Some Questions for The Public Sector Bashers

dresden8

wicklowmale wrote: »

We have all taken cuts in our wages Private and Public

Once again, this is simply not true.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/aibs-nauseating-pay-rise-is-a-slap-in-taxpayers-face-1918252.html

Allied Irish Bank's decision to grant employees a 3pc pay increase threatens to destroy the last fraying threads of national solidarity because it is so patently immoral as well as being unwise and greedy.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ideyauauoj/

THE chief executive of Bank of Ireland has rubber-stamped a 3.5% pay rise to 6,000 employees, less than a month after a €2 billion taxpayer bailout of the stricken financial institution was announced.

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/DFB.nsf/vPages/Economics_and_taxation~Resources~business-sentiment-survey-q3-2009-15-09-2009/$file/IBEC Sentiment Survey Q3 09-Employment.pdf

Table 2

Increases are being paid.

Tipp Man

dresden8 wrote: »

Once again, this is simply not true.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/aibs-nauseating-pay-rise-is-a-slap-in-taxpayers-face-1918252.html



http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ideyauauoj/



http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/DFB.nsf/vPages/Economics_and_taxation~Resources~business-sentiment-survey-q3-2009-15-09-2009/$file/IBEC Sentiment Survey Q3 09-Employment.pdf

Table 2

Increases are being paid.

And how many of the 300k extra on the dole in the last 18 months are full time PS workers??

joolsveer

Tipp Man wrote: »

And how many of the 300k extra on the dole in the last 18 months are full time PS workers??

I don't believe that many public service workers (civil servants at least) can claim social welfare employment allowances.

dresden8

Here's more.

Just over a fifth of employers have implemented pay reductions

Which means nearly 80% have not.

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~new-ibec-survey-on-pay-trends-in-the-economy-15-09-2009?OpenDocument

This was gone over earlier. You really should pay more attention.

dresden8

And here's yet another one

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0814/1224252551178.html

The Central Statistics Office’s (CSO) recent publication, Earnings and Labour Costs Survey, showed total wages increased in the manufacturing sector by 2.7 per cent and almost 7 per cent for management.

Tipp Man

dresden8 wrote: »

Here's more.



Which means nearly 80% have not.

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~new-ibec-survey-on-pay-trends-in-the-economy-15-09-2009?OpenDocument

This was gone over earlier. You really should pay more attention.

Whats your point?? not every company is losing money and needs to make wages cuts. thrust me if every company made wage cuts then there'd be a lot bigger calls to have your wages cut and the budget deficit would be even bigger

Your employer, the government, is broke, borrowing 500m every week, thats why all PS wages need to be cut

dresden8

Tipp Man wrote: »

Whats your point??

I thought it was quite obvious.

I quoted the error I was correcting in my post.

MaceFace

This is getting quite childish and very boring.
Private Sector:"I heard someone who was let go in the private sector so therefore we are all suffering".
Public Sector:"yeah well I heard someone in the private sector got a pay increase so therefore you are all millionaires with bonuses out your backsides".

Bringing it back to basics - we are boring >400m a week, 2/3 of which goes to the public sector pay and pensions and the social welfare.
I think we have all (public & private) accepted that welfare will be cut and none of us really care cause it doesn't really affect us (until we hear the budget and then realise it does). That will give us 1.3b in savings.

How though do we save 1.3b from the public sector pay bill and pensions?
The unions only answer is to raise taxes for all.
The PS are a monopoly and it is very unfair for any monopoly to abuse their position by jacking up their prices (i.e. taxes) to cover their shortfall.

future_plans

Well said Mace face. Lets hope the Unions and Dept of Finance are doing more than just slinging URLs of newspaper reports at each other.

On a more serious note though, I can't help but noticing that it's the frontline Public Servants (nurses, Gardaí, Amubulance Drivers, etc) that are deliberately being put in the firing line as a type of human shield protecting all of the other 100'000s mosly useless, unproductive and lazy civil servants working generic admin and clerical jobs in offices up and down the country.

I don't think there are many people in the private sector who bash nurses, frontline doctors, Gardaí, Amulance Drivers, Firemen etc. or really question their salaries too much. To be fair, the work they do, most of us would not.

Its the other useless, whining, over-unionised, over-paid and underworked majority that I prefer to bash because thats all most of them are good for.

P. Breathnach

future_plans wrote: »

... Its the other useless, whining, over-unionised, over-paid and underworked majority that I prefer to bash because thats all most of them are good for.

Do you mean every public servant who works in an office?

irish_bob

future_plans wrote: »

Well said Mace face. Lets hope the Unions and Dept of Finance are doing more than just slinging URLs of newspaper reports at each other.

On a more serious note though, I can't help but noticing that it's the frontline Public Servants (nurses, Gardaí, Amubulance Drivers, etc) that are deliberately being put in the firing line as a type of human shield protecting all of the other 100'000s mosly useless, unproductive and lazy civil servants working generic admin and clerical jobs in offices up and down the country.

I don't think there are many people in the private sector who bash nurses, frontline doctors, Gardaí, Amulance Drivers, Firemen etc. or really question their salaries too much. To be fair, the work they do, most of us would not.

Its the other useless, whining, over-unionised, over-paid and underworked majority that I prefer to bash because thats all most of them are good for.

i believe nurses , guards , firemen and ambulance drivers are over paid to the tune of about 30% and i believe thier wages must come down by this amount in the nest three years if the country is to get back on its feet , thier can be no sacred cows

future_plans

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you mean that every public servant who works in an office?

I wouldn't be one to generalize....

However, one would have to look at what value these office/clerical workers give to the Irish Economy. People in my own immediate family occupy such positions and while they have tasks to complete every day, they are under worked and overpaid for what they do. They certainly do not deliver that value back to the economy. To my relatives who occupy these jobs, they are mundane, boring, meaningless jobs but they are grateful. They deliver a secure income. But that is not the reason for the public service.

While I do sympathize that many of these people (especially the younger generation) have mortgages repayments to keep up and other daily expenses and debts, I cannot justify this as a valid reason to burden all PAYE workers (public and private) with extra taxes to cover them.

P. Breathnach

future_plans wrote: »

I wouldn't be one to generalize....

I was responding to such a generalisation!

However, one would have to look at what value these office/clerical workers give to the Irish Economy. People in my own immediate family occupy such positions and while they have tasks to complete every day, they are under worked and overpaid for what they do. They certainly do not deliver that value back to the economy. To my relatives who occupy these jobs, they are mundane, boring, meaningless jobs but they are grateful. They deliver a secure income. But that is not the reason for the public service.

While I do sympathize that many of these people (especially the younger generation) have mortgages repayments to keep up and other daily expenses and debts, I cannot justify this as a valid reason to burden all PAYE workers (public and private) with extra taxes to cover them.

Management and administration have to happen. The large majority of the public service actually are in the front line (providing medical care, education, security, emergency services, water, waste disposal, road repairs, library services, parks, health & safety inspections, and many other services). To back that up, you need backup staff for such things as recruitment, training, payroll, planning, supervision, financial management, correspondence, reporting, dealing with "representations", and many other functions.

I am not saying that all systems are perfectly designed or as efficient as they might be, because I don't believe that they are. But there is a necessary administrative overhead in all activities.

One characteristic of bureaucracy is that many people at the lower levels do not understand how their work fits into the grander scheme of things.

future_plans

I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I work for one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world and admin/office/clerical staff are needed. But one has to determine what is the value of these jobs and the clear fact is, that they do not (in my case, generate revenue) deliver value for money. I need to create a business case for every person I employ demonstrating how this new employee will deliver value. I do not accept that this is the case for the public service. Furthermore, I must also regularly demonstrate the value my existing employees add to the company. I do not think this happens in the public service.

Ultimately, it is this deadwood in the public service that has to be removed, streamlined, whatever you wish to call it. Such overheads were removed from most private companies a long time ago to maintain competitiveness.

On a side issue, I would not equate waste disposal, road repairs, library services, parks, health & safety inspections to critical frontline services that you mention (medical care, education, security, emergency services).

Riskymove

future_plans wrote: »

Ultimately, it is this deadwood in the public service that has to be removed, streamlined, whatever you wish to call it. Such overheads were removed from most private companies a long time ago to maintain competitiveness.

indeed that is an important issue that is being overlooked in most threads which just bang on about all public servants having their pay cut by up to 50%

Reform is needed, but is not considered seriously enough, it is the real issue that needs to be confronted, particularly in areas like health and education.

I would add that there is deadwood in most areas, including critical frontline staff.

protecting all of the other 100'000s mosly useless, unproductive and lazy civil servants working generic admin and clerical jobs in offices up and down the country

this is another myth commonly thrown around. The entire civil service is around 30,000, i.e. around 10%, of the entire public service.

The entire public ssrvice is around 330,000 or so is there really 100,000s mostly useless?

SkepticOne

Riskymove wrote: »

this is another myth commonly thrown around. The entire civil service is around 30,000, i.e. around 10%, of the entire public service.

The entire public ssrvice is around 330,000 or so is there really 100,000s mostly useless?

I think when many people use the word civil service they mean public service in general.

P. Breathnach

future_plans wrote: »

I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I work for one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world and admin/office/clerical staff are needed. But one has to determine what is the value of these jobs and the clear fact is, that they do not (in my case, generate revenue) deliver value for money. I need to create a business case for every person I employ demonstrating how this new employee will deliver value. I do not accept that this is the case for the public service. Furthermore, I must also regularly demonstrate the value my existing employees add to the company. I do not think this happens in the public service.

Ultimately, it is this deadwood in the public service that has to be removed, streamlined, whatever you wish to call it. Such overheads were removed from most private companies a long time ago to maintain competitiveness.

The bald statement that I highlighted needs to be justified. I am not taking the position that all administration in the public is as good as it should be, but much of it is. It's probably beyond the scope of outside observers like us to make a competent overall judgement.

On a side issue, I would not equate waste disposal, road repairs, library services, parks, health & safety inspections to critical frontline services that you mention (medical care, education, security, emergency services).

I didn't say they were critical, although if your local road collapsed or you were endangered in your workplace you might take a different view of what is critical. They are, however, frontline services.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think when many people use the word civil service they mean public service in general.

But many use that mis-classification to create an image in their own minds of hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats.

Riskymove

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But many use that mis-classification to create an image in their own minds of hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats.

exactly

the majority of the public service work in health and education...

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But many use that mis-classification to create an image in their own minds of hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats.

I'm not sure that is the case. Not all civil servants are bureaucrats. There are scientists, engineers for example who are civil servants and not bureaucrats. Likewise there are plenty of non-civil service public servants who are bureaucrats. We as a country have simply decided to call one set of state employees civil servants and another something else. Other countries split their public services differently.

ardmacha

Why should the private sector take the brunt of job cuts, reduced working hours/days?

Because there is no demand for these services.
I suggested putting the PS on a 4 day week and cutting wages accordingly, but people seemed to object to having children getting 4 days education instead of 5. So you get less pay for the same or a longer working day, unlike these private sector people who get less, but who work less.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case. Not all civil servants are bureaucrats. There are scientists, engineers for example who are civil servants and not bureaucrats. Likewise there are plenty of non-civil service public servants who are bureaucrats. We as a country have simply decided to call one set of state employees civil servants and another something else. Other countries split their public services differently.

I know that not all civil servants are bureaucrats, and you obviously also know it. My point is that many people either do not know it, or pay little attention to the fact.

future_plans

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The bald statement that I highlighted needs to be justified. I am not taking the position that all administration in the public is as good as it should be, but much of it is. It's probably beyond the scope of outside observers like us to make a competent overall judgement.

Granted - I'll change that statement to "In my opinion, I do think that this is the case for the public service" for now. But general knowledge about certain public service bodies point to this fact - the massive increases in number employed in the Public service alone since 2001 tell a lot about how its been managed. I don't have time to go into it now and I don't want to start posting meaningless links.

I didn't say they were critical, although if your local road collapsed or you were endangered in your workplace you might take a different view of what is critical. They are, however, frontline services.

Indeed, but I think this type of work should always be contracted out. But thats a different debate.

All public sectors can be streamlined and deadwood removed. Education included. How open are the unions and workers to participating in this? How many teachers have been let go due to poor performance? How many teachers would work 9 - 5.30 compulsory 5 day weeks with 22 days holidays a year? (On their current salaries)

By the way, not picking on Education...just an example.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I know that not all civil servants are bureaucrats, and you obviously also know it. My point is that many people either do not know it, or pay little attention to the fact.

It is possible that is the case, though I don't think it is that common. I don't think it is the case in this instance for example.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that most people genuinely thought that the HSE was a branch of the civil service. Like I said for many people a civil servant is simply a state employee. That within Ireland's civil/public service or however you want to call it there is a 'civil service' proper would be of little concern to most people though, it is simply part of the internal jargon of the public sector. like I said, it probably is of concern to state employees themselves since pay and conditions would depend on it.

Warfi

future_plans wrote: »

How many teachers would work 9 - 5.30 compulsory 5 day weeks with 22 days holidays a year? (On their current salaries)

By the way, not picking on Education...just an example.

How many private sector workers would work a compulsory extra two and a half hours a day, five days a week for the same pay with 2 days holidays per year?

Not many, I'd wager. I'm sorry, but going on about teachers' holidays is pointless. They're the holidays teachers get and that's it. The holidays are great, grant it, but if you went into a teaching job just to get the holidays, you wouldn't last a year as a teacher. You'd be on meds by the end of it.

On top of that, a teacher's job doesn't end at 3/4. They also work when they go home, and they prepare work for class during the holidays. I know this because I've done it myself. I'd say these things have been said a hundred times, but it's more convenient to say that a teacher finishes his/her day at 3/4 because it backs up your argument.

By the way, I used to work in a lab that operated from 8 til 5, I didn't expect every other profession to start and end at the same time as me just because I was working longer hours. They were the hours I accepted when I signed my contract. Holidays, 20 days per year, I didn't get 22. Yet I'd happily signed my contract because it was a job.

Edit: If a teacher was getting 22 days holiday per year, that would mean they would have to be paid more. Substitutes brought in for sick days/course days, etc. So how would that help the coffers?

future_plans

Exactly my point Warfi. Thanks. Like I said, education was just an example I picked. I've no real gripe with them. I'm was just wondering how the normal PS worker (teacher, clerical assistance, whatever) would react to improving process efficiencies, streamling, etc to the extent that it might avoid paycuts and help reduce the deficit.

Maybe teachers getting reduced holidays or working longer hours might be far too radical.... But even a fraction of give in this one example area would improve value for money, efficiencies and reduce deficit. But the immediate response is an overly aggressive one that immediately mentions wanting higher salaries for any such process improvements.

ardmacha

But even a fraction of give in this one example area would improve value for money, efficiencies and reduce deficit.

Teachers working more weeks of the year would not reduce the deficit by one cent and would be completely useless unless you made children attend school for longer which would mean additional costs for light, heat etc.

You could make teachers work a few weeks less and not pay them for that, but the mammies of Ireland want their children educated.

SkepticOne

ardmacha wrote: »

You could make teachers work a few weeks less and not pay them for that

How would you be getting increased value out of them if you did that?

ardmacha

How would you be getting increased value out of them if you did that?

You wouldn't, but you would reduce the amount the government spends, which is the question at hand.

SkepticOne

ardmacha wrote: »

You wouldn't, but you would reduce the amount the government spends, which is the question at hand.

I think the objective has to be to get more out of the individual teacher without increasing pay. That way the country can get by with less teachers, save the country money while still meeting the country's educational requirements. It is not a question of what the "mammies of Ireland" want, it is about what the country requires to stay competitive. Ultimately it is in the interest of public sector workers for the country to return to competitiveness.