Croke Park Agreement beyond 2014

kippy

Japer wrote: »

5 billion per year saved is 50 billion per decade. great , lets go for it.

So you're calling for a 40 percent pay cut across the public sector?
And don't in any way think that would have a massively detrimental effect on the rest of society?

barneystinson

kippy wrote: »

barneystinson wrote: »

I reckon I could pluck 5 or 6 people out of the office where I work tomorrow, who earn combined salaries of 200-300k, and there would be no discernible change in output. That would be maybe 7-8% of the workforce. There are still plenty of people across the PS who are just marking off time, and we can't afford to carry them any more. I know them, my girlfriend knows them, if you work in the PS are you telling me you don't know any of them?

I'd agree 100% with that summation.

Well then we should also be able to agree that unless we try to do something about getting those people out, we probably deserve another paycut. So, how can we get them out? The Unions (of which most of the PS are members) don't want them touched... And no doubt they'll stall any meaningful attempts at implementing proper PMDS... that's a bit of a pickle.

Good loser

EF wrote: »

Just out of curiosity if the public service was to be hammered with paycuts of say 10%, resulting in shy of €750m in immediate net savings, where do we turn to next? Target the public sector again?

5% of €17.1 bn (pay + pensions) would give you €850m gross. No need to go to 10% in year 1.

And 5% off all welfare.

As Barney Stinson said it is mathemathically impossible to get to Troika targets without cutting PS pay and pensions.

And mathemathically is the only way to go.

kippy

barneystinson wrote: »

Well then we should also be able to agree that unless we try to do something about getting those people out, we probably deserve another paycut. So, how can we get them out? The Unions (of which most of the PS are members) don't want them touched... And no doubt they'll stall any meaningful attempts at implementing proper PMDS... that's a bit of a pickle.

The ONLY way to get those people out, is through medium term restructuring and a change in how the public sector fundamentally operates.
That doesn't happen overnight.
In the interm, as I have said many times before, as much as I would rather not have another paycut, it would be acceptable to me.

Japer

kippy wrote: »

So you're calling for a 40 percent pay cut across the public sector?
And don't in any way think that would have a massively detrimental effect on the rest of society?

the pay at the top and the golden pensions - and lump sum pension payments (18 months salary ) in addition to pension half finishing salary- should be cut more than 40%. Our public sector pay and pensions are much higher than UK and germany etc. It should be the same or even a bit less, given they are bailing us out etc.

kippy

Japer wrote: »

the pay at the top and the golden pensions - and lump sum pension payments (18 months salary ) in addition to pension half finishing salary- should be cut more than 40%. Our public sector pay and pensions are much higher than UK and germany etc. It should be the same or even a bit less, given they are bailing us out etc.

So a person currently getting paid 30K per annum would end up on a gross of 18K
50K with a gross of 30K etc etc?
That won't have an massively negative effect on the rest of the economy?


I'd agree with taxing of the lump sum and a re-implementation of the linkage between pensions to current salaries.

By the way, no one is bailing anyone out here either. That money we are being LOANED is done so for the long term gain of these nations.

I suppose you can look at it a number of ways (well 2)
Impose all these cuts (not just public sector, the whole shebang) now at once(despite the fact that we have access to funding) and bring the country, literally to it's knees.
OR, spend a few years doing it, while obviously adding billions to the national debt, billions that can and will be paid off over time.
It's not just a financial exercise, as many here seem to forget.

Japer

kippy wrote: »

So a person currently getting paid 30K per annum would end up on a gross of 18K
50K with a gross of 30K etc etc?
That won't have an massively negative effect on the rest of the economy?
.

no. Reduce those on 200k to 80k. those on 100k to 60k. Those on 50k to 40 or 42k. And drastically reduce those lump sum payments to people retiring....eg giving a Guard retiring 100 or 150k as well as a big pension - at the age of 49 or 50 - is something the country cannot afford.

woodoo

barneystinson wrote: »

I reckon I could pluck 5 or 6 people out of the office where I work tomorrow, who earn combined salaries of 200-300k, and there would be no discernible change in output. That would be maybe 7-8% of the workforce. There are still plenty of people across the PS who are just marking off time, and we can't afford to carry them any more. I know them, my girlfriend knows them, if you work in the PS are you telling me you don't know any of them?

The trouble is they won't be the people to go if they do start laying people off. They will fall back on the easier option of last in first out.

woodoo

Japer wrote: »

Our public sector pay and pensions are much higher than UK and germany.

You are going to need to provide some proof of that. I have never seen any data on German PS pay here.

Japer

woodoo wrote: »

The trouble is they won't be the people to go if they do start laying people off. They will fall back on the easier option of last in first out.

Thats because "they" are public servants and they never do the right thing anyway. Its disappointing the IMF has not brought our public service in to line...yet;)

Japer

woodoo wrote: »

You are going to need to provide some proof of that. I have never seen any data on German PS pay here.

its been done in other threads. Google is your friend.

woodoo

Japer wrote: »

Thats because "they" are public servants and they never do the right thing anyway. Its disappointing the IMF has not brought our public service in to line...yet;)

Public servants in the job 10 years or more, in their 40's and 50's and at the top of their incremental scale are on the pigs back. They have nothing to worry about. Public servants in less than that and just starting on the incremental scale aren't so secure imo. If there is a round of layoffs they will be the ones to go. They will probably be the same demographic that have young children and boom time mortgages too. Even within the PS there will be the haves and have nots. The younger ones will get screwed if the s**t hits the fan.

ardmacha

There is much talk of mathematics here. Basic maths suggests that the deficit needs to be addressed by all citizens, not one seventh of them.

woodoo

ardmacha wrote: »

There is much talk of mathematics here. Basic maths suggests that the deficit needs to be addressed by all citizens, not one seventh of them.

If someone came over from China or Japan or somewhere and read the sunday indo today they would have been forgiven for thinking the Croke Park Agreement was the only problem we faced in this country. That if it was just dealt with then all would be rosy.

Japer

woodoo wrote: »

If someone came over from China or Japan or somewhere and read the sunday indo today they would have been forgiven for thinking the Croke Park Agreement was the only problem we faced in this country. That if it was just dealt with then all would be rosy.

Lots of other problems and economic matters are discussed in the Sindo. However there is massive resentment at the unfairness of a significant group of people being so overpaid , overpensioned etc while many many others are having it so rough. The Chinese or Japs would be first to cut public service pay + pensions dramatically.

padser12345

Quote: Japer

"The Chinese or Japs would be first to cut public service pay + pensions dramatically."

Yeah....and if they gave out about it ....they'd just be run over by a Tank!

ParkRunner

Good loser wrote: »

EF wrote: »

Just out of curiosity if the public service was to be hammered with paycuts of say 10%, resulting in shy of €750m in immediate net savings, where do we turn to next? Target the public sector again?

5% of €17.1 bn (pay + pensions) would give you €850m gross. No need to go to 10% in year 1.

And 5% off all welfare.

As Barney Stinson said it is mathemathically impossible to get to Troika targets without cutting PS pay and pensions.

And mathemathically is the only way to go.

You might recall that those who have retired now have their pensions based on pay before it was cut, that was part of the whole early retirement scheme. As I said previously too any cut to pay would be offset by many different factors resulting in much lower net savings.

Therefore a 5% cut in pay would have net savings of about €400m as a ballpark figure, which isn't an insignificant amount but still nowhere near what is needed ultimately.

Count Dooku

ardmacha wrote: »

There is much talk of mathematics here. Basic maths suggests that the deficit needs to be addressed by all citizens, not one seventh of them.

Basic common sense suggests that the deficit needs to be addressed by those who benefited most, so next time ps unions next time will think twice before asking for pay increase without giving anything back

murphaph

woodoo wrote: »

Do you support bringing our social welfare rates in line with the UK too?

No, not exactly. I think the unemployment benefits system in both countries is daft and favours the long term unemployed and those who "know how to play the system" over those who have been honestly working but have recently been made unemployed.

This is backwards.

In Germany I am entitled to 60% of my average pay (over last 12 months of employment) upon being made unemployed. I can receive this 60% for 1 year exactly (it's 18 months for those close to retirement) after which time I can only receive app. €360 a month, plus rent paid in a modest flat (size limitations apply) plus healthcare.

This first 12 months is your own money, your "stamps". After that, it's taxpayers' money.

The system in Ireland is daft insofar as you get the same payment when you move from "stamps" (JSA) to means tested payments (JSB), indeed someone who has never worked can get the same payment as someone who has been working for 20 years and paying PRSI. This is patent nonsense.

Broadly speaking, our welfare rates are as unaffordable as our public servants and all rates need to be reduced as we can't simply keep borrowing to pay them and expect future generations to worry about or selfishness.

