Croke Park Agreement

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just to be clear, this thread is about whether or not the Croke Park agreement has saved the government money. It is decidedly not about public vs. private workers, the calibre of public sector workers, etc. If you don't have anything to say about the CPA and how it affects the state's finances, then this is not the thread for you.

Let me also add that if you think that any thread which even touches on the issue of the public sector should be used as an opportunity to bash the competency of public sector workers regardless of whether it is relevant to the topic at hand or not, cut it out - it is beyond tiresome at this point.

Godge

There is a complete absence of reality pervading these threads when it comes to discussions about the public service.

On the issue of compulsory redundancy, we have a group of companies who have landed the country into this mess - the banks - and they have yet to introduce compulsory redundancy. When it comes to voluntary redundancy, there is crying and wailing because the generous banks packages have been reduced to public sector levels. If you think carefully about it, we need hospitals and schools and taxation offices into the future, we do not need failed private sector financial services companies, yet people are calling for compulsory redundancy in the former. I just do not understand it.

As for pay, we had a situation about six or seven years ago where the public service pay bill and the social welfare bill were about the same. Now the social welfare bill is 50% bigger than the public service pay bill. One (pay) has been brought under some control and is on a downward trend, the other (social welfare) is on a continuing upward spiral and is getting out of control. Why are there not constant threads calling for social welfare cuts?

Finally, if you are to pick out a blackspot in the public service, it is frontline services, especially in the health service where costs are not being controlled and are continuing to escalate - you only need to look at the Exchequer returns to see this, yet, in threads like this you will always have the poster who wants public service cuts "but not for the frontline services like nurses and doctors". Why this constant insanity?

To sum up, before anyone looks at compulsory redundancy and pay cuts for public servants, there are a lot more problems out there to be solved. You could start with the three I listed:

- compulsory redundancy for failed banking staff
- social welfare cuts
- reform of frontline health services to reduce costs


Then again, some people just want to rant about public servants it seems.

n97 mini

southsiderosie wrote: »

It is decidedly not about public vs. private workers, the calibre of public sector workers, etc. If you don't have anything to say about the CPA and how it affects the state's finances, then this is not the thread for you.

Godge wrote: »

- compulsory redundancy for failed banking staff
- social welfare cuts
- reform of frontline health services to reduce costs


Then again, some people just want to rant about public servants it seems.

:eek:

Back on topic, as regards the CPA saving money it is curious that Leo Varadkar did say that the CPA2 will need to have a provisions for mandatory redundancies, say in the case of winding up a quango, and the leaked EU report suggested that pay be cut rather than allowing staff draw half their salary in return for doing nothing (i.e. retire).

While the CPA has saved money, imho it hasn't saved enough, quick enough.

sarumite

n97 mini wrote: »

:eek:

Reading his rant did make me chuckle.

antoobrien

sarumite wrote: »

Reading his rant did make me chuckle.

That's not a rant it's a good comparison of the double standards involved on both sides of the "debate" on the potential for redundancies.

Idbatterim

Working in the PS is a form of social welfare. Jobs for people the private sector wouldn't hire.

Troll, but absolutely hilarious and not without a hint of truth for quite a few working in the PS...

sarumite

antoobrien wrote: »

That's not a rant it's a good comparison of the double standards involved on both sides of the "debate" on the potential for redundancies.

If Dannyboys OP on CPSU was considerd a rant by Godge, then it was rant by those standards.

It begins with a rant about failed private sector financial companies (one post after a mod commented on the whole private sector v's public sector). There is no mention about whether the staffing levels are appropriate in the banks, just that there hasn't been any compulsory redundancy. The reality is we do need banks as well as schools and hospitals. People are not just 'calling for redundancies'. They want appropriate staffing levels. Without even the ability to make redundancies where necessary, that becomes a difficult task.

Then its a rant about how social welfare is "out of control". Nice evocative language. No effort to even try understand why that is. The fact that we have the highest unemployment since the start of the crises would have at least shown some effort to be objective. Just that its "out of control".

Then the statement about no threads calling for reduction in social welfare which is funny as the same time I read the post, there is a thread title "nice to be unemployed", another thread suggesting unemployed people should have to claim the dole every day and the second highest post count on the Irish economoy boards as I write this is "Is it time to jack the job". When other posters make such unsubstantiated false claims regarding threads about the PS, we get told that they are ranting and PS bashers.

Eventually we get to the crux of the argument. Don't touch public sector until you have sorted

- compulsory redundancy for failed banking staff
- social welfare cuts
- reform of frontline health services to reduce costs.

There is no reason why benchmarking of pay in the PS and making redundant positions redundant cannot commence concurrently. The banks (noonan), social welfare (burton) and health services (reilly) have nothig to do with the PS (Howlin). The above are problems for sure....but its the 'before we look at the ps' I found particularly risible.

Eventually it closes with a complaint about people ranting about the PS. I think the poster failed to see that their post reflects the kind of mentality that they are themselves chastising.

doc_17

Teachers (like myself) and other members of the PS have to do an extra hour per week as part of the CPA.

Now does this count as a saving? Have they said somewhere "X no Teachers workiny Y no of extra hours amounts to €Z" and then added that into the savings?

I tried finding this in the report but couldn't.

It is extra work but it doesn't really save money

Head The Wall

They have actually costed this in last years report. And you are correct they did class it as a saving, when it obviously does not save anything. I think they may have put a figure of 38 million on it

daltonmd

Head The Wall wrote: »

And likewise the private sector numbers don't include pension figures either. It seems a valid comparison to me

Just a general question. If the pension levy was taken into account to bring PS pay levels to pre 2008 levels, is it fair to discard it's existence now?

n97 mini

doc_17 wrote: »

Teachers (like myself) and other members of the PS have to do an extra hour per week as part of the CPA.

Now does this count as a saving? Have they said somewhere "X no Teachers workiny Y no of extra hours amounts to €Z" and then added that into the savings?

I tried finding this in the report but couldn't.

It is extra work but it doesn't really save money

If the hour was used in the right way it should save money, but in the case of one of my children the school is taking the p1ss by shortening breaks by 5 mins and adding 5 mins onto the school day.

I don't mean to be divisive but I would prefer if teachers were contracted to be in the school from 9am to 5:30pm and get paid over time when needed.

doc_17

n97 mini wrote: »

doc_17 wrote: »

Teachers (like myself) and other members of the PS have to do an extra hour per week as part of the CPA.

Now does this count as a saving? Have they said somewhere "X no Teachers workiny Y no of extra hours amounts to €Z" and then added that into the savings?

I tried finding this in the report but couldn't.

It is extra work but it doesn't really save money

If the hour was used in the right way it should save money, but in the case of one of my children the school is taking the p1ss by shortening breaks by 5 mins and adding 5 mins onto the school day.

I don't mean to be divisive but I would prefer if teachers were contracted to be in the school from 9am to 5:30pm and get paid over time when needed.

And would that mean that the children are there from 9 until 5:30?

n97 mini

doc_17 wrote: »

And would that mean that the children are there from 9 until 5:30?

Whatever is best practice. Primary schools in France go from 8:45 to 4:30, colleges from 8:30 to 5pm. I think the French eduction system is ranked higher than our's.

doc_17

Best practice is not to have the kids raised by somebody else. I think lots of people, not saying your good self, want schools to stay open longer as it would be more of a convenience to themselves in terms of childcare, rather than having any educational benefit. Lots of countries finish at 1 in he afternoon. Had to know what is best practice.

skydish79

n97 mini wrote: »

If the hour was used in the right way it should save money, but in the case of one of my children the school is taking the p1ss by shortening breaks by 5 mins and adding 5 mins onto the school day.

I don't mean to be divisive but I would prefer if teachers were contracted to be in the school from 9am to 5:30pm and get paid over time when needed.

Of course you would want them working from 9 to 5.30 it would save you money in childcare

n97 mini

I really don't understand what the objection is to contracting teachers to work 9am to 5:30pm and paying them overtime when the need arises.

No-one suggested the children be in the class for the same duration, but if we were to follow the French model the children would be in till probably 4:15pm (close to what Irish secondary schools are already at), and then the last hour and fifteen minutes could be used for what are currently called "after-school activities", or correcting journals or whatever needs to be done usually.

It's not going to have a large impact on childcare costs as children will still be out of school before their parents are finished work.

doc_17

n97 mini wrote: »

I really don't understand what the objection is to contracting teachers to work 9am to 5:30pm and paying them overtime when the need arises.

