Public sector pay: the wrong debate

hallelujajordan

On my way home from work this evening I listened to two items on the radio that put this debate into context for me. .

1. SIPTU, with full knowledge of the government deficit have lodged a pay claim for 3.5%. . . a complete 2 fingers to the taxpayer, not to mention to their own members in the private sector (more than 2/3 of SIPTU membership comes from the private sector . . sadly we seem to have no voice within the Union)
2. The deputy secretary general of the TUI was describing how teachers would no longer agree to out of hours parent teacher meetings as agreed in the last round of partnership talks because the government had implemented cutbacks in the education sector. He then went on to explain how the teachers would no longer engage in any planning meetings that may over-run their normal working hours (including lunch time) - effectively a work-to-rule

You can harp all you like about the fat cats and the big wigs in the middle management layers of the civil service with their fancy expenses and their complete lack of skills or productivity. A very populist view that we will all agree with.. however unrealistic it might be.

Here are two front-line sectors, well paid by Irish and European standards effectively holding a gun to the taxpayers head. It needs to stop !!

Darragh29

There's a pure example of what I'm talking about... On TV3 news now, teachers are told not to meet parents of students outside of school hours. You just couldn't make it up...

whiterob81

Actually, one of the reasons that I've heard for the 3 year career break being introduced was because there are lots of people coming off career break at the moment and there's no where for them to go. I've heard from someone working in dublin city council's hr dept that it's being brought in as a way off freeing up vacancies. So it may not necessarily be true that the people who are leaving are complete deadweight. But according to reports, the take up hasn't been too high.

I know a lot of people are pretty scornful of the initiative but i think it does have certain aspects in it's favour:

1. the people on the career breaks can't claim social welfare.
2. If they were made redundant a severance would more than likely be paid (followed by social welfare payments)

So, it will more than likely actually end up saving the country money.

I_am_Jebus

Darragh29 wrote: »

You see your point above goes to the very heart of my argument...

Just because you work for an entity, in this case the state, and in terms of the continuance of your employment, the state is not relying on those phones being answered 5 days a week in order to pay your salary to you, this doesn't mean as it is kind of suggested in your post above, that the rules should be so fundamentally different as they are from a private sector employment...

I've no doubt that the words flexibility and performance have different meanings in the public and the private sector.

In relation to your last sentence. I'd ask that you might elaborate a bit further. But I hope you're not trying to suggest that the public sector is not wholly inflexible and is an underperformer.

Now bear in mind, I am talking about a specific example of one area of the public service. A tiny %. I won't disagree that there are people in the PS that underperform/are not value for money/are not flexible. But I can't tar everyone with the same brush and you shouldn't either.


As regards the rest of your post, well the nature of the work and services is very different with the typical private sector company. You can't compare like with like in this instance really. The public service is, by it's nature a different entity altogether in a lot of ways. e.g. most sections of the thousands in the public service do not exist to create revenue/make profit etc...

Wiley1

Darragh29 wrote: »

There's a pure example of what I'm talking about... On TV3 news now, teachers are told not to meet parents of students outside of school hours. You just couldn't make it up...

I have to say I am with you on this on. Unions are killing the country an stiffling changes that will help the sectors overall...

potlatch

The tenor of this discussion, since I started it, has proved my core point: that people have been brainwashed into accepting poor working conditions in the private sector as normal.

With a few exceptions, this thread has confirmed my belief.

It's also interesting that I received an abusive private message from georgiecasey on the topic, such is the irrational nature of this debate.

Darragh29

I_am_Jebus wrote: »

In relation to your last sentence. I'd ask that you might elaborate a bit further. But I hope you're not trying to suggest that the public sector is not wholly inflexible and is an underperformer.

Now bear in mind, I am talking about a specific example of one area of the public service. A tiny %. I won't disagree that there are people in the PS that underperform/are not value for money/are not flexible. But I can't tar everyone with the same brush and you shouldn't either.


As regards the rest of your post, well the nature of the work and services is very different with the typical private sector company. You can't compare like with like in this instance really. The public service is, by it's nature a different entity altogether in a lot of ways. e.g. most sections of the thousands in the public service do not exist to create revenue/make profit etc...

The main difference that I think you are referring to is this:

Private sector worker: Those phones have to be answered FIVE days a week, 8 HOURS A DAY, or people lose jobs, it's that simple. The standard of the service offered MUST remain above a certain level for the whole entity to remain viable...

