Public Sector Reforms

Ginger Nut

Will ye give us all a break and realise until those gits -aka the government realise that until they reform their own salaries and expense accounts no public sector or private sector worker will take any cra*. My salary is reduced by €200 per fortnight over the last 18 months but my food shopping/ electric etc are still the same - even though I have cut back on just about everything - so stand up you whose dole I'm paying!

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

And that's just the one's in the country. Ban all conference attendences, unnecessary travel etc.

I've heard stories of council staff flying to China for a week to 'inspect' tiles they were thinking of using in a refurbishment of a building which was no more than 30 miles from a local quarry.

tbh i think comparing conferences with a councillors junket to China is a bit unfair..and your description of the conference is also very exaggerated

you want to ban "unneccessary" travel but who gets to decide whats necessary?

in any event, all T&S has been reduced (rates paid) and is being very strictly controlled as it should be

I also see that the focus is still on money...a very short-sighted approach to the kind of reform that is really needed in the public sector

Sleepy

Ginger Nut:

a) I agree with you that politicians should be having their pay and expenses routed.
b) The private sector as those generating the wealth of the country are the ones' paying dole, as a public sector employee your direct tax doesn't really exist outside of accountancy.

Riskymove, I'm only commenting on the conference attendance based on what I've witnessed. Though, tbh, I can't imagine many conference opportunities beyond promotion of Ireland by Bord Failte, the IDA etc. that could be considered necessary at the moment.

I've suggested many other means in this thread for reform - from systems of appraisal and increments to structural changes regarding overlaps and duplication of effort.

Unless by some miracle the private sector increases it's productivity by many multiples of what it stands at, however, the focus *has* to be on money. We don't have the money to pay what we currently pay for our public sector. It doesn't matter if we can double or even treble the productivity of the public sector, we have to vastly reduce the amount it costs us in order to bring it into line with tax revenues.

Ginger Nut

you are missing my point - why do I have to work for peanuts just to hold my job - only a few years ago most people looked down their snotty noses at the Public service jobs as we were underpaid compared with the private sector. It was almost impossible to get people to apply for the Civil Service.

Another point I'd like to make is a lot of employers are only looking for an excuse to reduce wages.

Oh in case ye are wondering - I'm on a day off - yes we do get paid annual leave - I suppose ye all have another whinge about that too

woodseb

Ginger Nut wrote: »

you are missing my point - why do I have to work for peanuts just to hold my job

because your employer can't afford it - it's not that complicated really

the very same is happening to thousands of workers every week around the country who have had to reduce pay or cut hours to keep the business afloat, you are not special (except for the fact that you can't lose your job)

ardmacha

around the country who have had to reduce pay or cut hours to keep the business afloat

except when the PS unions proposed cutting hours to keep their employer afloat there was outrage.

Sleepy

Ginger Nut wrote: »

you are missing my point - why do I have to work for peanuts just to hold my job - only a few years ago most people looked down their snotty noses at the Public service jobs as we were underpaid compared with the private sector. It was almost impossible to get people to apply for the Civil Service.

Another point I'd like to make is a lot of employers are only looking for an excuse to reduce wages.

Oh in case ye are wondering - I'm on a day off - yes we do get paid annual leave - I suppose ye all have another whinge about that too

Well, not knowing what it is you do, I can't say for certain that it's even worth keeping you in it tbh, Ginger Nut.

The Public Service hasn't been underpaid in Ireland in my adult life. In fact, it's been over-paid by comparison to the private sector.

Some employers are taking advantage of the current recession, I'm sure, but most are cutting wages because their business is down massively and they're doing all they can to survive.

Impossible to get people to apply for the civil service? I'd imagine that's true enough, by and large there's little more going in the entry level positions than basic admin work. Why on earth would any talented person want to do that? In both sectors those jobs are filled with either people with no ambition to progress their careers i.e. people who just want a job or they're stepping stones towards better jobs. However, in the private sector, one at least has the option of being promoted out of it reasonably quickly wherease in the Public Sector, one would be stuck there until everyone with longer service than you got promoted first.

You also have the factor that in the public sector, these staff get increments regardless of performance which simply rewards those without the ambition to get ahead - if you're doing the same job for a couple of years you'll be getting better paid than your private sector equivalent who's only being paid what their work is worth.

