Public Sector Reforms

ardmacha

didnt they promise us reforms in exchange for benchmarking?

whatever happened to those reforms

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us with even one specific example of something promised under benchmarking and not delivered where a genuine attempt was made to implement it.

ei.sdraob

doc_17 wrote: »

benchmarking is reversed due to income/pension levies and pay cuts.

ahahahahahaha :rolleyes: yeh sure

are there figures to confirm this?


because CSO data and stats disagree with you

lets see >
type of employment: Public Sector (Ex Health)
date range: 1988Q1 > 2009Q3



statistic 1: Public sector average earnings index (base march 1988=100)




statistic 2: Public sector weekly earnings (euro)





the data can be download from CSO.ie by anyone and verified

a picture speaks for itself

ardmacha

a picture speaks for itself

But sometimes it doesn't say anything useful.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what it means?

Firetrap

Is the pension levy taken into account with those graphs? That was/is a pay cut that's not called a pay cut. Between that and the newly cut pay scales, I'd say that graph's about to take a nosedive.

View

Idbatterim wrote: »

If Labour come looking for a vote from me they will be greeted with 2 words and then told to get off my property!

Let me guess, you'll vote for a Government party because an Opposition party caused the financial mess we're in?

The 2 words wouldn't happen to be "Fianna Fail" by any chance?

View

Firetrap wrote: »

Is the pension levy taken into account with those graphs? That was/is a pay cut that's not called a pay cut. Between that and the newly cut pay scales, I'd say that graph's about to take a nosedive.

The pension levy is a levy to pay for the public sector pension. If the public sector don't want to pay for their pensions, tell the Government. I am sure they'd be more than happy to scrap the public sector pension scheme and let the public servants go look for an equivalent pension scheme from a commerical pensions provider.

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

But sometimes it doesn't say anything useful.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what it means?

i did in the post

what do you think it means? the data is all there on CSO

whats your take on it??

Tragedy

View wrote: »

The pension levy is a levy to pay for the public sector pension. If the public sector don't want to pay for their pensions, tell the Government. I am sure they'd be more than happy to scrap the public sector pension scheme and let the public servants go look for an equivalent pension scheme from a commerical pensions provider.

You don't have a choice in the public sector, you have to pay the pension and have no way out of it.

ParkRunner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ahahahahahaha :rolleyes: yeh sure

are there figures to confirm this?


because CSO data and stats disagree with you

lets see >
type of employment: Public Sector (Ex Health)
date range: 1988Q1 > 2009Q3



statistic 1: Public sector average earnings index (base march 1988=100)




statistic 2: Public sector weekly earnings (euro)





the data can be download from CSO.ie by anyone and verified

a picture speaks for itself

These graphs do not take into account the increased healthy levy, income levy, the pension levy (or any pension contributions) and the recent paycuts, so if you could get a graph that shows the net pay it would reflect the reality of public sector pay today it would be a lot more useful if we are going to have a debate about it.

gandalf

Tragedy wrote: »

In my hospital, very little has been done to computerise/streamline decades old systems.

A couple of examples;

The filing room(where they keep all charts) has approx ~200,000 paper charts, all of which are kept in an archaic numerical filing system which makes actually getting them a nightmare.

Goods inwards: All delivery dockets and internal deliveries are done by paper

Purchasing: All in hospital requisitions are done on paper requisition sheets, which have to be filed away under one system, and when delivered, filed away under another system.

IT: Has one project manager, 3 network admins, one network admin manager, three helpdesk staff, one helpdesk supervisor, a deputy it manager and an it manager.

Could easily be brought down to one network admin, three helpdesk staff and one IT manager cum project manager.

Well if the Air Controllers are anything to go by computerising those functions will have the union looking for pay increases because they are being faced with change. Something that to us workers in the private sector is laughable at best.

Anything that makes the work of PS more efficient should be implemented without the fear of being held to ransom by the unions.

The_Honeybadger

EF wrote: »

These graphs do not take into account the increased healthy levy, income levy, the pension levy (or any pension contributions) and the recent paycuts, so if you could get a graph that shows the net pay it would reflect the reality of public sector pay today it would be a lot more useful if we are going to have a debate about it.

Personally I wouldn't include the income and health levies as they effected private sector people who had no part in benchmarking as well, and are not ring fenced public sector cuts. I think the question is have the recent cuts wiped out the benefits of benchmarking? The graphs above do not illustrate the answer to this can anybody clarify? Inflation and cost of living would have to be taken into account of course.

woodseb

EF wrote: »

These graphs do not take into account the increased healthy levy, income levy, the pension levy (or any pension contributions) and the recent paycuts, so if you could get a graph that shows the net pay it would reflect the reality of public sector pay today it would be a lot more useful if we are going to have a debate about it.

income levy and health levy apply to everyone so don't see the point in including that - as for the pension levy, including it would distort the figures compared to the private sector who already have to make much much larger voluntary deductions to gain an anyway decent pension........to that end a public vs private graph of post-retirement income would be interesting

though granted, i would like to see that graph plotted against the private sector to take into account 4Q09 and the recents cuts....

i suppose no graph would ever be completely authorative though, for example the private sector graph would be skewed by only surveying those who still have a job

Nidot

woodseb wrote: »

income levy and health levy apply to everyone so don't see the point in including that - as for the pension levy, including it would distort the figures compared to the private sector who already have to make much much larger voluntary deductions to gain an anyway decent pension........to that end a public vs private graph of post-retirement income would be interesting

though granted, i would like to see that graph plotted against the private sector to take into account 4Q09 and the recents cuts....

i suppose no graph would ever be completely authorative though, for example the private sector graph would be skewed by only surveying those who still have a job

Very informed response. Takes into account the differences between employment contracts between the two employment sectors.

Unfortunately I don't feel it would be possibe to independently evaluate the pay levels of both sectors.

CityCentreMan

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us with even one specific example of something promised under benchmarking and not delivered where a genuine attempt was made to implement it.

Good point!

Benchmarking never promised anything and most people recognised it for what it was - a fudge designed to increase PS Wages & appease the PS Unions in order maintain the idyll of "Social Partnership".

Having pulled of such feats in the past is it any wonder the PS Unions thought they could get away with the "12 Days for Christmas".

ei.sdraob

mickeyk wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't include the income and health levies as they effected private sector people who had no part in benchmarking as well, and are not ring fenced public sector cuts. I think the question is have the recent cuts wiped out the benefits of benchmarking? The graphs above do not illustrate the answer to this can anybody clarify? Inflation and cost of living would have to be taken into account of course.

almost 3 fold increase in earnings is shown in CSO data over 2 decades

the index is inflation adjusted thats growth above inflation

and what do you think drives the cost of living? yep higher wages and welfare create more inflation

Sleepy

sodaev wrote: »

Some good common sense stuff there but from the IT perspective you'd have to wonder what the Local Government Computer Services Board is there for if not to co-ordinate and oversee these types of thing.

That's what they're supposed to do alright and in fairness they do facilitate getting different authorities together to work on projects rather than each authority going their own way (though some authorities have remained outside the influence of the LGCSB since it's inception).

There's a few problems though: the LGCSB generally couldn't project manage their way out of Irelands largest lingerie department, they're technically of quite a poor standard and in reality they were never set up on a large enough scale to replace the local IT departments. I can't see the need for more than one or two people running all IT in any LA (i.e. guys to keep the network going, physically connect hardware etc. with most functions being easily centralised.

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

because CSO data and stats disagree with you[/URL]


the data can be download from CSO.ie by anyone and verified

Unfortunately you are mis-interpeting the data

that data is about public service earnings. It includes more than benchmarking increases.

Benchmarking provided a certain increase to most posts but varied greatly..I think the average was 8%....so benchmarking increases have now been clawed back for most.



in relation to the "reform" promised in return for benchmarking, it has been pointed out many times that all the specific reforms required under benchmarking were implemented but this is ignored by many posters

no-one signed up to "all reforms til the end of time", just a specific set of them


a further issue is that "reform" means different things to different people, e.g. many IT issues have been raised here of ways of modernizing work practices and/or reducing costs

there is also the need to change the whole management structure/ethos in order to introduce a proper, accountable, performance system for staff, including a proper system of staff disciplining, up to and including being fired.

ei.sdraob

woodseb wrote: »

income levy and health levy apply to everyone so don't see the point in including that - as for the pension levy, including it would distort the figures compared to the private sector who already have to make much much larger voluntary deductions to gain an anyway decent pension........to that end a public vs private graph of post-retirement income would be interesting

though granted, i would like to see that graph plotted against the private sector to take into account 4Q09 and the recents cuts....

i suppose no graph would ever be completely authorative though, for example the private sector graph would be skewed by only surveying those who still have a job

there is a huge amount of data and stats on CSO website about employment public and private, its actually a very interesting and useful stats

it would be great if people started backing up their opinions with references

i have clearly shown that their income has grown at almost 3 times, and thats above inflation


as has been shown in various threads (im not going into again) by various members the public sector on average earn more than the private sector and quite by a substantial margin,

as OECD report has noted this is abnormal as in just about every other OECD economy the private sector earns more on average than the public


the public sector and their unions have blown it, theres no respect or understanding left now

the average person on the street after seeing the **** that happened last year and is happening now is starting to realize that they are being shafted by a group of protected workers who only care about themselves

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

Unfortunately you are mis-interpeting the data

that data is about public service earnings. It includes more than benchmarking increases.

Benchmarking provided a certain increase to most posts but varied greatly..I think the average was 8%....so benchmarking increases have now been clawed back for most.

firstly the data excludes health care (for some reason CSO doesn't have data on that)

secondly do you have anything that can backup your claim, im only going by whats available

it would be interesting to see anything that can backup the claims that benchmarking was reversed


and that still didnt answer the question:

where are the reforms that that were promised under benchmarking?


why are we (the taxpayers who have to create real wealth via exports on a highly competitive international market) being lied to again by a group of highly protected workers who wouldnt survive in the private sector with attitudes being shown

Count Dooku

Riskymove wrote: »

in relation to the "reform" promised in return for benchmarking, it has been pointed out many times that all the specific reforms required under benchmarking were implemented but this is ignored by many posters

no-one signed up to "all reforms til the end of time", just a specific set of them

Where is promised efficiency and value for money?

Peter McLoone, the general secretary of the largest public sector union, Impact, said the agreement would "open the way for better public services".

He said that the public could expect to get more efficiency and value for money, and that there would be fewer industrial disputes and less disruption of services. The unions have committed to cooperating "in circumstances where there is a need for it", and have promised to "work energetically" to develop a system of performance management.
July 20, 2003

https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2003/jul/20/benchmarking/

ei.sdraob

wasnt there a report showing

that all the savings made last year by levies etc

have been wiped out by pre agreed salary increases

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

no-one signed up to "all reforms til the end of time"

I agree with much of the rest of your post but have to point out that this is exactly what has been done by everyone who ever took a job in the real* private sector

Change is a part of life. Why some people fail to realise that this applies to their professional life is beyond me.


*Companies that aren't formerly state bodies which have been nationalised and are stuck with a public sector union mentality through the chunks of the those companies gifted to union members

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

secondly do you have anything that can backup your claim, im only going by whats available

it would be interesting to see anything that can backup the claims that benchmarking was reversed

its simply fact....look up the first benchmarking report and you'll see the amounts awarded to staff.

in general, increases in public sector wages were made through the pay element of the National deals (e.g. Partnership 2000, PPF etc)

and that still didnt answer the question:

where are the reforms that that were promised under benchmarking?

again if you look at the report you'll see it basically supported the reforms outlined under a national agreement...they were mostly about stratgeic managment being introduced...e.g. Strategy Statements and business planning, PMDS etc

a Verification group was set up to examine reports into what was achieved before payments were approved

why are we (the taxpayers who have to create real wealth via exports on a highly competitive international market) being lied to again by a group of highly protected workers who wouldnt survive in the private sector with attitudes being shown

what lies?

is this just an obligatory provocative remark thrown in at the end?

I agree with much of the rest of your post but have to point out that this is exactly what has been done by everyone who ever took a job in the real* private sector

Change is a part of life. Why some people fail to realise that this applies to their professional life is beyond me.

I fully agree with such sentiments

I am simply answering the oft held view that such reforms were signed up to in return for benchmarking...they were not...so that statement should not be used

Where is promised efficiency and value for money?

see above, your own quoted piece mentions performance management

wasnt there a report showing

that all the savings made last year by levies etc

have been wiped out by pre agreed salary increases

i dont know? was there? will not being sure stop you from just going ahead and suggesting it anyway?

The_Honeybadger

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as has been shown in various threads (im not going into again) by various members the public sector on average earn more than the private sector and quite by a substantial margin,

as OECD report has noted this is abnormal as in just about every other OECD economy the private sector earns more on average than the public

I agree with you on this I believe their absolute job security, pension etc should come at a cost. They are better off in just about every way you can think of at the moment and that is not good for the country or the economy.

Count Dooku

Riskymove wrote: »

see above, your own quoted piece mentions performance management

Introduction of personal development plans, regular meetings with manager and other attributes described in books about management doesn’t mean that performance management is actually working.
Haw many public servants had their annual increases rejected, based on their performance?

Riskymove

Count Dooku wrote: »

Introduction of personal development plans, regular meetings with manager and other attributes described in books about management doesn’t mean that performance management is actually working.
Haw many public servants had their annual increases rejected, based on their performance?

I am the last person to defend the implementation of PMDS which I have decried many times on these boards. indeed I have called for a reform of such practices (and also have posted many times against benchmarking)

that does not change the fact that the reforms signed up to under benchmarking, were in fact, delivered and that people need to realise that.

ZYX

Tragedy wrote: »

You don't have a choice in the public sector, you have to pay the pension and have no way out of it.

I am sure if the unions lobbied government and said you no longer wanted the public service pension but wanted to fund your own pension instead, they would let you.

ParkRunner

For employees, the impact of the decline in
nominal wages has been cushioned by the
decline in prices although, in some sectors,
including the public sector and the financial
services sectors, declines in the real
purchasing power of wages have occurred.

http://centralbank.ie/data/QrtBullFiles/Comment.pdf

The central bank agree anyway that the public sector has taken a cut above and beyond the decrease in the cost of living. It also believes that broadening the tax base and achieving further reforms in the public sector will play an important role.

ZYX

EF wrote: »

These graphs do not take into account the increased healthy levy, income levy, the pension levy (or any pension contributions) and the recent paycuts, so if you could get a graph that shows the net pay it would reflect the reality of public sector pay today it would be a lot more useful if we are going to have a debate about it.

Net pay would have risen even more substantially as income tax rates in 1988 were far higher. 65% if I remember correctly was the top rate and just about everyone was on the top rate. Lower rate was 48% and bottom rate was 35%. So net pay now including income levies, pension levies and any other levy you care to mention is probably nearer to 5 times what it was in 1988.

Add to that the huge increase in numbers working in public service. Some public services are better than 20 years ago but this improvement seems very poor value for money.

Count Dooku

EF wrote: »

http://centralbank.ie/data/QrtBullFiles/Comment.pdf

The central bank agree anyway that the public sector has taken a cut above and beyond the decrease in the cost of living. It also believes that broadening the tax base and achieving further reforms in the public sector will play an important role.

Am I correct that David Begg is chairman of Central Bank as well?