Public sector worker: We get paid regardless of performance. We can sit down and say out loud, "we will not meet parents of schoolkids outside of school hours and we will answer customer enquiries on one day of the week only, we'll still get paid after making these decisions and issuing our position on these matters"...

One sector is inherently performance driven or else it fails, and the other appears to me to be union driven and utterly intrasigent.

As I'm typing this, the ASTI here have told members that they are not to meet parents of children outside of school hours. I worked an 19 hour day yesterday, are these people taking the utter p*ss???

Wiley1

Darragh29 wrote: »

The main difference that I think you are referring to is this:

Private sector worker: Those phones have to be answered FIVE days a week, 8 HOURS A DAY, or people lose jobs, it's that simple. The standard of the service offered MUST remain above a certain level for the whole entity to remain viable...

Public sector worker: We get paid regardless of performance. We can sit down and say out loud, "we will not meet parents of schoolkids outside of school hours and we will answer customer enquiries on one day of the week only, we'll still get paid after making these decisions and issuing our position on these matters"...

One sector is inherently performance driven or else it fails, and the other appears to me to be union driven and utterly intrasigent.

As I'm typing this, the ASTI here have told members that they are not to meet parents of children outside of school hours. I worked an 19 hour day yesterday, are these people taking the utter p*ss???

Although i agree the Unions aren't helping, you're generalising, not the truth.

Whywere you doing those hours for, that's what has you so grumpy?

SLUSK

Here is how you solve the problem. You cut public sector wages by 40-50%, and if these employees starts to moan and complain you bring in strike breakers from Eastern Europe who are more than happy to work for minimum wage.

Using strike breakers should be encouraged

hallelujajordan

potlatch wrote: »

The tenor of this discussion, since I started it, has proved my core point: that people have been brainwashed into accepting poor working conditions in the private sector as normal.

With a few exceptions, this thread has confirmed my belief.

It's also interesting that I received an abusive private message from georgiecasey on the topic, such is the irrational nature of this debate.

I think your analysis is wholly wrong . . we are now in an era where global markets dictate private sector pay and conditions (eg. DELL) . . we have to compete within this global market and we have to adjust our public sector to survive within the resulting economy.

I think the nation's been brainwashed. Private sector workers need to take employers on for a fair deal like those in the public sector.

If only there were organisations that could campaign for better working conditions for employees...

There are organisations, but the bearded ones (why do Union bosses always have beards?) seem only to be interested in the public sector (Ref : SIPTU's pay claim/ 2 fingers to the private sector issued this morning)

Darragh29

potlatch wrote: »

The tenor of this discussion, since I started it, has proved my core point: that people have been brainwashed into accepting poor working conditions in the private sector as normal.

With a few exceptions, this thread has confirmed my belief.

It's also interesting that I received an abusive private message from georgiecasey on the topic, such is the irrational nature of this debate.

Conversely it could be argued that those in public sector employment have collectively secured for themselves entitlements, terms and conditions that are unreasonably generous and unaffordable.

I said it before on here recently that we need a new employment model for all workers, that deals with all these issues, not benchmarking or some other glorified ATM process, something that deals with union recognition for ALL workers in Ireland, either it should be mandatory recognition for all employers or else no employer should have to recognise a union.

What we have now is a public sector unionised workforce and a large multinational driven employment base that is hostile to unions... Completely unworkable I think, and has been shown to be the case...

gdael

potlatch wrote: »

The tenor of this discussion, since I started it, has proved my core point: that people have been brainwashed into accepting poor working conditions in the private sector as normal.

With a few exceptions, this thread has confirmed my belief.

It's also interesting that I received an abusive private message from georgiecasey on the topic, such is the irrational nature of this debate.

I think its been shown here that the vast majority of people complaining about salary cuts etc in the private sector have not actually had them. There are a couple of posters who know of people who have been cut - but not that many it has to be said.

I know noone i work with, or anyone in any companies i work with have experienced anything, bar the odd wage freeze.

gdael

Darragh29 wrote: »

The main difference that I think you are referring to is this:

Private sector worker: Those phones have to be answered FIVE days a week, 8 HOURS A DAY, or people lose jobs, it's that simple. The standard of the service offered MUST remain above a certain level for the whole entity to remain viable...