No-one suggested the children be in the class for the same duration, but if we were to follow the French model the children would be in till probably 4:15pm (close to what Irish secondary schools are already at), and then the last hour and fifteen minutes could be used for what are currently called "after-school activities", or correcting journals or whatever needs to be done usually.

It's not going to have a large impact on childcare costs as children will still be out of school before their parents are finished work.

I suppose if that was all the hours that had be worked but realistically they'd find something else for you to do (see how the CPA hpurs were used) during ths time and it's end up being an 8 to 8 job. Oce again though, in terms of savings re the CPA there aren't any.

Savings is a very loose word anyway. Unless there is a cheque that was written last year that doesn't have to be writen this year then in my book it isn't really a saving

noodler

rumour wrote: »

Thats right....those private sector guys are all getting pay rises why should we give up our incremental pay rises.

Ermmm....because the Private Sector (whichever particular industry you are talking about) can afford whilst the State can't?

Drumpot

noodler wrote: »

Ermmm....because the Private Sector (whichever particular industry you are talking about) can afford whilst the State can't?

Yeh, but in the public sector they can just raise taxes and get more loans off our "friends" in Europe to maintain current spending. With that in mind why should the government concern itself with only spending what it can currently afford?

Only mugs, private companies (or people spending their own money) spend what they can afford and budget within their means. Our civil servants who make up the budget annually (sometimes miss the odd billion or two, ah sure its not their money so no harm no foul!) dont really care where the money is coming from because at the end of the day the only way it costs them is if they give themselevs and their colleagues renumeration cuts . . And sure, thats not "fair" to expect a government to cut its cloth (granted "Fairness" in this context is subjective, but it seems to be a union word that wins all arguments somehow!) . . A governments job is to its party and popularity, prudency just isnt something it can "afford". .

Didnt the private sector regulate the banks, have an agency like FAS wasting billions in a time of near full employment and demand incremental payrises/benchmarking (with little in return) at the taxpayers expense (to be a "part of the boom", but not part of the downturn!). Oh and dont get me started on the whole accountability thing in the private sector where people cant be sacked and still get payrises when they are useless or more educated. . . Or was it the other way around ?

Everybody is responsible for the state of the country, when idiots try to make out that it was either the public or private sectors fault, they are just that . . Ill informed Idiots . .

Anybody who knows anything about whats going on knows the CPA is a terrible joke in the current climate. Not because anybody deserves a paycut, but because we are having to answer to others loaning us money because we arent balancing our books. Reducing our costs is one of the few options available to us and yet there is still this ridiculous "fairness" comment thrown around as if it wins all debates.

Personally I think the politicians (worst example of how and why the "entitled culture" continues to exist , even in an economic depression!) should take savage cuts in their pay and expenses to set the right example. When they come out and say this country is in the sh*ts on one hand and then take paltry token "cuts". If they slashed their remuneration and made a job in politics something that is an "honor" as they say, they would have the moral authority and the higher ground to take in cutting governemnt costs elsewhere.

ardmacha

Only mugs, private companies (or people spending their own money) spend what they can afford and budget within their means.

Only governments cut the salaries of their staff while continuing to give their services away for nothing.

Drumpot

ardmacha wrote: »

Only governments cut the salaries of their staff while continuing to give their services away for nothing.

What do I pay taxes for if the services are free ?

Taking your default "this is a public service bashing" position and ignore everything else . .

ardmacha

What do I pay taxes for if the services are free ?

You do not pay enough taxes, that is why there is a deficit.

Good lad, take your default "this is a public service bashing" position and ignore everything else . .

It is indeed a public sector bashing thread for many people and has many of the usual rants with the usual nonsense.

- the "public sector" regulated the banks

- yes it did, at the behest of government mostly elected by private sector, the banks were the private sector and loaned to the private sector.

an agency like FAS wasting billions in a time of near full employment

- no doubt about this one, how is that relevant?

demand incremental payrises/benchmarking (with little in return) at the taxpayers expense (to be a "part of the boom", but not part of the downturn!).

Incremental payrises reflect experience, not the boom. Benchmarking was indeed something of nonsense, but no new benchmarking is being proposed. In any case PS salaries have declined more than private ones in the bust.

Oh and dont get me started on the whole accountability thing in the private sector where people cant be sacked and still get payrises when they are useless

Is it being proposed that people do not payrises when they are useless?

Change the record.

n97 mini

ardmacha wrote: »

- yes it did, at the behest of government mostly elected by private sector, the banks were the private sector and loaned to the private sector.