With a work culture of this kind in the civil service (and yes, I'm singling them out here) is it any wonder our governance is so poor? No talented or educated graduate will want a job where they'll be under-utilised for the first X years of their career. They'll do what a rational person would do: go into the private sector to gain experience and progress their career to the level they want to work at vis-a-vis work/life balance and then look for the best job in either sector where they can maintain this level or further progress it.

I'm currently at the level where I'm happy to maintain the level of career I have for the medium term at least and guess where I'm targeting my career search for the best balance of pay and employment conditions at this level of work? Embargo or no embargo, if you've the right skill set there are still jobs in the public sector

And yes, I'm sure I'll still be calling for reform of the PS if I get a job there. I won't be happy about the inevitable salary cuts I'll face but I'll know who to blame for them: the unions and my future colleagues who support them.

ParkRunner

Sleepy wrote: »

Impossible to get people to apply for the civil service? I'd imagine that's true enough, by and large there's little more going in the entry level positions than basic admin work. Why on earth would any talented person want to do that? In both sectors those jobs are filled with either people with no ambition to progress their careers i.e. people who just want a job or they're stepping stones towards better jobs. However, in the private sector, one at least has the option of being promoted out of it reasonably quickly wherease in the Public Sector, one would be stuck there until everyone with longer service than you got promoted first.

The long service promotions are now a part of history thankfully and promotions are only possible following a competitive selection process. I'm only in the civil service just over three years and have been promoted once, ahead of countless others who are here longer. If it weren't for the embargo I am sure I would be pushing for another promotion. The pay is not great and it is declining almost to the point that my promotion has been wiped out, but the work can be very interesting with opportunities to work in different Departments (Transport, Finance, Justice, Education, Environment, Social and Family Affairs, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture etc) Where else would you get such diverse opportunities

OMD

Ginger Nut wrote: »

Will ye give us all a break and realise until those gits -aka the government realise that until they reform their own salaries and expense accounts no public sector or private sector worker will take any cra*. My salary is reduced by €200 per fortnight

That means your pay has been cut by 5000 (assuming you are talking about pretax income)so 2 years ago you were on 40K or so. Now in the last 2 years did you get a pay increment?

Ginger Nut wrote: »

over the last 18 months but my food shopping/ electric etc are still the same - even though I have cut back on just about everything !

If you have cut back on everything, Electricity rates have dropped, food costs have dropped why are you still paying the same?

Riskymove

However, in the private sector, one at least has the option of being promoted out of it reasonably quickly wherease in the Public Sector, one would be stuck there until everyone with longer service than you got promoted first.

you are way off the mark there; that is not a factual position on career progress

You also have the factor that in the public sector, these staff get increments regardless of performance which simply rewards those without the ambition to get ahead - if you're doing the same job for a couple of years you'll be getting better paid than your private sector equivalent who's only being paid what their work is worth.

two things here

1. the incremental system is infact a good one, the problem is that there is no effective system for stopping them for people who do not deserve them - this is one of the key issues in public sector reform, the problem of how to measure perfromance

2. "only being paid what their work is worth" why say soemthing like this? why does every discussion on these issues have to be laden with provocative, insulting statements?

in any event, people in the private sector get raises and promotions too

They'll do what a rational person would do: go into the private sector to gain experience and progress their career to the level they want to work at vis-a-vis work/life balance and then look for the best job in either sector where they can maintain this level or further progress it.

I dont understand this, why couldbn't a public sector worker do the same in the public service?

Unless by some miracle the private sector increases it's productivity by many multiples of what it stands at, however, the focus *has* to be on money. We don't have the money to pay what we currently pay for our public sector. It doesn't matter if we can double or even treble the productivity of the public sector, we have to vastly reduce the amount it costs us in order to bring it into line with tax revenues.

I'm sorry to disagree but I see a huge difference between looking to save costs as oppossed to making reforms; sure some reforms will result in amonetary saving but that shouldn't be the only criteria.

both are required but as long as we stick to the idea that "reforming the public service = reducing their wages", very little reform will be achieved.

as an aside, I also dont agree that we need to "vastly reduce the amount" the PS pay bill is. There have already been significant reductions in the cost of the pay bill.