O2, Eircom, 3, Ice Broadband, Chorus/NTL, Sky

Cant remember the last time anyone picked up a phone in those companies when i called.

The only public offices ive called recently are the motor tax office and revenue. Answered almost straight away.

hallelujajordan

gdael wrote: »

I think its been shown here that the vast majority of people complaining about salary cuts etc in the private sector have not actually had them. There are a couple of posters who know of people who have been cut - but not that many it has to be said.

I know noone i work with, or anyone in any companies i work with have experienced anything, bar the odd wage freeze.

Oh, come off it . . 165,000 people added to the live register since this time last year, all of them coming from the private sector.

Estimates are that about 10% of employees who have kept their job in the private sector have had pay cuts...

. .

potlatch

Darragh29 wrote:

I said it before on here recently that we need a new employment model for all workers, that deals with all these issues

I suggested this pages back, but people jumped down my throat and even one sent me abuse. I my view, poor conditions in the private sector need to be addressed comprehensively; at the same time, the public sector needs to be reformed. This must bear in mind the differential logics at work between the two.

hallelujajordan wrote:

we are now in an era where global markets dictate private sector pay and conditions (eg. DELL) . . we have to compete within this global market and we have to adjust our public sector to survive within the resulting economy.

You're putting words in my mouth, and I think your analysis is simplistic. Clearly the state-market-society complex has changed and institutions must adjust to compensate. What I believe is (1) within a vision of the role of the state in the current world system, the pupose of the wider public service must be restructured with certain values, principles and purposes in mind, and (2) the private sector must come under greater social influence so that employees have certain minimum conditions of employment which grant economic and social security.

Two movements currently in train: (1) the 'new public management' agenda for the public service and (2) the flexicurity agenda in the private sector.

Evidence shows in small, trade-open countries especially, these are two important conditions among others (higher education, infrastructure, proximity to markets, etc.) that support the interconnected objectives of long-term economic prosperity and the capacity to pay for high quality public services.

But what does it matter typing this? My view will be misrepresented and ignored, and I might even get more abusive private messages.

gooneradam

hallelujajordan wrote: »

On my way home from work this evening I listened to two items on the radio that put this debate into context for me. .

1. SIPTU, with full knowledge of the government deficit have lodged a pay claim for 3.5%. . . a complete 2 fingers to the taxpayer, not to mention to their own members in the private sector (more than 2/3 of SIPTU membership comes from the private sector . . sadly we seem to have no voice within the Union)
2. The deputy secretary general of the TUI was describing how teachers would no longer agree to out of hours parent teacher meetings as agreed in the last round of partnership talks because the government had implemented cutbacks in the education sector. He then went on to explain how the teachers would no longer engage in any planning meetings that may over-run their normal working hours (including lunch time) - effectively a work-to-rule

The sad thing is, they'll end up getting what they want.

I'm just tired and embarrassed of being Irish these days.

Darragh29

potlatch wrote: »

I suggested this pages back, but people jumped down my throat and even one sent me abuse. I my view, poor conditions in the private sector need to be addressed comprehensively; at the same time, the public sector needs to be reformed. This must bear in mind the differential logics at work between the two.

We need to stop using language like, "private sector" and "public sector", and start looking at what rights we want people working in Ireland, to have...

We need go get everyone onto the same page and set out minimum rights for all workers in Ireland. Of course employers, whether public or private sector, can be free to offer entitlements over and above those minimum entitlements set out on a legislative basis, but this thing where one half of the country is highly unionised and the other half are afraid to even talk to a news reporter in the event of redundancies, because their employer told them not to, we're on a road to a hiding there with that set up...

hallelujajordan

potlatch wrote: »

You're putting words in my mouth, and I think your analysis is simplistic. Clearly the state-market-society complex has changed and institutions must adjust to compensate. What I believe is (1) within a vision of the role of the state in the current world system, the pupose of the wider public service must be restructured with certain values, principles and purposes in mind, and (2) the private sector must come under greater social influence so that employees have certain minimum conditions of employment which grant economic and social security.

Two movements currently in train: (1) the 'new public management' agenda for the public service and (2) the flexicurity agenda in the private sector.

Evidence shows in small, trade-open countries especially, these are two important conditions among others (higher education, infrastructure, proximity to markets, etc.) that support the interconnected objectives of long-term economic prosperity and the capacity to pay for high quality public services.

But what does it matter typing this? My view will be misrepresented and ignored, and I might even get more abusive private messages.

