We Won!!! 12 day for Xmas Deal is Off!!!!

PeakOutput

Riskymove wrote: »

this simply is not the case

through pay cuts, levy, reduced numbers and so on the public sector pay bill will be reduced to a sustainable level without needing to make anyone redundant

we do not NEED to have compulsary redundancies in order forn financial reasons

as I have said, reform and tackling poor perfromance etc is a different issue

i believe reform and savings are one and the same thing otherwise we are just treating the sypmtoms and not the cause

pay cuts / naturally reducing numbers along with forced redundancies are all part of the solution imo

Riskymove

PeakOutput wrote: »

i believe reform and savings are one and the same thing otherwise we are just treating the sypmtoms and not the cause

pay cuts / naturally reducing numbers along with forced redundancies are all part of the solution imo

but the problem is that we need to have a reform of management practices and a proper credible way of measuring perfromance in order to fire soemone for not perfroming

otherwise you are opening yourself up for other problems

if redundancies are included for immediate financial reasons, you run the risk of people being let go for financial reasons..as oppossed to performance reasons

i.e. the underperformers remain


rushing through a lot of across the board cuts/redundancies on wednesday is not going to treat any causes either

thebman

Riskymove wrote: »

I dont agree

striking is one thing

refusing to abide by work practice changes etc is another

Refusing to work to new work practices should be a dismissable offense.

Easy way to reduce numbers without paying redundancy and if the position needs filling, there are more than enough people willing to take on the job in the dole queues and many have superb skill sets and experience so I don't think it would be a problem to replace skill sets.

PeakOutput

Riskymove wrote: »

but the problem is that we need to have a reform of management practices and a proper credible way of measuring perfromance in order to fire soemone for not perfroming

otherwise you are opening yourself up for other problems

if redundancies are included for immediate financial reasons, you run the risk of people being let go for financial reasons..as oppossed to performance reasons

i.e. the underperformers remain


rushing through a lot of across the board cuts/redundancies on wednesday is not going to treat any causes either

ye i agree i think it can be done properly over two years though starting now with pay cuts and culminating in two years after some sort of massive independant audit with the necessary forced redundancies

imme

PeakOutput wrote: »

hundreds of millions if not billions in wasted pay to public servants who either have nothing to do or have something to do but do it very poorly but are never fired because of the culture in the public service

bottom 10/15/20% of performers in the ps should be let go immedietely, then the remainder should be told that in another 6 months another 10%-20% will be gone based on their performance in that time. those that are left get a 10%-20% pay rise(if not more) for being the best performers and what do ya know all of a sudden we hace a streamlined efficient hard working ps(with some other reforms along the way obviously )

do you think there's a difference between hundreds of millions and billions, you say that either "hundreds of millions if not billions" is wasted in pay to PS workers................
Is there a difference in the 10%, 15%, 20% figures of PS workers who you say should be sacked immediately. Well, which is it 10%, 15% or 20%.
Would you let 10% of Gardai, 15% of Gardai or 20% of Gardai go, or would it be nurses, firemen, army personnel, navy personnel, refuse collectors, housing investigations officers, Met Eireann employees, ESB staff.......................

PeakOutput

imme wrote: »

do you think there's a difference between hundreds of millions and billions, you say that either "hundreds of millions if not billions" is wasted in pay to PS workers................

of course there is a difference whats your point? do i know exactly how many ps workers are sitting on their hole with nothing to do? NO

do i know exactly how many ps workers study their contract and all the rules and guidelines so they know exactly how many sick days they can squeeze in a year without getting a sick note? NO

however these people are there and are costing the state hundreds of millions.....if not billions a year

Is there a difference in the 10%, 15%, 20% figures of PS workers who you say should be sacked immediately. Well, which is it 10%, 15% or 20%.

i think 20% could go immedietely a large proportion of these would be the type iv mentioned above.. the lowest performers basically. the rest would be made up of the obviously defunct positions some ps workers still occupy

as i said before aswell i then think you could get rid of at least another 20% in 6 months or a years time after a rigouros performance review. the people who are left are the ones who deserve a ps pension, job security and above decent pay

Would you let 10% of Gardai, 15% of Gardai or 20% of Gardai go, or would it be nurses, firemen, army personnel, navy personnel, refuse collectors, housing investigations officers, Met Eireann employees, ESB staff.......................

you would see the difference if you read the entire thread as i have already answered this

should front line staff be touched if at all possible? NO

will front line staff have to take some of the burden like everyone else? of course but the vast bulk of it should be the bloated admin behind the front liners. that dosnt mean there isnt a need for reform in those areas too its just to a lesser extent imo and they are the heroes of the ps in the first place and deserve some leeway either way (for want of a better way of putting it)

imme

PeakOutput wrote: »

of course there is a difference whats your point? (1) do i know exactly how many ps workers are sitting on their hole with nothing to do? (2) NO

do i know exactly how many ps workers study their contract and all the rules and guidelines so they know exactly how many sick days they can squeeze in a year without getting a sick note? NO (3)

however these people are there and are costing the state hundreds of millions.....if not billions a year (4)




i think 20% (5) could go immedietely a large proportion of these would be the type iv mentioned above.. the lowest performers basically. the rest would be made up of the obviously defunct positions some ps workers still occupy (6)

as i said before aswell i then think you could get rid of at least another 20% (7) in 6 months or a years time after a rigouros performance review. the people who are left are the ones who deserve (8) a ps pension, job security and above decent pay



you would see the difference if you read the entire thread as i have already answered this

should front line staff be touched if at all possible? NO

will front line staff have to take some of the burden like everyone else? of course but the vast bulk of it should be the (9) bloated admin behind the front liners. that dosnt mean there isnt a need for reform in those areas too its just to a lesser extent (10) imo and they are the heroes of the ps in the first place and deserve some leeway either way (for want of a better way of putting it)

(1) you first said that either hundreds of millions if not billions, I was just saying that there is a massive difference between hundreds of millions and a billion. I'm not a banker and even I can see that.
(2) sitting on their hole with nothing to do, have you experience/examples of this or is this just another bash the PS agenda.
(3) everyone's out for what they can get? Is this your opinion of the entire PS?
(4) hundreds of millions, this could be 200bn, and billions, a billion is a thousand million, well which is it a hundred million, a few hundred million or a thousand million, a billion, are these figures off the top of your head or published figures, maybe they come from the Indo.
(5) 20% of PS workers to be sacked immediately, would this create any problems? in relation to govt services, the functioning of govt. Earlier on in your argument/anti PS rant you said you wanted to sack 10/15/20% of PS workers, now you say 20%, you weren't sure a few minutes ago now you want to sack 20% immediatley. How did you decide on 20%?????
(6) What in your opinion are these obviously defunct positions, I'm dying to know.
(7) So, you want to sack 20%, then 6-months later you want to sack another 20%, will this be 20% of the balance of non-frontline PS workers or 20% of the staff who were employed in the first instance????
Would these sackings have any impact on the services provided by non-frontline PS staff.
(8) do people currently working in the PS not currently 'deserve' any of the things you mention.
(9) have you any official figures on the bloated nature of the non-frontline PS workers. Is any sector more bloated than another. Are they all bloated.
How do they compare to other EU, OECD countries.
(10) have you any experience of the frontline serivces provided by PS workers, heoroes as you describe them. You say they need some reform, what reforms would you like to see. Some people think that sections of frontline services are currently innefficent, what do you think of this.

Do you hate all non-frontline PS workers? They're quite human you know.

PeakOutput

imme wrote: »

(1) you first said that either hundreds of millions if not billions, I was just saying that there is a massive difference between hundreds of millions and a billion. I'm not a banker and even I can see that.

i know what i said and i know the difference

(2) sitting on their hole with nothing to do, have you experience/examples of this or is this just another bash the PS agenda.

not one person lost their job when the health boards became the hse. in theory there is one position in each health board doing each job. with the hse there only needs to be one person doing that job.

i was in the hospital recently in a waiting room for 2 consultants. i was there for 2hours. there were 4 secretaries behind the desk. leave aside the fact thats 2 secretaries per consultant all they did in those two hours was tell people to take a seat and chat

(3) everyone's out for what they can get? Is this your opinion of the entire PS?

no which is why i didnt say get rid of 100% of the ps i said get rid of the ones that are and i included them in the original 20% of people to be gone immedietely

(4) hundreds of millions, this could be 200bn, and billions, a billion is a thousand million

it could indeed. that is what a massive independant audit would discover

(5) 20% of PS workers to be sacked immediately, would this create any problems? in relation to govt services, the functioning of govt. Earlier on in your argument/anti PS rant you said you wanted to sack 10/15/20% of PS workers, now you say 20%, you weren't sure a few minutes ago now you want to sack 20% immediatley. How did you decide on 20%?????

20% is what i would do. will they ever do it? ill believe it when i see it. 10/15% would be a good start

(6) What in your opinion are these obviously defunct positions, I'm dying to know.

see one regarding the hse. again i dont pretend to know all the facts and figures im not a business consultant a politician or work in the ps. thats why i said (and this is the third time iv said it now) we need a massive independant audit to expose all these inefficiencies(be the level of them be 1% or 10% or higher i dont know but they level needs to be 0)

(7) So, you want to sack 20%, then 6-months later you want to sack another 20%, will this be 20% of the balance of non-frontline PS workers or 20% of the staff who were employed in the first instance????
Would these sackings have any impact on the services provided by non-frontline PS staff.

