Introduction of a Public service 'scrappage'scheme and creating jobs for our young .

Welease

Taxipete29 wrote: »

How many Union officials work in the PS???

lol oh come on..:)... How many PS workers are officially represented by Union officials?

Welease

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Look at it this way. You let x number of PS workers go. There are no jobs for them at present. They sign on the dole. Now the money that will be spent on Social Welfare payments coupled with the payoffs your going to have to make when making these people redundant will reduce any percieved saving.

Reduce not eliminate... therefore the cost saving is there..

(personally i don't believe we have to go 100% down that route though.. if the PS itself drove efficiencies and cut out wastage, it would cut it's costs dramatically and remove the need for any further cuts. Though there are some notable exceptions, if the HSE (iirc) is saying it has 1,000 extra staff then something needs to be done.)

Riskymove

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sorry, perhaps I should have said that the general attitude of most reasonable people who understand and have analysed the issues. I can't speak for the AH crowd.

unfortunately the amount of people who can discuss these issues in a civilised manner are far outnumbered by those who cannot...on both sides

it is not isolated to AH

Again, I am simply stating the fairly basic and undeniable fact that the government is spending too much money for the tax it is taking in. The amount that was cut in the last budget is paltry - in fact the increased interest from the deficits of the last 2 years almost cancels out the cuts made in the last budget. So the reality is that further cuts are necessary. These should more properly be made by reducing staff in the areas I mentioned above as they are not as necessary as other roles and we can't afford them anymore.

I think the issues that people take with the way such issues are debated on boards are:

1. that all PS are paid too much for what they do, i.e. none deserve their pay

2. that the only way to achieve the balance is cutting pay and making people redundant

3. that having far less PS workers will not affect service delivery as they are mostly useless

(i am not saying you are saying these things)

The fact that you interpret this as public sector bashing proves the point I made above - any comment on the public sector is seen as an insult and is treated as though we had insulted you personally. Because of that attitude (shared with the top levels of the unions) it is very difficult to debate the cuts that have to be made.

see above

PS workers cannot really debate that the deficit needs to be closed, but they are entitled to point out alternative options without being dismissed

Do you accept that we are a signatory to Maastricht and have to keep our deficit within 3% of GDP?

Do you accept that because of this we need to close the budget gap?

The SGP has been ignored many times; its not really much of an incentive

They may also have to increase taxes but that could be worse for the economy than cuts in spending.

Its clear that welfare and public sector paybill need to be reduced ( and indeed they are) but equally there are many issues with the taxation system (narrow base etc) and other charges (water etc)

dont forget PS would have to pay these taxes/charges too

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Central Statistics Office also being a public service and a good one at that

anyways theres an interesting story in the paper today, which of course will be waived of as sindo propaganda against the courageous public sector workers, but here it is eitherway

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-how-pay-cut-spin-duped-the-nation-2041216.html

A Government source said: "Look, the case of Mary Duffy is undoubtedly difficult. Undoubtedly so. Nobody wanted to cut her pay, but it had to be done, broadly speaking, or the country would have gone bust. If you ask me, while I'm sorry for Mary, I'm more sorry for her husband. He is out of a job after all."

The fact that Ms Duffy's predicament in losing the family home came as a result of her husband losing his job was not emphasised by Mr Horan of the CPSU in a media campaign last week against the pay cuts for low paid public sector workers.

Taxipete29

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with this.

If it is to be done, it should be done top to bottom. No exceptions like we have seen recently where those at the top have escaped the cuts.

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Central Statistics Office also being a public service and a good one at that

anyways theres an interesting story in the paper today, which of course will be waived of as sindo propaganda against the courageous public sector workers, but here it is eitherway

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-how-pay-cut-spin-duped-the-nation-2041216.html

Cant really see the relevance. The Union spun a story one way and now its been spun another. Big deal.

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Cant really see the relevance. The Union spun a story one way and now its been spun another. Big deal.

i can, makes you question how many other claims by the unions have been "selective"

but yeh its quite interesting to watch whole thing develop, both sides are getting down and dirty now

while we continue to borrow our way into irrelevance

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i can, makes you question how many other claims by the unions have been "selective"

but yeh its quite interesting to watch whole thing develop, both sides are getting down and dirty now

while we continue to borrow our way into irrelevance

And of course the Govt, IBEC, the media could never be accsued of being selective

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

And of course the Govt, IBEC, the media could never be accsued of being selective

IBEC companies and media companies have to close close shop and/or let people go if their companies continue to run at huge losses


the public sector workers havent faced up to the fact that their employer the Govt is bankrupt and are still living in a reality distortion bubble


last year we had to borrow 25billion, thats 6000 euro borrowed in the name of every man, woman and child in this country (thats not even counting NAMA and bailouts now, just money to run the country)

thats money that will have to be paid back + interest

golden rule of business is that you never borrow to pay wages, but only for capital projects like opening new store (equivalent to building infrastructure by government)


why are the Trade Unions advocating borrowing more money at high interest? and how do they intend to pay this money back?? thats right they will not, the private sector workers who are in exporting businesses will have to pay for this mess


how is that fracking "fair" to use the exact words of many of the PS workers

btw since IMPACT etc have private sector members, they are in effect screwing one group of their members for an another group