I hear what you are saying and I don't disagree with your analysis that there is a long term change of direction required. However, there is a far more acute problem. On the one hand the government needs to reduce the cost of public services. . Bringing private sector salaries in line with those in the public sector will do squat in terms of helping us achieve this.. On the other hand, the private sector is under strain at the moment . . . I believe that private sector companies ought to adjust their profitability expectations in favour of maintining workers conditions but it won't happen. The world is getting flatter . . Ireland has depended for a long time on foreign direct investment. This investment will move to cheaper economies if we don't maintain competitiveness. The primary rationale for DELL's move to Poland was that salaries were 30% of Irish salaries . .

BTW, I'm not sure that I put words in your mouth ? ? ?

jimmmy

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Oh, come off it . . 165,000 people added to the live register since this time last year, all of them coming from the private sector.

Estimates are that about 10% of employees who have kept their job in the private sector have had pay cuts...

. .

Plus there are many many self employed not entitled to social welfare + who are making next to nothing ...many shopkeepers, salesmen, people working on commission, people from the construction industry, architects, solicitors , people who design or make luxury items....many I know are struggling + living off savings / spouses income.

Not everyone can take a p.s. career break for 3 years + get paid for their time off

potlatch

Darragh29 wrote:

We need go get everyone onto the same page and set out minimum rights for all workers in Ireland.

Oy vay. This was my original point. If I'd said it like that, though, I'd never have incited a debate. :P

Pitching employee against employee to re-engineer the status quo is not cool.

Tipp Man

hallelujajordan wrote: »

On my way home from work this evening I listened to two items on the radio that put this debate into context for me. .

1. SIPTU, with full knowledge of the government deficit have lodged a pay claim for 3.5%. . . a complete 2 fingers to the taxpayer, not to mention to their own members in the private sector (more than 2/3 of SIPTU membership comes from the private sector . . sadly we seem to have no voice within the Union)
2. The deputy secretary general of the TUI was describing how teachers would no longer agree to out of hours parent teacher meetings as agreed in the last round of partnership talks because the government had implemented cutbacks in the education sector. He then went on to explain how the teachers would no longer engage in any planning meetings that may over-run their normal working hours (including lunch time) - effectively a work-to-rule

You can harp all you like about the fat cats and the big wigs in the middle management layers of the civil service with their fancy expenses and their complete lack of skills or productivity. A very populist view that we will all agree with.. however unrealistic it might be.

Here are two front-line sectors, well paid by Irish and European standards effectively holding a gun to the taxpayers head. It needs to stop !!

It frightening isn't it, these guys are on a different planet. I think, as i've said before on here that this country is going to be on its knees after the next budget, mainly thanks to the unions

MaceFace

jonny24ie wrote: »

How much would a "Senior Computer Programmer" with 10 years experience get in the private sector??

Average - 45k.
That comes with no job security, no guaranteed pension and the threat of being fired if you are not up to scratch.

Tipp Man

gdael wrote: »

I think its been shown here that the vast majority of people complaining about salary cuts etc in the private sector have not actually had them. There are a couple of posters who know of people who have been cut - but not that many it has to be said.

I know noone i work with, or anyone in any companies i work with have experienced anything, bar the odd wage freeze.

Look the whole point of the public private debate is this, as a private sector worker it doesn't make the slighest bit of difference to you or to anyone else in the country how much i earn, its completely irrelevant. I'm not costing you or anyone else a single cent.

Now take a Public sector worker, where does his wage come from, the government, where does that come from, tax, who pays tax, we all do, so as such you had better believe that we have every right to be annoyed with how much the PS earn, how productive they are, and what value we are getting for our money. Its like getting a mechanic to fix your car, your paying for it so you want the best job done as cheaply as possible. if the mechanic is rubbish or robbing you, what do you do?? that's right you change mechanics.

How much the private sector worker earns is irrelevant, and thats ignoring the fact that we are earning anything from 10-40% less anyway.

