Questions for the Public sector worker

hawker

BroomBurner wrote: »

Not that I'm aware of, perhaps in the past or something. The rules behind applying state very clearly and categorically that any communications from a third party with regards an applicant will deem that application null and void.

I remembered that part very clearly when I was applying and was quite impressed. You can call me naive if you want, but I got a job in the PS and I know no politicians, etc.

In my experience some recruitment done locally (promotions included) can show a certain degree of favouritism.

stepbar

EF wrote: »

http://www.idis.gov.ie/repca1.nsf/80255f01003f497980255ecb00542f35/cb868c29dcbe12608025724a004f8776?OpenDocument

Some bedtime reading for you

I knew that already.

Does anyone not see the problem with such an inefficent and unwieldy way of dealing with disciplinary issues?

BroomBurner

Absurdum wrote: »

I'm sure that is also similar in large private sector organisations too though, it would have to go HR, a line manager or production manager wouldn't have that kind of power usually.

Yeah, it would have to be, in order to stop someone bearing a grudge getting to fire someone else just because they wanted to.

It's very difficult to fire anyone from a company, regardless of whether it's private or public. I remember one place I worked for couldn't get rid of one person. The person in question held a job interview over the phone in the middle of a busy office and everyone just stayed quiet and hoped they would get the job, as management couldn't find a definitive reason to fire them.

BroomBurner

hawker wrote: »

In my experience some recruitment done locally (promotions included) can show a certain degree of favouritism.

That's a shame :mad:

Absurdum

hawker wrote: »

In my experience some recruitment done locally (promotions included) can show a certain degree of favouritism.

That can apply everywhere though.

hawker

BroomBurner wrote: »

That's a shame :mad:

Very much so.

Absurdum

BroomBurner wrote: »

Yeah, it would have to be, in order to stop someone bearing a grudge getting to fire someone else just because they wanted to.

It's very difficult to fire anyone from a company, regardless of whether it's private or public. I remember one place I worked for couldn't get rid of one person. The person in question held a job interview over the phone in the middle of a busy office and everyone just stayed quiet and hoped they would get the job, as management couldn't find a definitive reason to fire them.

Yeah I agree with that. The culture seems to be to try and move the person somewhere else rather than to deal with it, in my experience anyway. I know of two that were fired outright in the last couple of years, one was for taking the piss with sick leave and the other was for theft of a laptop (which I believe he was charged over).

dixiefly

I have been lucky enough to work in both private sector (large and small businesses) and the Public sectors. Had to almost sweat blood at times to maintain competitiveness in the private industries I worked in.

However in my times in the Public Sector I have encountered many hard working dedicated individuals and there just as extensive range of challenges in the Public sector as there is in the Private sector.

There were good jobs in the Public Sector going during the boom. I have a question for the OP - why didnt you try to get into the Public Sector at that time if it was such a well paying doss job?

Have a look at this article from Fintan o' Toole - he reckons that the wealthy are getting away scott free in this debate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1006/1224255979985.html
Scapegoating public sector lets wealthy off the hook
In this section »
Ireland's Yes allows treaty face final Czech hurdleWhere next in O'Donoghue's trajectory of 'running sore'?Irish politics big on perks, but what of values?A new kind of leadership now requiredOctober 6th, 1900: New approaches to child-rearing called into questionBat-biter's memoir sinks its teeth into Ozzy's lifeFocus on the real divide, the one between those who can afford to live on less and those who can’t, writes FINTAN O'TOOLE

WE ARE the Plastic People of the Universe. As the huge swing in the second Lisbon referendum shows, Irish public opinion is astonishingly volatile and malleable. The plastic can be reshaped with relative ease. You can watch it being done in the demonisation of public servants.

This time last year, there was an emerging sense of outrage directed overwhelmingly at that existing economic consensus. Anger was focused on misgovernment, on the reckless and unethical banking system and on a broader culture of greed.

But those with a stake in that system were not about to give up easily. They understood that their best chance was to provide an alternative scapegoat: public sector workers. This may be a crude strategy of divide, distract and rule, but sometimes the old tricks are the best. This one has been working like a dream. We’ve now suddenly got to a point where almost everything is off the table except cutting public sector wages.