/

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

IBEC companies and media companies have to close close shop and/or let people go if their companies continue to run at huge losses


the public sector workers havent faced up to the fact that their employer the Govt is bankrupt and are still living in a reality distortion bubble


last year we had to borrow 25billion, thats 6000 euro borrowed in the name of every man, woman and child in this country (thats not even counting NAMA and bailouts now, just money to run the country)

thats money that will have to be paid back + interest

golden rule of business is that you never borrow to pay wages, but only for capital projects like opening new store (equivalent to building infrastructure by government)


why are the Trade Unions advocating borrowing more money at high interest? and how do they intend to pay this money back?? thats right they will not, the private sector workers who are in exporting businesses will have to pay for this mess


how is that fracking "fair" to use the exact words of many of the PS workers

btw since IMPACT etc have private sector members, they are in effect screwing one group of their members for an another group

/

Your just ranting now and it was kind of pointless. I dont disagree with what your saying. You took my comment so far out of context

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Your just ranting now and it was kind of pointless. I dont disagree with what your saying. You took my comment so far out of context

no i didn't

thats what this public sector wages being cut debate and threads boils down to

the government are bankrupt
and the unions are resisting cuts, whether they like it or not these cuts will have to occur as the country can not continue to borrow as per their plan

if you dont believe me then look at whats happening in Greece who took the route that trade unions here wanted to take, theres a whole thread on that

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no i didn't

thats what this public sector wages being cut debate and threads boils down to

the government are bankrupt
and the unions are resisting cuts, whether they like it or not these cuts will have to occur as the country can not continue to borrow as per their plan

if you dont believe me then look at whats happening in Greece who took the route that trade unions here wanted to take, theres a whole thread on that

Well you did. I know what I was saying and you obviously dont.

Your still trying to engage me in an argument when I am not disagreeing with you. I dont know what part of that you dont get

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Well you did. I know what I was saying and you obviously dont.

Your still trying to engage me in an argument when I am not disagreeing with you. I dont know what part of that you dont get

look im not arguing with you

we both agree that IBEC, Unions, Media, Govt etc

are involved in a mud flinging fight with spin etc coming out of every hole


unfortunately for the Govt and the Unions the sad fact is
that the country is bankrupt,
so its unlikely that they can win this "war" unless money starts to grow in trees or they find that gold pot at end of the rainbow

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

look im not arguing with you

we both agree that IBEC, Unions, Media, Govt etc

are involved in a mud flinging fight with spin etc coming out of every hole


unfortunately for the Govt and the Unions the sad fact is
that the country is bankrupt,
so its unlikely that they can win this "war" unless money starts to grow in trees or they find that gold pot at end of the rainbow

agreed

johnnyskeleton

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Look at it this way. You let x number of PS workers go. There are no jobs for them at present. They sign on the dole. Now the money that will be spent on Social Welfare payments coupled with the payoffs your going to have to make when making these people redundant will reduce any percieved saving.

Of X number, a percentage will get other jobs, set up their own companies, become self employed, emigrate (unfortunately), start up new businesses, go back to college, write a book etc. So there will be a net gain from them. Again, it's one thing to say that you're putting a lower paid cleaner on the dole and the 23k you paid her is reduced to the ~15k you will pay in social welfare so you're really only saving 8k, but it's another thing to put a fairly well paid higher professional officer in a non-essential quango on the dole so the saving there is 50-15=35k.

So while the savings made from X redundancies is not X*average wage, but that is not to say that there aren't significant savings to the exchequer from redundancies in the public sector.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

We are still a relatively low direct tax economy.

But with high overall tax levels and high marginal tax rates.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This has to change. Not to keep the gravy train running, but to insure that everyone pays for the services they are getting.

I take it therefore that you are in favour of brining more people into the tax net i.e. making the lower paid pay some tax. Certainly if they will pay it without balking then it should be done (read has to be done). I'm not so sure about the ideas for brining in a third rate of tax for people earning over 100k or whatever it is - purely because these people are more likely to balk at such an increased rate and they have the wherewithall to avoid such taxes.

As Terry Pratchett said, the basic principle of taxation is to get as much milk with a minimal amount of moo.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You cant tax your way out of a recession but you cant cut your way out of one either.

But we can't borrow indefinately either. But getting out of recession is not the priority for the government. It would be nice if we could end the recession but it is mandatory that we bring our borrowing down such that our deficit is no more than 3% of GDP. With rising spending (interest and SW claims) and falling GDP, the action that needs to be taken becomes ever more drastic.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I love the way though people are not so quick to suggest solutions that would directly impact on their earnings

I don't understand what you mean by this. If you're implying that I am trying to avoid tax increases so that I don't have to pay more tax then perhaps you didn't read what I posted. I said that they may have to increase taxes, but increased taxes are much worse for the economy than increased cuts in public sector pay. Increased taxes increase the cost of employing someone without any direct benefit to the employee, which could tip the balance in many businesses to fire people. On balance, we need people to keep their jobs in the private sector more than we need people to keep their jobs in the public sector.

theghost

Joe1919 wrote: »

I often wondered why more hospitals could not be privitised. Is a hospital really that much different from an airline?

