Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…45679

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Riskymove wrote: »
    why not?

    unless you have been living in a cave the last few weeks you know exactly why not


  • Options
    #243
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    unless you have been living in a cave the last few weeks you know exactly why not

    what does job security cost the state?


  • Options
    #244
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Riskymove wrote: »
    what does job security cost the state?

    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 :p)


  • Options
    #245
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    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 :p)

    so you want reform and a proper management system...I'm all for that

    you didn't mention anything about perfromance til now


  • Options
    #246
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Riskymove wrote: »
    so you want reform and a proper management system...I'm all for that

    you didn't mention anything about perfromance til now

    i didnt mention anything about job security eithern that was someone else but the results of such job security are obvious


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,467 ✭✭✭✭cson


    Riskymove wrote: »
    reality?

    Yes reality. Please find me a public servant who has had to claim social welfare in the last 20 years. Count out those who left of their own volition, and those who had to due to misconduct and you've a redundancy rate of... zero. ;)
    Riskymove wrote: »
    why not?

    The Irish taxpayer cannot sustain current levels of public sector staffing. There are far too many staff in certain area's (HSE Management for example) and ironically far too little in certain area's. However, overall the public sector is overstaffed and to ensure the country can survive the job security is something that will have to go. The Government is an employer. Across the country employers are making people redundant. The public sector should not be immune to that. Do we have any means of performance testing in these jobs either? Once you get a permanent Teachers job, you might get visited once or twice by an inspector in the first 5 years but after that? Do what you want for the most part.


  • Options
    #248
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    cson wrote: »
    Yes reality. Please find me a public servant who has had to claim social welfare in the last 20 years. Count out those who left of their own volition, and those who had to due to misconduct and you've a redundancy rate of... zero. ;)

    you've changed the position


    ;)
    The Government is an employer. Across the country employers are making people redundant. The public sector should not be immune to that.

    that is not a logical position

    just because some private employers have to make people redundant does not mean the public sector orgs have to


    however....

    Do we have any means of performance testing in these jobs either? Once you get a permanent Teachers job, you might get visited once or twice by an inspector in the first 5 years but after that? Do what you want for the most part.


    ....making people redundant because they dont do their job is a logical position and that is why reform is needed


  • Options
    #249
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Riskymove wrote: »
    just because some private employers have to make people redundant does not mean the public sector orgs have to

    people are made redundant in the private sector because there is no money to pay them or because the positions they were in are now not needed.

    this does not happen in the public sector EVER. it should simple as that. there is no money to pay them so the answer is to reduce the pay bill by cutting pay and by making redundancies

    people may ask why this is even relevant the goverment isnt talking about redundancies. and you are correct they are not talking about it yet. they have said htis is a 4 year plan to get our spending under control so you better believe that after they have cut wages this budget there are going to be redundancies coming over the next 4 years


  • Options
    #250
    Dublinpenny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭Dublinpenny


    I am curious to know that if people were so worried that services would suffer is public servants were made to take 12 days unpaid leave, what will happen to the same services if public servants are made redundant as has been suggested?? Surely the same services will suffer, only on a permanent basis.


  • Options
    #251
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Dublinpenny wrote: »
    I am curious to know that if people were so worried that services would suffer is public servants were made to take 12 days unpaid leave, what will happen to the same services if public servants are made redundant as has been suggested?? Surely the same services will suffer, only on a permanent basis.

    not if proper reform(as is necessary) is implemented obviously


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Dublinpenny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭Dublinpenny


    Referring to public servants claiming social welfare, many public servants are not eligible for social welfare, or state pension for that matter.


  • Options
    #253
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    What yea have won is
    1) FF in government for the nest 2 years (if not another 5 after that)
    2) 1.3 billion of cuts
    3) A public sector like the 80ths
    What ye have lost
    1) Massive public sector reform in the health sector
    2) Industrial peace as it will be a free for all now when it comes to strike
    3) billion Will be wasted due to no reform
    4) A chance of a new government to get us out of this mess
    5) I would say the 350k public sector will now all use there 7 days sick leave and no question asked
    Well done it was a great win


  • Options
    #254
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    Dublinpenny wrote: »
    Referring to public servants claiming social welfare, many public servants are not eligible for social welfare, or state pension for that matter.
    anybody employes after 1995 is eligible for social welfare


  • Options
    #255
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,467 ✭✭✭✭cson


    Riskymove wrote: »
    you've changed the position


    ;)



    that is not a logical position

    just because some private employers have to make people redundant does not mean the public sector orgs have to

    Pray tell me how I have changed the position? And more to the point; how is it not a logical position? The public 'm loathe to call for more jobs to be lost in this recession but the reality is we can't afford to sustain the current levels of staffing.

    @ Dublinpenny: On the contrary I think services would improve.


  • Options
    #256
    ssaye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭ssaye


    On behalf of all Public Sector workers, I would like to thank all the Private Sector workers for paying our wages. Thank You. Now...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbu_kGsFOQ


  • Options
    #257
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,467 ✭✭✭✭cson


    Dublinpenny wrote: »
    Referring to public servants claiming social welfare, many public servants are not eligible for social welfare, or state pension for that matter.

    Maybe they're not elegible because they have a job? :rolleyes:

    Public servants will have paid PRSI therefore, in the unlikely event of them being made redundant they are entitled to and elegible for Social Welfare payments.

    As for you claim regarding State Pensions.... :pac:

    Actually; entertain me. Please show me something back up your claim.


  • Options
    #258
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    people are made redundant in the private sector because there is no money to pay them or because the positions they were in are now not needed.

    this does not happen in the public sector EVER. it should simple as that. there is no money to pay them so the answer is to reduce the pay bill by cutting pay and by making redundancies

    people may ask why this is even relevant the goverment isnt talking about redundancies. and you are correct they are not talking about it yet. they have said htis is a 4 year plan to get our spending under control so you better believe that after they have cut wages this budget there are going to be redundancies coming over the next 4 years
    A public sector on 40 k married with 2 kids would be better off on the dole so you want a goverement to put him on the dole to
    use you head man we have enof on the dole


  • Options
    #259
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,467 ✭✭✭✭cson


    ssaye wrote: »
    On behalf of all Public Sector workers, I would like to thank all the Private Sector workers for paying our wages. Thank You. Now...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbu_kGsFOQ

    Thank yourself while your at it. You pay tax I'm sure - therefore you contribute to your own pay. ;)


  • Options
    #260
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    this does not happen in the public sector EVER. it should simple as that. there is no money to pay them so the answer is to reduce the pay bill by cutting pay and by making redundancies

    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


  • Options
    #261
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    cson wrote: »
    Maybe they're not elegible because they have a job? :rolleyes:

    Public servants will have paid PRSI therefore, in the unlikely event of them being made redundant they are entitled to and elegible for Social Welfare payments.

    As for you claim regarding State Pensions.... :pac:

    Actually; entertain me. Please show me something back up your claim.

    lots of public servants do not pay class A PRSI...only from 1995 onwards

    so they would not be eleigible for unemployment beenefit or the state pension


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,467 ✭✭✭✭cson


    seangal wrote: »
    A public sector on 40 k married with 2 kids would be better off on the dole so you want a goverement to put him on the dole to
    use you head man we have enof on the dole

    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. :D


  • Options
    #263
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    cson wrote: »
    Maybe they're not elegible because they have a job? :rolleyes:

    Public servants will have paid PRSI therefore, in the unlikely event of them being made redundant they are entitled to and elegible for Social Welfare payments.

    As for you claim regarding State Pensions.... :pac:

    Actually; entertain me. Please show me something back up your claim.
    After 1995 a public sector will get pension from his job that will be made up of the 13k state old pension and the rest from his employment
    I.e. if he was to get 40 k from his employment it will be made up of 13k from state old age pension and 27k from his employment
    Any body employed before 1995 that pays half rate PRSI would get the 30 k from his employment + the 13 k from the state old age pension
    So in real terms a PS employee employed after 1995 dose not get the state old pension


  • Options
    #264
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,467 ✭✭✭✭cson


    Riskymove wrote: »
    lots of public servants do not pay class A PRSI...only from 1995 onwards

    so they would not be eleigible for unemployment beenefit or the state pension

    Ah I can see it now; the State leaving scores of public servants penniless and without social welfare. Are you for real? :pac:

    Notwithstanding the fact they aren't ever likely to grace a dole queue.


