Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

Better link here. A 10% cut in the administration budget would of course cause ''uproar'' and ''mass strike action''. An 11% cut in administration might cause some kind of stroke among union leaders.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

So, from your own source.
Scroll down to section 4, summary and financial, table A3.
The figures you need are there.

Godge

squod wrote: »

Better link here. A 10% cut in the administration budget would of course cause ''uproar'' and ''mass strike action''. An 11% cut in administration might cause some kind of stroke among union leaders.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Those statistics show that for 2010 the administration of social welfare costs 2.8% of the total budget. Since then the number of people working in that Department have gone down while the budget has gone up (one of the only places it has) meaning that the administration costs as a percentage of the total budget have gone down (demonstrating extra productivity from the civil servants). That productivity gain may well have been as much as 10%.

spikethedog

Godge wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Those statistics show that for 2010 the administration of social welfare costs 2.8% of the total budget. Since then the number of people working in that Department have gone down while the budget has gone up (one of the only places it has) meaning that the administration costs as a percentage of the total budget have gone down (demonstrating extra productivity from the civil servants). That productivity gain may well have been as much as 10%.

Why is squod arguing the figures that are in the links he/she provided?
Maybe my point was misunderstood.

Godge

spikethedog wrote: »

Why is squod arguing the figures that are in the links he/she provided?
Maybe my point was misunderstood.

I don't know or understand what he is arguing.

You said that a 10% cut across all payments would save €2.1 billion. He said it was nowhere near that and then later dragged unions and administration cost into it.

But if you take off the administration costs (and even taking the 2011 figures which are a smaller) the cut required to save €2.1 billion is a cut of 10.3% meaning you are basically correct and accurate.

waster81

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry the last 2/3 debates I have seen on the likes of VB and on PK the union lads never once questioned this 116 billion over the next 30 years for pensions.

Or the €1billion we spent to ensure AIB bank employees have their pension hole filled

squod

Godge wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Those statistics show that for 2010 the administration of social welfare costs 2.8% of the total budget. Since then the number of people working in that Department have gone down while the budget has gone up (one of the only places it has) meaning that the administration costs as a percentage of the total budget have gone down (demonstrating extra productivity from the civil servants). That productivity gain may well have been as much as 10%.

I don't understand yours. Are you seriously suggesting the total manpower cost of the social welfare dept is €590,000? Pay & pension contributions for 7,000 odd people? Have I misread the paragraph?

I have no proof of any improvements in efficiency in that dept. Can I ask you how may process improvement engineers work for or are contracted to the dept? How many lean six sigma black belt leaders or equivalent?

squod

Godge wrote: »

I don't know or understand what he is arguing.

You said that a 10% cut across all payments would save €2.1 billion. He said it was nowhere near that and then later dragged unions and administration cost into it.

But if you take off the administration costs (and even taking the 2011 figures which are a smaller) the cut required to save €2.1 billion is a cut of 10.3% meaning you are basically correct and accurate.

I asked someone to explain this to me. So far that hasn't happened. I'm not asking for a miracle here people.

ardmacha

I don't understand yours. Are you seriously suggesting the total manpower cost of the social welfare dept is €590,000?

Did you seriously do a calculation and come up with €590,000 instead of €590m and post this on boards in a serious forum?

Gumbo

squod wrote: »

I asked someone to explain this to me. So far that hasn't happened. I'm not asking for a miracle here people.

Open your eyes and read the posts then.

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

I asked someone to explain this to me. So far that hasn't happened. I'm not asking for a miracle here people.

The maths is there for you in my post, no. 149.
I don't know what bit you can't understand.
10% of just over €20 billion is just over €2 billion.

squod

ardmacha wrote: »

Did you seriously do a calculation and come up with €590,000 instead of €590m and post this on boards in a serious forum?

lol. I didn't do the bluddy calculation :rolleyes:. It's in the link I posted.

Total Adminstration 592,640

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

lol. I didn't do the bluddy calculation :rolleyes:. It's in the link I posted.

Oh for God's sake.
Will you look at the top of the table.
3 zero's at the end of each figure in the table.

The grand total for 2010 is 20,848,230,000

A billion is one thousand million, e.g. 1,000,000,000

So total administration is €592,640,000

squod

spikethedog wrote: »

Oh for God's sake.
Will you look at the top of the table.
3 zero's at the end of each figure in the table.

The grand total for 2010 is 20,848,230,000

A billion is one thousand million, e.g. 1,000,000,000

So total administration is €592,640,000

lol. I didn't do the bluddy calculation :rolleyes:. It's in the link I posted.

Again..........

Administration 592,640

I'm quoting a pdf from 2010.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

Vizzy

spikethedog wrote: »

Oh for God's sake.
Will you look at the top of the table.
3 zero's at the end of each figure in the table.

The grand total for 2010 is 20,848,230,000

A billion is one thousand million, e.g. 1,000,000,000

So total administration is €592,640,000

I think maybe we need a Public Servant to sort this out-Maths teacher maybe?:D

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

Yes I appreciate that but if my son has anything badly wrong with him under our VHI he will be entitled to a private room with out having to be lying on a trolley.