This shaping of options could hardly be more brazen. Remember, for example, the Commission on Taxation? This time last year, it was going to be at the centre of the Government’s strategy for tackling the crisis in the public finances. Now, suddenly, it has been consigned to the exterior darkness of what Brian Cowen calls “long-term focus” and everyone else can call oblivion. Taxation is off the table. With almost no discussion, one of the two arms of fiscal strategy (what is raised and what is spent) has been cut off.

With Nama and further bank bailouts “the only game in town”, the whole discussion on the public finances has been channelled into one little stream: the filthy parasites who teach our children, nurse the sick and try to protect us from crime.

There is one sense in which the public sector unions deserve what they’re getting. Through the secretive benchmarking process, they bought in to the idea of setting wages in the public and private sectors against each other. This was always absurd and deceitful. The deception is the idea that workers in the two sectors of the economy can be compared in some cool, scientific way. In fact, we’re dealing not with science but with politics. What is the equivalent in private firms of a garda or a primary school principal? What is the equivalent in State employment of a shop assistant or a sales rep or a mushroom picker?


The reality is that the two sectors have huge structural differences. More people in the public sector have third-level degrees: 40 per cent compared to 20 per cent. Almost 30 per cent of public sector workers are professionals, compared with just 7 per cent of those in private firms. There are far fewer non-Irish nationals in State jobs, a group that tends to be the most exploited. Workers in the public sector are on average four years older and the length of service is longer (by five years for men and three years for women). And women suffer less discrimination in the public than in the private sector: the gender pay gap is narrower.


Gender is one of the issues that nobody seems to want to talk about. The most striking area in which there is a “public sector premium” is in pay rates for women. According to the CSO figures, the premium is 15 per cent for men but 23 per cent for women. The reason for this is obvious enough – it is harder to discriminate against women in the public service than in private firms. Partly as a result, the really glaring gap is between women in the two sectors of employment, with those in public jobs earning almost €10 an hour more than their sisters in private companies.

The other group that clearly benefits from being in the public sector is low-paid workers. Broadly speaking the difference between public and private pay rates is largest at the bottom and narrows as you move up the scale. (For the bottom 10 per cent, the gap is 22 per cent; for the top 10 per cent it is 6 per cent.) Part of the reason for this is obvious enough: most of the lower-paid workers in public jobs have the protection of trade unions.

If we’re serious about bringing public sector wages into line with those in private firms, we need to allow more exploitation of women and of the low-paid, who benefit most from having State jobs. This may be an absurd conclusion, but it is the logic of an argument that suggests that public sector workers be penalised because so many in the private sector suffer from gender discrimination, exploitation and rotten pensions.

We need to cop on to the game that’s being played here and focus on the real divide, which is not that between public and private but that between those who can really afford to live on less and those who can’t. Wages should be cut from the top down, through taxation in the private sector and pay cuts in the public sector.

hawker

Absurdum wrote: »

That can apply everywhere though.

I'm sure it does apply to a lot of places. Both public and private sectors.

nellumr

Apart from large multi nationals I think the same prevails in the private sector also, I think it's a part of Irish culture to get soemone else to help out.

Danbo!

The Orb wrote: »

OP, you are bit strong on propoganda and short on facts

I agree tbh. I wrote the OP after reading a few recent articles about public service, all seemed to be very unbalanced which is probably what made the tone of the OP a little angry It was actually like reading up on Lisbon, propaganda from both sides.

Its a tough thing to understand, for me anyway, but having read the above im getting my head round it, and lumping all PS workers into the sterotype in my head probably isnt the best idea. The stereotype being what I saw for 3 months in one department in one office of the Civil Service.

dodgyme

The main problem with the Public sector is that it absorbs the useless much better then the private sector and then in the last few years has rewarded them with upward benchmarking.

parsi

stepbar wrote: »

A civil servant can be sacked by order of the minister of the department in question or by a senior civil servant if the position is at the lower grades.

A civil servant cannot be fired by their immediate manager. That's what I'm getting at.

In any large organisation (eg banks, large multinationals, airlines) it's not the imemdiate manager who does the firing.

eamo127

The PS do not have a clue what it's like to lose your job. It happened me and I'm trying to support 4 young kids. They take their job security for granted and yet on this thread they are all screaming that they don't have job security! 400K on the dole, so how many of these are PERMANENT PS? Zero.

I wish the PS a taste of the fear and vulnerability associated with job loss - they would be on their knees thanking the taxpayer for their situation, not hurting us and our families with their striking.

