Public Sector Pay. This one is 68 - 83K

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Vocational calling? Do you mean that people should do the work out of the goodness of their hearts, and be grateful for any little bit of pay they get?

Nope. But the IT industry was flooded with people who thought they would get rich doing it, and ended up stuck doing work they had little interest in, leading ultimately to a glut of very mediocre workers with far too high expectations. Same with this and with anything - if the financial rewards are the main motivation, you get people who just want the financial rewards.

And to be honest I don't really appreciate the tone of your comment, I was making a serious point. Some people are genuinely interested in social services and will get involved with it and prosper with or without the CEO salaries.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... And to be honest I don't really appreciate the tone of your comment, I was making a serious point. Some people are genuinely interested in social services and will get involved with it and prosper with or without the CEO salaries.

Equally, I didn't like the tone of what you said. Certain occupations have traditionally been described as vocations, and for many years they were poorly paid, and there was a prevailing view that the work was its own reward. So I was making a serious point.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Equally, I didn't like the tone of what you said. Certain occupations have traditionally been described as vocations, and for many years they were poorly paid, and there was a prevailing view that the work was its own reward. So I was making a serious point.

Well, didn't mean to get your back up. The simple fact is that overpayment can be as detrimental to a profession as underpayment, as counterintuitive as it may seem.

gurramok

Hold on, thought there was a recruitment embargo for the PS?? Why is that advert there in the first place!!

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

Hold on, thought there was a recruitment embargo for the PS?? Why is that advert there in the first place!!

some posts will be allowed to be filled but only on approval of the minister for finance; obviously they have decided that the social worker system cannot do without these posts

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can't understand how something can be such an important senior position and only be 35 hours per week.

Usually senior management work in companies I have worked for work 60 hour weeks.

35 hour week is simply the standard official line, 7 hours a day five days a week

i am not 100% but I imagine 60 hours a week officialy written into a job spec may actually break the law (working time legislation)

anyway my point is that while the 35 hours may be the official line, that does not mean that the post would not require time beyond that depending on your workload etc

Tim Robbins

Riskymove wrote: »

35 hour week is simply the standard official line, 7 hours a day five days a week

i am not 100% but I imagine 60 hours a week officialy written into a job spec may actually break the law (working time legislation)

The EU came out with some legislation about the maximum amount of hours that could be worked in a week but I think it's actually more than 60.

Contracts for companies I word phrase it as:
"From time to time, business requirements may mean extra hours are required".

anyway my point is that while the 35 hours may be the official line, that does not mean that the post would not require time beyond that depending on your workload etc

Perhaps. There's an impression that very few in the public sector work beyond 35 hours.

I have nothing against public sector people only working 35 hours. I just don't think they should be getting paid the same as the private sector who work 37.5 hours usually by their contract and usually a lot of extra hours without any extra pay.

It just doesn't make sense.

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps. There's an impression that very few in the public sector work beyond 35 hours.

I have nothing against public sector people only working 35 hours. I just don't think they should be getting paid the same as the private sector who work 37.5 hours usually by their contract and usually a lot of extra hours without any extra pay.

It just doesn't make sense.

it doesn't make sense if you base it on impressions or opinions or myths etc

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

it doesn't make sense if you base it on impressions or opinions or myths etc

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

Lots of people in the country have partners, siblings, cousins, neighbours, friends, clubmates etc working in the public sector....I can assure you that if you think there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " that is not consistent with the thoughts + experiences of many others. Why not get the public service unions to try to get a bit of pay for all these unpaid public service hours worked ? :D:D

Tim Robbins

Riskymove wrote: »

it doesn't make sense if you base it on impressions or opinions or myths etc

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

I dispute that. The old Consultants were contracted to work 35 hours a week only.

Many of them crammed this 35 hours into 3 or 4 days and then hoped off to the private clinic to rip us further. They were well known for it and many of them are still doing it. Harney had to spend 2 years negotiating with them so that on the new consultant contracts you couldn't do this. And then went mental and protracted the hole thing.

I also know people who work public service and they out the door "on the dot" usually.


I have also several anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own.
What's make private sector workers skeptical is that there's rarely any sort of concept of performance review in the public service. This can only just increas coffee breaks and taking it easy on the job.

Your thoughts...