The bank problem has largely been sorted, leaving a one-off hole in the nation's balance sheet of around €70 billion. It's done and dusted.

The projected PS pay and pensions bill for 2012 is €17.4bn, for 2013 it's €17.1bn, for 2014 it's 16.9bn and for 2015 it's €16.8bn, totalling almost €70 billion.

This means every 4 years the PS pay and pensions bill are currently consuming the same as the biggest bank bailout in the history of the state.

In case someone thinks I'm picking on the PS, I'm not. This is merely a statement of fact and contains no opinion.

ardmacha

The projected PS pay and pensions bill for 2012 is €17.4bn, for 2013 it's €17.1bn, for 2014 it's 16.9bn and for 2015 it's €16.8bn, totalling almost €70 billion.

Indeed. The difference with banks is that with banks you get nothing, with PS pay you get hospitals, schools, sewers, a navy and so forth. This is about 13% of GNP and declining and one third of this comes straight back in tax. Why exactly can the government not afford 9% of GNP for all of these services?

woodoo

n97 mini wrote: »

The bank problem has largely been sorted, leaving a one-off hole in the nation's balance sheet of around €70 billion. It's done and dusted.

The projected PS pay and pensions bill for 2012 is €17.4bn, for 2013 it's €17.1bn, for 2014 it's 16.9bn and for 2015 it's €16.8bn, totalling almost €70 billion.

This means every 4 years the PS pay and pensions bill are currently consuming the same as the biggest bank bailout in the history of the state.

In case someone thinks I'm picking on the PS, I'm not. This is merely a statement of fact and contains no opinion.

Over the same 4 years €84 billion will be spent on welfare. What does the state get in return for that?

n97 mini

woodoo wrote: »

Over the same 4 years €84 billion will be spent on welfare. What does the state get in return for that?

Thread title.

woodoo

n97 mini wrote: »

Thread title.

Context.

n97 mini

woodoo wrote: »

Context.

If you want to discuss the cost of SW I'd suggest you start a fresh thread. CPA has nothing to do with SW.

ressem

ardmacha wrote: »

Indeed. The difference with banks is that with banks you get nothing, with PS pay you get hospitals, schools, sewers, a navy and so forth. This is about 13% of GNP and declining and one third of this comes straight back in tax. Why exactly can the government not afford 9% of GNP for all of these services?

Just a slight point. The 30,000 local authority workers aren't included in these numbers according to finfacts (so keeping the sewers working is extra).

Drumpot

ardmacha wrote: »

You do not pay enough taxes, that is why there is a deficit.



It is indeed a public sector bashing thread for many people and has many of the usual rants with the usual nonsense.



- yes it did, at the behest of government mostly elected by private sector, the banks were the private sector and loaned to the private sector.



- no doubt about this one, how is that relevant?



Incremental payrises reflect experience, not the boom. Benchmarking was indeed something of nonsense, but no new benchmarking is being proposed. In any case PS salaries have declined more than private ones in the bust.



Is it being proposed that people do not payrises when they are useless?

Change the record.

Couldnt of said it better myself . .

To anticipate your future replies, let me quote what I understand to be the summary notes in "The 10 Union Bullsh*tty, waffly rhetoric Commandments" thats a guideline to dealing with any of this kind of talk:

1. Banks represent the entire private sector. . Even though its run by a handfull of people at the top, assume that the entire banking sector (tellors etc) are responsible and that it represents the entire private sector. It was regulated (or not regulated) by a public sector body, but sure thats not really important.
2. Private sector -Somehow it caused the mess , dont elaborate, throw out random points , always mention banks (refer to point 1) .
3. Incremental payrises represent experience, not competency/productivity. . Dont discuss accountability if possible!!Refer to points 1 & 2.
4. Saying anything about balancing the books is public service bashing unless in the context of taxes being increased. Throwing out the "public service bashing" point should be used in every debate , it sounds good and doesnt really have a meaning so is hard to refute (kind of like somebody calling somebody racist - mud sticks and we have the public thinking on the same lines).
5. The pension reserve fund can solve all the problems
6. And if it cant, sure we can just get more loans or raise taxes. (Refer to point 2).
7. Increments are justified because its not "fair" for them to be abolished. The "fairness" point is the overriding importance of this winning argument. (Revert to lowly paid nurses if they try to go into detail, this usually throws them off). Dont allow anybody to talk rubbish about spending more then we are taking in (blame welfare if they keep probing), but keep focusing on it just not being fair . .
8. People need to pay more taxes so services (we really mean salaries!) are not effected!
9. Quote natural wastage (retirements, contracts not increased) as "joblosses". Journalists dont seem to pick up on this, so it usually falls under the radar . .
10. Compare random paycut percentages in the public services with random paycuts in the private sector. This has no specific importance to the debate, but it might allow you time to use some of the other commandments again to further the cause . .

