The Reality in the Private Sector

whatnext

namenotavailabl wrote: »

Is this strictly logically correct or could the following muddy the waters?

A simplified case could be made that the private sector performs a mix of "wealth redistribution" and "wealth creation" activities.
By "wealth redistribution" I mean exchanging goods/services in return for receiving cash from residents of Ireland, some of whom are taxpayers (mainly employees/ self-employed) and some non-taxpayers (mainly people outside of the tax net). This is a type of 'money recycling' activity by which money passes between taxpayers (and non-tax payers) but in essence the country doesn't generate 'new' wealth. By "wealth creation" I mean exchanging goods/services in return for receiving cash from foreign consumers i.e. bringing wealth into the country. In this activity, the country increases its wealth as the private sector has succeeded in bringing in wealth from outside of the country. It could also be said that 'primary producers' such as farmers or mining/mineral companies also add to the wealth of the country as they essentially generate 'new money' from the country's natural resources.

Couldn't the case then be made that the taxpayer DOES in fact -to a certain extent- pay for the private sector, since a proportion of the 'recycled' money in the hands of the private sector is sourced from the Irish taxpayer?

Interesting point, the opposite to arguement is one I've always held (I know its not the same and we probably agree with each others points), ie buying imported goods althoug they may cost more at the point of sale in effect cost us more in the following years tax bill as a large proportion of that money is permanently gone from our economy

nesf

EF wrote: »

Just as I suspected..jobs are being lost but pay in many cases is actually rising in the industrial sector.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1120/breaking36.htm

Look, just no. Scofflaw pointed this out but it needs to be spelled out for people I think.

There are two ways that average pay increases for a large group. The first is people get an actual pay rise, the other is lower paid people can be fired. Now, given the rather large increase in unemployment recently no one with any sense would opt for the former explanation over the latter. Most companies work on a first in, last out basis with redundancies so the lower paid more recent employees will be the most likely to be let go. This effect will can cause there to an increase in the average hourly pay even if there's been a pay cut taken by other people under certain circumstances! You cannot conclude anything about pay levels for those left from these average numbers.

Average hours follows similar expect it's per head, so it doesn't capture hours of work lost by people who've been fired, it only captures changes in those still employed. So this statistic cannot be used to judge whether there's been a fall in the total hours of work available to be done in a sector.

ParkRunner

nesf wrote: »

Look, just no. Scofflaw pointed this out but it needs to be spelled out for people I think.

There are two ways that average pay increases for a large group. The first is people get an actual pay rise, the other is lower paid people can be fired. Now, given the rather large increase in unemployment recently no one with any sense would opt for the former explanation over the latter. Most companies work on a first in, last out basis with redundancies so the lower paid more recent employees will be the most likely to be let go. This effect will can cause there to an increase in the average hourly pay even if there's been a pay cut taken by other people under certain circumstances! You cannot conclude anything about pay levels for those left from these average numbers.

Average hours follows similar expect it's per head, so it doesn't capture hours of work lost by people who've been fired, it only captures changes in those still employed. So this statistic cannot be used to judge whether there's been a fall in the total hours of work available to be done in a sector.

I agree with you, the average pay seems to be rising in the private sector because people at the lower end are simply being let go to fend for themselves. The average hours are also calculated from those left in employment.
The public sector pay bill is being reduced, maybe too slowly, but it is being reduced with the mass exodus of the higher paid taking early retirement which personally seems like a fairer way to me.
The conclusion from the statistics would appear to be that some are only taking minor cuts, while others are losing their jobs completely in the private sector. I havent had a proper chance to look at all the stats yet though..

seclachi

namenotavailabl wrote: »

Couldn't the case then be made that the taxpayer DOES in fact -to a certain extent- pay for the private sector, since a proportion of the 'recycled' money in the hands of the private sector is sourced from the Irish taxpayer?

You dont even have to think about it in such a roundabout way, many parts of the public sector are essential for the services and the infrastructure they provide to the private sector (Cash is only half the picture really). It does feel like some people thing the public sector are useless leeches who flick paper clips all day, but they are a critical part of society. Many however need to realise they cant escape the trends that effect the rest of society, and that a 20 billion euro hole cant be filled without some drastic cutbacks.

_Kooli_ wrote: »

Salary increased over 300% in less than 10 years.
Last year the company i worked for opted to give us a 10% pay cut.
Most of us just left and got jobs elsewhere for more money.

Some were scared and stayed and took the pay cut.
Some were not good enough (their own fault for not making themselves more employable) to get jobs elsewhere so stayed and took the pay cut.
All who stayed are constantly giving out about the public sector or anyone else they can think of. Jealousy, i think.

My current situation.
€100k plus

24 - 27 days holidays. depending on bonus days.
Nice big salary bonus too.
7.5% pension from my employer. I pay another 20%.
Monthly meal allowance.
Monthly Mortgage/rent allowance.


Im sick listening to people taking out their own lack of employablity on others, like the public sector. Obviously it make them feel better by attacking others, instead of just taking the bull by the horns and working at their own situation.

I wouldnt mind your job, not only does it pay well with good holidays, but you get to dish out your judgement to the lowly peons.

nesf

EF wrote: »

The conclusion from the statistics would appear to be that some are only taking minor cuts, while others are losing their jobs completely in the private sector.

No it does not mean that! Some could be taking no cuts in basic pay and others large cuts. Some areas could be seeing massive reductions in hours available and others little reduction.

The Private Sector is huge and is very heterogeneous. Some parts of it will be hit extremely hard while others won't be. You're seeing average numbers here, which means that without more data you can't draw any conclusions about what size wage cuts are going on because the sector isn't one big lump that behaves the same all over.

nesf

Oh for ****s sake.

Right guys the report is available here: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

Yes, in Industry, Quarter 2 2009 versus Quarter 2 2008 shows a 4.2% rise but Q2 2009 versus Q1 2009 shows a 4.8% drop. We're seeing average wages falling after the initial layoffs at the start of the year caused average wages to rise.

Christ, and they don't even bother to mention this in the newspaper article.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Oh for ****s sake.

Right guys the report is available here: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

Yes, in Industry, Quarter 2 2009 versus Quarter 2 2008 shows a 4.2% rise but Q2 2009 versus Q1 2009 shows a 4.8% drop. We're seeing average wages falling after the initial layoffs at the start of the year caused average wages to rise.

Christ, and they don't even bother to mention this in the newspaper article.

Well, you know, newspapers...full of journalists. That's probably the problem right there.

amused,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, you know, newspapers...full of journalists. That's probably the problem right there.

amused,
Scofflaw

When you dig into the numbers a bit more it gets interesting too. Average hours worked increased Q1-Q2, showing the effects of layoffs and more work being dumped on those who were kept, though since their pay didn't go up it caused hourly pay to go down again etc.

Looks like the IT just cut and paste the introductory paragraph from the report without bothering to do any analysis for the reader.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

When you dig into the numbers a bit more it gets interesting too. Average hours worked increased Q1-Q2, showing the effects of layoffs and more work being dumped on those who were kept, though since their pay didn't go up it caused hourly pay to go down again etc.

Looks like the IT just cut and paste the introductory paragraph from the report without bothering to do any analysis for the reader.

Sadly, that kind of thing happens all the time with statistics - indeed, it happens all the time with almost any data.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ardmacha

Looks like the IT just cut and paste the introductory paragraph from the report without bothering to do any analysis for the reader.

What else do you expect from a private sector organ?

Scofflaw

ardmacha wrote: »

What else do you expect from a private sector organ?

I'm sure I'd rather not say...

cordially,
Scofflaw

NewDubliner

nesf wrote: »

The Private Sector is huge and is very heterogeneous. Some parts of it will be hit extremely hard while others won't be..

Popular thinking among the kind of people who pay for the 'Independent' is to compare the public sector to the worst-off bits of the private sector.

ParkRunner

NewDubliner wrote: »

Popular thinking among the kind of people who pay for the 'Independent' is to compare the public sector to the worst-off bits of the private sector.

My thoughts exactly. There seems to be frenzied calls for another round of benchmarking but the averages have not changed all that much. Finance and insurance workers seem to be the ones taking the biggest hits, but at 973 per week they are not doing too badly.

nesf

EF wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. There seems to be frenzied calls for another round of benchmarking but the averages have not changed all that much. Finance and insurance workers seem to be the ones taking the biggest hits, but at 973 per week they are not doing too badly.

There's been a 10% loss of jobs in the Industrial sector, how on Earth has there been not much change on the averages?

ParkRunner

nesf wrote: »

There's been a 10% loss of jobs in the Industrial sector, how on Earth has there been not much change on the averages?

They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?

seclachi

EF wrote: »

They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?

Maybe the simplest way would be to cut 10% of the public service so then ?

Benchmarking against private sector pay is all well and good when there is the money for it. But at the end of the day almost every single private sector worker is getting what there company can afford. On the other hand the government has a 20 billion euro deficit and it simply cant be made up by taxes (Esp in such a poor economy).

Its not fair for public sector workers to take a paycut, but neither is it fair for all the private sector workers who have been sacked or had there wages cut.

kaymin

EF wrote: »

They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?

Why not start with letting go 10% of the public service workers (to mirror the loss of jobs in the private sector) and reduce public service pay to the private sector equivalents (i.e. 20 - 26% drop)?

jimmmy

kaymin wrote: »

Why not start with letting go 10% of the public service workers (to mirror the loss of jobs in the private sector) and reduce public service pay to the private sector equivalents (i.e. 20 - 26% drop)?

Sounds like a reasonable compromise, as our public service is paid 40% more than the eurozone average ( Eurostat figures ).

Scofflaw

EF wrote: »

They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?

Well yes - the unemployed are still part of the private sector labour pool. Otherwise, you're suggesting you'd be OK with the idea that if the private sector fired the lowest paid 10%, and average wages therefore rose (which seems to have happened in some areas), you'd like to be benchmarked against that rise. While it would be hard to find something that would be perceived as more outrageous than the original benchmarking exercise, that would probably do it. It does it for me, certainly.

appalled,
Scofflaw

johnathan woss

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well yes - the unemployed are still part of the private sector labour pool. Otherwise, you're suggesting you'd be OK with the idea that if the private sector fired the lowest paid 10%, and average wages therefore rose (which seems to have happened in some areas), you'd like to be benchmarked against that rise. While it would be hard to find something that would be perceived as more outrageous than the original benchmarking exercise, that would probably do it. It does it for me, certainly.

appalled,
Scofflaw

Are you a lawyer Scofflaw ?
Are you a barrister ?

Because very little outrages me more than the amount of wealth the barrister class have siphoned off the people of Ireland in the last 20 years.

nesf

johnathan woss wrote: »

Are you a lawyer Scofflaw ?
Are you a barrister ?

Because very little outrages me more than the amount of wealth the barrister class have siphoned off the people of Ireland in the last 20 years.

He's neither of these things. I'm not going to reveal his profession but I do know what it is and he is not in one that's been minting it over the past decade.

Scofflaw

johnathan woss wrote: »

Are you a lawyer Scofflaw ?
Are you a barrister ?

Because very little outrages me more than the amount of wealth the barrister class have siphoned off the people of Ireland in the last 20 years.

I'm not either of those, and I'm well aware of the way the professional classes in general have had Irish society sewn for as long as I've been alive - but that doesn't make me any less appalled by what EF is apparently suggesting.

I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be here - if you're trying to say "yes, that would be bad, but look! other people are bad too", then you're forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right - particularly for someone like me who is neither a PS worker nor a barrister.

regards,
Scofflaw

johnathan woss

I only asked because I cannot stand hypocrisy.

Apologies for briefly besmirching your good name by implication

Scofflaw

johnathan woss wrote: »

I only asked because I cannot stand hypocrisy.

Apologies for briefly besmirching your good name by implication

Well, at least you didn't call me a banker...or an estate agent...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ronbyrne2005

If public sector workers want private sector pay levels then leave and get a job paying the pay you want. The public sector should never have been benchmarked against private for many reasons. The public sector should get the going international rate for their job(adjusted for cost of living and taxation differences).
If a public sector worker wants a job for life, to not have to justify ones position or work or achievements, to get a brillaint pension for rest of life , to not have to risk family home to run a business etc etc , then stay where you are.

ParkRunner

seclachi wrote: »

Maybe the simplest way would be to cut 10% of the public service so then ?

Benchmarking against private sector pay is all well and good when there is the money for it. But at the end of the day almost every single private sector worker is getting what there company can afford. On the other hand the government has a 20 billion euro deficit and it simply cant be made up by taxes (Esp in such a poor economy).

Its not fair for public sector workers to take a paycut, but neither is it fair for all the private sector workers who have been sacked or had there wages cut.

Numbers are being cut as we speak. Contracts are not being renewed and significant numbers (especially at the higher grades) are taking up the early retirement scheme from my own personal experiences anyway. Btw I am in favour of moderate paycuts in public sector pay and I would much rather that the unions and the government reach a sensible agreement rather than having to resort to industrial action, but Im just one pawn in this game.

ParkRunner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well yes - the unemployed are still part of the private sector labour pool. Otherwise, you're suggesting you'd be OK with the idea that if the private sector fired the lowest paid 10%, and average wages therefore rose (which seems to have happened in some areas), you'd like to be benchmarked against that rise. While it would be hard to find something that would be perceived as more outrageous than the original benchmarking exercise, that would probably do it. It does it for me, certainly.

appalled,
Scofflaw

This contradicts the position that the private sector is a fragmented bunch of individual sectors rather than one united mass of workers. Benchmarking was done previously comparing equivalent jobs in both the public and private sector and I think personally benchmarking would be the wrong way to go about reducing the public sector pay bill as we would have to compare the labour pool as you stated in the private sector to a similar labour pool in the public sector..it would get very abstract.

Anyway as I said previously I do believe there is wriggle room in the public sector for paycuts and I am looking forward to getting this budget over with finally.

Scofflaw

EF wrote: »

This contradicts the position that the private sector is a fragmented bunch of individual sectors rather than one united mass of workers. Benchmarking was done previously comparing equivalent jobs in both the public and private sector and I think personally benchmarking would be the wrong way to go about reducing the public sector pay bill as we would have to compare the labour pool as you stated in the private sector to a similar labour pool in the public sector..it would get very abstract.

That's not particularly abstract, since until quite recently we had full employment, so it's relatively easy at the moment to work out the redundancy risk for comparable jobs and factor it in. Since the risk of redundancy is a very important part of the difference between public and private sector employment, it would be unacceptable not to factor it in.

As I said, though, I'd probably be happiest with a rollback of the original benchmarking exercise - a rollback, not a clawback.

EF wrote: »

Anyway as I said previously I do believe there is wriggle room in the public sector for paycuts and I am looking forward to getting this budget over with finally.

I think everyone is - it's not like there's going to be good news in there for anyone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ParkRunner

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said, though, I'd probably be happiest with a rollback of the original benchmarking exercise - a rollback, not a clawback.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Interesting. That was one concession my particular colleagues would have been happy with too but I have no idea if this was brought into the negotiations. I doubt it to be honest.

Scofflaw

EF wrote: »

Interesting. That was one concession my particular colleagues would have been happy with too but I have no idea if this was brought into the negotiations. I doubt it to be honest.

That might be the result of the negotiations being in the hands of those who benefited most, and with least reason, from that round of benchmarking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ardmacha

They should publish in full the data collected in the original benchmarking.

ronbyrne2005

ardmacha wrote: »

They should publish in full the data collected in the original benchmarking.

It was shreded after benchmarking was concluded and not allowed to be made public! I know I know,only in Ireland.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

That might be the result of the negotiations being in the hands of those who benefited most, and with least reason, from that round of benchmarking.

Those who benefitted most were at the higher grades/pay levels. Can you justify your suggestion that there was least reason for giving them their increases? The ESRI judges that those in the lower grades enjoy a far greater public service premium:

we found that by 2006 senior public service workers earned almost 8 per cent more than their private sector counterparts, while those in lower-level grades earned between 22 and 31 per cent more.

Source: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2848
Full Report: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20090921103408/JACB200937.pdf

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Those who benefitted most were at the higher grades/pay levels. Can you justify your suggestion that there was least reason for giving them their increases? The ESRI judges that those in the lower grades enjoy a far greater public service premium:

Source: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2848
Full Report: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20090921103408/JACB200937.pdf

Since the theoretical justification for benchmarking was the difficulty of recruitment into the PS, I'd say it was hard to justify pay increases for non-recruitment grades at all. Certainly their increases should only have been in line with the increases at the recruitment grades - unless there was an exodus from the higher levels of the PS, which I have to say I don't recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since the theoretical justification for benchmarking was the difficulty of recruitment into the PS, I'd say it was hard to justify pay increases for non-recruitment grades at all. Certainly their increases should only have been in line with the increases at the recruitment grades - unless there was an exodus from the higher levels of the PS, which I have to say I don't recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I believe the justification was - "Because we are worth it!"

ParkRunner

View wrote: »

I believe the justification was - "Because we are worth it!"

We so are! I'll get my coat

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since the theoretical justification for benchmarking was the difficulty of recruitment into the PS, I'd say it was hard to justify pay increases for non-recruitment grades at all. Certainly their increases should only have been in line with the increases at the recruitment grades - unless there was an exodus from the higher levels of the PS, which I have to say I don't recall.

I don't have the same recollection as you do. In any event, wherever the discussion started, the intention of benchmarking was to bring public sector pay into some reasonable alignment with rates in the private sector.

What emerged was a judgement that the pay to those in the higher grades, those people carrying the greatest responsibilities, was further behind their private sector equivalents than was the pay of those in lower grades and entry-level positions. Hence the higher awards to those people. The ESRI study is fully in line with that judgement.

I'll willingly concede a point: the gap between those lower down the pecking order and those at the top is too large. In the public service, it is large because it reflects what has been happening in the private sector. In the private sector, it happened because of a shift in the business culture over the years. One of the realities in the private sector is that some managers seem to have used their skills to benefit themselves rather more than they used them to benefit their employers. That is most evident at boardroom level.

seangal

View wrote: »

I believe the justification was - "Because we are worth it!"

well with what this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it
public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
what did the private sector retail do????????
doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

tunney

seangal wrote: »

well with waht this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it because we still haven't grasped the bigger picture
A tiny fraction of the public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
what did the private sector retail do????????
A tiny fraction doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

Corrected for you.

kippy

seangal wrote: »

well with waht this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it
public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
what did the private sector retail do????????
doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

Have you a source for this?

This is absolute nonsense.
Only certain Public workers worked 24 hours, not the whole fecking Public service, and its part of their job to be fair.
Only certain parts of the private sector MAY be doing what you say. Others, are doing lots to help.
The weather issues area about people helping people not private versus public.

Rantan

seangal wrote: »

well with waht this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it
public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
what did the private sector retail do????????
doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

yes and by all accounts did a very good job too, so they did it for free did they?? I'm sorry its whats expected, they chose these jobs. if the company I work for experienced a crisis of similar proportions, I would have to work the same, and would not get paid decent overtime for the privilege.

nesf

seangal wrote: »

well with what this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it
public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
what did the private sector retail do????????
doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

I was able to buy water at normal prices in Cork all through the incident, so you're talking crap mate. Just because some shops might indulge in such distasteful price gouging does not mean they all were and to blame all the private sector for such behaviour is just silly.

irish_bob

seangal wrote: »

well with what this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it
public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
what did the private sector retail do????????
doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

yeah like no public servants in any other country ever had to go that extra mile during freakish weather , i wouldnt waste your breath crowing about how heroic the public servants were in dealing with the floods , the unions will never shut up about it in the coming weeks , dont expect RTE to point to the fact that the majority of those helping were volunteers though

ardmacha

Just because some shops might indulge in such distasteful price gouging does not mean they all were and to blame all the private sector for such behaviour is just silly.

It is no more silly than the assertion that all of the public sector are lazy, and useless. Something which is repeated here again and again.

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

yeah like no public servants in any other country ever had to go that extra mile during freakish weather ,

I am not surprised that you cannot bring yourself to give any credit to any public service workers...you cannot see past your prejudices.....no one is saying the public service workers were "heroic", just that they reacted appropriately and have, correctly, postponed their strike action to continue to do their job as they are particularly needed

you apparantly see the negative in everything

ah sure the firemen, guards, army, civil defence (and their vehicles and equipment) were not needed at all ....... the local farmers did everything!...its an RTE conspiracy.....etc

irish_bob

Riskymove wrote: »

I am not surprised that you cannot bring yourself to give any credit to any public service workers...you cannot see past your prejudices.....no one is saying the public service workers were "heroic", just that they reacted appropriately and have, correctly, postponed their strike action to continue to do their job as they are particularly needed

you apparantly see the negative in everything

ah sure the firemen, guards, army, civil defence (and their vehicles and equipment) were not needed at all ....... the local farmers did everything!...its an RTE conspiracy.....etc

not at all , i am not criticising the huge efforts by the various arms of the state , i was criticising the cynicism which is starting to show itself already , im talking about those be it unions or otherwise who are pointing to the floods as a reason why public sector pay should not be touched , btw , not only have those who back the public sector at every turn not mentioned the equal efforts by ordinary civilians in dealing with the flood damage , i myself was told in after hours that it was public servants and only public servants who were rolling up thier sleeves

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

not at all , i am not criticising the huge efforts by the various arms of the state

fair enough so

, i was criticising the cynicism which is starting to show itself already , im talking about those be it unions or otherwise who are pointing to the floods as a reason why public sector pay should not be touched

I haven't seen anything like that...not disagreeing just have not seen....can you point to any?

btw , not only have those who back the public sector at every turn not mentioned the equal efforts by ordinary civilians in dealing with the flood damage

well , if it makes you fell a bit better Bob, I agree that the general effort by people in the regions concerned was welcome (its a pity that they have to be divided up into public and private at all.....it was basically a response by all people living in these areas)

i myself was told in after hours that it was public servants and only public servants who were rolling up thier sleeves

well thats plainly rubbish

seangal

The fact is that the public sector that was required stood up and did the job. They did not have to do it they could have gone home like everybody else as they are so overpaid they would not need the overtime.
But now the local people will face massive insurance price once again by private sector companies who employ over paid private sector employees
greed greed greed once again in the private sector
They will even try and screw all off us

seclachi

The fact is that the public sector that was required stood up and did the job. They did not have to do it they could have gone home like everybody else as they are so overpaid they would not need the overtime.
But now the local people will face massive insurance price once again by private sector companies who employ over paid private sector employees
greed greed greed once again in the private sector
They will even try and screw all off us

I`ve seen people stay working massive overtime at a 24 hour (private )production plants when something critical has gone tits up, they didnt do for the money nor approval, but because if they let something that was there responsibility fail they would be out the gap so fast there head would spin.

Thats not a slight on anybody (employee or volunteer) who did good work during the flood. But its fair to say in some jobs you have responsibility if something goes wrong and you cant just turn around at 5 o`clock and say its home time, and I cant imagine it happening in the private sector any more than the public sector (with the exception of any place that has "certain" unions who can make responsibility disappear).

Diom

Fair play to those who worked hard to help those caught in the floods... but it is their job to do that. Often times I've been in here working my ass off to deliver what I was responsible for. It's no different (except obviously that there is a difference in the importance of the responsibility).

As for pointing at the insurance companies and crying "greed", it's not my fault. If you want to blame someone look towards your government, who have failed to push competition in the market. Immature nonsense.