So, I favour reductions to PS pay, reductions to welfare and increases in taxation (mostly widening of the tax net: far too many people in Ireland pay only indirect taxes IMO and because of that they don't feel bothered about how these taxes are spent and don't engage in politics enough) in that order.

Geuze

murphaph wrote: »

In Germany I am entitled to 60% of my average pay (over last 12 months of employment) upon being made unemployed. I can receive this 60% for 1 year exactly (it's 18 months for those close to retirement) after which time I can only receive app. €360 a month, plus rent paid in a modest flat (size limitations apply) plus healthcare.

This first 12 months is your own money, your "stamps". After that, it's taxpayers' money.

The system in Ireland is daft insofar as you get the same payment when you move from "stamps" (JSA) to means tested payments (JSB), indeed someone who has never worked can get the same payment as someone who has been working for 20 years and paying PRSI. This is patent nonsense.

Some minor corrections.

It's 60% of former net pay in German.

Hartz IV is now 374 pm.

JSB is based on your PRSI contributions.

JSA is means-tested.

I agree with your proposals.

murphaph

barneystinson wrote: »

I reckon I could pluck 5 or 6 people out of the office where I work tomorrow, who earn combined salaries of 200-300k, and there would be no discernible change in output. That would be maybe 7-8% of the workforce. There are still plenty of people across the PS who are just marking off time, and we can't afford to carry them any more. I know them, my girlfriend knows them, if you work in the PS are you telling me you don't know any of them?

My mother works in a council office and knows loads of them. She tells me of people actually coming in early and staying late (but doing no work) , just to clock up extra holidays. It's unreal. These people work in planning (my mother sits near them) and have almost nothing to do as the construction sector has collapsed.

Gumbo

murphaph wrote: »

My mother works in a council office and knows loads of them. She tells me of people actually coming in early and staying late (but doing no work) , just to clock up extra holidays. It's unreal. These people work in planning (my mother sits near them) and have almost nothing to do as the construction sector has collapsed.

your mother is telling porkies. You cannot work up extra holidays in LA's, even if your on Flexi Time.

The core hours in Dublin is 7.30-18.30 and any hours inside of these is normal hours, no overtime, not extra time, not time in lieu etc etc

I'd like to know what council she is in so we could 100% say whether its true or not.

Also the most planning dept's should be split into different sections. Not all sections would deal with planning applications (construction). They would have a forward planning section at least which is busier now than during the boom.

n97 mini

murphaph wrote: »

She tells me of people actually coming in early and staying late (but doing no work) , just to clock up extra holidays.

When I worked in the PS almost everyone in the organisation did this, including me, and it was seen as a perk of the job.

You could clock in any time from 7:30am and clock out no later than 6:30pm, and you had to clock out for 30 minutes at lunch time (even if you were working). As the working day was 6 hours 45 mins (less on Friday thanks to "bank time") any extra time worked accumulated on the clock. Once 6:45 extra accumulated you could cash it in for a day off. Maximum twice a month.

Using kceire's times I could clock in at 8:00am, half an hour for lunch and clock out at 4:30pm (or clock in and out later, up till 6:30pm), and manage to accumulate surplus time on the clock even though that's not an especially long day.

It was possible to micromanage your clock as it's viewable on the intranet so that you work no more than you have to to get the extra 2 days off in the month. That added to my 25 days normal annual leave meant I had 51 days annual leave a year.

Others didn't manage their clocks so well and would have accumulated weeks worth of surplus hours. Something to do with the working time act (or so we were told), they were told to take it off in one go and in one instance one lad was off for 6 weeks. I don't know if he did this deliberately or not.

Brussels Sprout

n97 mini wrote: »

It was possible to micromanage your clock as it's viewable on the intranet so that you work no more than you have to to get the extra 2 days off in the month. That added to my 25 days normal annual leave meant I had 51 days annual leave a year.

holy crap

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Right, let me explain this slowly again for you.

You only want the salaries of top people in the public sector cut. When you cut someone's salary, they lose the bit of salary that they are paying the highest rate of tax and the highest deductions.

Let us say you took €10,000 a year off 1,000 of these so-called high earner. This should give you €10m saving.

O.K., first the government loses the 42% tax it deducted from this €10,000, then it loses the 7% Universal Social Charge, then it loses 10.5% pension levy deduction, as well as the pension contribution of 6.5%. Let us not forget PRSI of 4%. To be fair, the two pension deductions are allowed against tax so the net effect of the two of them is 9.86% rather than 17%.