Sometimes I think that the sooner the IMF comes in and forces the government to clean up their wastefulness, the better. Here's a small example of someone I know who works for irish aid:

Salary: 90K basic - job only exists because of EU court action forcing govt to hire permanently the voluntary workers. Guy I know took a year out from real work, kept applying for extension and under some eu contract law they forced the taxpayer to hire them permanently - guess what? 50K back pay FFS!!!
20K extra for working abroad - they work abroad all the time and rent their houses out here
Maids and servants to beat the band
Housing, schooling, medical etc. provided on resort complexes - rarely have to see the real poverty around them.
One guy I know has had his golf handicap drop from 18 to 8 in the last year while in Southern Africa.
Same guy complains bitterly about pay and conditions and thinks everyone earns more than him. Really out of touch

dearg lady

Stee wrote: »

I agree tbh. I wrote the OP after reading a few recent articles about public service, all seemed to be very unbalanced which is probably what made the tone of the OP a little angry It was actually like reading up on Lisbon, propaganda from both sides.

Its a tough thing to understand, for me anyway, but having read the above im getting my head round it, and lumping all PS workers into the sterotype in my head probably isnt the best idea. The stereotype being what I saw for 3 months in one department in one office of the Civil Service.

Well Stee fair play to ya for actually reading the answers and taking them on board, which is more than many posters on here do. I've seen first hand the laziness and waste that does happen in parts of the public sector like you have seen. But I have worked in 4 very different sections of the public sector and seen this waste in only one of those sections, and dislike all public sector getting lumped in together.

It frustrated me terribly to see the incredible laziness in this one particular section, I lasted a very short time there, I just couldn't handle the attitude of many of the staff. i think automatic increments should have been done away with long ago and reward public sector worker based on individual performance. This would show clearly the underperforming staff and sections, and would also be a motivation for the large proportion(despite what some posters on here say ) who work hard.

ceret

ardmacha wrote: »

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

I don't. Does anyone?

I know someone who works in a county council office that gets a 'Privilige Day' (day off) after a bank holiday.

ceret

The Orb wrote: »

Bank time, yes its daft (but hasn't contributed to the country's woes, bit of perspective please)

No extra day off for bank holidays, there is a privelege day at xmas and easter, an old fashioned throwback to the days when many people had to travel back to Dublin, clearly daft in this day and age,

A privilige day is basically a extra day off. If you can call the pension levy a pay cut (which I agree that it is), then you should call the privilige day a day off.

Would you give them up? As a sign of goodwill and modernisation?

dearg lady

ceret wrote: »

I know someone who works in a county council office that gets a 'Privilige Day' (day off) after a bank holiday.

I've heard of this happening, but it's two privilege days a year, it's still a bit mad, but not for EVERY bank hol unless the person in question is working the bank holiday? Then it's correct but same applies in private sector

dearg lady

ceret wrote: »

A privilige day is basically a extra day off. If you can call the pension levy a pay cut (which I agree that it is), then you should call the privilige day a day off.

Would you give them up? As a sign of goodwill and modernisation?

You're right, it is an extra day off (with a silly name!) I don't get em, I think there's only a few sections of public sector do(stand to be corrected on that)

ardmacha

I wish the PS a taste of the fear and vulnerability associated with job loss -

Well that's nice. You choose your career as a balance between your interests and the prospects in that career. Some careers vary more than others in their prospects, if you feel vulnerable then why did you not choose a less vulnerable job? Why should others be condemned because they were wise enough to choose a less vulnerable job?

eamo127

ardmacha wrote: »

Well that's nice. You choose your career as a balance between your interests and the prospects in that career. Some careers vary more than others in their prospects, if you feel vulnerable then why did you not choose a less vulnerable job? Why should others be condemned because they were wise enough to choose a less vulnerable job?

Condemned? All I want is a level playing field. Also, it cost you nothing for me to be employed, whereas the taxpayer funds your security and benefits and gross wastage. Don't bite the hand that feeds you - the unions need to be very careful as public patience is running out. My job used to be safe - but times change. I doubt you would be so glib about the hardship of others if the axe was to fall on you.

ardmacha

lso, it cost you nothing for me to be employed

Don't bite the hand that feeds you

Are you feeding me? You contribute nothing while living off the taxpayer and expecting your kids to be educated and cured by the public sector. Note that nobody has suggested putting PS workers on short time and paying them less. If someone said take the month off and we won't pay you I'd jump at the chance to save the taxpayer one twelfth of my salary.

