do we live in a fair and equal country

aoboa

Welease wrote: »

If the issues that you were complaining about (the lack front line staff) were related to inadequate funding then you would have a point..

But the problems are not related to inadequate funding, they are related to an agreement the means thousands of unnecessaty staff in the HSE are kept in place (iirc McCarthy report suggest removing 6,ooo unnecessary HSE staff), and they cannot be replaced with much needed front line staff.

Bailout of banks are not the issue here, and is the usual attempt at deflection.

Hang on, so the bail out which cost €73 Billion so far as of April 2010 (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bank-bailout-cost-of-836473bn-manageable-says-esri-2135270.html) is not the main problem we're facing at the moment?
PS/CS wages are what's causing the problems with Irish bond sales?
The single biggest issue with the Irish economy now is the banks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703723504575425562473257080.html).

The PS/CS are still providing a service despite the savage cuts they've received and the people who work there are spending the money in the real economy.
The banks are getting our money and sitting on it.
Who're the real bad guys here?

PattheMetaller

Welease wrote: »

If the issues that you were complaining about (the lack front line staff) were related to inadequate funding then you would have a point....they are related to an agreement the means thousands of unnecessaty staff in the HSE are kept in place (iirc McCarthy report suggest removing 6,ooo unnecessary HSE staff), and they cannot be replaced with much needed front line staff.

Bailout of banks are not the issue here, and is the usual attempt at deflection.

Unfortunatley the staff that are being removed are frontline staff on temporary contracts, i.e. Nurses etc. The decision makers in the PS/CS are Senior Management with input from Middle Management. They will not decide to get rid of themselves.

The banks and property developers are indeed the issue. You seem reluctant to even consider their guilt in the current mess we are in for some reason.

aoboa wrote: »

The PS/CS are still providing a service despite the savage cuts they've received and the people who work there are spending the money in the real economy.
The banks are getting our money and sitting on it.
Who're the real bad guys here?

Agreed. Cut more of those nasty PS/CS and reduce their income and the knock on effect will be felt in the wider community. The local supermarket won't have the same custom and will reduce workforce; the PS/CS will not be driving to work so the local petrol station will reduce workforce; the local plumber / electrician / bricklayer will not have much to do if the PS/CS now has to cancel the proposed renovations on his/her house; the builders suppliers etc will not sell as much stock as the PS/CS has cancelled the renovations. This is a point I raised in a previous post which was also igonored by Welease in his haste to Public Sector bash and lay the blame for our woes squarely at my door and the door of my colleagues!!

ei.sdraob

aoboa wrote: »

Hang on, so the bail out which cost €73 Billion so far as of April 2010 (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bank-bailout-cost-of-836473bn-manageable-says-esri-2135270.html) is not the main problem we're facing at the moment?
PS/CS wages are what's causing the problems with Irish bond sales?
The single biggest issue with the Irish economy now is the banks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703723504575425562473257080.html).

The PS/CS are still providing a service despite the savage cuts they've received and the people who work there are spending the money in the real economy.
The banks are getting our money and sitting on it.
Who're the real bad guys here?

yadda yadda

amacachi

This country is as fair as it can be without facing up to our problems properly. Maybe I'm looking at it too selfishly but yesterday I heard about the meteor shower, suggested to three friends to get together tonight to get ****faced and look at it. We're all "poor" students who don't work and we did it. We all have free healthcare and cheap food and transport. There's pretty much nowhere I'd rather live that here, and that's as someone who hates xenophobia. :pac:

The one thing I wish is that we'd cut spending. If I have to go without smoking or drinking for the next three years in order to ensure the next 10 years have free fees for college then I'd happily do that. One of the things that sticks with me from Reeling in the Years is what a pity it is that Fianna Fail never had a proper split.

aoboa

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yadda yadda

And why should we believe Ronan Lyons? Especially when the figures in that graph are wrong?
He calls himself an economist. Economists have a fantastic track record. Their opinion is never wrong or biased.
Even if the figures were correct - which figures in that graph represent money that goes backinto the economy and which figures represent money that effectively vanishes into thin air.
Which figures in that graph represent essential services paid for and which figures represent money for absolutely nothing.

johndoe99

Brian Cowen reminds me of Tony Soprano

zielarz

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I just don't see it as fair that depending on where you live and how you vote your vote can be worth 1, or 2 or 10.

A single non transferable vote with still 3-4 seats per area is the fairest way IMO, well actually democracy isin't exactly a good form of gov but its what we are stuck with due to limits of technology and interest.

De*** IS the WORST form of government because there are always more stupid people than wise.

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

Hang on, so the bail out which cost €73 Billion so far as of April 2010 (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bank-bailout-cost-of-836473bn-manageable-says-esri-2135270.html) is not the main problem we're facing at the moment?
PS/CS wages are what's causing the problems with Irish bond sales?
The single biggest issue with the Irish economy now is the banks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703723504575425562473257080.html).

The PS/CS are still providing a service despite the savage cuts they've received and the people who work there are spending the money in the real economy.
The banks are getting our money and sitting on it.
Who're the real bad guys here?

Another deflection.. this is nothing to do with Irish bonds..

There is no major shortfall in funding for the HSE.. they have been given more funding than the vast majority of OECD reported states. That money is not being spent correctly.

The vast increases in HSE funding since ~2000 havent done a thing to fix any of the issues, are you so niave as to believe dumping more money in there will magically solve the problems this time? It won't.. It needs to start using the more than adequate funding properly, and the CP agreement removed one of the most obvious avenues to easy resolution.

Welease

PattheMetaller wrote: »

Unfortunatley the staff that are being removed are frontline staff on temporary contracts, i.e. Nurses etc. The decision makers in the PS/CS are Senior Management with input from Middle Management. They will not decide to get rid of themselves.

The banks and property developers are indeed the issue. You seem reluctant to even consider their guilt in the current mess we are in for some reason.

OK, so we are getting somewhere now.. So you inadvertantly now admit, the decision to keep Senior/Middlemanagement and remove the fontline staff is being made within the PS/CS, not by bankers, developers etc...
So by default, the solution to this issue also lies with the very same organisations! BINGO!

PattheMetaller wrote: »

Agreed. Cut more of those nasty PS/CS and reduce their income and the knock on effect will be felt in the wider community. The local supermarket won't have the same custom and will reduce workforce; the PS/CS will not be driving to work so the local petrol station will reduce workforce; the local plumber / electrician / bricklayer will not have much to do if the PS/CS now has to cancel the proposed renovations on his/her house; the builders suppliers etc will not sell as much stock as the PS/CS has cancelled the renovations. This is a point I raised in a previous post which was also igonored by Welease in his haste to Public Sector bash and lay the blame for our woes squarely at my door and the door of my colleagues!!

Really.. so replacing ONE person in middle management with ONE person on front line services means that supermarkets will drop revenue, builders wont find work, petrol stations will go bust... It's a 1:1 swap (and this could be donenumerous times where needed).. Nurse for Manager etc.. do explain why this collapse of society occurs?

I'm not ignoring anythign you say, it just doesnt make sense.. as demonstrated by your rational above.

aoboa

Welease wrote: »

Another deflection.. this is nothing to do with Irish bonds..

There is no major shortfall in funding for the HSE.. they have been given more funding than the vast majority of OECD reported states. That money is not being spent correctly.

The vast increases in HSE funding since ~2000 havent done a thing to fix any of the issues, are you so niave as to believe dumping more money in there will magically solve the problems this time? It won't.. It needs to start using the more than adequate funding properly, and the CP agreement removed one of the most obvious avenues to easy resolution.

You can't see the wood for the trees.
We've got local problems. The structure of the HSE is one of them. It is not, however, what is causing the problems in this country.
Sovereign debt growing during a recession is normal. We have the same problems with our cs/ps as most countries. This is not what's screwing us at the moment.
What is really screwing us how much we have to pay to service the debt built up during the recession. The ONLY factor influencing this is the combined nonsense that is nama, the AIB/BOI bailout and the nationalisation/bailout of anglo. This has cost €80+ billion so far and gonna top €100billion.
How the HSE or any other section of the ps/cs is structured has ZERO influence on this.

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

You can't see the wood for the trees.
We've got local problems. The structure of the HSE is one of them. It is not, however, what is causing the problems in this country.
Sovereign debt growing during a recession is normal. We have the same problems with our cs/ps as most countries. This is not what's screwing us at the moment.
What is really screwing us how much we have to pay to service the debt built up during the recession. The ONLY factor influencing this is the combined nonsense that is nama, the AIB/BOI bailout and the nationalisation/bailout of anglo. This has cost €80+ billion so far and gonna top €100billion.
How the HSE or any other section of the ps/cs is structured has ZERO influence on this.

No you are attempting to expand the arguement beyond what Pat was complaining about..

There is a swathe of problems with this country, and yes the banks/developers/house buyers/people who lived on credit/government/regulators all must share a degree (to varying degrees) of the blame.. BUT not every issue is related directly related to the wider fiscal problem of this country..

The HSE is adequately funded.
The HSE management & unions choose to force their continued employment.
As a result front-line staff have to be removed to fit within the budget..

This problem can be fixed within the PS itself, it chose not to, and the attempts to continually lay the blame at the bankers door are laughable within the particular context of the HSE (which is what Pat was complaining about)..

aoboa wrote: »

How the HSE or any other section of the ps/cs is structured has ZERO influence on this.

True if the problem being discussed is the wider economy.. but thats not what is being discussed. The issue Pat raised is the lack of frontline staff in HSE.. and we both know the only organisation that can influence that is the PS/CS.

The_Honeybadger

aoboa wrote: »

What is really screwing us how much we have to pay to service the debt built up during the recession. The ONLY factor influencing this is the combined nonsense that is nama, the AIB/BOI bailout and the nationalisation/bailout of anglo. This has cost €80+ billion so far and gonna top €100billion.

Jesus christ what are you basing these figures on, the worst case scenario I have seen from independent commentators doesn't top 30bn (Patrick Honohan reckons 25bn). I along with most on here am against NAMA and was from the start but lets not completely blow it out of proportion altogether. Some of what has gone into NAMA will be worth something eventually, and some of the developers will pay off the loans. NAMA has a ten year timescale we are told, if we leave our deficit unchecked in that time we will amass a debt of over 200bn, without taking account of interest payable on it!!

PattheMetaller

Welease wrote: »

OK, so we are getting somewhere now.. So you inadvertantly now admit, the decision to keep Senior/Middlemanagement and remove the fontline staff is being made within the PS/CS, not by bankers, developers etc...
So by default, the solution to this issue also lies with the very same organisations! BINGO!



Really.. so replacing ONE person in middle management with ONE person on front line services means that supermarkets will drop revenue, builders wont find work, petrol stations will go bust... It's a 1:1 swap (and this could be donenumerous times where needed).. Nurse for Manager etc.. do explain why this collapse of society occurs?

I'm not ignoring anythign you say, it just doesnt make sense.. as demonstrated by your rational above.

Firstly, my gripe is with lack of front line staff. It is indeed, as you say, from within the PS/CS that the decisions are made regarding who has their contract terminated etc. That is done by Senior Management. So, as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, they won't be looking at their peers but rather the "lower grade" front line staff when deliberating who to get rid of.