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I dispute that. The old Consultants were contracted to work 35 hours a week only.

there are more than consultants in the public service at management levels, I never said that EVERYONE acted like that

I also know people who work public service and they out the door "on the dot" usually.

so do I...lots of them

I have also several anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own.

yes, these things happen as well


so my basic point again

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

see, "plenty" and there are..you cannot tar everyone the same

you are taking an ad for 3 management social worker posts adn commenting on them based on impressions and anecdotes; i imagine such a job would be a bit more involved and stressful than a standard administration one and can envisage it requiring extra hours

What's make private sector workers skeptical is that there's rarely any sort of concept of performance review in the public service. This can only just increas coffee breaks and taking it easy on the job.

Your thoughts...

I agree completely about perfromance reviews...I think if you follow my posts you'll see I am someone calling for large-scale reform of the public sector to allow management tackle such issues as under and non-performance


there are major issues in the public service around this but for every waster allowed to skive around there are more trying to do their job as best as they can

and there are certainly plenty of people who work beyond the 35 hours duee to their workload and their commitment

I can assure you that if you think there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " that is not consistent with the thoughts + experiences of many others.

I am aware of you prejudice against the public service jimmy and your attempts to portray all 330,000 workers as skiving, useless people so i do not really care what your thoughts and experiences are

Why not get the public service unions to try to get a bit of pay for all these unpaid public service hours worked

because I believe that working beyond your set hours when necessary to get your job done is part of your job

in many management positions there is no overtime payable regardless of what you work and people (the reasonable ones) accept this

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

jimmy and your attempts to portray all 330,000 workers as skiving, useless people so i do not really care what your thoughts and experiences are

I never said " all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people". Many are fine, hard-working people. However your claim that there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " is simply not bought. As another poster wrote "anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own."

Mad Finn

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This job specifically involves dealing with Dublin smackheads 24/7 and also with the scissor sisters type of utterly dysfunctional skanger scum and their poor benighted next generation.

No it doesn't. It involves bossing around the people who "deal with Dublin smackheads 24/7..."

It's in the fattiest layer of management. The very sort of PS job that should be the target of a neutron bomb at this point in time.

But of course, these are the people who get to make the decisions on where cuts must fall and they're hardly going to vote themselves out of a cushy number, are they?

It is the front line staff who will suffer. Really suffer.

Because they haven't got the balls to demand cuts where they are really needed. They think if they all join together they can squeeze the taxpayer for "more investment in vital services."

So they get tarred with the same brush as the holder of this cushy post.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

I never said " all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people". Many are fine, hard-working people. However your claim that there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " is simply not bought. As another poster wrote "anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own."

so I say "plenty" and you say "many"...whats the difference?

Long Onion

The only way to improve the performance of the public sector is to revove the security of tenure. There are far too many people who are prepared to do absolutely nothing productive or innovative as long as their job is there in the morning and they get their increments and pension.

I work in a bank and am surrounded by staff who couldn't care less about the grade they recieve on a performance review, they just want to do the minimum required to keep their job, no ambition, no drive. If they were given security of tenure they would do absolutely nothing at all.

Giving security of tenure to the civil service was a grand Weberian ideal, it is desireable in some cases such as the judiciary, elsewhere it just retards progress. Unless people can be dismissed for doing nothing, many will do exactly that - every day of their lives until they turn 65.

Dimitri

i really think its the ps workers in ireland refused to work beyond the 35 hours set out in their contracts, and highlight how little difference there is between most private and public sector positions. Excluding the obvious ones where you don't get employed by the private sector to do, guards army navy etc. The simple fact of the matter is ps workers for the most part are not paid more than the counterparts. If you adjust the figures to take out the bloated salaries of the very top management in the cs and ps and take out the politicians pay which often sneaks into the ps average and equally take out top managers ceo payments from private sector companies and you'll find for the most part they are the same. During the begining and middle of the boom, its was almost impossible to fill most skilled or professional positions which became vacant in the ps simply because while the job was secure came with a good pension the wages were too low and there were no bonuses being paid. Logically most people took the higher risk private sector job, those jobs are gone or going now hence higher risk. However in an attempt to quell union disquiet and to solve staffing problems, instead of completely overhauling the ps cs and and health boards the government set up the hse and threw money at everyone, most ps workers went underpaid for long periods of time, and took it on the chin for job and wage security. The government made it worse by throwing money at it, but to cut wages even further will only perpetuate the cycle of job loses, as the ps effectively are the only sizeable group of consumers and their hard earned disposable income is already way down. Moreover cutting pay in the ps will also damage it severly in the long run and a they will be crucial for our economic recovery if it ever happens.