20% of the initial(by the way in the hse i think these figures can be greatly increased again im being conservative)

initially the first round would. people would work alot harder when they know another 20% are going to go in 6months hence service would improve. these people would then be rewarded well and then constantly reviewed to ensure productivity

(8) do people currently working in the PS not currently 'deserve' any of the things you mention.

some of them do the trick is finding these and getting rid of the rest

(9) have you any official figures on the bloated nature of the non-frontline PS workers. Is any sector more bloated than another. Are they all bloated.
How do they compare to other EU, OECD countries.

again im not a politician or consultant or economist i dont have these figures. i have read enough about it and heard enough about it from people i respect both public figures / journalists and on a personal level to have the opinion i have

(10) have you any experience of the frontline serivces provided by PS workers, heoroes as you describe them. You say they need some reform, what reforms would you like to see. Some people think that sections of frontline services are currently innefficent, what do you think of this.

yes i do have experience. i have been to a hospital to visit people and been in hospital myself. i have needed the help of the gardai and of the ambulance service. my mother is a special needs assistant. the intriquicies of each department and what is necessary in each are beyond me but i bet if you ask the gardai and the nurses and the doctors and the workers in esb and the teachers how in an ideal world the hospitals schools etc should be run you would get a fair idea of the problems that currently exist and a much more informed view than the administrator trying to balance the books in his office however many miles away

Do you hate all non-frontline PS workers? They're quite human you know.

i dont hate them personally no. i think there are too many of them i think there should be an absolute minimum of them and i think the ones there are should be the absolute top of their game with salaries to match and the risk of losing their jobs a reality if they dont perform. much like in the real world were i live

seangal

cson wrote: »

Ah I see we're referencing figures from Never Never Land. Or can you actually provide something substantive to back that up? I shall continue to laugh heartily at that outrageous post until I see some evidence backing it up.

Here is a example for you and the laugh is on you who i assume works
I recently had a long conversation with a friend of mine who lost his job. He was in a reasonably good job and after a little bit of overtime was earning a gross salary of €35,000 per year.

So I asked him the obvious question of how he was going to cope now with four children to feed and, I have to be honest, the answer startled me.

He was actually a lot better off and now in a position to go out golfing every day while his children are at school.

Frankly, I did not believe him until I sat down and did the sums. On a salary of €35,000, his annual net income after the mini Budget was €28,854, after all deductions.

Now he is on the supplementary welfare allowance which -- with a wife and four children -- gives you €443.90 per week, or €23,083 annually.

As he also has a mortgage, he is entitled to mortgage interest supplement which pays all the interest on your mortgage. In his case, this was €1,200 per month of his €1,500 mortgage, or €14,400 per annum.

He is also entitled to back-to-school and footwear payment of €905 per year for four children, a medical card which is worth, on average, say €500 per year (probably more) and a heating supplement which I cannot quantify.

In total, he now has tax-free income of €38,888, an increase in his net income of €10,034 per year for working on his golf handicap.

Based on the calculations after the mini-Budget, you would need to earn more than €47,000 per year if you have four children to justify continuing to work.

K-9

seangal wrote: »

Here is a example for you and the laugh is on you who i assume works
I recently had a long conversation with a friend of mine who lost his job. He was in a reasonably good job and after a little bit of overtime was earning a gross salary of €35,000 per year.

So I asked him the obvious question of how he was going to cope now with four children to feed and, I have to be honest, the answer startled me.

He was actually a lot better off and now in a position to go out golfing every day while his children are at school.

Frankly, I did not believe him until I sat down and did the sums. On a salary of €35,000, his annual net income after the mini Budget was €28,854, after all deductions.

Now he is on the supplementary welfare allowance which -- with a wife and four children -- gives you €443.90 per week, or €23,083 annually.

As he also has a mortgage, he is entitled to mortgage interest supplement which pays all the interest on your mortgage. In his case, this was €1,200 per month of his €1,500 mortgage, or €14,400 per annum.

He is also entitled to back-to-school and footwear payment of €905 per year for four children, a medical card which is worth, on average, say €500 per year (probably more) and a heating supplement which I cannot quantify.

In total, he now has tax-free income of €38,888, an increase in his net income of €10,034 per year for working on his golf handicap.

Based on the calculations after the mini-Budget, you would need to earn more than €47,000 per year if you have four children to justify continuing to work.

He'd be entitled to FIS of about €76 a week if working so he'd have net pay of €28,854 plus about €4,000 FIS.

Welfare hand outs aren't just for the unemployed.

Still, its a mad situation when you have to pay a mortgage of €18,000 a year on a wage of 35k. Somebody over borrowed but sure the state will help you out!

Rujib1

CityCentreMan wrote: »

We Won!!! 12 day for Xmas Deal is Off!!!!

Power to the people!!!

Seems like British beards, are taking a leaf out the Irish beards book

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article6956015.ece

Straighttalker

Some people just have not got a clue. Probably a fianna fail member or a victim of their propaganda machine.