LRC to intervene in public pay dispute

The_Honeybadger

changes wrote: »

They would need to harmonise pay at each grade before they could end increments or else you could have people doing the exact same job on different incomes indefinitely.

e.g. a 28yr old nurse on 32K and a 38yr old nurse on 40K, if you suddenly ended increments both nurses would carry on till retirement with one earning 8K more than the other.

Why not move to a sysyem where performance rather than tenure is rewarded? That way the good staff who are committed and motivated will get the rewards they deserve. I dont think anybody would object to an excellent public servant being paid what they are worth. Well actually some people probably still would but at least the system would be fairer, with those who are not pulling their weight being paid a bit less. This should also ensure that the system becomes more efficient over time.

twowheelsonly

mickeyk wrote: »

Why not move to a sysyem where performance rather than tenure is rewarded? That way the good staff who are committed and motivated will get the rewards they deserve. I dont think anybody would object to an excellent public servant being paid what they are worth. Well actually some people probably still would but at least the system would be fairer, with those who are not pulling their weight being paid a bit less. This should also ensure that the system becomes more efficient over time.

....or causes more bitterness. That system attracts a lot of grief.

You may be a great worker but don't see eye to eye with your supervisor/manager. And he decides whether you get paid more or not.
You're 15 years in your Private sector job, doing a fine job, and your bosses son comes in and is earning more than you after 6 months because he's 'really good' at his job. Are you happy??

There's a couple of old sayings that we're all familiar with - "You can't buy experience" and "You can't put an old head on young shoulders".
Think of these when you think of many of our more prominent Public Service workers, Gardai, Nurses, Prison Officers and Firemen. Now tell them that they're going to be getting paid less than the new kid on the block that's at the same grade as them.

rashers10

mickeyk wrote: »

Why not move to a sysyem where performance rather than tenure is rewarded? That way the good staff who are committed and motivated will get the rewards they deserve. I dont think anybody would object to an excellent public servant being paid what they are worth. Well actually some people probably still would but at least the system would be fairer, with those who are not pulling their weight being paid a bit less. This should also ensure that the system becomes more efficient over time.

Because it would end up like the 'performance' bonus system that the senior Public Servants get... i.e. Everyone get's the full bonus every year

ixoy

rashers10 wrote: »

Because it would end up like the 'performance' bonus system that the senior Public Servants get... i.e. Everyone get's the full bonus every year

It wouldn't have to. Most private sectors apply a bell-curve model to promotions. It's not ideal and can never cater for those situations where personalities clash, but it would at least push it towards rewarding ability rather than years. Years certainly does not always equate with ability from my experience and it shouldn't be treated as such.

The_Honeybadger

twowheelsonly wrote: »

....or causes more bitterness. That system attracts a lot of grief.

You may be a great worker but don't see eye to eye with your supervisor/manager. And he decides whether you get paid more or not.
You're 15 years in your Private sector job, doing a fine job, and your bosses son comes in and is earning more than you after 6 months because he's 'really good' at his job. Are you happy??

There's a couple of old sayings that we're all familiar with - "You can't buy experience" and "You can't put an old head on young shoulders".
Think of these when you think of many of our more prominent Public Service workers, Gardai, Nurses, Prison Officers and Firemen. Now tell them that they're going to be getting paid less than the new kid on the block that's at the same grade as them.

Sorry but thats a pretty weak argument against it. Those that are there longer would still be getting more as they'd have more reviews under their belt and more opportunities to increase their pay. Leaving a clearly inefficient system in place because somebody might not get on with their boss is just daft. That sort of thing will go on no matter what system is in place.

changes

rashers10 wrote: »

Because it would end up like the 'performance' bonus system that the senior Public Servants get... i.e. Everyone get's the full bonus every year

Yeah thats what would prob happen. Supervisors and managers would not want to refuse increments or bonuses to staff who they know are almost unsackable and would be stuck with for years.

That staff member could become very awkward and not genuinely fear getting the sack.

Can you imagine the change in the PS/CS if people were disiplined or sacked for incompetence, slacking, non attendance or otherwise neglecting their duties. Then would performance related pay might work.

Idbatterim

Brianthebeard can I ask what area you work in? I have a feeling I already know the anwser!

twowheelsonly

mickeyk wrote: »

Sorry but thats a pretty weak argument against it. Those that are there longer would still be getting more as they'd have more reviews under their belt and more opportunities to increase their pay. Leaving a clearly inefficient system in place because somebody might not get on with their boss is just daft. That sort of thing will go on no matter what system is in place.

Regarding the 'Clearly inefficient' increments system that is currently in place, I find that 95%+ of the Public Servants that I come across do their job to the best of their ability with regard to their experience. Of course a few will slip through the net, as they will with any system.
In fact, the PMDS (Performance related pay/increment system) has been rolled out across most of the Public Service by now and is generally seen as a complete and utter waste of time, money and effort. If your direct supervisor denies you your increment are you seriously going to accept that when you have 2 lines of appeal open to you before you take it to the High Court? Chances are that you'll win it and that just serves to undermine your supervisor leading to more bitterness. Don't tell me that it doesn't happen, because it does.

The_Honeybadger

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Regarding the 'Clearly inefficient' increments system that is currently in place, I find that 95%+ of the Public Servants that I come across do their job to the best of their ability with regard to their experience. Of course a few will slip through the net, as they will with any system.
In fact, the PMDS (Performance related pay/increment system) has been rolled out across most of the Public Service by now and is generally seen as a complete and utter waste of time, money and effort. If your direct supervisor denies you your increment are you seriously going to accept that when you have 2 lines of appeal open to you before you take it to the High Court? Chances are that you'll win it and that just serves to undermine your supervisor leading to more bitterness. Don't tell me that it doesn't happen, because it does.

If that is whats happening then it is a waste of time. I have worked in jobs where performance review was taken seriously and your score actually mattered and that is where I'm coming from, the high court was not an option, if you disagreed with your score you get on with it and try to improve next time. Performance appraisal is a basic HR function in any successful company, but no, of course it couldn't possible work in our public service, god forbid it might highlight somebody that isn't pulling their weight, I guess this further highlights the difference between public and private workers, public can do what they like as they can't be sacked and have their unions behind them. You are probably one of the only people I know that regards our public service as efficient, even jack o connor concedes that there is room for major improvement and a "transformation" of the public service could save billions over time, do you know something he doesn't.

theghost

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Totally untrue.

If you think that an employer can cover every conceivable work situation with a contract, well you are not in the real world my friend.

Nobody could get anything done using that kind of warped philosophy.

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary. The vast majority of employees will perform functions which are not stipulated in their contract, or do unpaid overtime, as long as the employer keeps his side of the bargain and pays the agreed wage. If you cut the employees' wages - without negotiation at the end of a prolonged campaign vilifying those employees, whilst expecting them to continue doing other people's jobs as well as their own - what else can you expect but a work to rule?

FlutterinBantam

theghost wrote: »

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary.

Of course, normal procedure.

theghost wrote: »

The vast majority of employees will perform functions which are not stipulated in their contract, or do unpaid overtime, as long as the employer keeps his side of the bargain and pays the agreed wage.

Of course, normal procedure

theghost wrote: »

If you cut the employees' wages - without negotiation at the end of a prolonged campaign vilifying those employees, whilst expecting them to continue doing other people's jobs as well as their own - what else can you expect but a work to rule?

Here's where the spin comes in. If the concern is not earning enough money to comply with conditions, there are a number of options:

1.. Redundancy

2.. Cost reduction

3.. Higher productivity...reduced staff costs/pension/ conditions

4.. Increased taxes.

5.. Borrow at exorbitant rates

John Q Taxpayer cannot , I say again sustain current status of PS.

Soooo what do you want to do??

galway2007

i think you know what thay are going to do
They will increase tax
They are going to put the PRSI and the income levy in to a new format
Then every worker will pay that on all of there income
Water charge will raise 1 billion so they will be able to reduce the money required for local goverement
property tax will raise another billion
and on and on they will go with tax

dvpower

theghost wrote: »

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary. The vast majority of employees will perform functions which are not stipulated in their contract, or do unpaid overtime, as long as the employer keeps his side of the bargain and pays the agreed wage. If you cut the employees' wages - without negotiation at the end of a prolonged campaign vilifying those employees, whilst expecting them to continue doing other people's jobs as well as their own - what else can you expect but a work to rule?

You could expect an employee to look at the reality of the situation and do whatever is in their best interest.
In many small and medium companies throughout the country, people are willingly taking pay cuts because they know that if their company's cost base is not reduced they run a real risk of being made redundant.

Ireland's deficit is currently runnning at about €20bn, so it is clear that something has to give on public sector pay. So, while public sector workers may be angry, they need to face reality. They have zero chance of winning this dispute and the longer they fight it and refuse to engage on reform, the greater the chance that further pay cuts will need to be imposed again next year.

ardmacha

You are probably one of the only people I know that regards our public service as efficient,

The concept of the "public service" as efficient or inefficient is of no great help. Just as saying that Irish business is uncompetitive is of limited use, some of it is and some of it isn't. Making aggregate statements only takes you so far, yet this forum seems to extend these over hundreds of posts.

The_Honeybadger

ardmacha wrote: »

The concept of the "public service" as efficient or inefficient is of no great help. Just as saying that Irish business is uncompetitive is of limited use, some of it is and some of it isn't. Making aggregate statements only takes you so far, yet this forum seems to extend these over hundreds of posts.

An awful lot of what is posted on these forums is of no great help TBH, and I didn't think it was meant to be. Its a discussion forum, where people put forward their views on certain issues. Not really sure what you are trying to say with that post.

hmmm

theghost wrote: »

The employee was hired to do a job which was described in his/her contract at an agreed salary.

I think most people find this concept of "work to rule" as patently ridiculous and it makes the unions and their members look equally ridiculous. Employment contracts by their nature do not specify trivialities such as whether or not the employee is supposed to use a phone, use a computer or remember to breath when doing their job. Working to rule is a dishonourable tactic that tries to have the best of both worlds - industrial action with no loss of pay.