Who wrote the budget speech - IBEC

The_Honeybadger

macraignil wrote: »

The 12 days taken off by teachers could have created openings for young teachers. Some of these would be able to sign off the dole for those days and their wage would be lower than that of the more experienced teacher. The teacher near retirement is paid almost double what an inexperienced teacher is paid if they can find work.

Agree with riskymove, that is a completely seperate matter, the object of the 12 day leave proposal was saving money for the government, not providing experience to unemployed teachers.

I sympathise with you, I have a very good friend who is a teacher, her hours were drastically cut this year to the point where she would be better off on the dole, but she continued in her job to gain experience and avoid a gap in her CV. Young teachers have it tough now, permanent positions have been hard to come by at secondary level for a number of years, and we really need to look at the amount of teachers we are training IMO. What is the point in churning out thousands of graduate teachers every year when there are no jobs. Of course with retirements there will undoubtedly be jobs in future but will there be enough for all or even most of the qualified graduates we now have, I seriously doubt it.

The_Honeybadger

macraignil wrote: »

(I was also to have started a care work job and it has emerged that the funding may not be available. There still seems to be restrictions on filling lower paid roles in the health service and the budget announced that existing civil service pensions would not be affected by any cuts. The changes were only to be made to new entrants whos pension payment would now be based on an average and not their final wage. Am I missing something or has the government cut everybody's income except for their own, when they fail to get re-elected and have to struggle by on a mere percentage of their final ministerial wage? Could these high earning pensioners have coped with a cut in their pension? Could this money have been used to get the civil service working properly? )

On the point about pensions, if I was in the health service and they tried to meddle with my pension (cutting it) Id be absolutely furious, doubt the government would have the balls to attempt to do that to existing PS members, doubt if such a move would be legal even, but I am open to correction, whereas new entrants dont have a voice (as they havent even been hired yet). The pension and job security are key factors when people decide to join the PS and it would be totally unfair to change the terms once people are in. The move make the PS a little less attractive for graduates and that is no bad thing really, as we need our brightest people working in the private sector generating the money to pay PS wages and other gov expenses.

K-9

macraignil wrote: »

The 12 days taken off by teachers could have created openings for young teachers. Some of these would be able to sign off the dole for those days and their wage would be lower than that of the more experienced teacher.

Would only be a small saving and would create extra admin. Maybe if it was offered as unpaid employment it might work.

macraignil

I'm not informed on the governments' real plans. I was just under the impression the public service would not want to close for 12 days extra. The school holidays are already very long compared to other countries and I would have taught extra front line staff would have been needed to cover emergency services. If the government was thinking they could just send everybody home next year for an extra 12days without any adjustment to work practices they are very confused. The jobs carried out in the public service are often ones that can not be performed by the private sector. There are some elements of society who would love to hear what twelve days the Guardai are not going to be protecting cash transit, etc. Who feeds prison inmates or hospital patients on the twelve days they take off?

I'm guesing the whole 12 day offer was designed to give a negative image to the unions to undermine them preventing the real wage cuts. I understand ministers pensions in total is not a big figure when compared to total public expenditure. This does not equate to it not being significant. These are the people who are asking everybody in the economy to accept lower wages and a lower standard of living. I am not sure of the exact implications of the budget announcement on existing public service pensions. It however gave me the impression that those already getting their state pension and possibly also those already in a pension scheme and possibly going to get paid this when not elected again were being allowed escape the cuts that reached the most vulnerable in society. This although not a huge figure like the bank bail-out, is a symbol to me of how corruption continues and those who undermined the economy will again not face any consequences.

Riskymove

macraignil wrote: »

the government was thinking they could just send everybody home next year for an extra 12days without any adjustment to work practices they are very confused. The jobs carried out in the public service are often ones that can not be performed by the private sector. There are some elements of society who would love to hear what twelve days the Guardai are not going to be protecting cash transit, etc. Who feeds prison inmates or hospital patients on the twelve days they take off?

It was never planned to be 12 days off next year or indeed "closing" any org for 12 days etc

you are just not getting what the idea was

I understand ministers pensions in total is not a big figure when compared to total public expenditure. This does not equate to it not being significant. .

as i say they did lower income therefore pension will be less

they recently chenged entitlements so that in future Ministers will not get pensions on top of TD salaries (i.e. until they resign/retire)

brianthebard

mickeyk wrote: »

You really think it was workable to give all the PS 12 days off? Take a teacher for example, a substitute would have been hired to replace them on their day off, no gain to taxpayer, same with guards, nurses and doctors etc. The plan was a farce and wouldnt have delivered the saving that the unions promised.