Noreen1

Absurdum wrote: »

I'm sure that is also similar in large private sector organisations too though, it would have to go HR, a line manager or production manager wouldn't have that kind of power usually.

Correct. It's usually dealt with by Personnel. (I hate the term HR - I think it is used to dehumanise people!) It is usually instigated by a direct Supervisor, who will refer it to their Manager, and it goes from there to Personnel.

Interestingly, this is one area where Union agreements are actually beneficial to both sides. There is a clear disciplinary code, which protects the employee in cases of personality clashes, for instance, while protecting the employer in cases of breaches of conduct.

Noreen

dodgyme

ardmacha wrote: »

Are you feeding me? You contribute nothing while living off the taxpayer and expecting your kids to be educated and cured by the public sector.

A very arrogant response I think atleast!

There is always the undertone of threat with the PS. The " I hope you end up on a hospital bed somenight" type stuff.

tallaght01

Are many private sector workers volunteering for pay cuts in Ireland, then?

jmayo

Absurdum wrote: »

If someone needs to be sacked, they can be.

Of course this does not apply to public sector workers, particularly with regard to sheer incompetence and gross abuse of expenses, in organisations such as Fás or Financial Regulators office. :rolleyes:

hawker wrote: »

...
The pension levy is a salary reduction. Has this levy gone directly into paying this pension? I'll answer that for you. No!!
...

And where does the money for the pensions for public sector employees come from ?
Is it not all out of the public purse ?

Pharaoh1

Listening to recent debates particularly on the pension levy I have noticed that whenever a union boss is interviewed the phrase "another pay cut" is always used - it seems to be a very deliberate ploy to reinforce the idea that public sector pay has already been cut.
What usually follows is a barrage of text and calls to the radio/tv station stating that contributing to your own pension is not a pay cut and that gross basic pay is unchanged

If I choose to put say 7% of my income in a PRSA from tomorrow for example I am unlikely to tell anyone that I've just experienced a pay cut and expect them to feel sorry for me.

For any public servant whose combined PRSI (if they pay full rate), Superannuation and Pension Levy adds up to less than the best actuarial cost of their final pension and gratuity I cannot have much sympathy.
I do however feel that they should be allowed to opt out and forego the pension if they choose but there has'nt been any clamour for this approach, ie I have not heard one union leader say " some of our members are under pressure and would be prepared to forego part of their pension entitlement if they did not have to pay the levy"
For those on low pay who on actuarial calculations would probably do better taking the state pension and saving for their own retirement I do have sympathy but I don't know if there are too many in this category if you include the gratuity on even a low salary.

Poccington

dodgyme wrote: »

A very arrogant response I think atleast!

There is always the undertone of threat with the PS. The " I hope you end up on a hospital bed somenight" type stuff.

Yeah, of course people saying the "I hope you lose your job" type stuff isn't bad though. There's two sides to the coin when it comes to responses from people on here, both Private and Public.

gerry28

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

Listening to recent debates particularly on the pension levy I have noticed that whenever a union boss is interviewed the phrase "another pay cut" is always used - it seems to be a very deliberate ploy to reinforce the idea that public sector pay has already been cut.
What usually follows is a barrage of text and calls to the radio/tv station stating that contributing to your own pension is not a pay cut and that gross basic pay is unchanged

If I choose to put say 7% of my income in a PRSA from tomorrow for example I am unlikely to tell anyone that I've just experienced a pay cut and expect them to feel sorry for me.

It is a pay cut - this is extra money we are being asked to contribute over and above what we were already contributing to our pensions for no additional increase in our final pensions.

This is extra money coming out of our take home pay that we will never seen again.... we will still only get the same pension we would have got before this pension levy was introduced.

The clue is in the name - levy - you never get a levy back.

levy [ˈlɛvɪ]
vb levies, levying, levied (tr) 1. (Economics) to impose and collect (a tax, tariff, fine, etc.)

muppetkiller

tallaght01 wrote: »

Are many private sector workers volunteering for pay cuts in Ireland, then?

What are you talking about ? The Private sectors pay is not being provided for by tax payers money (public and private tax payers).