If proper reforms can be introduced there will be both cost savings and efficiency increases that will be of benefit in the long-term

Count Dooku

ardmacha wrote: »

except when the PS unions proposed cutting hours to keep their employer afloat there was outrage.

Depends how you will interpret it
You can say reduced hours and reduced services
You can say pay cuts on exchange on more paid holidays and preserving pension from cuts

BTW, it was more outrage from lower paid public servants, which been betrayed by their higher paid colleagues because everybody would lose equally

Sleepy

EF wrote: »

The long service promotions are now a part of history thankfully and promotions are only possible following a competitive selection process. I'm only in the civil service just over three years and have been promoted once, ahead of countless others who are here longer. If it weren't for the embargo I am sure I would be pushing for another promotion. The pay is not great and it is declining almost to the point that my promotion has been wiped out, but the work can be very interesting with opportunities to work in different Departments (Transport, Finance, Justice, Education, Environment, Social and Family Affairs, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture etc) Where else would you get such diverse opportunities

Glad to hear it tbh.

Where else do you get so many diverse opportunities? Consulting is one, working as an apps consultant I've worked with 6 of the 8 sectors you mentioned in some capacity or another...

Incidently, do you mind me asking your educational qualifications/experiece prior to joining? The last civil service member I came across on boards was bemoaning his poor salary after having worked an entry level position for 3/4 years and "only" earning mid-twenties + pension when he'd nothing more than a leaving cert and would have been earning a maximum of 20/22k a year in the private sector. That was only about a year ago so I'm curious as to whether things have changed that dramatically in the CS or if he was just some of the deadwood that needed clearing?

Riskymove

Count Dooku wrote: »

BTW, it was more outrage from lower paid public servants, which been betrayed by their higher paid colleagues because everybody would lose equally

indeed....everyone losing equally...the horror of it....imagine:pac:

its not like they ended up with a straight paycut anyway!!:rolleyes:

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

two things here

1. the incremental system is infact a good one, the problem is that there is no effective system for stopping them for people who do not deserve them - this is one of the key issues in public sector reform, the problem of how to measure perfromance

2. "only being paid what their work is worth" why say soemthing like this? why does every discussion on these issues have to be laden with provocative, insulting statements?

in any event, people in the private sector get raises and promotions too

How is an incremental system any use? It pays for length of service, not output. Payment for performane is exactly what I refer to when I refer to "Only being paid what their work is worth". This would, and should, benefit good workers in any sector. Paying for length of service is not paying people for what their work is worth, it's paying them for how long they've punched a clock.

Performance measurement is an issue but I fail to see it as being an insurmountable one.

I dont understand this, why couldbn't a public sector worker do the same in the public service?

Because in the private sector, career advancement is far more attainable for someone prepared to put in the hard graft. Without unions to interfere, good workers are rewarded and the poor ones fall by the wayside. Collective bargaining only works in favour of below average workers. Without it, careers can be made far faster.

Another factor would be the faster pace of change in the private sector. Experience is more than just time spent at something so working in an environment where change happens more often you get far more experience.

I'm sorry to disagree but I see a huge difference between looking to save costs as oppossed to making reforms; sure some reforms will result in amonetary saving but that shouldn't be the only criteria.

both are required but as long as we stick to the idea that "reforming the public service = reducing their wages", very little reform will be achieved.

I don't see the reforms as being purely 'reducing their wages', I'd see them as elements of cost-saving, cutting the wage bill (preferably via redundancies and performance measurement which could benefit good workers). That said, there are some positions within the Public Sector which are simply over-paid and there's little choice but to cut the salaries of those in these positions. I'd start with the politicians tbh.

as an aside, I also dont agree that we need to "vastly reduce the amount" the PS pay bill is. There have already been significant reductions in the cost of the pay bill.

If proper reforms can be introduced there will be both cost savings and efficiency increases that will be of benefit in the long-term

Yes we need cost savings and efficiency increases in the public sector. I certainly don't see how the latter can be done without leading to redundancies though.