*sigh* That's not how the plan would have worked, at all.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1208/1224260297379.html

I'm going to have to keep linking to this article until people realise that the 12 day proposal was nothing like they imagine or the media suggested it would be.

The_Honeybadger

brianthebard wrote: »

*sigh* That's not how the plan would have worked, at all.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1208/1224260297379.html

I'm going to have to keep linking to this article until people realise that the 12 day proposal was nothing like they imagine or the media suggested it would be.

Keep posting the link, and people will keep seeing it for what it is, union propaganda written by none other than Peter McCloone. Would expect no less from him. Cant see why the things he refers to in the articles cant happen regardless of negotiation, let the PS strike if they dont like it, or better yet quit. Unions will have to realise that they no longer have the gov wrapped around their little fingers, the public have turned against them and naturally they dont like it. I had already read that article, it proves nothing and i dont know what your point is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The_Honeybadger

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Brilliant donegalfella, we've been robbed for years by benchmarking and I for one am delighted to see the unions put in their place. Hate to harp on with the same point but i really don't consider reform and modernisation should be a gift from the unions, it should be a term of employment and any PS worker who doesn't want to participate should be shown the door. This should have been done years ago IMO

brianthebard

mickeyk wrote: »

Keep posting the link, and people will keep seeing it for what it is, union propaganda written by none other than Peter McCloone.

Because it is the union leaders description of the union proposal, that somehow makes it invalid? Your prejudices in this instance are blocking any hope of objective thought. Who else would be better to describe the plans which he helped draw up? What difference does it make to the facts about the proposals?

Riskymove

brianthebard wrote: »

Because it is the union leaders description of the union proposal, that somehow makes it invalid? Your prejudices in this instance are blocking any hope of objective thought. Who else would be better to describe the plans which he helped draw up? What difference does it make to the facts about the proposals?

indeed

in any event...I ahve seen the following

The exercise should be undertaken within the context of the provisions on public service modernisation in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. As stated in that programme the parties are committed to full and ongoing co-operation with change, continued adaptation and flexibility and the delivery of the modernisation programme in the public service set out in Section 1.4 of the Programme, including the provisions on organisational flexibility contained in paragraph 22 thereof. It is accepted that change is a requirement of a modern high- performing public service and is not, in itself, a basis for claims for improvements in pay and conditions.

posted before...but as usual lacks any detail simply pointing and laughing...


...you will all be , no doubt, astounded to know that that commitment was fully abided by....


EDIT: I note you are implying that the details of the currently proposed transformation programme were to be delivered under benchmarking/PPF. This is simply incorrect, a different series of actions was agreed to, which have been implemented.

Welease

brianthebard wrote: »

Because it is the union leaders description of the union proposal, that somehow makes it invalid? Your prejudices in this instance are blocking any hope of objective thought. Who else would be better to describe the plans which he helped draw up? What difference does it make to the facts about the proposals?

There is no detail in that article.. They say saving of 1.3billion, I have seen other quotes of sub 400m savings.. Has there been a published document with the detail on all the proposals and how they would work?

It was a proposal, a proposal that was rejected. The unions need to deal with it,and move on.

If they had modernised as per the previous agreements the likelyhood of the need to do this would have severly diminished, but they didn't, so they have paid the price. If they continue to act like a spoilt child then unfortunately they will continue to hurt those they pretend to protect (low paid PS workers etc.).Continued go slows, threats of strikes, and attempting to hold the country and our childrens future to ransom just increases the will of the people and government to focus further on the PS.

brianthebard

Welease wrote: »

It was a proposal, a proposal that was rejected. The unions need to deal with it,and move on.

Its not the unions who have not moved on, its every second poster on this board yelling that we need reform and that the unions somehow prevented this. How I do not know, I presume the reform proposals were some sort of reverse psychology move?

Welease

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not the unions who have not moved on, its every second poster on this board yelling that we need reform and that the unions somehow prevented this. How I do not know, I presume the reform proposals were some sort of reverse psychology move?

The unions cannot in all honesty throw an 11th hour (to some unworkable) suggestion on the table and somehow claim to be the ones trying to reform the public service. Too little to late.
They were supposed to be reforming since the agreements in 2000, and there has been very little if any reform in a lot of departments.. Any suggestion of sweeping changes has always been met with roadblocks by the PS unions....
That inactivity and posturing has now cost their lower paid members a large chunk of their salaries (even more if you consider they pay their unions to provide that service). The ongoing posturing and go-slow etc agenda, in all likelyhood will just galvanise Lenihan to hit them even harder next time, as the general populace support on this item seems to be swinging away from the PS to the government.

I feel for every one of those low paid workers, and between the unions and the senior management of the PS they have managed to royally screw them, and seem to be content to allow the very same to continue to happen.

brianthebard

Welease wrote: »

The unions cannot in all honesty throw an 11th hour (to some unworkable) suggestion on the table and somehow claim to be the ones trying to reform the public service.

Now you're changing your objections? Because it was 'late' the reform proposals are inadequate? Never mind that it was up to the government when negotiations should happen, or that the government had drawn up plans to cut wages anyways, effectively double crossing the unions, of course the proposals should have been rejected because they were late.

Welease

brianthebard wrote: »

Now you're changing your objections? Because it was 'late' the reform proposals are inadequate? Never mind that it was up to the government when negotiations should happen, or that the government had drawn up plans to cut wages anyways, effectively double crossing the unions, of course the proposals should have been rejected because they were late.

How have I changed my objection? Two posts...

Welease wrote: »

If they had modernised as per the previous agreements the likelyhood of the need to do this would have severly diminished, but they didn't, so they have paid the price. If they continue to act like a spoilt child then unfortunately they will continue to hurt those they pretend to protect (low paid PS workers etc.).Continued go slows, threats of strikes, and attempting to hold the country and our childrens future to ransom just increases the will of the people and government to focus further on the PS.

Welease wrote: »

The unions cannot in all honesty throw an 11th hour (to some unworkable) suggestion on the table and somehow claim to be the ones trying to reform the public service. Too little to late.
They were supposed to be reforming since the agreements in 2000, and there has been very little if any reform in a lot of departments.. Any suggestion of sweeping changes has always been met with roadblocks by the PS unions....
That inactivity and posturing has now cost their lower paid members a large chunk of their salaries (even more if you consider they pay their unions to provide that service). The ongoing posturing and go-slow etc agenda, in all likelyhood will just galvanise Lenihan to hit them even harder next time, as the general populace support on this item seems to be swinging away from the PS to the government.

I don't think I have changed my objection...Enlighten me..

Simple fact, they should have been helping to modernise the PS for the last 5+ years. If they had done so, they would in all likelyhood have been a much reduced need for the current actions.. They didn't..

Your probably right, FF did have plans to cut the wages when the union plan was put on the table.. So what? At some stage somone in the godforsaken country had to try and fix the problem... the unions and PS management had their window of opportunity for years they did nothing, so change was forced on them and it hit the lowest hardest..

RedPlanet

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not the unions who have not moved on, its every second poster on this board yelling that we need reform and that the unions somehow prevented this. How I do not know, I presume the reform proposals were some sort of reverse psychology move?

Because the union proposal(s) is joke.
If it had any substance, why not publish it in detail so the Plain People of Ireland were informed?

If the "reforms" really had merit, why not implement them regardless, in the interests of the greater good?

BTW, have the union heads also taken a paycut?

Flex

mickeyk wrote: »

Brilliant donegalfella, we've been robbed for years by benchmarking and I for one am delighted to see the unions put in their place. Hate to harp on with the same point but i really don't consider reform and modernisation should be a gift from the unions, it should be a term of employment and any PS worker who doesn't want to participate should be shown the door. This should have been done years ago IMO

True. I still cant think of any group of people in the country who are either so insulated from reality, so smug or so stupid that they think that when your employer is facing bankruptcy and has to give you a paycut that the best course of action is to deliberately be as unproductive and inefficient as possible (via work to rule and stating they will refuse any future reform)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The_Honeybadger

brianthebard wrote: »

Because it is the union leaders description of the union proposal, that somehow makes it invalid? Your prejudices in this instance are blocking any hope of objective thought. Who else would be better to describe the plans which he helped draw up? What difference does it make to the facts about the proposals?