The main mantra is to confuse with ridiculously insignificant points . . . Job done Eugene Mc Glone ardmaca . . .

I dont need to reply with my own "commandments" because I dont "blame" the public service and I dont have a problem with people not thinking they should take a paycut..

I just think we are financially crippled and cant fix the country with airy fairy subjective self vested views . . Best of luck with that . .

woodoo

n97 mini wrote: »

If you want to discuss the cost of SW I'd suggest you start a fresh thread. CPA has nothing to do with SW.

I like to keep it fresh in peoples minds because people seem to act like all the answers lie in the smashing the CPA.

From here on in wherever there is attacks against ordinary decent public servants i will be in to gently remind them of the single biggest cost this state faces and that is the welfare bill.

Drumpot

woodoo wrote: »

I like to keep it fresh in peoples minds because people seem to act like all the answers lie in the smashing the CPA.

From here on in wherever there is attacks against ordinary decent public servants i will be in to gently remind them of the single biggest cost this state faces and that is the welfare bill.

Who is saying that ALL the answers lie in slashing public service wages ? Please quote people . . . I want to pull them up like you and highlight their idiotic suggestion . .

If this thread is an attack on "the ordinary decent public servant", what would you call your comments on the people on welfare ?

Unless of course the word bashing/attack can be only applicable to public servants ? . . . Please elaborate/clarify . .

woodoo

Drumpot wrote: »

Who is saying that ALL the answers lie in slashing public service wages ? Please quote people . . . I want to pull them up like you and highlight their idiotic suggestion . .

If this thread is an attack on "the ordinary decent public servant", what would you call your comments on the people on welfare ?

Unless of course the word bashing/attack can be only applicable to public servants ? . . . Please elaborate/clarify . .

I simply pointed out the expected cost of welfare over the same period as mentioned by n97. Figures of that magnitude are worth mentioning in any thread relating to the state of the irish economy.

You have been around these parts long enough to know PS threads soon turn into bashing threads fairly soon. I've just decided to get in ahead of time on this one.

jased10s

When u count 1 hour taken away from x mount of PS people for not cashing their payments as a saving i knew this country was wrong.

I mean if your service was better than europe because you have a more % compared of PS workers then i wouldent say anything.

Also ptsb said ( in broard terms ) that an extra 1% was only €25 on top of an €100,000 morgage.

NO ONE HAS A €100,000 MORGAGE..

Fiigure fudging.

sack 100,000 PS to start with.

A business makes A PROFIT or Just covers it's costs.

IT DOES NOT RUN AT A LOSS.

Business meaning Ireland.

woodoo

jased10s wrote: »

sack 100,000 PS to start with.

This is exactly the type of dross i was getting in ahead of.

jased10s

woodoo wrote: »

This is exactly the type of dross i was getting in ahead of.

Failed to respond to the other points i see .

PS worker for sure.

jased10s

and excatly what do PS do ?

an easy 100,000 could be gone.

And if they are needed why are services so bad ??????

gerryo777

woodoo wrote: »

Over the same 4 years €84 billion will be spent on welfare. What does the state get in return for that?

What's that got to do with this?

gerryo777

woodoo wrote: »

I simply pointed out the expected cost of welfare over the same period as mentioned by n97. Figures of that magnitude are worth mentioning in any thread relating to the state of the irish economy.

You have been around these parts long enough to know PS threads soon turn into bashing threads fairly soon. I've just decided to get in ahead of time on this one.

As we come out of recession the social welfare bill will drop, PS wages and pensions on the other hand will keep rising as they have done all the way through the same recession.

The clock is ticking, woodoo.
CPA will be consigned to history and not before time.

You and your unions should stop holding the country to ransom.

woodoo

jased10s wrote: »

an easy 100,000 could be gone.