I still maintain a significant part of the problem is with banking and property development. If we were still in the boom period, we wouldn't be having this discussion as the Government would have substantial income to feed the HSE and therefore maintain / expand the frontline services to levels that provide the care needed.

Regarding your second point: obviously if there are whole sale redundancies at any level within the PS/CS, the now unemployed PS/CS will have less to spend and therefore less money will be circulated in their community through groceries, etc. As the PS/CS is perhaps the most likely member of a community to be able to continue spending, once this spending power is removed, the wider community inadvertantly will suffer in the long run.

aoboa

mickeyk wrote: »

Jesus christ what are you basing these figures on, the worst case scenario I have seen from independent commentators doesn't top 30bn (Patrick Honohan reckons 25bn). I along with most on here am against NAMA and was from the start but lets not completely blow it out of proportion altogether. Some of what has gone into NAMA will be worth something eventually, and some of the developers will pay off the loans. NAMA has a ten year timescale we are told, if we leave our deficit unchecked in that time we will amass a debt of over 200bn, without taking account of interest payable on it!!

Everyone's favourite unimpeachable source of information
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bank-bailout-cost-of-836473bn-manageable-says-esri-2135270.html

Not NAMA alone. NAMA + bank handouts + Anglo nationalisation.

Like I said earlier, sovereign debt increasing during a recession is normal - for any country. That's what happens. The country borrows to keep running and pays it down after recovery.

If we tackle the deficit by cutting we will end up in a deeper hole.
Even a slash of 15% of all jobs in the ps/cs would gain very little in the scale of the total deficit and create even more problems for the country and more job losses.

Welease

PattheMetaller wrote: »

Firstly, my gripe is with lack of front line staff. It is indeed, as you say, from within the PS/CS that the decisions are made regarding who has their contract terminated etc. That is done by Senior Management. So, as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, they won't be looking at their peers but rather the "lower grade" front line staff when deliberating who to get rid of.

Of course a turkey won't vote for Xmas.. and I have rarely come across an organisation that allows the affected staff to make personal decisions on their own redundancy (unless it's voluntary).. Someone more senior to those staff makes the decision... that's why there is an organisation hierarchy, and one would assume, a plan..
Either way you want to dance around the point, the stark fact is the decision on the provision of resources within the organisation lies WITHIN the HSE..

PattheMetaller wrote: »

I still maintain a significant part of the problem is with banking and property development. If we were still in the boom period, we wouldn't be having this discussion as the Government would have substantial income to feed the HSE and therefore maintain / expand the frontline services to levels that provide the care needed.

A significant part of this countries problems are the result of banks/developement, yes.. but once again adequate funding is provided to the HSE.. Other countries can make it work.. the HSE can't. That is not the fault of the bankers, they don't get to vote on the retention of middle management over front line staff.

If your only answer to the problem is to recruit more staff and spend more money, then frankly it's pointless to discuss this with you.. The tightening/reduction of budgets did not create this problem, it brought the existing problem into view, as we were no longer in a position to keep throwing more money at the problem.

PattheMetaller wrote: »

Regarding your second point: obviously if there are whole sale redundancies at any level within the PS/CS, the now unemployed PS/CS will have less to spend and therefore less money will be circulated in their community through groceries, etc. As the PS/CS is perhaps the most likely member of a community to be able to continue spending, once this spending power is removed, the wider community inadvertantly will suffer in the long run.

Thats not what I said.. I said if you remove a middle manager, you REPLACE them with a front line member of staff. I am not suggesting the new front line members work for free, so therefore they will continue to pay tax, and spend within our economy.

aoboa

Welease wrote: »

Of course a turkey won't vote for Xmas.. and I have rarely come across an organisation that allows the affected staff to make personal decisions on their own redundancy (unless it's voluntary).. Someone more senior to those staff makes the decision... that's why there is an organisation hierarchy, and one would assume, a plan..
Either way you want to dance around the point, the stark fact is the decision on the provision of resources within the organisation lies WITHIN the HSE..



A significant part of this countries problems are the result of banks/developement, yes.. but once again adequate funding is provided to the HSE.. Other countries can make it work.. the HSE can't. That is not the fault of the bankers, they don't get to vote on the retention of middle management over front line staff.

If your only answer to the problem is to recruit more staff and spend more money, then frankly it's pointless to discuss this with you.. The tightening/reduction of budgets did not create this problem, it brought the existing problem into view, as we were no longer in a position to keep throwing more money at the problem.



Thats not what I said.. I said if you remove a middle manager, you REPLACE them with a front line member of staff. I am not suggesting the new front line members work for free, so therefore they will continue to pay tax, and spend within our economy.

Those are issues of political will. The HSE will never reform itself. The impetus for change need to come from above but there is no political will to deal with the problem.
Technically it's not the fault of either the HSE or the multitude of unions who represent its staff.

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

Those are issues of political will. The HSE will never reform itself. The impetus for change need to come from above but there is no political will to deal with the problem.
Technically it's not the fault of either the HSE or the multitude of unions who represent its staff.

lol you guys seriously crack me up

The banker arguement fell flat on it's face.. as did the developer arguement.. so now it's down to political will?

A will (albeit weak) which resulted in go-slows, refusal to answer phones, refusal to hand over financial information etc. before the government even attempted to make such changes.. give me a break. Yes this government is weak and lacks the will to force these changes through, but to pretend that the core problem still doesn't lie with the PS and their attitude to change is laughable.. their political will would not be needed if the right thing was being done in the first place and the HSE did what everyone agrees should be done.

No, it's down to what it's always been down to.. poor management within the PS/CS in this particular area...

Even the OECD in their 2009 health reported called it out..