Adding it all up, 42% tax, 7% USC, 9.86% pension and 4% PRSI means that the government was already getting 62.96% of that €10m already so the net saving is €3.74m, just over a third. Now, as that is the top of the money earned by those, it was hardly spent on basic foodstuffs. Let us assume that 50% of the €3.74m net that those public servants were taking home in cash had been spent on luxury goods and or drink and cigarettes attracting the higher VAT rate and excise duties (VAT is still up so as everyone else is penniless according to this thread so it must be the public servants buying luxury goods), well the VAT and excise on half of €3.74m is about €0.5m, give or take a little.

So to sum up, you take €10,000 off the top 1,000 public servants and while a simple calculation means that will save €10m, in the real world it only saves €3.24m, less than a third so more like 32% benefit to public expenditure than the 70% you quote.

Now, does anyone have any questions or can we now accept that cutting public service pay is not a short cut to solving the budgetary problems?

good argument the same could be said for cutting the dole, people will have less to spend therefore the local ecconomy will lose out and companies will close the gov loses taxes from these companies as well as VAT paid by these people..the same argument could also be applied to increasing income tax...The problem is that all 3 will have to take a cut and if it takes 10 million out to make a saving of 4 then thats what has to be done

fliball123

donalg1 wrote: »

Anyone that cant see that it was the Private Sector that fcuked this country up is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Please do explain this one ??? Would love to know you thinking ..I would hazard a guess that your talking about the bankers and builders...all of which was done under a public sector employees watch or regulator...The private sector had no hand in benchmarking or the wages that are now being paid which is over 2/3s the problem we find ourselves in..even if the banks and builders where regulated properly by the public sector we would still be up sh1ts creek..

fliball123

donalg1 wrote: »

I wouldnt go as far as to say they are every bit as much to blame now in fairness. I would blame the builders, bankers and reckless borrowers 90% for the mess we are in. As for the increases in Social Welfare well I have said it was absolutely nonsensical for Fianna Fail to increase Social Welfare rates at a time when there was an abundance of jobs out there.

They should have been slashing Social Welfare then as they could at least say to people that if they arent happy with their dole being cut they could get a job anytime they like.

90% of what you said fell under the remit of a public sector body to regulate it...Not to mention the government turning a blind eye to it and adding to the fire...So the banks and builders have proven to be about 1/3 of the mess the other 2 thirds is on over spend with out having to bailout any bank...So you maths just do not add up at all I am afraid

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, we do not need to find 10 billion over the next three budgets.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7355

Look at the figures, we have to get our deficit down to 3%. That means we need to cut €8 bn, that is, if you assume that nominal GDP is flat over the next three years, otherwise it is much less. Given that no economist in the country is assuming no change in nominal GDP, there is something wrong with your figures. Remember the figure that matters for debt/GDP ratios is nominal GDP which increases by inflation plus growth every year. Ironically, if the EU had inflation of 5% per year for the next 5 years, there would not be a problem.

The reality is we need to find €3.1 bn in the next budget. That is eminently achievable without touching public service pay rates. The following two budgets will probably only need to find €1.5 bn each and if the economy does recover, that will be achievable as well as the revenue buoyancy delivers it.

Some of your figures beggar belief. €22 bn has been raised in tax by the end of August this year, that is €33 bn in a full year, your 10% increase in taxes raises €3.3 bn, more than is required for next year's budget.

As for public sector people leaving, the good ones, like myself have already left as the money in the right part of the private sector is better.

I am sure that 8 billion is a projection on some positive inflation in the economy and to say that so far the gov have been off track with this would be an understatement. If the economy does not grow I think it will be in the region of 10billion

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

When I worked in the PS almost everyone in the organisation did this, including me, and it was seen as a perk of the job.

You could clock in any time from 7:30am and clock out no later than 6:30pm, and you had to clock out for 30 minutes at lunch time (even if you were working). As the working day was 6 hours 45 mins (less on Friday thanks to "bank time") any extra time worked accumulated on the clock. Once 6:45 extra accumulated you could cash it in for a day off. Maximum twice a month.

Using kceire's times I could clock in at 8:00am, half an hour for lunch and clock out at 4:30pm (or clock in and out later, up till 6:30pm), and manage to accumulate surplus time on the clock even though that's not an especially long day.

It was possible to micromanage your clock as it's viewable on the intranet so that you work no more than you have to to get the extra 2 days off in the month. That added to my 25 days normal annual leave meant I had 51 days annual leave a year.

Others didn't manage their clocks so well and would have accumulated weeks worth of surplus hours. Something to do with the working time act (or so we were told), they were told to take it off in one go and in one instance one lad was off for 6 weeks. I don't know if he did this deliberately or not.

Slightly different in LA's now.

We can clock in from 07.30 and must clock out before 18.30.
We must clock in before 10.30.
we must take at least 30 mins lunch and clock out between 12.00-14.30 making sure when we clock back in its before 14.30.
Cannot clock out before 15.30.

We dont get OT for hours worked before 18.30. Any hours worked after this, we get time in lieu for it but only if its been sanctioned by a manager and its required for a specific project.

We dont get banking time and never on a Friday as payday was Thursdays.

Those on Flexi Time can build up one extra day but only if your 6.45 abouve your monthly allowance. The 2 days a month is well gone in the LA i work in and i know not one person that gets it across a wide spectrum of departments. Aviva work the same system in their offices.

murphaph

kceire wrote: »

your mother is telling porkies. You cannot work up extra holidays in LA's, even if your on Flexi Time.

The core hours in Dublin is 7.30-18.30 and any hours inside of these is normal hours, no overtime, not extra time, not time in lieu etc etc

I'd like to know what council she is in so we could 100% say whether its true or not.

Also the most planning dept's should be split into different sections. Not all sections would deal with planning applications (construction). They would have a forward planning section at least which is busier now than during the boom.

Is it possible or not? If it's not possible surely it doesn't matter what LA she works in?

My mother is not telling porkies. She's as honest as the day is long btw. Something which cannot be said of some of the people she works beside.

She can physically see what they do at work pal: surfing the net forms a large part of what one lad does. He is also constantly on the phone about nixers that he's doing (he's an architect) for people. This sort of carry on is rife, whether you want to admit it or not. It's been going on for years...my late father used to supply one LA with machine parts. It was a standing joke that they did little or no work in that department and that was in the 80's.

Gumbo

murphaph wrote: »

My mother is not telling porkies. She's as honest as the day is long btw. Something which cannot be said of some of the people she works beside.

This is the problem i have on here. Every other poster seems to know somebody that knows of the waste going on, but its always other people, its never themselves. If the people around your mother does nothing, and her dept is not busy, what does she do then?

murphaph wrote: »

He is also constantly on the phone about nixers that he's doing (he's an architect) for people.

Earlier in your posts, you mentioned that your mother is in the Planning Dept, so why would an Architect be sitting in the Planning Dept? Architects have their own Department totally separate to the Planning Dept in all of the LA's that ive ever had dealings with.

murphaph wrote: »

This sort of carry on is rife, whether you want to admit it or not.

I dont need to admit anything, i work in a small Dept of 9 people, its very close knit and if one was slacking, then the rest of the team would know about it straight away!

murphaph wrote: »

It was a standing joke that they did little or no work in that department and that was in the 80's.

Standing jokes are hearsay, its just people repeating stuff they hear from other people down the pub. My father says it to me. Sure my father in law said to me the other day "Will you tuen on the internet there on my UPC box", i told him you dont have internet, and his reply was "Sure Peter in the pub says i should have that in my package" and hence it was cemented into him that he should have it until i rang UPC in front of him to get a price! Its always people of an older generation that makes these jokes and they are old now, things have changed, times have changed, and most of the new staff and the new generation of staff are nothing like the previous generation.

murphaph

kceire wrote: »

This is the problem i have on here. Every other poster seems to know somebody that knows of the waste going on, but its always other people, its never themselves. If the people around your mother does nothing, and her dept is not busy, what does she do then?

It's an open plan office. She works in tourism promotion, nothing to do with planning apart from sitting next to them.

kceire wrote: »

Earlier in your posts, you mentioned that your mother is in the Planning Dept, so why would an Architect be sitting in the Planning Dept? Architects have their own Department totally separate to the Planning Dept in all of the LA's that ive ever had dealings with.

He's an architect. He works in the planning department. Are you saying no architects work in any planning department in Ireland?

kceire wrote: »

I dont need to admit anything, i work in a small Dept of 9 people, its very close knit and if one was slacking, then the rest of the team would know about it straight away!