The *VAST* majority of public expenditure is the public sector wage bill and social welfare. Now, I'm generally in favour of reducing social welfare payments but in order to leave the public sector wage bill untouched whilst bringing our expenditure under control, you'd need to eliminate it altogether. Or are you one of those that thinks we can continue to fund our current expenditure through borrowing and it'll magically work our way out of the recession like Greece have attempted to do? In which case, I'd point you to this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055812461

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

How is an incremental system any use? It pays for length of service, not output. Payment for performane is exactly what I refer to when I refer to "Only being paid what their work is worth". This would, and should, benefit good workers in any sector. Paying for length of service is not paying people for what their work is worth, it's paying them for how long they've punched a clock.

Performance measurement is an issue but I fail to see it as being an insurmountable one.

what I am saying is that proper implementation of the performance review element of the increments system (there is actually one) would mean that only people who deserved them get them

I think the salary scale for a grade is far preferencial than 200,000 individually looking for raises.

Because in the private sector, career advancement is far more attainable for someone prepared to put in the hard graft. Without unions to interfere, good workers are rewarded and the poor ones fall by the wayside. Collective bargaining only works in favour of below average workers. Without it, careers can be made far faster.

no i am sorry, this is more evidence that you dont have the proper handle on career progression, certainly in the civil service that you have mentioned

Experience is more than just time spent at something so working in an environment where change happens more often you get far more experience.

there are different types of change

many areas in the civil service work on areas where approaches and poilicies change rapidly and where new skills and knowledge are required

Yes we need cost savings and efficiency increases in the public sector. I certainly don't see how the latter can be done without leading to redundancies though.

we've already seen thousands of less public servants over the last year without any redundancies...why do you think they are so necessary?

The *VAST* majority of public expenditure is the public sector wage bill and social welfare.

social welfare is the single biggest area, not something added on to the public pay bill

Now, I'm generally in favour of reducing social welfare payments but in order to leave the public sector wage bill untouched whilst bringing our expenditure under control, you'd need to eliminate it altogether

I agree that all areas need to be considered, however that is a gross exageration.

Or are you one of those that thinks we can continue to fund our current expenditure through borrowing and it'll magically work our way out of the recession like Greece have attempted to do? In which case, I'd point you to this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055812461

oh yes, obviously I have my own opionions so I must not know what i am on about like those crazy Greeks!!:pac::rolleyes:

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

what I am saying is that proper implementation of the performance review element of the increments system (there is actually one) would mean that only people who deserved them get them

I think the salary scale for a grade is far preferencial than 200,000 individually looking for raises.

Is there a mechanism within this for reducing salary for under-performing workers? Or a meaningful mechanism for getting rid of those guilty of gross incompetence such as that highlighted in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055813338 ?

we've already seen thousands of less public servants over the last year without any redundancies...why do you think they are so necessary?

Quite simply due to the huge overlaps between various quangos and the repetition of effort carried out in things like the provision of IT Support I mentioned earlier in this thread.

"Natural wastage" is an idiotic means of reducing staff numbers as it leaves vital areas of the public sector become anaemic whilst allowing bloated areas to remain so dependent on the wishes of those working in them. As this starts, it becomes self-fulfilling as the under-staffed areas become more and more unpleasant to work in and the bloated areas become relatively cushier.

social welfare is the single biggest area, not something added on to the public pay bill

I agree that all areas need to be considered, however that is a gross exageration.

oh yes, obviously I have my own opionions so I must not know what i am on about like those crazy Greeks!!:pac::rolleyes:

I'm just trying to drawing conclusions from what you're saying. If we're not to cut the public sector wage bill any furtehr at all, this means virtually all of the remaining gap between income and expenditure must come from welfare or borrowing?

Or is there a third option you're proposing?

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

Is there a mechanism within this for reducing salary for under-performing workers?

Not that I am aware of, other than for sick-leave related issues and similar

Or a meaningful mechanism for getting rid of those guilty of gross incompetence such as that highlighted in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055813338 ?

of course there are mechanisms for firing people

but reading that thread I am not sure where I see "gross incompetence" that would require being fired

its a mess-up no doubt but fired?

I'm just trying to drawing conclusions from what you're saying. If we're not to cut the public sector wage bill any furtehr at all, this means virtually all of the remaining gap between income and expenditure must come from welfare or borrowing?

I didnt say anything about not cutting the public sector pay bill

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

of course there are mechanisms for firing people

but reading that thread I am not sure where I see "gross incompetence" that would require being fired

its a mess-up no doubt but fired?

Staff reporting themselves as having been at work when they weren't?

Any business I've ever worked in would have rightly fired me for clocking in or claiming to have been at work whilst I wasn't.

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

Staff reporting themselves as having been at work when they weren't?

thats not what happened, the staff did not claim they were at work...the cockup was at the management end for deciding that people who did not respond to the email were at work and not deducting the day's pay

its not a great system they used but obviously it should have been "if you were at work that day email us and say so otherwise you lose the day's pay"

in an org i know, you had to present yourself to the personnel officer in the morning to be officially recorded as in work

Any business I've ever worked in would have rightly fired me for clocking in or claiming to have been at work whilst I wasn't

absolutely

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

thats not what happened, the staff did not claim they were at work...the cockup was at the management end for deciding that people who did not respond to the email were at work and not deducting the day's pay

its not a great system they used but obviously it should have been "if you were at work that day email us and say so otherwise you lose the day's pay"

Oh, I agree with you that the system was arseways but the staff the poster in that thread refers to lied about being there by omission to send the email and clearly knew what they were doing from her reports of it.

There's also the question of whether management were deliberately trying to make it easy for staff to defraud the taxpayer by implementing the check in that fashion.

Either would constitute gross misconduct.

If the management are just that stupid, well, I think a written warning would be the minimum response to such a lack of performance in their roles.

dan_d

To be quite honest, OP, I think that they should take a long hard look at private sector business and implement the same regimes.
There's no reason in the wide earthly world why a large portion of the PS could not be run in a similar manner to a private company.
I'd suggest a long hard look should be taken at certain work practices, such as job sharing, and the level to which that is allowed.
A serious cull of middle management is necessary.
Linking pay to productivity is necessary.
There's no point in making these things overly complicated. Keep it simple. And as for a comparison to private sector pay scales, that's all well and good, but that means you've to take the good with the bad.
The Government needs to knock the unions on the head. They're running riot and they should have been stopped a long time ago.
If they are really serious about reforms, some PS workers may find they're out of the frying pan and into the fire - pay cuts might be more acceptable than some of the reforms needed. But I'm not holding my breath.

ardmacha

The Unions and other citizens need to knock the Government on the head. They haven't a clue and they should have been stopped a long time ago

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

The Unions and other citizens need to knock the Government on the head. They haven't a clue and they should have been stopped a long time ago

and what then? where will the 25 billion a year to pay for welfare and public sector be raised from??

ParkRunner

Sleepy wrote: »

Glad to hear it tbh.

Where else do you get so many diverse opportunities? Consulting is one, working as an apps consultant I've worked with 6 of the 8 sectors you mentioned in some capacity or another...

Incidently, do you mind me asking your educational qualifications/experiece prior to joining? The last civil service member I came across on boards was bemoaning his poor salary after having worked an entry level position for 3/4 years and "only" earning mid-twenties + pension when he'd nothing more than a leaving cert and would have been earning a maximum of 20/22k a year in the private sector. That was only about a year ago so I'm curious as to whether things have changed that dramatically in the CS or if he was just some of the deadwood that needed clearing?

Prior to joining the civil service my work experience wasn't great because I was studying and it is hard to get that first step on the ladder anywhere really without experience, the vicious circle that it is. I did work in retail though for years to get me through college and the pay was pretty good for what I was doing, especially for Sunday and nighttime shifts!

Before entering the CS I completed a Bachelor of Business Studies and Post-grad in Legal Studies course and then while in the civil service I did a Masters in Law and got promoted shortly afterwards. The pay isn't great as I said but the work is very interesting and while Im not all too pleased about such dramatic paycuts (especially as my pension is no good to me for the next 37 years) I would be glad if reforms which got rid of the slackers and waste were introduced in return for no more cuts to pay and the lifting of the recruitment/promotion embargo.

