numbers abroad.

Our public service pay etc etc , as in the O.P. , and confirmed by the source, are shameful.

Conscripted recruits to the armed forces, or those who elect to take the public service alternate, are not included in the public sector numbers when reckoning- in Germany (I am not sure about other countries). They are 'netted' outside of either public or private sector numbers. They have no effect on headline numbers- or salaries (despite the miserly stipend they command).

Confirmed by what source? The original post delibertly obsfusciates civil servants and public sector employees- and while it does draw attention to the HSE in a very roundabout manner- its short on facts, unclear about what its quoting and its patently clear that the journalist was looking for a sensationalist article, without actually understanding what he was writing about. I have a copy of Anthony Foley's report myself. It doesn't pull any punches- and indeed is interesting reading and something the government really has to take onboard. However- its main message- has been twisted and misrepresented (most probably misunderstood) by the journalist- and then quoted by you and others as fact 'confirmed by the source'. If you want to quote a source- its not a good idea to use secondhand information- you are going to be perpetuating whatever twist someone puts on information- even if it wholly agrees with your own point of view.

halkar

Salaries of World Leaders
Country Title Name Approximate Salary
Bolivia President Evo Morales $21,600
Great Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown $375,222
France President Nicolas Sarkozy $346,000
Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel $318,000
Ireland Prime Minister Bertie Ahern $434,000
Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe $248,500
Russia President Vladimir Putin $81,000
Singapore Premier Lee Hsien Loong $2.05 million
United States President George W. Bush $400,000
United States Vice President Dick Cheney $208,575

Linky:
Top-Earning-World-Leaders

Maybe little old but numbers says it all. Brian Cowen makes more than Merkel, Brown and Sarkozy and almost as much as Obama.
More recent link

Recently Hungarian prime minister start working on symbolic 1forint salary.
Will we ever see the day Cowen working for 1 Euro. :rolleyes: