Are some Private Sector workers using their colleagues misfortune....

P. Breathnach

dearg lady wrote: »

In fairness, as far as I remember(correct me if I'm wrong) benchmarking carried out previously compared individual positions with a similiar position in the private sector. What's been advocated often on here is blanket cuts, which is quite unfair. There are sections within public sector I would consider underpaid, and others overpaid.

Nothing wrong with your memory. I agree with you that there is a case for a more sophisticated approach that is premised on the idea that some are less overpaid than others. That system is benchmarking, and it should be done again.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

... They could have hit the higher earners a little harder to make up for the shortfall ...

The public service premium is actually greater at the lower grades than at the higher ones. You are advocating an approach that is based on a social view rather than an economic view. Should we pay people what we think they need to sustain a particular standard of living, or should we pay them what the job is worth?

In my opinion, pay should be based on what a job is worth. I do want government to have a good social policy, but that should be delivered through taxation and welfare policy, not through public sector pay rates.

Dublin_Gunner

Liam79 wrote: »

Mother of God :rolleyes: your solution to fixing the economy is to take people making barely 30k and sack them....thus increasing the Social Welfare lines by prob around 90,000 extra people, and subsequently pay them all the welfare and benefits they will then qualify for...

So you want to basically sack loads of low earners in the PS

Let them eat cake...........

I assume you have a decent grasp of the English language and can read my post and realise its perfectly just.

And TBH - I'd rather pay 90,000 people 200 a week than 500 a week for sitting on their arse. And if there are 90,000 people sitting on their arse performing redundant jobs - well then that only makes my point more valid.

And I never said low earners should be sacked, I said redundant jobs should be made redundant, which will obviously include a certain amount of the low earners. Huge difference, but you chose to take that out of context to make your completely invalid point.

What do you want - pay people for the sake of paying them, while everyone else pays the price? I don't effing think so.

Making redundant jobs redundant is what its all about. Its funny to see a post like this, when Public Sector workers have been screaming for parity with Private sector.

Here's parity for you - in the private sector, when someone is doing a redundant job, it gets made redundant. Its called running a business efficiently.

The public service premium is actually greater at the lower grades than at the higher ones. You are advocating an approach that is based on a social view rather than an economic view. Should we pay people what we think they need to sustain a particular standard of living, or should we pay them what the job is worth?

In my opinion, pay should be based on what a job is worth. I do want government to have a good social policy, but that should be delivered through taxation and welfare policy, not through public sector pay rates.

Its a perfectly acceptable economic view actually - if you think about it.

You could cut the low earners salary's - their spending power is significantly reduced. You cut higher earners a little more - spending power isn't reduced that much.

This way, you keep both sets with reasonable spending power, and as such they spend money which in turn goes back into the economy (income tax and PRSI isnt the only income the government have).

This in turn means there should be virtually no reduction in VAT income, and as a knock on effect, as they are spending more (than if their salary's were reduced), there are other jobs which will then not go, thus providing more income tax to the government.

If you cut the low earners too much, their spending power decreases to a point where in other area's of industry (typically retail / leisure) there is a knock on effect of more job cuts.

It makes perfect economic sense, as well as political sense, as it typically these types of cuts that cause outrage.

And while I agree about your point on Public Sector pay rates - this brings me back to my original post. The Public Sector costs too much, and I do agree in paying people what a job is worth - for those that are actually doing a required job, and doing it well. Taxation and welfare policy is all well and good - not when that has to be stunted by the fact we pay WAY too much to the Public Sector.

You may think I seem contradictory (advocating redundancies in the same breath as stating lower earners should not have a wage cut) but its merely tackling the 1 problem from multiple angles.

Liam79

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I assume you have a decent grasp of the English language and can read my post and realise its perfectly just.

And TBH - I'd rather pay 90,000 people 200 a week than 500 a week for sitting on their arse. And if there are 90,000 people sitting on their arse performing redundant jobs - well then that only makes my point more valid.

And I never said low earners should be sacked, I said redundant jobs should be made redundant, which will obviously include a certain amount of the low earners. Huge difference, but you chose to take that out of context to make your completely invalid point.

What do you want - pay people for the sake of paying them, while everyone else pays the price? I don't effing think so.

Making redundant jobs redundant is what its all about. Its funny to see a post like this, when Public Sector workers have been screaming for parity with Private sector.

Here's parity for you - in the private sector, when someone is doing a redundant job, it gets made redundant. Its called running a business efficiently.

Tell me so, what are all these "redundant" jobs people on the 22-35k mark are making in the PS?

You havent the first clue what your talking about.....not a clue. Its at the other end, the top end, where you have people making 100k+ with nothing to do, its certainly not at the lower end.
Bless you.

amacachi

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I wasn't being defensive, I just wanted to clarify in case someone else saw your comment and assumed that was all I was saying!

But back to my post, I was also implying that a lot of the jobs should be made redundant - which would inevitably be a lot of sub 30k earners (numerous clerical staff doing similar jobs when the work isn't there to justify them).

The fact is, and the point of my whole post is, making sweeping cuts is a very poor way of streamlining the Public Sector, and the pay role. It needs to go a LOT further than that.

I don't want to go into details on anyone's work but you're dead right I have to admit. Unfortunately it would take a huge change in structure for many cuts to be paid. One guy I know has one solid day of work every fortnight. He's said himself there'll be days he has to make up work for himself. But what he does is very necessary work and no-one else is going to do it.
It's funny actually, in my local dole office they introduced a pilot scheme to speed up applications. It worked but there was talk of strikes because some of the workers involved wanted a pay increase. They weren't doing extra work, just different work.
Also can't understand the "it's better paying them 500 a week than having them on the dole." As you said, if they're doing nothing either way then it isn't.
Someone on another thread suggested the Civil Service should do a work to rule instead of striking which I just found hilarious since they've done nothing else for the last God knows how many years.

Dublin_Gunner

Liam79 wrote: »

Tell me so, what are all these "redundant" jobs people on the 22-35k mark are making in the PS?

You havent the first clue what your talking about.....not a clue. Its at the other end, the top end, where you have people making 100k+ with nothing to do, its certainly not at the lower end.
Bless you.

My goodness you're either wearing blinkers, or incapable of reading an entire post. I'm not going to explain my post for a third time to you.

You're not a low earning public sector worker doing sweet eff all are you? Not trying to be smart, but your responses would suggest that.

I never said the cuts are to be made only at the lower end.

And I happen to know a LOT of Public Sector workers (friends / family) so yes, I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

frman

Liam79 wrote: »

Tell me so, what are all these "redundant" jobs people on the 22-35k mark are making in the PS?

You havent the first clue what your talking about.....not a clue. Its at the other end, the top end, where you have people making 100k+ with nothing to do, its certainly not at the lower end.
Bless you.

All but Library Assistants.

Liam79

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

My goodness you're either wearing blinkers, or incapable of reading an entire post. I'm not going to explain my post for a third time to you.

I never said the cuts are to be made only at the lower end.

And I happen to know a LOT of Public Sector workers (friends / family) so yes, I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Direct Quote from you

"But back to my post, I was also implying that a lot of the jobs should be made redundant - which would inevitably be a lot of sub 30k earners (numerous clerical staff doing similar jobs when the work isn't there to justify them)."

Ignorance of the reality of what actually goes on in the PS

Riskymove

Liam79 wrote: »

You havent the first clue what your talking about.....not a clue. Its at the other end, the top end, where you have people making 100k+ with nothing to do, its certainly not at the lower end.
Bless you.

Liam

in all fairness thats a load of rubbish

there are issues with people at all levels

This sort of stuff is just further attempts to divide people

Liam79

frman wrote: »

All but Library Assistants.

way to individualise and put down particular low paid workers Frman

Well done!

Dublin_Gunner

Liam79 wrote: »

Direct Quote from you

"But back to my post, I was also implying that a lot of the jobs should be made redundant - which would inevitably be a lot of sub 30k earners (numerous clerical staff doing similar jobs when the work isn't there to justify them)."

Ignorance of the reality of what actually goes on in the PS

Yes that is a direct quote from me. Do you not understand it?

It states that it would inevitably include a lot of sub 30k earners. Not that only sub 30k earners should be made redundant.
Seriously, you're beginning to look a little silly now.

You don't actually understand what the word 'redundant' means, do you?

murphaph

Liam, there are countless people in 25-35k jobs in the HSE that just kept their (now duplicate) jobs from the time of the Health Boards. The HSE was supposed to streamline all this and failed completely, just creating a dept. of Health that does nothing instead. I personally know IT people in one of the HSE regions who told me they're job is replicated across the whole country in every HSE region, despite the work being possible to do by one person. It's bullsh!t to suggest the public sector couldn't do with streamlining. You are part of the problem if that is your belief.

Liam79

Riskymove wrote: »

Liam

in all fairness thats a load of rubbish

there are issues with people at all levels

This sort of stuff is just further attempts to divide people

look, i realise my opinions are as popular as a bag of Sugary chips in here, but there is only so much "public servant baaaad, private sector good" that I can listen to without reaction. And for someone I have a lot of time for (frman) to come out with the absolute BS that he just has....look, fair enough I am outnumbered, and fighting a losing battle here. Believe what ye will so lads. But dont forget this, everyone here has an agenda....everyone.

I will leave it now. Wont come back.

Well done on rejoicing in low paid PS workers misery folks.

Well done.

frman

Liam79 wrote: »

way to individualise and put down particular low paid workers Frman

Well done!

At the start of the day Liam, some ps workers had my sympathy for having to take cuts.

You have driven that out of me.

amacachi

Liam79 wrote: »

look, i realise my opinions are as popular as a bag of Sugary chips in here, but there is only so much "public servant baaaad, private sector good" that I can listen to without reaction. And for someone I have a lot of time for (frman) to come out with the absolute BS that he just has....look, fair enough I am outnumbered, and fighting a losing battle here. Believe what ye will so lads. But dont forget this, everyone here has an agenda....everyone.

I will leave it now. Wont come back.

Well done on rejoicing in low paid PS workers misery folks.

Well done.

No-one is saying that, of course there's waste in the public sector but that costs businesses and customers money, not our taxes.


No-one is rejoicing in anyone's ****ing misery. If we could all have 100k a year at current price levels then fantastic, but we can't. It's not realistic and when will people realise the money just isn't there!?

Dublin_Gunner

Liam79 wrote: »

look, i realise my opinions are as popular as a bag of Sugary chips in here, but there is only so much "public servant baaaad, private sector good" that I can listen to without reaction. And for someone I have a lot of time for (frman) to come out with the absolute BS that he just has....look, fair enough I am outnumbered, and fighting a losing battle here. Believe what ye will so lads. But dont forget this, everyone here has an agenda....everyone.

I will leave it now. Wont come back.

Well done on rejoicing in low paid PS workers misery folks.

Well done.

Funny you should say that when my original post outlined measures to protect low earners in the public sector lol

Redundant jobs should be made redundant, low earners, high earners, middle earners. It doesn't matter. Keep the good staff, get rid of the dead wood.

I think the only one here with an agenda is yourself, as you seem to be merely picking a few words out of my posts, and coming up with an alternative narrative (which also happens to be contrary to anything I've said). You're arguing for the sake of it.

Rob67

My wife is a Public Sector, she works as a Home Help for the HSE (more formally, the Eastern Community Works).

Last August, she got a phone call from her Area Manager telling her that her hours were being cut, with no replacement work available.

She operates a 'Zero hour contract', this means if a client is on holidays, is in hospital or is for any other reason not in their home, my wife won't get paid.

As it stands today, she is going to lose 5% of her pay from January onwards, which means that she will be earning less, per week, than if she were receiving dole payments. She doesn't get mileage allowances or subsistence allowances or any other allowance as her work is centred around where we live.

Yes, you can say that she chose to work there (and you probably will), however, she enjoys her job as she is a carer by nature and loves helping those most vulnerable members of society, the elderly and seriously ill.

But now she is feeling that no matter what, she is being targeted just for being a Public Sector worker and that all the time and effort she has put in to helping others has been for nothing.

It's not all rosy in the Public Sector garden.

Sleepy

Rob67, I'm honestly not trying to be smart or sarcastic here.

Has your wife looked for similar work in the private sector? I've seen plenty of carer positions advertised while job-hunting myself over the past 3 months.

spareman

I just can't get over the small minds of certain people, Can people in the private sector not see that if public sector or social welfare pay is cut, it will affect spending levels and cause more problems for the private sector.

How much do the government spend on spin doctors?

Seriously people we need to stand together here.

RedPlanet

Rob67 wrote: »

It's not all rosy in the Public Sector garden.

You are right, it is not all rosy in the PS.
But, has she handed in her notice? (no)
Anyway, most of the pain in this budget could have been avoided if the PS had reformed years ago.

I'd wager that if they cut the dead-wood out of the PS dept by dept we'd have a model PS known for the efficiency of it's staff.
Instead we have reality.
The government is not able to cut out the dead wood, the unions aren't doing it and neither are PS workers themselves.
Therefore it's cuts across the board.

Rob67

Sleepy wrote: »

Rob67, I'm honestly not trying to be smart or sarcastic here.

Has your wife looked for similar work in the private sector? I've seen plenty of carer positions advertised while job-hunting myself over the past 3 months.

Yep, on average she keeps being told: Overqualified.

Rob67

RedPlanet wrote: »

You are right, it is not all rosy in the PS.
But, has she handed in her notice? (no)
Anyway, most of the pain in this budget could have been avoided if the PS had reformed years ago.

She is considering it, but one of her clients is not going to be around for much longer and she doesn't want to leave her without coverage.

I agree, I'm a former soldier and we went through major reformation in the late 90's, it was painful but in the end very much worth it.

I'd wager that if they cut the dead-wood out of the PS dept by dept we'd have a model PS known for the efficiency of it's staff.
Instead we have reality.
The government is not able to cut out the dead wood, the unions aren't doing it and neither are PS workers themselves.
Therefore it's cuts across the board.

You won't get all of it out and, unfortunately, many good people could go if the cuts are too deep or in the wrong sectors.

amcalester

No one likes taking a paycut but can someone in the PS explain to me why you feel you shouldn't have taken a cut?

The company you work for (Ireland Inc) can't afford to pay all the wages, so that leaves 2 options.

1) Redundencies, which will never happen

2) Pay cuts.

Thats how business' work and if this time next year Ireland Inc still cant afford to pay all the wages then further cuts will be needed.
Its crap but it seems like commen sense to me.

At first I thought all the PS bashing was unfounded but after reading some of the comments made by PS workers on this site and seeing the sense of entitlement they have I've lost all sympathy for you.

And its not about "I got nothing in the Tiger years" Yes you did you got a job, what more did you want. Now the company you work for is in trouble and needs to cut back its expenditure.
Where does most of the expendidture go? PS wages, so what should be cut? PS wages.

gent9662

I think it should be simply put.

When times were good the private sector was happy in their bed and the public sector equally so. We all strived for a better lifestyle and material possessions.

I think we were all reckless and foolish with money at some stage. Unfortunately the good times have come to an end, obviously! The private sector has seen massive redundancies and cuts.

Personally, I have been hit significantly as a member of the private sector with a 25% pay cut and so has my wife now as a member of the public sector (paramedic).

Some of us private sector workers are feeling the pain. Bad and all the cuts were my wife can see the need for it. She has seen first hand the savage cuts and reduced working hours I have endured. She is a front line worker who sees very few allowances (unlike the Gardai, Teachers) as a person who in dangers her life while carrying out her duties given she gets overtime paid for nights and a tax free allowance for her uniform, but that's it.

What I'm getting at is, the majority of the public sector are happy to do very little and then winge about the cuts they have to take, makes me sick!

gent9662

The next things the government should do in order to reform the economy is cut:

1. Ridiculous Garda allowances and instant entitlements (e.g rent allowance for all members, even the commissioner)

2. Hospital Consultants wages, (e.g Government should heavily tax their private salaries they get for private patients) cut the children's allowance to them they earn circa 300-500k a year

3. Lecturers pay (same as above)

4. Trim the waister's from the public service (create a skilled pool of flexible clerical officers and civil servants)

5. Break the back of the unions and dump the idea of social partnership once and for all.

6. Remove themselves from power and let a new bunch of politicians in for a while.

The_Honeybadger

@ OP I can only speak for myself but my income is genuinely down 40% because I lost a very good job, I got another one (luckily) that pays 40% less, not only this but my previous job came with a fully expensed car and expenses so if you factor that in Im even further down. Hand on my heart that is my situation and i would hope nobody is using cases like mine to bash the PS or any other group. It is natural for anybody in my position to resent people with permanent watertight positions b*tching and moaning about small cuts to their pay. Luckily I had not bought a house (although I had approval in 2007-08) and I thank my lucky stars every day that I dont have a negative equity mortgage, thats a real killer for people.

6ix

This had been said before, but I hate how this is turning into an equality discussion (who is taking a bigger cut PS vs PS).

Just my own personal situation (Private Sector) -

Our company was in a tough financial situation, so they laid off about 8-10% of the workforce. There were paycuts from 5%-25% depending on Salary and obviously there was no Christmas bonus either this year or last year.

Similarly the Government is in huge trouble - cuts have to be made -it should have nothing to do with whether or not the Private Sector has taken cuts, it's a necessary measure to maintain the stability of the country, same as my company took necessary measures to keep itself stable.

What's so hard to understand?

RobbieTheRobber

amcalester wrote: »

The company you work for (Ireland Inc) can't afford to pay all the wages, so that leaves 2 options.

A government is not a company!


IF we were to look at a nation as a company we would have to look at everyone citizen of the state is a part owner of the company, lets use your example Ireland.inc when this fictitous company is in debt all its owners are responsible. Some of those owners also work for the company as well as own an equal share, they are no more or less responsible for Ireland.incs debts

RobbieTheRobber

dclane wrote: »

The next things the government should do in order to reform the economy is cut:

1. Ridiculous Garda allowances and instant entitlements (e.g rent allowance for all members, even the commissioner)

2. Hospital Consultants wages, (e.g Government should heavily tax their private salaries they get for private patients) cut the children's allowance to them they earn circa 300-500k a year

3. Lecturers pay (same as above)

4. Trim the waister's from the public service (create a skilled pool of flexible clerical officers and civil servants)

5. Break the back of the unions and dump the idea of social partnership once and for all.

6. Remove themselves from power and let a new bunch of politicians in for a while.

The first thing they should do is increase their lower than european average income tax rate. That is the first thing

RobbieTheRobber

dclane wrote: »

What I'm getting at is, the majority of the public sector are happy to do very little and then winge about the cuts they have to take, makes me sick!

It is the responsiblity of the elected officials to run the public service, they have failed if you think it is inefficent not individual people from the public service.

muboop1

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

It is the responsiblity of the elected officials to run the public service, they have failed if you think it is inefficent not individual people from the public service.

It's best you ignore dclane. If you go through his post he repeatedly shows he has a chip on his shoulder and has no objective view, with vast majority of point he makes unfounded or little evidence.

They are interesting to read though!