From where?

woodoo

gerryo777 wrote: »

As we come out of recession the social welfare bill will drop, PS wages and pensions on the other hand will keep rising as they have done all the way through the same recession.

The clock is ticking, woodoo.
CPA will be consigned to history and not before time.

You and your unions should stop holding the country to ransom.

Its due to end at the end of 2013.

gerryo777

woodoo wrote: »

Its due to end at the end of 2013.

Is that when you and your unions will stop holding the country to ransom?

Milk it while you can, take early retirement or something....

gerryo777

€27 million in pay rises (increments) to teachers this year alone.

Enough money to keep all the special needs assistants we've lost.

I hope that makes you happy, woodoo.

n97 mini

woodoo wrote: »

I like to keep it fresh in peoples minds because people seem to act like all the answers lie in the smashing the CPA.

From here on in wherever there is attacks against ordinary decent public servants i will be in to gently remind them of the single biggest cost this state faces and that is the welfare bill.

And for balance you will remind people that PS pay is protected by the CPA whereas SW rates have no such protection.

gerryo777

n97 mini wrote: »

And for balance you will remind people that PS pay is protected by the CPA whereas SW rates have no such protection.

Protected and enhanced every year by 'increments', pay rises to you and me.

And as I've pointed out to woodoo, the welfare bill will drop as we come out of recession whereas the PS bill will rise.

Good loser

woodoo wrote: »

I simply pointed out the expected cost of welfare over the same period as mentioned by n97. Figures of that magnitude are worth mentioning in any thread relating to the state of the irish economy.

You have been around these parts long enough to know PS threads soon turn into bashing threads fairly soon. I've just decided to get in ahead of time on this one.

You're probably correct that Welfare is a bigger problem even than the CPA.

Just because it costs more at €20 bn plus against €17 bn on PS pay and pensions.

Both are excessive compared to Govt income and each should be cut in the same proportion IMO. The arguments against cutting PS salaries and pensions are pathetic (see Drumpot); if we had any half decent journalists (a la Jonathan Dimbleby) this would be clear to all. As of now anyway it's only a matter of time.

jased10s

woodoo wrote: »

From where?

U know what i think you have me there.

I cant for the life of me know where all these 100 of thousands PS workers are because all i see is inefficiency, I mean if they were all doing a 100% output efficently then i wouldent be waiting in A&E for god know how many hours and wait for me dole for months because of paper work, ( im working by the way ).

Threr are more examples but you get my drift.

ardmacha

Banks represent the entire private sector. . Even though its run by a handfull of people at the top, assume that the entire banking sector (tellors etc) are responsible and that it represents the entire private sector.

Banks represent the private sector as well as the Financial Regulator represents the public sector. I accept that people in the private sector may not feel any responsibility for the acts of Seanie Fitzpatrick, but neither are people in the public sector responsible for Patrick Neary.

Private sector -Somehow it caused the mess , dont elaborate,

I don't need to elaborate. Developers etc caused the problem and people laid off from private sector businesses have wrecked the public finances. This is simple fact.

Incremental payrises represent experience, not competency/productivity.

true enough, they do.

Dont discuss accountability if possible!!

I entirely agree that there should be accountability. The only comment I have ever made on boards about accountability was that there is sometimes a stated enthusiasm for "accountability" among some who don't wish to be accountable themselves.

Saying anything about balancing the books is public service bashing unless in the context of taxes being increased.

Biased analysis is not helpful.

The pension reserve fund can solve all the problems

No, it can't. Most of the fund set aside to cater for PS pensions has been squandered on the private sector.

And if it cant, sure we can just get more loans or raise taxes.

We can certainly raise taxes.

Increments are justified because its not "fair" for them to be abolished.

I don't the government should act in a capricious way. Firstly because it is a government and secondly as such actions play no role in moving public administration towards proper management.

Compare random paycut percentages in the public services with random paycuts in the private sector.

I don't agree with this at all, but people keep on doing it. Will you tell them to stop?

n97 mini

ardmacha wrote: »

Developers etc caused the problem and people laid off from private sector businesses have wrecked the public finances. This is simple fact.

Benchmarking played its part too, and the consequences of it are far harder to deal with as the CPA protects the awards given under it.

ardmacha

Benchmarking played its part too, and the consequences of it are far harder to deal with as the CPA protects the awards given under it.

Not true. In aggregate, pay has been already been reduced by more than was paid out in benchmarking.