But anyhow, what I am saying does not prevent the reduction of areas of the public service. But I am presuming that the government may want to keep some areas under direct control.

18 years ago my father had a triple heart bypass in a public hospital. The staff were wonderful and looked after him really well. Dressings were changed on schedule and everything was done to make sure he got the best of treatment. Staff were always available to speak to. He is still alive and kicking at the age of 85.

11 years ago my husband had a triple heart bypass and valve replacement in a private hospital. Staff weren't visible, never mind available to speak to. On several occasions his dressings weren't changed for over 24 hours. He died 6 weeks later of MRSA at the age of 55.

This is one reason I don't have private health insurance. Having seen how the public and private hospitals treat their patients, give me the public hospital every time.

irishh_bob

theghost wrote: »

18 years ago my father had a triple heart bypass in a public hospital. The staff were wonderful and looked after him really well. Dressings were changed on schedule and everything was done to make sure he got the best of treatment. Staff were always available to speak to. He is still alive and kicking at the age of 85.

11 years ago my husband had a triple heart bypass and valve replacement in a private hospital. Staff weren't visible, never mind available to speak to. On several occasions his dressings weren't changed for over 24 hours. He died 6 weeks later of MRSA at the age of 55.

This is one reason I don't have private health insurance. Having seen how the public and private hospitals treat their patients, give me the public hospital every time.

my father died in a public hospital due to neglect at the age of 56

we all have our stories to tell

RGS

Welease wrote: »

Sorry but have you worked in the private sector? I have worked both here and abroad for over 25 years in the private sector and the vast majority of changes are dictated to the employee's by management, not through numerous levels of "engagement" and bargaining. Thats how decisions get implemented quickly and efficiently, and everyone can benefit.

I work in the Private sector for the past 11 years having left the Public Service for a better paid job with better perks. Have since changed jobs to another private sector employer.

Welease

RGS wrote: »

Welease wrote: »

Sorry but have you worked in the private sector? I have worked both here and abroad for over 25 years in the private sector and the vast majority of changes are dictated to the employee's by management, not through numerous levels of "engagement" and bargaining. Thats how decisions get implemented quickly and efficiently, and everyone can benefit.

I work in the Private sector for the past 11 years having left the Public Service for a better paid job with better perks. Have since changed jobs to another private sector employer.

Then you should be completely familiar with the fact most decisions are made by senior management and dictated down through the organisations. So I don't understand why you believe the PS should be different and each change needs to be negotiated. It's precisely that type of rediculous paralysis that slows productivity and change, and forces the government to resort to cutting wages to balance the books.

In fact I would go as far to say nowadays that is nothing more than a ploy by overpaid union bosses to justify their rediculous wages.. No need for a union unless we have conflict, so lets concentrate on having as much conflict as possible... at the end of the day the only ones who lose out at the lower paid workers within the PS.

RGS

All change in our company is negotiated not dictated by over zealous bosses who think they can ride rough shod over employee rights.

The biggest problem is the government and its inability to see that the row back on pay cuts to the top 600 public servants is a major impediment to an acceptance by the lower paid of the pay cuts imposed.

If we dont need unions then we sure as hell dont need IBEC, ISME and the other various well funded business groups-who used the rip off profits,
we as consumers pay for their products, to pay their subscriptions.

Welease

RGS wrote: »

All change in our company is negotiated not dictated by over zealous bosses who think they can ride rough shod over employee rights.

Sorry but i find that hard to believe.. You are telling me, that employees get a say (and veto) on every technology implementation, every change to resourcing levels, every change to company policy, very change to strategic direction and plans? If that was the case, absolutely nothing would get done.

Senior management making decisions that flow down through the company is not over zealous bosses riding rough shod over employee rights.. Employee rights are defined in law and are there to protect them.. It is management doing what they are supposed to be doing and managing the company..

The public sector has had years to get its house in order.. The unions want to block all attempts at change.. What option is left for the government? we don't have the money to pay for the overstaffing and wastage, and the PS has done very little to remedy that.

I'll say it again for the 10th time in this post... if the PS has attempted to balance it books and deliver a cost effective service the cuts would have be minimised.. but it didn't.. and the lower paid staff unfortunately will have to pay the price. Is it fair? no... but it's also not fair that i pay a crap load of tax to keep 1,000's of middle management with no real jobs employed in the HSE..
For the HSE alone the McCarthy report said we could get rid of 6,100 from the HSE with a saving of over 1.2 billion... he may not be spot on.. but it shows that in one department alone proper managment could have drastically cut the need to reduce pay for others across the board.
Source - http://www.imt.ie/news/2009/09/hse_created_more_managers.html