One of his proposals was a reduction in numbers through a continuation of the recruitment moratorium, very generous Peter, but thats happening anyway. Other proposals like co-operation between departments etc are just pure common sense ideas, that should already be in place, why are they not? No idea but the notion that we should be somehow grateful that they would cooperate with these simple cost saving measures just shows the arrogance and self importance that is typical of the union leaders. Like I said I read the piece and had already read it before you posted the link, and didnt see anything in it that would change my opinion. If McCloone & Co had worked with the government to develop an efficient and sustainable PS in the last decade then there would be little room (or need) for cuts. Instead they took everything they could get and gave nothing in return. We all know where this has got us, and they were as greedy as any bankers in doing so.

The_Honeybadger

Riskymove wrote: »

...you will all be , no doubt, astounded to know that that commitment was fully abided by....

In what way was it abided by if you dont mind me asking? Thats a very general statement, specifics.....

brianthebard

mickeyk wrote: »

One of his proposals was a reduction in numbers through a continuation of the recruitment moratorium, very generous Peter, but thats happening anyway. Other proposals like co-operation between departments etc are just pure common sense ideas, that should already be in place, why are they not?

Because the public sectors employer is not very good?

Like I said I read the piece and had already read it before you posted the link

If you had read the article previously then why did you not know how the 12 days unpaid leave plan was intended to work? Or were you purposively misrepresenting the plan?

The_Honeybadger

brianthebard wrote: »

If you had read the article previously then why did you not know how the 12 days unpaid leave plan was intended to work? Or were you purposively misrepresenting the plan?

How did i misrepresent the plan, I knew how the plan was supposed to work, did I say something incorrect? Sorry if I did. I understood the plan that does not mean I should agree with it. Many people outside the PS (and many within it) didnt agree with it either.

Riskymove

mickeyk wrote: »

In what way was it abided by if you dont mind me asking? Thats a very general statement, specifics.....

If you read the material qouted, you'll see its a refernce to commit to what was required in the PPF.

If you look that up you'll find what was required in order to fulfill commitments related to Modernisation. These were generally done (I cant speak for all sectors of public service, only ones I am familiar with)

The commitments do not contain things like

And so I know that that as recently as 2006, six years after the above agreement was negotiated, learner drivers in this country had to wait well over a year—18 months in some test centres—for an appointment to take a simple 20-minute driving test. Hardly "challenging standards in service delivery," is it? Even today, the Road Safety Authority rarely answers the phone to people who call to inquire about their appointments. So much for the "strong focus on the needs of recipients

BTW I agree that the driving test waiting time was bad and took a long time to improve

I just dont think you can take specific cases where things did not go smoothly and say that the entire public service did not live up to reform commitments.

Riskymove

RedPlanet wrote: »

Because the union proposal(s) is joke.
If it had any substance, why not publish it in detail so the Plain People of Ireland were informed?

If the "reforms" really had merit, why not implement them regardless, in the interests of the greater good?

BTW, have the union heads also taken a paycut?

If the reforms are such a joke, why do the Government now want them implemented?

RedPlanet

Riskymove wrote: »

If the reforms are such a joke, why do the Government now want them implemented?

You're mincing my words.
I've said the unions proposal was a joke.
As in: they were not of a permanent nature and did not meet the required reduction in reducing the public sector pay bill.
I'm actually referring to the 12 days idea here.

We don't know the details of the public sector reform that the unions were advocating because they have not published that information.
But i suspect it's a load of hot-air that amounts to feck all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Closing for lunch says it all really.

Riskymove

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Driver testing was devolved to a new agency

You've claimed above that the unions' commitment to reform had been "fully abided by." Outside the dream-world of the public sector, "fully abiding by" a commitment doesn't mean making little changes here and there, but letting rampant inefficiencies remain.

Now, I have to go pay my motor tax. Better hurry—I see that that my local Motor Tax Office is only open Mon-Fri 9:15-12:15, and 13:15-15:00. Would it hurt them to remain open for longer than 4 hours and 45 minutes each day, do you think?

you are continuing to ignore my point that the modernisation/reform required by PPF was set out in detail. In return for implementing those reforms the payments were awarded.

You might like that those payments would be dependent on everything in the entire public service being to your satisfaction, but that was not the case.

btw the introduction of motor tax online was seen as a major new modernisation action, perhaps you should try it

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

Driver testing was devolved to a new agency

So? Are the testers who on average take a MONTH off sick every year (if 2008 figures are indicative) not public sector employees? Is the RSA not a public sector agency?

The fact that the waiting lists are growing again as soon as the private sector is removed from the equation shows to all and sundry just how sh!ttily the public service 'serves' the public.