I'd by lying if I said the CS doesn't have its fair share of slackers but at the same time there are very well qualified, motivated, hard working staff there too who have to carry the weight and are tarnished on a weekly basis by the media and other groups with vested interests.

OMD

EF wrote: »

I would be glad if reforms which got rid of the slackers and waste were introduced in return for no more cuts to pay and the lifting of the recruitment/promotion embargo.

I'd by lying if I said the CS doesn't have its fair share of slackers but at the same time there are very well qualified, motivated, hard working staff there too who have to carry the weight and are tarnished on a weekly basis by the media and other groups with vested interests.

To be honest here EF I think most people agree with you here. Public service pay rates could be left alone if the wasters could be weeded out and let those with talent and commitment continue in their jobs. The trouble is the Unions will not go for this at all.

ParkRunner

OMD wrote: »

To be honest here EF I think most people agree with you here. Public service pay rates could be left alone if the wasters could be weeded out and let those with talent and commitment continue in their jobs. The trouble is the Unions will not go for this at all.

I disagree! From what I have heard, the unions are not in favour of compulsory redundancies, but the possibility of voluntary redundancies doesn't seem to be a runner for the Government? They are already after losing over a thousand public sector workers through early retirement so the next step may very well be voluntary redundancies, with management deciding who goes and who doesnt go. I expect this will happen when the LRC sit down with both sides.

The mechanisms are there to remove those who don't perform so it is a failure of senior management and the government rather than the Unions over the years that has resulted in slackers being allowed to keep below the radar and keep their jobs.

The_Honeybadger

EF wrote: »

I disagree! From what I have heard, the unions are not in favour of compulsory redundancies, but the possibility of voluntary redundancies doesn't seem to be a runner for the Government? They are already after losing over a thousand public sector workers through early retirement so the next step may very well be voluntary redundancies, with management deciding who goes and who doesnt go. I expect this will happen when the LRC sit down with both sides.

The mechanisms are there to remove those who don't perform so it is a failure of senior management and the government rather than the Unions over the years that has resulted in slackers being allowed to keep below the radar and keep their jobs.

As long as they want to leave, you are talking about voluntary redundancy aren't you? Say you have a 32 year old PS who is clearly not intererested in the job and not performing as they should be, why on earth would he take voluntary redundancy when he is assured a job for the next 33 years on pay he would never get in the private sector. Some senior people may be tempted if they are financially secure enough to do so fair enough but it will it really be the slackers weeded out? Difference is in the private sector they can be shown the door with relative ease.

Count Dooku

EF wrote: »

I'd by lying if I said the CS doesn't have its fair share of slackers but at the same time there are very well qualified, motivated, hard working staff there too who have to carry the weight and are tarnished on a weekly basis by the media and other groups with vested interests.

Problem is that PS unions never will allow to get rid off slackers, because they are very loyal to unions and as result everybody see public services as monolith unit. And unfortunately there is not other choice, except collective punishment

whizkid1

Just heard on the news today that the Revenue returns are down and that this may lead to more public sector pay cuts. I reckon the government will keep on cutting until there is a General Public sector Strike

ParkRunner

mickeyk wrote: »

As long as they want to leave, you are talking about voluntary redundancy aren't you? Say you have a 32 year old PS who is clearly not intererested in the job and not performing as they should be, why on earth would he take voluntary redundancy when he is assured a job for the next 33 years on pay he would never get in the private sector. Some senior people may be tempted if they are financially secure enough to do so fair enough but it will it really be the slackers weeded out? Difference is in the private sector they can be shown the door with relative ease.

There are always going to be those in society who just aren't motivated to do a hard days work unfortunately and will take as much as they can from doing as little as possible. This will probably result in them being stuck at the lowest grades in the public or private sector or spending their days on social welfare. On a sidenote just from anecdotal evidence social networking sites are generally not accessible in the public sector, but on my rare days off they are still a hive of activity for my private sector friends during working hours.

This is a challenge for management though rather than unions. I cant see how the unions have any influence in such matters..If someone clearly was not performing over a number of years, their removal from the job can surely be justified and stood over with confidence without any real fear of recrimination from the unions or any fear of challenge for unfair dismissal. The perception of union intervention on these forums is flawed and does not reflect the reality in my opinion