And another thing, on what planet did the private sector ever let the public sector get ahead of them in the earning stakes anyway?? for too long the private sector has sat back and put up with the union crap about the poor public sector, well let me tell you one thing, i for one am no longer going to put up with that rubbish. the public secor have all the gains but none of the risk, its absolutly mental

hallelujajordan

Tipp Man wrote: »

And another thing, on what planet did the private sector ever let the public sector get ahead of them in the earning stakes anyway?? for too long the private sector has sat back and put up with the union crap about the poor public sector, well let me tell you one thing, i for one am no longer going to put up with that rubbish. the public secor have all the gains but none of the risk, its absolutly mental

Here here ! The most ludicrous, ridiculous, nonsensical and downright stupud word to enter the Irish vocabulary in the last 10 years ? ? BENCHMARKING !!!

gdael

MaceFace wrote: »

Average - 45k.
That comes with no job security, no guaranteed pension and the threat of being fired if you are not up to scratch.

The same computer programmer with 10 years experience where i work would be on minimum €55K + 7.5% pension contribution + Bonus of anything from 5% - 10%.

gdael

Tipp Man wrote: »

Look the whole point of the public private debate is this, as a private sector worker it doesn't make the slighest bit of difference to you or to anyone else in the country how much i earn, its completely irrelevant. I'm not costing you or anyone else a single cent.

Actually, you are costing us money (if you arent earning a substantial salary).

The more you earn the more tax you pay. If you are in a job where you pay little or no tax then you are getting a free ride from the rest of us.

Those on the higher tax rate are carrying all those on the lower or no rate.

Yet its the ones on the lower rate screaming the loudest.
ALL income needs to be taxed. There should be no more people getting away with paying tax. Thats whats breaking the country.

MaceFace

gdael wrote: »

The same computer programmer with 10 years experience where i work would be on minimum €55K + 7.5% pension contribution + Bonus of anything from 5% - 10%.

€55k on average? What would be the scale? Is it a big company (i.e. multinational)?

We have had redundancies and the rest of us pick up the slack - no questions asked - just happy to have escaped another round of redundancies?

Same goes for most IT companies these days.

gdael

MaceFace wrote: »

€55k on average? What would be the scale? Is it a big company (i.e. multinational)?

We have had redundancies and the rest of us pick up the slack - no questions asked - just happy to have escaped another round of redundancies?

Same goes for most IT companies these days.

It is a big company, but most other developers working in other companies in Dublin who i know will be paid about the same for similar experience. Some a little more, some a little less.

Some of my colleagues have left us at that kind of level and got paid more in their new jobs (even in the last few months).

It costs you nothing to send your CV off, so if you arent getting what you feel you could, then look around. The worst that can happen is you stay in your current job.

hallelujajordan

gdael wrote: »

Actually, you are costing us money (if you arent earning a substantial salary).

The more you earn the more tax you pay. If you are in a job where you pay little or no tax then you are getting a free ride from the rest of us.

Those on the higher tax rate are carrying all those on the lower or no rate.

Yet its the ones on the lower rate screaming the loudest.
ALL income needs to be taxed. There should be no more people getting away with paying tax. Thats whats breaking the country.

Bizzarre . . so ALL income should be taxed . . those on the minimum wage will pay the same rate of tax as someone paying €40k . . Are you serious or taking the p1ss. .

I don't know where to start; such a policy is so ludicrous it is hardly worth arguing. . .

miju

jimmmy wrote: »

:DAll due respect, if you wanted to travel around the world for a few years, or take 3 years off to raise your kids, you would probably think its a great idea. If someone would pay me to holiday in Oz + the southern hemisphere for 3 years I would'nt say no .

you seem to be hung up on this holiday in Oz. The only person who paid for that Oz holiday is the woorker themselves. The way the scheme works is that the worker doesnt get their first "lump sum" for 6 months after they take their break.

And FWIW it is a BRILLIANT thing if you want to travel or raise kids thats WHY the government brought it in. So people like the above would take the paid break and therefore reduce weekly outgoings for the Government wage bill.

jimmmy wrote: »

there are self employed people here in Ireland, in negative equity, and who cannot leave, who earn less than some p.s. on their " work initiaves" career breaks.

and anyone who is self employed FULLY knows the risks they take when they work for themselves so this point is completely mute.

SLUSK wrote: »

Here is how you solve the problem. You cut public sector wages by 40-50%, and if these employees starts to moan and complain you bring in strike breakers from Eastern Europe who are more than happy to work for minimum wage.

Using strike breakers should be encouraged

yes because cutting the wages of 320,000 people in half overnight wouldnt plunge the country into a depression for the ages.

meanwhile back here on planet earth we'll try come up with woorkable and proper solutions :rolleyes: