My outrage at some members of the public service

oscar2

peter_de_tool wrote: »

Irish Firefighters are very well paid when compared to their UK counterparts, where Firefighters start training on £16,305 per annum (minimum) and become fully qualified after 4 years when their salary rises to £20,724 per annum. A chief fire officer (there are 58 of them within the UK) can earn between £65,000 - £95,000 per year

Totally incorrect pay figures http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/salary

Seems to be typical of posters here. Make up something and all run with it.
No wonder Public Service workers are voting with their feet.

Front page of Irish times today


"The findings indicate that despite the worst economic downturn in a generation, most people are content and optimistic.
The vast majority (69 per cent) say they have not had their pay cut or working hours (76 per cent) reduced in the past year."

OMD

oscar2 wrote: »

Totally incorrect pay figures http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/salary

Seems to be typical of posters here. Make up something and all run with it.
No wonder Public Service workers are voting with their feet.

Hardly totally incorrect. You quoted from Hampshire Fire Service Pay Rates.
Peter_de_tool quoted from a local government recruitment website.
http://www.lgcareers.com/career-descriptions/protecting-your-community/firefighter/
"Firefighters start training on £16,305 per annum (minimum) and become fully qualified after 4 years when their salary rises to £20,724 per annum. A chief fire officer (there are 58 of them within the UK) can earn between £65,000 - £95,000 per year (1999-2000 rates of pay) and there are ten ranks in between, all at different pay scales"
You are assuming his website is wron and yours is right.

Indeed looking at a recent ad for fire service in UK.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1995344
It says
"Upon starting your job with the Fire Brigade your salary will be £20,896 (correct at the time of publication) and rising to £27,851 upon your rise to full competence. London Fire Fighters salary is adjusted by £4,840 in addition. There is a nationally agreed salary pay scale for Firefighters."

Looks like your figures are more likely to be wrong. Perhaps now would be a good time to apologise.

oscar2

OMD wrote: »

Hardly totally incorrect. You quoted from Hampshire Fire Service Pay Rates.
Peter_de_tool quoted from a local government recruitment website.
http://www.lgcareers.com/career-descriptions/protecting-your-community/firefighter/

Both of you have left out the date. The figures you quote are 10 years old.
My figures are correct as of July 2009 and are for basic pay.

The figures you linked to actually say

"Firefighters start training on £16,305 per annum (minimum) and become fully qualified after 4 years when their salary rises to £20,724 per annum. A chief fire officer (there are 58 of them within the UK) can earn between £65,000 - £95,000 per year (1999-2000 rates of pay) and there are ten ranks in between, all at different pay scales"

A competent ie fully qualified Firefighter earns a basic 28199 sterling

Again can we have the facts and not wishful thinking when bashing the Public Services.

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

Are you sure?
I remember that CPSU was demanding exclude current civil servants from exams in 2001

The CPSU represents the lowest grades of civil servants, the ones most in need of promotion. Why would they want current civil servants excluded from exams?

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

The CPSU represents the lowest grades of civil servants, the ones most in need of promotion. Why would they want current civil servants excluded from exams?

To go straight to interview without exams
Sorry
It should be written like this
CPSU was demanding to remove requirement to sit on exams for current civil servants from exams in 2001

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

To go straight to interview without exams
Sorry
It should be written like this
CPSU was demanding remove requirement to sit on exams for current civil servants from exams in 2001

Don't remember that.

Some departmental promotion exams are by interview only, some have written exams and interview, but you still have to apply for promotion, nobody gets invited.

There are also horrendously complicated methods of deciding if posts are for promotion (and within that, departmental or inter-departmental) or open recruitment exam.

But promotion posts are advertised internally and must be applied for, and open recruitment posts are advertised publicly and must be applied for.

One organ of state which seems to have operated without any whiff of scandal is the civil service commission/publicjobs/whatever they're called today.

It has retained it's independence from the political class in this country, unusually enough.

Edit: If a current civil servant is going for an open competition, they still have to sit the exam, there is no "by" into the interview round. Maybe that's what you mean?

Scofflaw

By the by, does anyone recall how difficult it was to recruit in the private sector around the millenium?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Poccington

irish_bob wrote: »

the public sector to the last man and woman are clone like in thier utterances re- the proposed cuts , its uncanny

No we're not.

murphaph

oscar2 wrote: »

"The findings indicate that despite the worst economic downturn in a generation, most people are content and optimistic.
The vast majority (69 per cent) say they have not had their pay cut or working hours (76 per cent) reduced in the past year."

Hmmm, maybe Fianna Fail are making it all up about the missing 25bn? :rolleyes:

They are a party of gangsters but even they wouldn't try that. The private sector is reeling and tax revenues have plummeted and there's no money to pay wages in the public sector as a result. End of story.

This poll doesn't say where the 25bn went does it??

irish_bob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's bollocks. I identify with the public service, and I don't agree on everything with others who post here who also identify with the public service.
But there are people here who fail to see that, and who ascribe to me views I do not hold.

There is a conspiracy out there all right: to disparage and discredit everybody and everything to do with the public service. I know who the conspirators are, and I will shortly be reporting in the CT forum: you will become famous.

what a strange post , you plan to report people for exercising free speech , what is the CT forum

Aidan1

The problem is that unless there was a difficulty in recruitment - and the evidence suggests that there wasn't really - then there was no justification for benchmarking or any other effort to make public service wages equal to those in the private sector

Strange logic. By that reckoning, so long as someone is willing to apply for a job, then they should get it - no questioning of suitability or qualifications? There was never a difficulty in getting numbers across the PS - there is always a difficulty in getting the right people. Unless of course you think that all jobs in the public service could be done by absolutely anyone, of course?


A much more interesting question is why numbers in many public service organisations did not fall during the period in question - despite dramatic technical and structural changes. They were still recruiting COs for clerical positions right throughout the last decade, despite the fact that many of these positions could easily have been removed. The boom hid dramatically poor management across the board - public and private sector. In this case, Government refused to sanction efficiencies in terms of cuts in numbers or changes in work practices, or to push for greater movement of staff between organisations. Now they're having to do it in a much poorer IR environment.

dresden8

Aidan1 wrote: »

They were still recruiting COs for clerical positions right throughout the last decade, despite the fact that many of these positions could easily have been removed. The boom hid dramatically poor management across the board - public and private sector. In this case, Government refused to sanction efficiencies in terms of cuts in numbers or changes in work practices, or to push for greater movement of staff between organisations. Now they're having to do it in a much poorer IR environment.

They were using recruitment as an election tool.

Nobody seems to have asked "How many extra staff were recruited for decentralisation?".

Most posts that were moved for decentralisation were either filled by public servants already close to their chosen destination (many of whom came to Dublin on expenses to re-train) or by new recruits, who were recruited to buy votes in Minister's constituencies.

And FF are getting a bounce for taking on the public service?

Hypocritical sh1te.

Edit: And Lenihan's vigorous dismantling of the quangos announced at the last budget (or maybe the one before) staffed by FF hangers on at huge expense. How many of those have been dismantled? Lying b@st@rds.

_Kooli_

Id say people in Cork and Galway are begging for the firemen and and other public sector workers not to strike right now.

ParkRunner

_Kooli_ wrote: »

Id say people in Cork and Galway are begging for the firemen and and other public sector workers not to strike right now.

I believe the strike has been postponed in the worst hit areas until the chaos is sorted out.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/siptu-defer-strikes-in-clare-and-galway-435298.html

SIPTU have taken the lead anyway. I presume the rest will follow suit.

doc_17

well done to the unions in the flooded for postponing the strike. very clearly the correct decision and common sense has prevalied. They are entitled to their strike and can do it when the waters recede.

LordDorington

muboop1 wrote: »

which they pay for... always have paid for, but are now paying more...

yes all of 12% - who pays the other 88?

murphaph

doc_17 wrote: »

well done to the unions in the flooded for postponing the strike. very clearly the correct decision and common sense has prevalied. They are entitled to their strike and can do it when the waters recede.

I read it too fast and thought it said: "well done to the unions in the flooded for postponing the strike. very clearly the correct decision and common sense has prevalied. They are entitled to their strike and can do it when the wasters decide." lol.

sysconp1

I feel very dissappointed that the frontline public service workers (Garda, Fire, Ambulance and nurses) should be tarred with the same brush as the back office public sherkers. The frontline staff work hard and deserve their pay, whilst the back office staff take an amazing number of sick days and are using the frontline staff to justify their unfeasable pay and conditions.

I feel that the back office staff should stop using the frontline staff to justify their ridiculous demands and get ready for the IMF removing a good proportion of their jobs to streamline the public service once and for all. The frontline staff should setup their own union and seperate once and for all from the useless back office whingers.

P. Breathnach

sysconp1 wrote: »

I feel very dissappointed that the frontline public service workers (Garda, Fire, Ambulance and nurses) should be tarred with the same brush as the back office public sherkers. The frontline staff work hard and deserve their pay, whilst the back office staff take an amazing number of sick days and are using the frontline staff to justify their unfeasable pay and conditions.

I feel that the back office staff should stop using the frontline staff to justify their ridiculous demands and get ready for the IMF removing a good proportion of their jobs to streamline the public service once and for all. The frontline staff should setup their own union and seperate once and for all from the useless back office whingers.

On what basis do you suggest that the back office people are shirkers? To me, your post looks like a fact-free rant.

sysconp1

Based on the fact that the folks I know in Agriculture and fisheries and in other areas of the public service have commented that this is a job for life. Short of murdering someone that there is no way they could get fired. Then add to this the days "Sick" at public expense, such as going out on the pop with friends on a Sunday night and saying as they left the pub "I will take one of my days off sick tomorrow as I don't feel like going in".

This attitude, based on my experience of knowing a number of folks both currently in the public service and ex now in the private sector is common.
Whereas the frontline workers work very hard, often under very difficult situations, with little or no recognition for that work.

So as to your comment of my comments being a rant, I would suggest it is based on fact. I feel much like the rest of the private sector in this regard and I am sure that I am not the only one with these experiences.

Riskymove

sysconp1 wrote: »

So as to your comment of my comments being a rant, I would suggest it is based on fact. I feel much like the rest of the private sector in this regard and I am sure that I am not the only one with these experiences.

no its based on anecdotal stories and the usual biased opinions

if the reality really was that public servants were that free with their sick leave the average would be a lot higher than it is

the same report shows that 41% of the civil service did not take ANY sick leave at all and that a majority took 3 days or less

does that add up to the reality you portray??

sysconp1

No it doesn't....

I know personally, not by anecdote as you suggest that this occurs far more than you suggest.

Nextdoor neighbour in Drumcondra - Daughter off sick since maternity (over 1 year) due to a so called trapped nerve in her back preventing her from bending or lifting. Whilst I saw her on numerous occasions lifting her child, shopping and running after her child. Her take on it was that she could get away with it and they didn't mind.

Friend in finance department takes regular days off following drinking sessions and is quite happy to continue.

Aquaintance in agriculture and fisheries working as a software developer has mental health problems and (to my current knowledge) has taken 2 blocks of 6 months off, followed by receiving a promotion and then taking further time off.

These are only a few factual examples of which I am sure there are many many more out there. Perhaps if the public service workers applied a proper HR policy then these example would be the exception and not the norm which seems to be the case.

In the private sector incidents of this nature are dealt with, but the public sector seem to let them pass. After all its not their money is it!

Riskymove

sysconp1 wrote: »

No it doesn't....

I know personally, not by anecdote as you suggest that this occurs far more than you suggest.

These are only a few factual examples of which I am sure there are many many more out there. Perhaps if the public service workers applied a proper HR policy then these example would be the exception and not the norm which seems to be the case.

In the private sector incidents of this nature are dealt with, but the public sector seem to let them pass. After all its not their money is it!

its 3 people out of 350,000

btw after 6 months you are on half pay, then quarter pay and so on

how would you suggest someone with mental problem that requires some hospitalisation should be dealt with....thrown on scrapheap? etc

groovy 09

I have to agree frontline should be seperated from office/admin for the purpose of these negotiations.

I have friends working in the department of Finance who regularly take mornings off without having to notify their managers and who see the sick pay entitlement as additional leave that has to be taken. I work for a US company and have to work additional hours over my contract, my Dept. of Finance friends think it is hilarious and that I "work for free" !!!

I contribute to my pension, I think everyone should and this should not be considered to be a pay reduction for public servants, it is going towards THEIR pension, the worst thing the government did was to call it a levy.

I have had no increase this year and will not get one, I will have to take unpaid leave, my partner (also private sector) has been made redundant (so no salary at all), my friend was made redundant and both have had to wait over three months for social welfare (in different counties) because our wonderful dept. of social welfare can not keep up with the paper work !!

The public sector need to get a grip ...if there are no cuts or job losses in the public sector the country will continue down a very slippery slope with the reality being that the IMF will come in and that won't be pleasant.

Congrats to Northern Ireland on officially being out of their recession - shame on you public servants sitting in your 3 mile tailback to Newry last week while on strike.

Riskymove

groovy 09 wrote: »

I have friends working in the department of Finance who regularly take mornings off without having to notify their managers and who see the sick pay entitlement as additional leave that has to be taken. I work for a US company and have to work additional hours over my contract, my Dept. of Finance friends think it is hilarious and that I "work for free" !!!

more anecdotal "friends"

I contribute to my pension, I think everyone should and this should not be considered to be a pay reduction for public servants, it is going towards THEIR pension, the worst thing the government did was to call it a levy.

the levy does not go towards pensions...there is no pension fund...if there was, people may be more accepting of it...it is simply a levy for public sector workers

..if there are no cuts or job losses in the public sector the country will continue down a very slippery slope with the reality being that the IMF will come in and that won't be pleasant.

no factual basis for this

Congrats to Northern Ireland on officially being out of their recession - shame on you public servants sitting in your 3 mile tailback to Newry last week while on strike.

so...how many Public servants did they make redundant in order to achieve this?

sysconp1

Riskymove wrote: »

its 3 people out of 350,000

btw after 6 months you are on half pay, then quarter pay and so on

how would you suggest someone with mental problem that requires some hospitalisation should be dealt with....thrown on scrapheap? etc

I would suggest that if someone is not fit for work that they do not get promoted at public expense for work they cannot do!

