The reality of cutbacks.

Idbatterim

can anyone post yesterdays irish times article here?

Brussels Sprout

murphaph wrote: »

Would it not be better to reduce average pay a bit and hire people as others leave? (in departments that actually need to replace staff, (not council planning departments or HSE admin for example)

+1

The recruitment embargo is such a depressingly irish solution. It's basically kicking the can down the road so as to avoid taking difficult decisions. The big losers are, in the short term, the young people who are directly affected and in the long term, the whole country as the level of service being offered naturally is affected by the fall in staff.

When you place this alongside the slashing of the Capital Expenditure budget (no direct votes there for the politicians) it doesn't auger will for the future quality of life in Ireland.

woodoo

murphaph wrote: »

Would it not be better to reduce average pay a bit and hire people as others leave? (in departments that actually need to replace staff, (not council planning departments or HSE admin for example)

I wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it was done fairly. But the people at the top will decide they are still worth it and won't get cut. It still angers me that Brian Lenihan reversed the cuts for the very top guys when the last cuts were done.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

I wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it was done fairly. But the people at the top will decide they are still worth it and won't get cut. It still angers me that Brian Lenihan reversed the cuts for the very top guys when the last cuts were done.

Stop begrudging them their salary ;):pac:

IrishGeordie

Cutbacks are setting is back indefinitely I feel

Jaysoose

n97 mini wrote: »

Wow, sweeping statement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0411/1224314609624.html

The real issue is again there is no accountability for the mismanagement that has occurred already, all we get is a "we promise not to do it again".

Why are we not seeing the management that didnt apply the performance system removed from their positions? They basically have admitted that they havent been managing their staff correctly and have been providing innacurate ratings to ensure that staff get incrments. So we have managers that cant manage and remain in their positions without any recriminations for staff that may have recived payrises that they were not deserving of.

its a fckin joke and the real kicker being a 2 which equals "needs improvement" is all thats needed to get a payrise. If somebody isnt good enough at their job to meet basic requirements then why are they getting payrises? You couldnt make it up..and im sure this is all more public service bashing.

ardmacha

Why are we not seeing the management that didnt apply the performance system removed from their positions?

Don't you realise that all of this assessment stuff is only for the little people?

Jaysoose

ardmacha wrote: »

Don't you realise that all of this assessment stuff is only for the little people?

I get that alright, but a manager that cant manage? cmon now.

Godge

woodoo wrote: »

I wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it was done fairly. But the people at the top will decide they are still worth it and won't get cut. It still angers me that Brian Lenihan reversed the cuts for the very top guys when the last cuts were done.

What does fairly mean? There are at least two answers?

(1) Those at the top get cut more because they are paid more
(2) Those who are proportionally overpaid the most by European standards get cut the most, say teachers are overpaid by 20% and clerical officers are overpaid by 40% and secretary generals are overpaid by 10%, that is how the cuts get distributed.

Either of those options has consequences, advantages and disadvantages. Each also has a different argument as to why they are fairer.

woodoo

Godge wrote: »

What does fairly mean? There are at least two answers?

(1) Those at the top get cut more because they are paid more
(2) Those who are proportionally overpaid the most by European standards get cut the most, say teachers are overpaid by 20% and clerical officers are overpaid by 40% and secretary generals are overpaid by 10%, that is how the cuts get distributed.

Either of those options has consequences, advantages and disadvantages. Each also has a different argument as to why they are fairer.

I'm not sure where you are getting those figures from?

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

I'm not sure where you are getting those figures from?

I think the figures really are not important to the point Godge is making. If a person on a top salary is overpaid by 10% and a person on a low salary is overpaid by 20% is it fair to reduce the pay accordingly or should the person on the top salary take the bigger pay cut as they are earning more. Personally, I believe the governments responsibility is to the taxpayer and the former option is fairer within that context.

creedp

murphaph wrote: »

Would it not be better to reduce average pay a bit and hire people as others leave? (in departments that actually need to replace staff, (not council planning departments or HSE admin for example)

I wish the banks would practice this also and thousands of workers wouldn't be thrown out on the dole. Of course it suits some people as they can get away from the rat hole and stay at home to mind their kids or do something else with their lives. Know someone who was about to retire from a bank as tired of the job and wanted to look after child full time but loo and behold was offered voluntary redundancy and €80k to leave. I'd like to be driving a 2012 A6 as well.

creedp

Marissa Sticky Pimple wrote: »

I was reading through so many diverse opinions here and this statement just couldn't go without reply. ESB has had a pay freeze in place for 3 years and it is to continue to 2014. As ESB is Private Sector (it may be state owned but it is classified as Private Sector). Pay in 2011 was 12% below 2010 and is set for a further 20% cut in 2012 and 2013.

Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other but I hate to see facts misrepresented.

I was not picking in the ESB here but the ESB workers are not private sector workers (they are in the commercial semi-state sector - if they were private then the State wouldn't be looking to offload the company) and when the average PS salary is often thrown around it will include their average salaries which exceed €70k (if I remember right). Also I seem to remember the ESB awarding a 5% pay increase post PS pay cuts being introduced because (like every 'private' company) the ESB is very profitable and under the National Pay awards profitable companies
(public and semi-state) had to pony up. I may be wrong about this ..

maninasia

murphaph wrote: »

Would it not be better to reduce average pay a bit and hire people as others leave? (in departments that actually need to replace staff, (not council planning departments or HSE admin for example)

That's crazy talk, next you'll be asking teachers to take a 20% pay cut so they can hire 100s-1000s more teachers. Crazy talk.

Head The Wall

sarumite wrote: »

I think the figures really are not important to the point Godge is making. If a person on a top salary is overpaid by 10% and a person on a low salary is overpaid by 20% is it fair to reduce the pay accordingly or should the person on the top salary take the bigger pay cut as they are earning more. Personally, I believe the governments responsibility is to the taxpayer and the former option is fairer within that context.

Its at the low paid level where the real discrepancies are although I'm sure woodoo and others would prefer bigger cuts to those who make more. Higher Paid PS workers have already had larger % cuts so its time to go after the low hanging fruit of which there are plenty

golfwallah

Head The Wall wrote: »

Its at the low paid level where the real discrepancies are although I'm sure woodoo and others would prefer bigger cuts to those who make more. Higher Paid PS workers have already had larger % cuts so its time to go after the low hanging fruit of which there are plenty

It's not a question of fairness, IMO.

Most people in big organisations, of which the public service is just one, look to internal norms and cry out for "fairness", when it comes to pay and conditions.

But it's the market that should set rates for the job and rates for most jobs have taken a knock during the current recession.

During the boom, public servants did look to external pay and conditions as part of "Benchmarking" and, as a result, got big pay hikes.

They should now be prepared to accept benchmarking to the new market realities, if we are to survive and regain our economic sovereignty.

ardmacha

But it's the market that should set rates for the job and rates for most jobs have taken a knock during the current recession.

Rates for some jobs have fallen, most are about the same and some have risen. As I posted previously, rates generally have fallen by 2% or so. Public sector pay has fallen by 14%. When I point this out someone always comes along with some irrelevant comment about shorter hours. Some people are indeed working shorter hours because there is little demand for their services, this is not true of schools and hospitals which remain in demand.

golfwallah

ardmacha wrote: »

Rates for some jobs have fallen, most are about the same and some have risen. As I posted previously, rates generally have fallen by 2% or so. Public sector pay has fallen by 14%. When I point this out someone always comes along with some irrelevant comment about shorter hours. Some people are indeed working shorter hours because there is little demand for their services, this is not true of schools and hospitals which remain in demand.

“Education Minister Ruairi Quinn has repeatedly said he has little choice but to impose cuts to services and school programmes when about 80% of his €8.5bn-plus annual budget is expended on staff pay and pensions”.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/1500-teachers-earn-up-to-115k-a-year-189895.html#ixzz1sEb86ebT

See also post re interview with Ruairi Quinn today on NewsTalk: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056603528&page=5

I’m impressed with Minister for Health, James Reilly - looks like he knows his stuff and I would be confident in his ability to deliver more for less.

Good loser

ardmacha wrote: »

Rates for some jobs have fallen, most are about the same and some have risen. As I posted previously, rates generally have fallen by 2% or so. Public sector pay has fallen by 14%. When I point this out someone always comes along with some irrelevant comment about shorter hours. Some people are indeed working shorter hours because there is little demand for their services, this is not true of schools and hospitals which remain in demand.

What matters most is that the public service/State is broke and bankrupt.

Jaysoose

golfwallah wrote: »

It's not a question of fairness, IMO.

Most people in big organisations, of which the public service is just one, look to internal norms and cry out for "fairness", when it comes to pay and conditions.

But it's the market that should set rates for the job and rates for most jobs have taken a knock during the current recession.

During the boom, public servants did look to external pay and conditions as part of "Benchmarking" and, as a result, got big pay hikes.

They should now be prepared to accept benchmarking to the new market realities, if we are to survive and regain our economic sovereignty.

People have been posting this for the last few years on this board and it gets ignored by the public servants who prefer to use the usual emotive arguments "low paid worker", "its in my terms and conditions" "Ive taken a pay cut", "what about the pension levy", "im entitled to my increments".

its all well and good pointing out the obvious but this particular truth doesnt go down well round here.

golfwallah

Jaysoose wrote: »

People have been posting this for the last few years on this board and it gets ignored by the public servants who prefer to use the usual emotive arguments "low paid worker", "its in my terms and conditions" "Ive taken a pay cut", "what about the pension levy", "im entitled to my increments".

its all well and good pointing out the obvious but this particular truth doesnt go down well round here.

Nobody said it was going to be easy.

We elected a government to do the job of getting Ireland's finance back on track. Education Minister, Ruairi Quinn, on NewsTalk radio yesterday, likened the current crisis to that faced by Britain in World War 2.

They have made a start .... albeit a small one so far.

There's lots more to do and with consistency, hard work and much co-operation from workers and unions alike, I believe it can be done.

It's up to the ministers concerned to keep at it and get the job done and bring as many as possible along with them, which will take a lot of leadership (that has been sadly lacking in Ireland for the past number of years) and good will all round.

People aren't stupid and, even an angry patient can change his/her lifestyle when they consider the alternatives.

later12

ardmacha wrote: »

Rates for some jobs have fallen, most are about the same and some have risen. As I posted previously, rates generally have fallen by 2% or so. Public sector pay has fallen by 14%. When I point this out someone always comes along with some irrelevant comment about shorter hours. Some people are indeed working shorter hours because there is little demand for their services, this is not true of schools and hospitals which remain in demand.

It doesn't really matter if private incomes have, on aggregate, fallen 2% or 20%. The state is not paying those incomes and is under no obligation to pay the same rates as those available at IBM, Pfizer, Starbucks or Dunnes Stores. They are completely irrelevant to the need for fiscal prudence on our own account. The days when the state can engage in this social partnership minded attitude are (temporarily) over.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

Rates for some jobs have fallen, most are about the same and some have risen. As I posted previously, rates generally have fallen by 2% or so. Public sector pay has fallen by 14%. When I point this out someone always comes along with some irrelevant comment about shorter hours. Some people are indeed working shorter hours because there is little demand for their services, this is not true of schools and hospitals which remain in demand.

Though the figure you quoted was between now and 2009, not since the start of the recession. They also don't account for loss through forced redundancy which makes it a rather limited statistic for comparison purposes since some companies have preferred to make staff redundant than cutting pay. It is also unlikely to take into account pensions changes, which your 14% figure does or the affect of incremental payrises in the PS.

ardmacha

It doesn't really matter if private incomes have, on aggregate, fallen 2% or 20%. The state is not paying those incomes and is under no obligation to pay the same rates as those available at IBM, Pfizer, Starbucks or Dunnes Stores. They are completely irrelevant to the need for fiscal prudence on our own account. The days when the state can engage in this social partnership minded attitude are (temporarily) over

Are you Charlie McCreevy? When times are good provide pay without reference to the going rate and do likewise when times are bad.