I'm not talking about your department, of which I know nothing.

kceire wrote: »

Standing jokes are hearsay, its just people repeating stuff they hear from other people down the pub. My father says it to me. Sure my father in law said to me the other day "Will you tuen on the internet there on my UPC box", i told him you dont have internet, and his reply was "Sure Peter in the pub says i should have that in my package" and hence it was cemented into him that he should have it until i rang UPC in front of him to get a price! Its always people of an older generation that makes these jokes and they are old now, things have changed, times have changed, and most of the new staff and the new generation of staff are nothing like the previous generation.

What do the former bin men in Dun Laoighaire do these days, since waste collection was contracted out?

Gumbo

murphaph wrote: »

It's an open plan office. She works in tourism promotion, nothing to do with planning apart from sitting next to them.

Fair enough, not a million miles from some of the stuff we dabble in, except some of the tourism stuff is done by the planning dept in diblin city, for instance Promoting Cruise Traffic To Dublin.

murphaph wrote: »

He's an architect. He works in the planning department. Are you saying no architects work in any planning department in Ireland?

No, i cant answer that, but most architects would be working in the City/County Architects Department, no?

murphaph wrote: »

What do the former bin men in Dun Laoighaire do these days, since waste collection was contracted out?

this is what i am tlaking about, 99% of binmen, would be the older generation in my experience. the newer people just come in and do the job, no moaning about slightly different rules etc

Again, my comments may be biased as i receive a salary, no allowance pay, no perks as such, but i can claim back public transport if used in the course of my duties and mileage if i need the car, but the increased insurance premium to cover work outways the mileage received so not worth it imo.

n97 mini

kceire wrote: »

Slightly different in LA's now.

We can clock in from 07.30 and must clock out before 18.30.
We must clock in before 10.30.
we must take at least 30 mins lunch and clock out between 12.00-14.30 making sure when we clock back in its before 14.30.
Cannot clock out before 15.30.

That's actually more flexible than when I was in the PS. Clock in between 7:30 and 10:00, and out between 16:30 (15:30 on Fridays) and 18:30, and the 30 minutes for lunch must start and end between 12:30 and 14:00.

kceire wrote: »

We dont get OT for hours worked before 18.30. Any hours worked after this, we get time in lieu for it but only if its been sanctioned by a manager and its required for a specific project.

Same, but anything above 6 hours 45 (between 7:30 and 18:30) accumulates on the clock and can be taken off at a later stage, like the following day.

kceire wrote: »

We dont get banking time and never on a Friday as payday was Thursdays.

We got paid monthly but still got "bank time" weekly (30 mins a week iirc, might be wrong).

kceire wrote: »

Those on Flexi Time can build up one extra day but only if your 6.45 abouve your monthly allowance.

Which is very easy to do, spread out over a month.

kceire wrote: »

The 2 days a month is well gone in the LA i work in and i know not one person that gets it across a wide spectrum of departments.

If you accumulate 13 hours 30 minutes in a month what happens?

Kind of surprising that people in different parts of the PS don't have the same agreements, especially as there is a strong union presence. I see Monaghan Co Co tried to reduce to 6 the number of flexitime days in view of a reduced level of service, but the Labour Court disallowed it after the unions kicked up.

HellFireClub

There's definitely been a shift in tone in relation to the CPA, from our elected gobs within the last 24 hours I think. There is now talk of "overlapping" the CPA with it's successor, which in another mans language would be the same as trying to pull in the end of the ending of the CPA in 2014, by maybe 6 months, under the guise of a completely new agreement.

Again of course, it's anything except deal with the core problem of ridiculously high PS rates of pay.

n97 mini

kceire wrote: »

Earlier in your posts, you mentioned that your mother is in the Planning Dept, so why would an Architect be sitting in the Planning Dept?

Increased flexibility thanks to the CPA maybe? Or most likely just for practical reasons. I was in the IT Dept but we shared space with the Printing Dept.

n97 mini

murphaph wrote: »

surfing the net forms a large part of what one lad does.

Is he on here all day long defending the PS?

murphaph

n97 mini wrote: »

Is he on here all day long defending the PS?

Lol, possibly. I have an excuse for being on here so much atm: I'm on "gardening leave" having been given notice of redundancy, so my employer doesn't care what I do at home :P

In the real world, people can actually be let go when their department no longer has a function

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

Same, but anything above 6 hours 45 (between 7:30 and 18:30) accumulates on the clock and can be taken off at a later stage, like the following day.

yes your correct. anything above your minimum hours are logged so essentially you can go early the next day, but you still cant go earlier than the 15.30 rule. So i could work till 5 mon-thurs and go at 3.30 on Friday.

n97 mini wrote: »

We got paid monthly but still got "bank time" weekly (30 mins a week iirc, might be wrong).