  • Options
    #265
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    cson wrote: »
    Ah I can see it now; the State leaving scores of public servants penniless and without social welfare. Are you for real? :pac:

    Notwithstanding the fact they aren't ever likely to grace a dole queue.

    they are not eligible for dole...or state pension....you can get as worked up or overly dramatic as you want, it wont change that


  • Options
    #266
    Dublinpenny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭Dublinpenny


    Public servants employed before 1995 are not entitled to unemployment benefit or State Pension. That is a fact, check it out.


  • Options
    #267
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,467 ✭✭✭✭cson


    Aren't we lucky the situation isn't likely to arise then :p


  • Options
    #268
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    seangal wrote: »
    What yea have won is
    1) FF in government for the nest 2 years (if not another 5 after that)
    2) 1.3 billion of cuts
    3) A public sector like the 80ths

    Not really, FF government would have stayed up either way IMO unless the IMF come in and when it comes to election time, they won't have the PS vote or the vote of anyone who has a partner working in it or social welfare vote as they are cutting that too plus they will have already lost a large portion of private sector votes from the recently let go and most that have taken a paycut or lost their job and found new employment since.

    I think its pretty much impossible for FF to get back in next time.
    What ye have lost
    1) Massive public sector reform in the health sector

    Evidence that we would have got that if PS had gotten their 12 days unpaid leave? From what I can see the biggest road block to proper reform is the unions.
    2) Industrial peace as it will be a free for all now when it comes to strike

    Not really, most public sector workers have mortgages and can't afford to strike at least if what they have been saying about how close to being on the breadline they are is true.
    3) billion Will be wasted due to no reform

    Evidence? Going against the unions gives a great chance for reform since they can make whatever changes they want if they already have told the unions to take a hike.
    4) A chance of a new government to get us out of this mess

    see first part, likely the government would have stayed up if the public sector had of got their way.
    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

    yeah natural cuts aren't enough and the biggest problem is some people just don't need to be there. Better off to pay a once off redundancy than pay wages/pension for the lifetime of that person.


  • Options
    #269
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    seangal wrote: »
    What yea have won is
    1) FF in government for the nest 2 years (if not another 5 after that)
    2) 1.3 billion of cuts
    3) A public sector like the 80ths
    What ye have lost
    1) Massive public sector reform in the health sector
    2) Industrial peace as it will be a free for all now when it comes to strike
    3) billion Will be wasted due to no reform
    4) A chance of a new government to get us out of this mess
    5) I would say the 350k public sector will now all use there 7 days sick leave and no question asked
    Well done it was a great win

    first of all we havnt won anything but at last the unions have been stood up to

    there will be an election in the first half of next year

    we need the 1.3billion of cuts to start

    whats the 80ths?

    there will be massive reform it is inevitable

    there will be further industrial action for sure and that also needs to be stood up to

    as i said there will be reform it is inevitable

    and as for your last point taking sick pay out of spite if they do they should be fired on the spot no questions ask take the leave with no good reason and you deserve to lose your job end of story


  • Options
    #270
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    seangal wrote: »
    A public sector on 40 k married with 2 kids would be better off on the dole so you want a goverement to put him on the dole to
    use you head man we have enof on the dole

    the dole is going to be cut and should be cut far more not doing one neccesary thing because there is a problem somewhere else is not an excuse reform should be in every department


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    thebman wrote: »
    I think its pretty much impossible for FF to get back in next time.

    I'd agree
    Evidence that we would have got that if PS had gotten their 12 days unpaid leave? From what I can see the biggest road block to proper reform is the unions.

    The Unions were offering an agreement that consisted of (a) the unpaid leave as bridging measures for 2010 and (b) agreed package of reforms to be implemented next year to result in savings from 2011 onwards

    this has been overlooked in the media frenzy last week which also seemed to miss how the 12 days was to be implemented

    Going against the unions gives a great chance for reform since they can make whatever changes they want if they already have told the unions to take a hike.

    I dont agree

    striking is one thing

    refusing to abide by work practice changes etc is another


Advertisement