"● In the health sector, spending should be reduced and services improved by reducing costs and redeploying manpower resources. The Medical Card scheme and tax deduction of medical expenditures should be reviewed."

http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2009/oecd/index.pdf

PattheMetaller

Welease wrote: »

A significant part of this countries problems are the result of banks/developement, yes.. but once again adequate funding is provided to the HSE.. Other countries can make it work.. the HSE can't. That is not the fault of the bankers, they don't get to vote on the retention of middle management over front line staff.

If your only answer to the problem is to recruit more staff and spend more money, then frankly it's pointless to discuss this with you.. The tightening/reduction of budgets did not create this problem, it brought the existing problem into view, as we were no longer in a position to keep throwing more money at the problem.

The tightening / reduction of HSE & other PS/CS budgets came about due to Government redirecting already reduced finances due to reduced tax take etc to the bank bail out.

Nowhere have i mentioned recruiting more staff. Maintaining the staffing levels and front line services levels is where I'm coming from. If the funding provided to the HSE is now at such a level as services and staff are cut, then that could hardly be described as "adequate funding".

The_Honeybadger

aoboa wrote: »

Everyone's favourite unimpeachable source of information
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bank-bailout-cost-of-836473bn-manageable-says-esri-2135270.html

Not NAMA alone. NAMA + bank handouts + Anglo nationalisation.

Like I said earlier, sovereign debt increasing during a recession is normal - for any country. That's what happens. The country borrows to keep running and pays it down after recovery.

If we tackle the deficit by cutting we will end up in a deeper hole.
Even a slash of 15% of all jobs in the ps/cs would gain very little in the scale of the total deficit and create even more problems for the country and more job losses.

That article is very misleading, the money gone into AIB and BOI will be paid back in full, and will actually earn a profit, and NAMA will not make a 100% loss no matter how slow our recovery. There is no defense for Anglo, it should have been allowed collapse and was a very costly mistake, either way your 100 billion figure above was a massive exagerration. Only this week prof. Honohan, who has no real reason to lie estimated the overall cost of the banking crisis will amount to 25bn, even if he is out by 100% there is a big difference between 50bn and 100bn. On cuts, can you honestly see a situation where our tax returns will allow us to spend 55bn running the country ever again (ex inflation)? The deficit is a much bigger issue than the bank bailout, I can't imagine why anybody could try to argue different.

Welease

PattheMetaller wrote: »

The tightening / reduction of HSE & other PS/CS budgets came about due to Government redirecting already reduced finances due to reduced tax take etc to the bank bail out.

Nowhere have i mentioned recruiting more staff. Maintaining the staffing levels and front line services levels is where I'm coming from. If the funding provided to the HSE is now at such a level as services and staff are cut, then that could hardly be described as "adequate funding".

Ahh ok... I see..

Your complaint is that we don't borrow more money at increased rates of interest, in order to maintain layers of unnecessary middle management that you yourself were complaining we don't need...

Because that's exactly what "Maintaining the staffing levels" entails...

aoboa

Welease wrote: »

lol you guys seriously crack me up

The banker arguement fell flat on it's face.. as did the developer arguement.. so now it's down to political will?

A will (albeit weak) which resulted in go-slows, refusal to answer phones, refusal to hand over financial information etc. before the government even attempted to make such changes.. give me a break. Yes this government is weak and lacks the will to force these changes through, but to pretend that the core problem still doesn't lie with the PS and their attitude to change is laughable.. their political will would not be needed if the right thing was being done in the first place and the HSE did what everyone agrees should be done.

No, it's down to what it's always been down to.. poor management within the PS/CS in this particular area...

Even the OECD in their 2009 health reported called it out..

"● In the health sector, spending should be reduced and services improved by reducing costs and redeploying manpower resources. The Medical Card scheme and tax deduction of medical expenditures should be reviewed."

http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2009/oecd/index.pdf

LOL away. Reform comes from the top. The HSE are not the top.
The country is screwed for the next decade - it is not the fault of the ps/cs or the unions.
The decisions taken that have brought us to where we are were government ones.
The government will slice budgets again in the next budget and the one after that because it's easier than pushing through reform.
Directing vitriol at an office clerk in the HSE who has a permenant contract when a temp nurses contract is not renewed is pointless. The same happens in the private sector when contractors are let go before anyone else regardless of their worth.
People have contracts and job descriptions and they are legally binding. Your suggestions make no attempt to understand the intricacies of the required reform and how it can be achieved and how much it would cost to achieve it.
At a minimum it would take a massive project to redeign the system and a redeployment, voluntary severance and early retirement schemes with maybe a mandatory redundancy to clear out what's left.
What politician in their right mind is gonna tackle that on a national scale?
It's easy to say they should suck it up and take a hit like the private sector did but the scale of what's involved is colossal and it would be the end of whatever party tried to do it for decades.

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

LOL away. Reform comes from the top. The HSE are not the top.
The country is screwed for the next decade - it is not the fault of the ps/cs or the unions.
The decisions taken that have brought us to where we are were government ones.
The government will slice budgets again in the next budget and the one after that because it's easier than pushing through reform.
Directing vitriol at an office clerk in the HSE who has a permenant contract when a temp nurses contract is not renewed is pointless. The same happens in the private sector when contractors are let go before anyone else regardless of their worth.
People have contracts and job descriptions and they are legally binding. Your suggestions make no attempt to understand the intricacies of the required reform and how it can be achieved and how much it would cost to achieve it.
At a minimum it would take a massive project to redeign the system and a redeployment, voluntary severance and early retirement schemes with maybe a mandatory redundancy to clear out what's left.
What politician in their right mind is gonna tackle that on a national scale?
It's easy to say they should suck it up and take a hit like the private sector did but the scale of what's involved is colossal and it would be the end of whatever party tried to do it for decades.

No one is directing any vitriol, I am merely pointing out that blaming everyone else for the misuse of available resources in the HSE should lie squarely with those who have the power to make and allow such changes to be made.. and that whether you like it is the PS/CS and Government.

aoboa wrote: »

The government will slice budgets again in the next budget and the one after that because it's easier than pushing through reform."

Absolutetely, and why is that? because reform becomes impossible with PS employees and unions blocking every attempt.. again thats not the fault of the bankers/developers etc.. its the PC/CS and Government..

You can bring up deflection after deflection, but the simple fact remains and will continue to remain that the continue misuse of services can only be tackled by the PS/CS and Government, and those who work their arses of in the PS (of which there are many) will continue to be overshadowed by the continue shocking waste of our scant resources and the blocks to any attempt to reform those areas in dire need of change.

aoboa

mickeyk wrote: »

That article is very misleading, the money gone into AIB and BOI will be paid back in full, and will actually earn a profit, and NAMA will not make a 100% loss no matter how slow our recovery. There is no defense for Anglo, it should have been allowed collapse and was a very costly mistake, either way your 100 billion figure above was a massive exagerration. Only this week prof. Honohan, who has no real reason to lie estimated the overall cost of the banking crisis will amount to 25bn, even if he is out by 100% there is a big difference between 50bn and 100bn. On cuts, can you honestly see a situation where our tax returns will allow us to spend 55bn running the country ever again (ex inflation)? The deficit is a much bigger issue than the bank bailout, I can't imagine why anybody could try to argue different.

The bailout is making matters far worse than they needed to be and will compound our problems year after year long after the banks have recovered.
I know that article is misleading BUT that spend is what is screwing us now and the return on that spend is a long long way away.
I just don't see how any possible/reasonable deficit cutting will have a major effect on the overall picture. A cut of 40/50% yes but that would destroy the country and for all intents and purposes is impossible. I just do not see that happening.

PattheMetaller

PattheMetaller wrote: »

The tightening / reduction of HSE & other PS/CS budgets came about due to Government redirecting already reduced finances due to reduced tax take etc to the bank bail out.

Nowhere have i mentioned recruiting more staff. Maintaining the staffing levels and front line services levels is where I'm coming from. If the funding provided to the HSE is now at such a level as services and staff are cut, then that could hardly be described as "adequate funding".

Welease wrote: »

Ahh ok... I see..

Your complaint is that we don't borrow more money at increased rates of interest, in order to maintain layers of unnecessary middle management that you yourself were complaining we don't need...

Because that's exactly what "Maintaining the staffing levels" entails...

Perhaps I could have phrased my last post better. I was talking about maintaining front line services and front line staffing levels. NOT in any way about "..in order to maintain layers of unnecessary middle management ". And yes, in my particular area of the Public Service / Civil Service and I'm sure in others, it is top heavy!!

Also, as stated by above by Aoboa, PS/CS Terms and Conditions of Employment that a PS/CS signs up to are legally binding and due to the large numbers of staff across the board would make any changes longer and harder to implement than in a private sector complany with, say, 10 employees

Nailz

Only one quote comes to mind, it's from Animal Farm.

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"

The_Honeybadger

aoboa wrote: »

The bailout is making matters far worse than they needed to be and will compound our problems year after year long after the banks have recovered.
I know that article is misleading BUT that spend is what is screwing us now and the return on that spend is a long long way away.
I just don't see how any possible/reasonable deficit cutting will have a major effect on the overall picture. A cut of 40/50% yes but that would destroy the country and for all intents and purposes is impossible. I just do not see that happening.

Nothing close to 73bn has been spent or handed over, prommisory notes have been issued mainly, which the banks will hold until they need to cash them in, some may never be cashed in.

We spend 55bn and take in 35bn and you don't see how cutting spending will have any effect on the overall picture? Do you suggest we keep borrowing 20bn a year so and hope for the best?

aoboa

Welease wrote: »

No one is directing any vitriol, I am merely pointing out that blaming everyone else for the misuse of available resources in the HSE should lie squarely with those who have the power to make and allow such changes to be made.. and that whether you like it is the PS/CS and Government.



Absolutetely, and why is that? because reform becomes impossible with PS employees and unions blocking every attempt.. again thats not the fault of the bankers/developers etc.. its the PC/CS and Government..

You can bring up deflection after deflection, but the simple fact remains and will continue to remain that the continue misuse of services can only be tackled by the PS/CS and Government, and those who work their arses of in the PS (of which there are many) will continue to be overshadowed by the continue shocking waste of our scant resources and the blocks to any attempt to reform those areas in dire need of change.

You are expecting reform to comes from the floor? That doesn't even happen to any great extent in the private sector. From the top down as always.
Defending your job or position is what people do and you'd be crazy to expect any different. But when the boss has no interest in change then you know you're in trouble.
Expecting anyone in the public or private sectors to welcome change, especially when it may involve less money or possible job loss, is nuts.
You do understand how expensive to implement any reform would be in the short term don't you?

Welease

PattheMetaller wrote: »

Perhaps I could have phrased my last post better. I was talking about maintaining front line services and front line staffing levels. NOT in any way about "..in order to maintain layers of unnecessary middle management ". And yes, in my particular area of the Public Service / Civil Service and I'm sure in others, it is top heavy!!

And so we come full circle!.. and the point remains the same.. The unnecessary layers of middle management cannot be removed (to maintain front line staffing levels) because the PS/CS staff and their unions have the CP agreement which eliminated the opportunity to remove those staff.

That is noone elses fault apart from the PS/CS staff and their unions!
(I believe we have lost of the order of 1500 nurses (radio interview yesterday).. if the McCarthy report cuts were even 50% implemented with regards to HSE, you could rehire those and another 1500... thats what it stopped happening).

PattheMetaller wrote: »

Also, as stated by above by Aoboa, PS/CS Terms and Conditions of Employment that a PS/CS signs up to are legally binding and due to the large numbers of staff across the board would make any changes longer and harder to implement than in a private sector complany with, say, 10 employees

Of course it would take longer that 10 employees.. But it isn't happening at all!!!!! Many companies (Intel/HP etc.) have made unnecessary positions redundant, and hired people into new positions depending on their needs.. The difference with the PS is, they use collective union power to hold the country to ransom, and make sure all those middle management are kept safe and well paid..

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

You are expecting reform to comes from the floor? That doesn't even happen to any great extent in the private sector. From the top down as always.
Defending your job or position is what people do and you'd be crazy to expect any different. But when the boss has no interest in change then you know you're in trouble.
Expecting anyone in the public or private sectors to welcome change, especially when it may involve less money or possible job loss, is nuts.
You do understand how expensive to implement any reform would be in the short term don't you?

I didn't see any of the "floor" unions rejecting the CP agreement to ease the process of reform.. I saw them vote "yes" and block the reform Pat is requesting.
Do you understand how expensive not reforming will be for this country?

It's fine to stand there and say defend "your job or position", but if that will come at the cost of other people's jobs and services (which was clearly known in advance), then it is somewhat illogical (and laughable if it wasn't so serious) to start complaining about the outcome now.

Liam Byrne

Welease wrote: »

the PS/CS staff and their unions have the CP agreement which eliminated the opportunity to remove those staff.

That is noone elses fault apart from the PS/CS staff and their unions!

What about the Ahern-led government that agreed to this ?

Welease

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What about the Ahern-led government that agreed to this ?

Ahern?

I don't for one second believe that the government (crap as they are) walking into the discussions with unions demanding that we cannot under any circumstances remove unnecessary positions from within the PS.
I can't prove this, but I suspect it was a term laid down by the unions and as agreement had to be reached (and somewhat quickly) before more industrial action crippled the country at a key time, it was agreed as the lesser of other evils..

Does that make the government entirely innocent? no.. but should the primary blame be at them (imho)? equally no.

The sequence of events regarding Pat's orginal complaint should have been fairly obvious.

1. We knew budgets would be cut (as they had been previously)
2. We knew (and have for years) that there were lots of unnecessary permenant positions that could/should be made redundant (McCarthy identified thousands)
3. The CP agreement ensured those positions would not be touched, and the continuance of pay and conditions was arguebly the main point the unions would fight for..
4. The reforms would not be forthcoming quickly enough (and as Aoboa suggested could be expensive to implement)..

With the resultant reduced budget and no immediate reform savings incoming.. what option's are available?

Correct.. remove contract staff from front line services. The only direct way to meet the budget available (a budget we are already borrowing heavily to provide)...

And people are surprised?

For those who haven't seen the news today.
HSE West to outline proposed cutbacks
"It is understood that the HSE will outline the proposed cutbacks in jobs and services across Galway, Limerick, Mayo, Sligo and Donegal.
It is estimated that hundreds of temporary staff will be let go and many more will be placed on reduced hours."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0813/hse.html

changes

Welease wrote: »

The banker arguement fell flat on it's face.. as did the developer arguement.. so now it's down to political will?

No the banker arguement didn't fall flat on its face.... its amazing that you can't see that this country is in the mess its in primarliy because of FF mismanagement of the last 15 years, the greed and recklessness of the banks and the developers.

The government are asking all departments to make cuts now because of the mess they have overseen.

Sure the HSE could spend their money better but its one part of a much bigger problem.

Welease

changes wrote: »

No the banker arguement didn't fall flat on its face.... its amazing that you can't see that this country is in the mess its in primarliy because of FF mismanagement of the last 15 years, the greed and recklessness of the banks and the developers.

The government are asking all departments to make cuts now because of the mess they have overseen.

Sure the HSE could spend their money better but its one part of a much bigger problem.

It has been acknowledged many times by both sides that the wider current governmental financial issues were indeed caused by bankers/developers/government, however the core underlying of the problems of the HSE (in this particular case ) were not, they were merely exposed even further by the budget cuts.

In relation to Pat's complaint (which is what we were discussing) it has been pointed out several times, there has and is enough funding available to cover the frontline services required in this country, but that funding cannot be freed up because it's locked up in swathes of unnecessary positions and conditions as per the CP agreement. That is not the fault of the bankers/developers or anyone else however much it seems to be the Irish persuasion to continue to try and lay the blame elsewhere..

bondjames

Welease wrote: »

Ahern?

I don't for one second believe that the government (crap as they are) walking into the discussions with unions demanding that we cannot under any circumstances remove unnecessary positions from within the PS.
I can't prove this, but I suspect it was a term laid down by the unions and as agreement had to be reached (and somewhat quickly) before more industrial action crippled the country at a key time, it was agreed as the lesser of other evils..

Does that make the government entirely innocent? no.. but should the primary blame be at them (imho)? equally no.

The sequence of events regarding Pat's orginal complaint should have been fairly obvious.

1. We knew budgets would be cut (as they had been previously)
2. We knew (and have for years) that there were lots of unnecessary permenant positions that could/should be made redundant (McCarthy identified thousands)
3. The CP agreement ensured those positions would not be touched, and the continuance of pay and conditions was arguebly the main point the unions would fight for..
4. The reforms would not be forthcoming quickly enough (and as Aoboa suggested could be expensive to implement)..

With the resultant reduced budget and no immediate reform savings incoming.. what option's are available?

Correct.. remove contract staff from front line services. The only direct way to meet the budget available (a budget we are already borrowing heavily to provide)...

And people are surprised?

For those who haven't seen the news today.
HSE West to outline proposed cutbacks
"It is understood that the HSE will outline the proposed cutbacks in jobs and services across Galway, Limerick, Mayo, Sligo and Donegal.
It is estimated that hundreds of temporary staff will be let go and many more will be placed on reduced hours."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0813/hse.html

who will suffer because of this???????
The 450k on the dole who were once private sector workers
And yet we have private sector people still calling for more cuts to staff and services and more than likley dome of those for it will end up on the dole and inturn suffer the effect of the cutbacks.
Well done to private sector bankers , developers, estate agent , accountants, solicitors
You have F****D it up for the poor once again
Scumbags the lot of yea

PattheMetaller

changes wrote: »

No the banker arguement didn't fall flat on its face.... its amazing that you can't see that this country is in the mess its in primarliy because of FF mismanagement of the last 15 years, the greed and recklessness of the banks and the developers.

The government are asking all departments to make cuts now because of the mess they have overseen.

+1.

Welease wrote: »

It has been acknowledged many times by both sides that the wider current governmental financial issues were indeed caused by bankers/developers/government, however the core underlying of the problems of the HSE (in this particular case ) were not, they were merely exposed even further by the budget cuts.

In relation to Pat's complaint (which is what we were discussing) it has been pointed out several times, there has and is enough funding available to cover the frontline services required in this country, but that funding cannot be freed up because it's locked up in swathes of unnecessary positions and conditions as per the CP agreement. That is not the fault of the bankers/developers or anyone else however much it seems to be the Irish persuasion to continue to try and lay the blame elsewhere..

Glad to see you've finally admitted that the banking / property developers and politicians are part of the problem because earlier your total focus was on pilloring the average PS/CS worker and laying the blame solely at their feet!!!

Budgets are cut in the HSE, again because of the bigger picture. The problem lies with the fact that most frontline staff are temporary whereas to climb the ladder to Middle /Senior Management would in most cases require a person to have accumulated permanent service within the PS/CS. So, with budgets cut (remember this is due to the bigger picture involving bankers/developers and political leadership that is utterly useless) it is the temporary, frontline staff, rather than permanent middle / senior management, that are let go to cut spending on salaries, and before the temporary staff have accumulated enough service to attain rights to continual employment.

Welease

PattheMetaller wrote: »

Glad to see you've finally admitted that the banking / property developers and politicians are part of the problem because earlier your total focus was on pilloring the average PS/CS worker and laying the blame solely at their feet!!!

Welease wrote: »

There is a swathe of problems with this country, and yes the banks/developers/house buyers/people who lived on credit/government/regulators all must share a degree (to varying degrees) of the blame.. BUT not every issue is related directly related to the wider fiscal problem of this country..

Welease wrote: »

A significant part of this countries problems are the result of banks/developement, yes.. but once again adequate funding is provided to the HSE.. Other countries can make it work.. the HSE can't. That is not the fault of the bankers, they don't get to vote on the retention of middle management over front line staff.

Welease wrote: »

It has been acknowledged many times by both sides that the wider current governmental financial issues were indeed caused by bankers/developers/government, however the core underlying of the problems of the HSE (in this particular case ) were not, they were merely exposed even further by the budget cuts.

Three times in the last 3 pages... /boggle..

I don't believe I ever once said they were not responsible for the issues in this country (and feel free to quote if I did), but I am putting (and have been since the start) forward the point that the HSE (PS/CS) is and was in a position to stop this issue of shortfall of frontline staff irrespective of what happened with the banks. There is still enough budget in the HSE year to provide those services IF the right resources were being employed in the right areas.. Attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the bankers and development is just deflection in terms of the issues you were complaining about (extra management / frontline shortfall)

aoboa

Welease wrote: »

Three times in the last 3 pages... /boggle..

I don't believe I ever once said they were not responsible for the issues in this country (and feel free to quote if I did), but I am putting (and have been since the start) forward the point that the HSE (PS/CS) is and was in a position to stop this issue of shortfall of frontline staff irrespective of what happened with the banks. There is still enough budget in the HSE year to provide those services IF the right resources were being employed in the right areas.. Attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the bankers and development is just deflection in terms of the issues you were complaining about (extra management / frontline shortfall)

Explain how the HSE can get rid of redundant management positions and create needed frontline positions without paying out incredibly costly redundancy payments or astronomically expensive early retirement schemes and all within the constraints of their budget?
The budget for such a scheme would have to come from government as would the direction to open it which ain't gonna happen cos they don't have the money or the will.
If you've got ideas I'd like to hear them.

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

Explain how the HSE can get rid of redundant management positions and create needed frontline positions without paying out incredibly costly redundancy payments or astronomically expensive early retirement schemes and all within the constraints of their budget?
The budget for such a scheme would have to come from government as would the direction to open it which ain't gonna happen cos they don't have the money or the will.
If you've got ideas I'd like to hear them.

Isn't statutory minimum 2 weeks per year? (thats their redundancy package!, why should PS employees get huge payoff/massive retirement packages from their essentially bankrupt employer when others get 2 week/per year? The PS need to break out of this mentality.. if the law states 2 weeks minimum is good enough for everyone else, its good enough for them.. given they actually have no role to perform within the HSE.)
A lot of the frontline staff re-employed would argueably be on considerably lower wages than these senior/middlemanagers..

It's impossibly to give exact figures, because you and I don't have the exact details on who would go.. These things could and should have been managed within the HSE...