Do I guess by your comments that you are part of the public service?

Defence of a system that is fundamentally flawed is a mistake. Hopefully Cowen will be forced to allow the IMF in and then the unions won't have a chance to defend a corrupt and over priced system.

gerry28

sysconp1 wrote: »

I feel very dissappointed that the frontline public service workers (Garda, Fire, Ambulance and nurses) should be tarred with the same brush as the back office public sherkers. The frontline staff work hard and deserve their pay, whilst the back office staff take an amazing number of sick days and are using the frontline staff to justify their unfeasable pay and conditions.

I feel that the back office staff should stop using the frontline staff to justify their ridiculous demands and get ready for the IMF removing a good proportion of their jobs to streamline the public service once and for all. The frontline staff should setup their own union and seperate once and for all from the useless back office whingers.

'Nursing staff across the health services were absent at a rate of 6.23%, showing they take less sick leave than their colleagues in portering, catering, community welfare and related grades, but more than medical, dental, management, administrative or health and social care professionals'.

By Jennifer Hough
Irish Examiner
Monday, April 20, 2009

sysconp1,

the 'back office public sherkers' as you call them appear to take less than the nurses from this report.

Riskymove

sysconp1 wrote: »

I would suggest that if someone is not fit for work that they do not get promoted at public expense for work they cannot do!

how do you know he was not fit for work?....from your points he had some defined period out on sick leave....how well does he do his job the rest of his career?

Do I guess by your comments that you are part of the public service?

yes, no secret around here

Defence of a system that is fundamentally flawed is a mistake. Hopefully Cowen will be forced to allow the IMF in and then the unions won't have a chance to defend a corrupt and over priced system.

I am not defending the system...I am asking you questions about the story you raise....if anything I am defending the vast majority who do not take months off or try and fraud the sick leave system etc

trying to portray such things as the norm is simply wrong

whatnext

sysconp1 wrote: »

No it doesn't....

I know personally, not by anecdote as you suggest that this occurs far more than you suggest.

Nextdoor neighbour in Drumcondra - Daughter off sick since maternity (over 1 year) due to a so called trapped nerve in her back preventing her from bending or lifting. Whilst I saw her on numerous occasions lifting her child, shopping and running after her child. Her take on it was that she could get away with it and they didn't mind.

Friend in finance department takes regular days off following drinking sessions and is quite happy to continue.

Aquaintance in agriculture and fisheries working as a software developer has mental health problems and (to my current knowledge) has taken 2 blocks of 6 months off, followed by receiving a promotion and then taking further time off.

These are only a few factual examples of which I am sure there are many many more out there. Perhaps if the public service workers applied a proper HR policy then these example would be the exception and not the norm which seems to be the case.

In the private sector incidents of this nature are dealt with, but the public sector seem to let them pass. After all its not their money is it!

You know what would happen if I went on the sick for 6 months?

1 - no pay
2 - no job, after about 1 week I guess.

Seems like the sick pay may be an issue here, get rid of that and the issue would be reduced?

I can vouch for the examples you have given, I interviewed an accountant about 3 years ago, decen chap wanted out of PS. so we offered the guy, and here is where the fun started. The offer was 35k - 20 days leave and 5% company contribution to pension.
This nutter wanted the salary adjusted to reflect, 1 = loss of holiday entitlement 1.5K. 2 = Loss os sick leave entitlement 1.5k. 3 = loss of banking time, which he said worked out at 2 days + 1/2 days shopping 500. So that brought him up to 38,500 in his eyes, which we agreed to.
But then he cam back with the 2 pearls. Loss of pension entitlement + 4,200 + increase in length of working + 2k. Which would have brought him up to 44,700. Needless to say the offer was withdrawn. (These figures are from memory, I know the 9,700 figure is 100% correct and all the others are there or there abouts + or - 10%)

But it got me to thinking, maybe he should pay BIK on the additional 9,700 which he felt he currently had?:cool:

groovy 09

Look, you can "anecdotal" all you want, the point is at the moment there is a divide. Public sector are feeling hard done by whereas Private sector IS being hard done by. The Private sector has no sympathy for the public sector and to be honest if there are job losses in the public sector God help them because no one in the private sector will touch them.

As for Northern Ireland I can't comment on their job losses all I know is that a lot of public servants went up there while on strike action.


I guess you are saying it is ok for me to take a pay cut and for my partner to wait months for social welfare but don't take anything off the public sector. I hope you all get hit hard on Wednesday.