The PS has to move to proper management and this is not it.

later12

No I am not Charlie McCreevy. I just think that this is not a time to look to the private sector in finding excuses for maintaining pay or numbers the public sector.

I don't have an inherent pro public or pro private sector bias, I just think it's a pretty non-controversial observation that incomes falling more slowly in the private sector (according to that figure, if true) does not make the public sector pay bill any more affordable in itself.

ardmacha

I don't have an inherent pro public or pro private sector bias, I just think it's a pretty non-controversial observation that incomes falling more slowly in the private sector (according to that figure, if true) does not make the public sector pay bill any more affordable in itself

No. But as a general proposition a country with a certain level of private sector pay should be able to support a public sector with a similar level of pay.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why this is not possible?

golfwallah

ardmacha wrote: »

No. But as a general proposition a country with a certain level of private sector pay should be able to support a public sector with a similar level of pay.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why this is not possible?

This argument about equality of pay for private and public sector workers boils down to the age old argument about Capitalist V Socialist systems of government.

What we have is a mixed economy – with elements of both systems. But at this juncture, the state is bust and saved from default by shed loads of EU/IMF money, on which we have to pay interest and eventually repay. Borrowing money just to pay the wages and social welfare makes absolutely no sense and just can’t go on.

This situation brings to mind a quote from Churchill: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries”.

Personally, I’d prefer to lean more towards capitalism and start living within our means – even if this results in inequalities between pay rates in the public and private sectors.

ardmacha

Personally, I’d prefer to lean more towards capitalism and start living within our means

Surely capitalism would entail privatising things, or a least charging for them, rather than central control of wages. Why is a broke government giving water away or charging one quarter of the fees for a university charged in the neighbouring island? Why not privatise TCD?

golfwallah

ardmacha wrote: »

Surely capitalism would entail privatising things, or a least charging for them, rather than central control of wages. Why is a broke government giving water away or charging one quarter of the fees for a university charged in the neighbouring island? Why not privatise TCD?

The current government have a mandate to sort out the economy - this is a demand for change.

As they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day". Change is happening and even more will be necessary over the next year or so ..... all set out in the EU/IMF Memorandum of Understanding that Ireland is signed up to.

Let's hope, for the good of all on this island, that they achieve their objectives ..... the alternatives of default are even worse.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

No. But as a general proposition a country with a certain level of private sector pay should be able to support a public sector with a similar level of pay.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why this is not possible?

Depends how big the public sector is in relation to the tax generating private sector really.

The private sector has been hit very hard in recent years with many more people now net recipients where they would have been net contributors before.

IMO there are too many public servants in total (some departments however are undoubtedly understaffed) and the average public servant is simply not as efficient as the average private sector worker (again, with exceptions).

In my line of work, the project and the project deadline determines my hours, not my contract. We have a deadline this Friday and I'm leaving work now (left later last night) and I'll leave late tomorrow and Thursday. This is reality in the private sector (at least in the part of the private sector that the public sector wants its wages benchmarked against).

Next week will be a bit more relaxed but I'll still do 40 hours. I simply don't believe that the average public servant delivers as much to their employer as the average private sector worker, so to claim that pay should be the same is not really on.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

No. But as a general proposition a country with a certain level of private sector pay should be able to support a public sector with a similar level of pay.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why this is not possible?

It should be possible (albeit difficult in the current circumstances).. But that is not what is being requested..

What is being requested is similar levels of pay along with excessive unnecessary employee levels (incl. jobs for life agreements in the HSE for unnecessary Admin staff) and poor management of resources (incl. financial waste). That is unsustainable given the current circumstances.

What the taxpayer (which includes PS workers) is getting in return is cuts to critical services to maintain that pay, staffing levels and waste. That is a model that is doomed to failure..

The CPA was put in place to maintain pay/staff levels via cuts in expenditure through efficiencies.. If it cannot deliver the levels required, then one of the other vectors (pay/staff levels) need to be addressed. If the unions etc. wish to maintain the high level of employment within the PS (even when unnecessary) then much like the meritocracy employed by the PS (or lack of) the funding should come from cuts to salaries across the PS irrespective of high/low performing areas.

later12

ardmacha wrote: »

No. But as a general proposition a country with a certain level of private sector pay should be able to support a public sector with a similar level of pay.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why this is not possible?

That's a statement of dubious usefulness, not least because we are in an economic adjustment programme, but also because that's not necessarily the best methodology to employ in assessing whether or not public sector pay is excessive.

I think collective bargaining and cognizance of private sector pay can have an important place in a country's fiscal policy, but (i) one must be mindful of the necessity of encouraging wage restraint and (ii) one has to take into account of the wage bill relative to current expenditure, which is probably the most common way of assessing whether or not a wage bill is excessive.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

Depends how big the public sector is in relation to the tax generating private sector really.

The private sector has been hit very hard in recent years with many more people now net recipients where they would have been net contributors before.

IMO there are too many public servants in total (some departments however are undoubtedly understaffed) and the average public servant is simply not as efficient as the average private sector worker (again, with exceptions).

In my line of work, the project and the project deadline determines my hours, not my contract. We have a deadline this Friday and I'm leaving work now (left later last night) and I'll leave late tomorrow and Thursday. This is reality in the private sector (at least in the part of the private sector that the public sector wants its wages benchmarked against).

Next week will be a bit more relaxed but I'll still do 40 hours. I simply don't believe that the average public servant delivers as much to their employer as the average private sector worker, so to claim that pay should be the same is not really on.

Ireland's public service is relatively small by European standards. While some of the difference when you account for our small military, it is more difficult to argue that the public service is too large rather than too small.

later12

Godge wrote: »

Ireland's public service is relatively small by European standards.

Is this the case?

We have about 340,000 public servants according to the CSO, which although this has come down from 2008 levels, seems like an enormous amount of state employees. When you add in the semi state companies, the total number is closer to 400,000.

Compare that to just 1.1 million private sector workers in comparison.

It's quite a formidable public service on those numbers, especially when one considers that we are a very small island in terms of geography, with one of the most centralised public administrations in Europe.

Is there any data to back up the suggestion that Ireland's public sector is small relative to European standards?

Tigerandahalf

But you are not including all the private sector workers who lost their jobs. At the height of the boom over 2 million were in employment in Ireland.

woodoo

later12 wrote: »

Is this the case?

We have about 340,000 public servants according to the CSO, which although this has come down from 2008 levels, seems like an enormous amount of state employees. When you add in the semi state companies, the total number is closer to 400,000.
?

People who work a few hours as cleaners, home help workers, part time cooks (along with their dole) would have put themselves down as Public Servants

golfwallah

later12 wrote: »

Is this the case?

We have about 340,000 public servants according to the CSO, which although this has come down from 2008 levels, seems like an enormous amount of state employees. When you add in the semi state companies, the total number is closer to 400,000.

Compare that to just 1.1 million private sector workers in comparison.

It's quite a formidable public service on those numbers, especially when one considers that we are a very small island in terms of geography, with one of the most centralised public administrations in Europe.

Is there any data to back up the suggestion that Ireland's public sector is small relative to European standards?

Couldn't find anything on CSO website re number of public servants.

However, did find numbers produced by Department of Finance on Public Service numbers 2001 - 2009. This states there were 316,656 whole time equivalents in 2009 (up 17% from 2001). Actual headcount (incl. part timers) was 350,000. See page 12 on: http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl100vol1fin.pdf.

This Dept of Finance report states "The imperative of controlling expenditure growth now requires that efficiencies and savings be found across all sectors". It goes on to give recommendations on how this should be done.

K-9

golfwallah wrote: »

Couldn't find anything on CSO website re number of public servants.

However, did find numbers produced by Department of Finance on Public Service numbers 2001 - 2009. This states there were 316,656 whole time equivalents in 2009 (up 17% from 2001). Actual headcount (incl. part timers) was 350,000. See page 12 on: http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl100vol1fin.pdf.

This Dept of Finance report states "The imperative of controlling expenditure growth now requires that efficiencies and savings be found across all sectors". It goes on to give recommendations on how this should be done.

The Quarter 4 2011 CSO figures give it as 392,000 with a 2.4% drop in a year.