It used to be bi-weekly in here. Same as payday. You got 30 mins banking time on every second Thursday, but as we know, done away with now. it was added to your clock, and it didnt redeuce the time you could leave at etc

n97 mini wrote: »

Which is very easy to do, spread out over a month.

If you accumulate 13 hours 30 minutes in a month what happens?

yes, easy to build up over the month, but you could still only take one day from it. you lose any hours over the 13 hours 30 minutes built up, or if you take the flexi you drop back to 6.45 up but essentially theres nothing you can do with those hours exceot keep them for a flexi the following month, but by then you would have built up more hours. We lose hours every month as we mostly work 8-4 or 9-5 minus the 45 mins for lunch most days.

n97 mini wrote: »

Kind of surprising that people in different parts of the PS don't have the same agreements, especially as there is a strong union presence. I see Monaghan Co Co tried to reduce to 6 the number of flexitime days in view of a reduced level of service, but the Labour Court disallowed it after the unions kicked up.

its a nice system, and it works, its promotion of the work/life balance and allows people to either start early and finish early to collect kids etc

One could argue that in the private sector theres no allowance to start earlier etc but its apples and oranges. My old job in the private sector, i could be late in the mornings, as long as i made up the hours my boss didnt mind. Some of the women technicians/engineers would come in 30 mins late every morning as they would be dropping kids to school nd there would be a gentlemans agreement that this was ok, but in the public sector, this cant happen. its a clock in and out system, if your late, you get infracted and a call up from the time keeper, the clock doesnt care that you stopped to pick up a screaming child from a fire

n97 mini wrote: »

Is he on here all day long defending the PS?

his mother is probably sitting behind me

joke btw for the PS bashers, im not in work today ;p

n97 mini

kceire wrote: »

its a nice system, and it works, its promotion of the work/life balance and allows people to either start early and finish early to collect kids etc

It works for the staff, but the public's view would not be the same.

Many public offices are not open past 4:30pm because staff cannot be compelled to stay on till 5:30pm or 6pm. (Monaghan Co Council no longer opens at lunchtime now) It's also a long standing joke of sorts that you can't phone a public office after lunchtime on Friday because they're all gone home. There is an element of truth to that.

In addition many people would view the ability to systematically and repeatedly work the system with ease to accrue extra full days off as a PS perk, as it's not possible to do it in too many places outside the public sector.

Gumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

It works for the staff, but the public's view would not be the same.

Dont forget, that one cannot simply up and go. there has to be cover. For example, i cannot go at 3.30 today if everybody else does. There is a rotation system in place to ensure theres constant cover betweens the hours of 9-5.

you can argue that its a better system than having 6000 staff member enter one public office at the same time, close for lunch at the same time and leave at rush hour at the same time. It staggers entering and exiting in one sense.

n97 mini wrote: »

Many public offices are not open past 4:30pm because staff cannot be compelled to stay on till 5:30pm or 6pm. (Monaghan Co Council no longer opens at lunchtime now) It's also a long standing joke of sorts that you can't phone a public office after lunchtime on Friday because they're all gone home. There is an element of truth to that.

Personally ive never had that problem, most public offices in Dublin would be.

n97 mini wrote: »

In addition many people would view the ability to systematically and repeatedly work the system with ease to accrue extra full days off as a PS perk, as it's not possible to do it in too many places outside the public sector.

again its one day, not days per month.

Lumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

It works for the staff, but the public's view would not be the same.

Many public offices are not open past 4:30pm because staff cannot be compelled to stay on till 5:30pm or 6pm. (Monaghan Co Council no longer opens at lunchtime now) It's also a long standing joke of sorts that you can't phone a public office after lunchtime on Friday because they're all gone home. There is an element of truth to that.

In addition many people would view the ability to systematically and repeatedly work the system with ease to accrue extra full days off as a PS perk, as it's not possible to do it in too many places outside the public sector.

My offices hours are 9-5 Mon to Thurs and 9-4.30 on a Friday. We received an addtional days holiday for agreeing to stay open during lunch hours. There is always someone available to take phone calls in my office during these hours, if there wasn't, the **** would hit the fan.

Btw that additional days holiday has been taken back off us under the CPA.

OMD

Lumbo wrote: »

My offices hours are 9-5 Mon to Thurs and 9-4.30 on a Friday. We received an addtional days holiday for agreeing to stay open during lunch hours. There is always someone available to take phone calls in my office during these hours, if there wasn't, the **** would hit the fan.

Btw that additional days holiday has been taken back off us under the CPA.

But you are not doing extra work just staggering lunch breaks.

Lumbo

OMD wrote: »

But you are not doing extra work just staggering lunch breaks.

I didn't say there was extra work. I'm saying there is flexibilty to how things are done and countering the claim that all Public offices are closed at lunch time.

OMD

Lumbo wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

But you are not doing extra work just staggering lunch breaks.

I didn't say there was extra work. I'm saying there is flexibilty to how things are done and countering the claim that all Public offices are closed at lunch time.

But I meant why the hell were you given an extra day off for no extra work. Now removing that extra day is an efficiency as part of the CPA but overall no extra work is being done.

murphaph

OMD wrote: »

But I meant why the hell were you given an extra day off for no extra work. Now removing that extra day is an efficiency as part of the CPA but overall no extra work is being done.

It's incredible that an extra day's leave could have been granted just for staggering lunch breaks. It would just happen in the private sector if needed and no incentive would be expected nor offered. The fact that such ridiculous benefits were/are there for the CPA to prune says an awful lot about the mentality that pervades the public sector. It really is a parallel universe in many ways.

donalg1

fliball123 wrote: »

90% of what you said fell under the remit of a public sector body to regulate it...Not to mention the government turning a blind eye to it and adding to the fire...So the banks and builders have proven to be about 1/3 of the mess the other 2 thirds is on over spend with out having to bailout any bank...So you maths just do not add up at all I am afraid

My maths are not an attempt at laying the blame they are simply where I put the blame in my opinion, you say its the fault of the public sector for not regulating the private sector, come on now get real the people that borrowed recklessly are to blame for their borrowings, not the regulators. Yes Fianna Fail were spending money like it was going out of fashion, spending every cent they made and then some more.

But if you ask me I would lay the blame of the mess we are in firmly at those that borrowed money they could never afford to pay back purely because they got greedy and that goes from the massive developers that owe hundreds of millions right down to the lad next door that took out a huge mortgage he never needed and never could afford. And dont bother saying that it was the regulators fault that he was allowed to borrow that much, because at the end of the day he is the one that borrowed it.

ncdadam

donalg1 wrote: »

My maths are not an attempt at laying the blame they are simply where I put the blame in my opinion, you say its the fault of the public sector for not regulating the private sector, come on now get real the people that borrowed recklessly are to blame for their borrowings, not the regulators. Yes Fianna Fail were spending money like it was going out of fashion, spending every cent they made and then some more.

But if you ask me I would lay the blame of the mess we are in firmly at those that borrowed money they could never afford to pay back purely because they got greedy and that goes from the massive developers that owe hundreds of millions right down to the lad next door that took out a huge mortgage he never needed and never could afford. And dont bother saying that it was the regulators fault that he was allowed to borrow that much, because at the end of the day he is the one that borrowed it.

Who borrowed the money that's gone into our bankrupted banks?
Did you?

woodoo

kceire wrote: »

Slightly different in LA's now.

We can clock in from 07.30 and must clock out before 18.30.
We must clock in before 10.30.
we must take at least 30 mins lunch and clock out between 12.00-14.30 making sure when we clock back in its before 14.30.
Cannot clock out before 15.30.

We dont get OT for hours worked before 18.30. Any hours worked after this, we get time in lieu for it but only if its been sanctioned by a manager and its required for a specific project.

We dont get banking time and never on a Friday as payday was Thursdays.

Those on Flexi Time can build up one extra day but only if your 6.45 abouve your monthly allowance. The 2 days a month is well gone in the LA i work in and i know not one person that gets it across a wide spectrum of departments. Aviva work the same system in their offices.

Thats true it is one day a month where i work too. I don't see the problem with it. People still work their total hours.

woodoo

murphaph wrote: »

She can physically see what they do at work pal: surfing the net forms a large part of what one lad does. He is also constantly on the phone about nixers that he's doing (he's an architect) for people. This sort of carry on is rife, whether you want to admit it or not. It's been going on for years...my late father used to supply one LA with machine parts. It was a standing joke that they did little or no work in that department and that was in the 80's.

This happens in the private sector too. I know people working in solicitors office that are at the same thing. Don't try and pretend this is a PS issue. This happens in all areas.