Or do we just sit here, do nothing again, and complain about the cuts? (oh and blame the bankers... because doing that ad nausium will fix the problem )

Welease

It's probably just better to agree to disagree at this stage

I firmly believe the problems could be solved within the HSE, or at least the bulk of the shortfall could be addressed.
You guys believe the government/developers/bankers are at fault, and the budget needs to be increased to rehire the staff (which in my opinion won't happen because we don't have the budget available)..
..and we go around in circles again

At this stage, it doesn't look like either side is going to change their opinions

changes

Welease wrote: »

It's probably just better to agree to disagree at this stage

I firmly believe the problems could be solved within the HSE, or at least the bulk of the shortfall could be addressed.
You guys believe the government/developers/bankers are at fault, and the budget needs to be increased to rehire the staff (which in my opinion won't happen because we don't have the budget available)..
..and we go around in circles again

Personally i don't think the budget should be increased to bring in more staff. Its fairly clear that admin staffing levels are more than adequate for needs and non replacement of retiring admin staff is a good way to save money. But i would rather see it used to hire more nessessary frontline staff.... not just poured into the anglo black hole.

aoboa

Welease wrote: »

Isn't statutory minimum 2 weeks per year? (thats their redundancy package!, why should PS employees get huge payoff/massive retirement packages from their essentially bankrupt employer when others get 2 week/per year? The PS need to break out of this mentality.. if the law states 2 weeks minimum is good enough for everyone else, its good enough for them.. given they actually have no role to perform within the HSE.)
A lot of the frontline staff re-employed would argueably be on considerably lower wages than these senior/middlemanagers..

It's impossibly to give exact figures, because you and I don't have the exact details on who would go.. These things could and should have been managed within the HSE...

Or do we just sit here, do nothing again, and complain about the cuts? (oh and blame the bankers... because doing that ad nausium will fix the problem )

Ha hilarious. And who exactly would voluntarily go for statutory?
Mandatory redundancy is the very last option explored in situations like this and the only one that ever comes with statutory.
The budget doesn't exist for that and there is no way in hell the government have the stomach for it. Even if they did it would be last in first out and would only result in more frontline staff going.
You are dreaming.

aoboa

Check it out:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0813/breaking63.html
"The HSE aims to save money through new efficiencies and value-for-money drives in areas such as procurement of medical supplies, blood products and equipment.

The HSE is also seeking to achieve greater flexibility to redeploy permanent staff from corporate areas to more frontline functions to replace temporary staff."

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

Ha hilarious. And who exactly would voluntarily go for statutory?
Mandatory redundancy is the very last option explored in situations like this and the only one that ever comes with statutory.
The budget doesn't exist for that and there is no way in hell the government have the stomach for it. Even if they did it would be last in first out and would only result in more frontline staff going.
You are dreaming.

???? What's hilarious.. Where did anyone say voluntary redundancies?

What's funny is once again you don't seem to understand how it works in the real world or believe that the PS should get special privilages

There would be no voluntary, there would be no early retirement packages, there is no last in first out.. the roles are redundant.. Turkeys don't vote for xmas remember?

If middle-management position X is deemed redundant, the person in that role goes with it.. thats how it works..

aoboa wrote: »

there is no way in hell the government have the stomach for it.

And why is that? Because the unions and PS staff would be out on strike/go slows.. Preventing it from happening..

................. and round in a circle we go again

Welease

aoboa wrote: »

Check it out:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0813/breaking63.html
"The HSE aims to save money through new efficiencies and value-for-money drives in areas such as procurement of medical supplies, blood products and equipment.

The HSE is also seeking to achieve greater flexibility to redeploy permanent staff from corporate areas to more frontline functions to replace temporary staff."

Shock horror, so they could solve some of the problems themselves when forced into it

(although I doubt they have 600 psychiatric nurses swanning around in middle management positions)

AgileMyth

40000 empty houses-5000 homeless. Doesn't sound all that fair to me.

RichardAnd

AgileMyth wrote: »

40000 empty houses-5000 homeless. Doesn't sound all that fair to me.

Very true. Unfortunately, homelessness is something of a hushed topic here. It's like suicide and sexual abuse, something we'd like to pretend doesn't happen.

PattheMetaller

Welease wrote: »

Isn't statutory minimum 2 weeks per year? (thats their redundancy package!, why should PS employees get huge payoff/massive retirement packages from their essentially bankrupt employer when others get 2 week/per year?

Or do we just sit here, do nothing again, and complain about the cuts? (oh and blame the bankers... because doing that ad nausium will fix the problem )

The aforementioned Terms and Conditions of Contract that the PS/CS signed up to long before the employer became essentially bankrupt entitles the PS/CS to the huge payoff/ retirement package. Granted times are changed, but legally binding T&C would still have to be honoured. Personally, after 20 years service, I'd be looking for my T&C to be honoured and the appropriate redundancy package paid. That is human nature and would apply to the private sector employee too if he/she had the option.

Welease wrote: »

It's probably just better to agree to disagree at this stage

I firmly believe the problems could be solved within the HSE, or at least the bulk of the shortfall could be addressed.
You guys believe the government/developers/bankers are at fault, and the budget needs to be increased to rehire the staff (which in my opinion won't happen because we don't have the budget available)..
..and we go around in circles again

At this stage, it doesn't look like either side is going to change their opinions

True, I'm getting dizzy with these circular movements .

Seriously though, yes, I and many others fully believe that the Government / Developers / bankers are the root cause plus procurement seriously needs looking at.

AgileMyth wrote: »

40000 empty houses-5000 homeless. Doesn't sound all that fair to me.

+1. Plenty of ghost estates out there. Surely it would be better to use many of these to house the homeless rather than leave them empty to gain the various problems with damp etc that long term vacant houses inherit.