A far more beneficial course of action would be to completely overhaul the ps, cs and hse, using the threat of pay cuts to force the unions into agreeing necessary changes. Redeployment of staff from outdated positions to areas where they are needed is crucial particularly in the hse. Reworking the manner in which tender process is conducted is also critical, the criteria set down while necessary for some jobs is not for others and when it is not the work could often be done far cheaper. The policies decided upon by government and followed by the ps are generally grossly inefficient. They might be a realistic solution to a specific or recurring problem in one part of the country but when applied nationally they may cause more problems than they solve in another part. We need to address these problems urgently, they should have been addressed when we had the money to address them but as always the ever destructive unions were caved into too hard and too fast by a weak and inept government. For me the saddest part is i could not envisage any other party acting any differently if they were in power at the time.

P. Breathnach

Mad Finn wrote: »

No it doesn't. It involves bossing around the people who "deal with Dublin smackheads 24/7..."

It's in the fattiest layer of management. The very sort of PS job that should be the target of a neutron bomb at this point in time...

I gather you have not read the job specifications, then. In each case, the person appointed would be expected to take on a caseload as well as a management/leadership role.

How is a team of, say, 12 social workers supposed to function effectively without somebody to co-ordinate the work?

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

jimmy and your attempts to portray all 330,000 workers as skiving, useless people so i do not really care what your thoughts and experiences are

I never said " all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people". Why do you insinuate I do ? Many are fine, hard-working people.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

so I say "plenty" and you say "many"...whats the difference?

No, you said all and I said many. Big difference.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How is a team of, say, 12 social workers supposed to function effectively without somebody to co-ordinate the work?

What makes you think there are a " team of, say, 12 social workers " underneath the person whose job was advertised ? The job advertised is for a "Principal Social Worker"....do you think every "Principal Social Worker" " co-ordinates the work of " " a team of, say, 12 social workers "

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

No, you said all and I said many. Big difference.

is this finally a pantomime? "oh no i didn't"

I said there were "plenty of people working more than 35 hours a week"

you say there are "many hard-working people"

whats the difference?

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

What makes you think there are a " team of, say, 12 social workers " underneath the person whose job was advertised ? The job advertised is for a "Principal Social Worker"....do you think every "Principal Social Worker" " co-ordinates the work of " " a team of, say, 12 social workers "

the term "principal" usually means the boss of the unit, overseeing staff

i.e. there would be a "Principal Social worker" overseeing a unit of "Social Workers"

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

I never said " all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people". Why do you insinuate I do ? Many are fine, hard-working people.

your ongoing campaign of remarks about public servants being "overpaid", "underworked", on "sickies" "tea-breaks", refusal to accept some work long hours and are busy etc etc are the things that would do it for me

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

What makes you think there are a " team of, say, 12 social workers " underneath the person whose job was advertised ? The job advertised is for a "Principal Social Worker"....do you think every "Principal Social Worker" " co-ordinates the work of " " a team of, say, 12 social workers "

I did some very simple research: I followed a link in this very thread.

It's a better method than crashing in here with the latest anecdote picked up in a pub, or an op-ed piece from the Indo.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

your ongoing campaign of remarks about public servants being "overpaid", "underworked", on "sickies" "tea-breaks", refusal to accept some work long hours and are busy etc etc are the things that would do it for me

but I never wrote "" all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people".

Do you know what the word "all " means ?

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I did some very simple research: I followed a link in this very thread.

To save others following links which follow other links, perhaps you could copy and paste where it says the "Principal Social Worker" " co-ordinates the work of " " a team of, say, 12 social workers ";)

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Do you know what the word "all " means ?

lol:pac:

most childish retort I have seen for a while

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

To save others following links which follow other links, perhaps you could copy and paste where it says the "Principal Social Worker" " co-ordinates the work of " " a team of, say, 12 social workers ";)

Do it yourself. You bring virtually nothing to the table here in terms of evidence, and now you ask to be spoonfed.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

To save others following links which follow other links, perhaps you could copy and paste where it says the "Principal Social Worker" " co-ordinates the work of " " a team of, say, 12 social workers ";)

no need for that

you see P.Breatnach's mate, who happens to be a Principal Social worker here in Ireland, was able to tell him about it in the pub the other day. However, his other friend, who happens to be a Principal Social Worker in Belfast and, in fact, went to college with the other guy, was very upset as he has to oversee 180 social workers while being paid 2 shillings a day

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

most childish retort I have seen for a while

That still does not excuse you from claiming or insinuating things I never said.