He would only get a private bed if one is available, otherwise he would lie in a trolley just like a public patient. The funny thing is the private patient is for the most part treated in the same hospital by the same nurses, radiologists, doctors as the public patient. In fact nearly 50% of all private patient admitted from A&E end up n a public bed as not enough private beds available. Only difference is the consultant gets paid twice to treat the private patient and so in the case of planned admissions fast tracks the private patient into the hospital over the heads of public patients who often have a higher clinical need for the same care. This is what you are paying private health insurance for in Ireland.

Sarn

squod wrote: »

Again..........

I'm quoting a pdf from 2010.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

You have misread the table. The column where you quoted 592,640 is in €000, which is €592,640,000.

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

Again..........




I'm quoting a pdf from 2010.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

You've gotta be taking the p1ss.

spikethedog

Sarn wrote: »

You have misread the table. The column where you quoted 592,640 is in €000, which is €592,640,000.

It's tough going this.......there's no telling him/her.

squod

spikethedog wrote: »

It's tough going this.......there's no telling him/her.

This figure puts the mean rate of pay in that department something like twice the mean rate of pay in the PS?

Please don't get defensive. I'm only asking.

€592,640,000/7,000 = ?

Mean rate of pay in the PS is €900 per week.

Gumbo

squod wrote: »

This figure puts the mean rate of pay in that department something like twice the mean rate of pay in the PS?

Please don't get defensive. I'm only asking.

€592,640,000/7,000 = ?

Mean rate of pay in the PS is €900 per week.

Admin costs will include pay, and equipment used including paper, printers, postage envelopes etc.

What's the point of your posts anyway, shave 10% of the total bill and that is 2.1 Bn.

Vizzy

squod wrote: »

This figure puts the mean rate of pay in that department something like twice the mean rate of pay in the PS?

Please don't get defensive. I'm only asking.

€592,640,000/7,000 = ?

Mean rate of pay in the PS is €900 per week.

Aw this is getting tiresome.

Answer me this squod,do you think that the DSP don't pay electricity bills,buy a bulb every now and again or God forbid need to use the toilet ?

squod

Vizzy wrote: »

Aw this is getting tiresome.

Answer me this squod,do you think that the DSP don't pay electricity bills,buy a bulb every now and again or God forbid need to use the toilet ?

Listed in the breakdown. People don't do administration in a toilet.


No, I don't believe a 10% cut in €21bn budget will yield a €2.1bn saving.

Gumbo

squod wrote: »

Listed in the breakdown. People don't do administration in a toilet.


No, I don't believe a 10% cut in €21bn budget will yield a €2.1bn saving.

You should of paid attention in maths class.

Anyway guys, either report the post or ignore. Do not feed the troll.

squod

kceire wrote: »

You should of paid attention in maths class.

Anyway guys, either report the post or ignore. Do not feed the troll.

Cut the budget and the budget will over run. This is the case time and time again . Application of a proper management system would do more.

If you don't want to read my posts and think I'm trolling then don't read my posts.

thebman

daveyeh wrote: »

Ok, so you're saying these guards and hospital employees who do a good job and work very hard should be left alone in the cpa2, but also should have their wages cut to hire more of them??? :rolleyes: Some reward for their efforts.

Rewards are forfeit when your employer is bankrupt...

That is when you learn that life isn't always fair.

Farmer Pudsey

squod wrote: »

This figure puts the mean rate of pay in that department something like twice the mean rate of pay in the PS?

Please don't get defensive. I'm only asking.

€592,640,000/7,000 = ?

Mean rate of pay in the PS is €900 per week.

Seems very high even if it includes Admin costs look like some money could be saved here. This is the problem with the PS ver hard to get straight figure out of it. For instance it is very hard to get total wage bill for departments or for section of departments. it is also hard to get staffing levels, hours they work and holidays. This is a significant issue. Government seem slow to give out details. HSE is an example it is impossible to get a breakdown of staff no and area's where they work. If any large company worked on such a basis where nobody seems to know exact levels of pay, amount of overtime worked expenses it owners would sack the managers especially if they were paid very well.

In this case the tax payer who is the owner is being kept in the dark and fed sh#te. So then you get people using raw data.

On the above figure lots of PS workers posting here are always on about the semi state staff dragging up there average pay however when we look at this example the average cost/employee is 84.5K. Now either they are above the PS average or else 35K/staff member is spend on travel, subsistance and other admin costs which seem quite high and if that is the case there seem to be a case to sees if any of that money is wasted and could be saved there by reducing PS costs with out hitting pay.Is this kind of cost an issue right accross the PS maybe we could save 1-2 billion by cutting waste like this if it exists.

However if it is mainly a paybill then we have another issue

squod

Shure all the mathmaticians here have already picked up on that high figure of 84k per employee.

10% cut in pay across 2.1m people would of course lead to serious knock-on effects also. A rise in unemployment probably, and so an increase in SW payments.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Seems very high even if it includes Admin costs look like some money could be saved here. This is the problem with the PS ver hard to get straight figure out of it. For instance it is very hard to get total wage bill for departments or for section of departments. it is also hard to get staffing levels, hours they work and holidays. This is a significant issue. Government seem slow to give out details. HSE is an example it is impossible to get a breakdown of staff no and area's where they work. If any large company worked on such a basis where nobody seems to know exact levels of pay, amount of overtime worked expenses it owners would sack the managers especially if they were paid very well.

In this case the tax payer who is the owner is being kept in the dark and fed sh#te. So then you get people using raw data.

On the above figure lots of PS workers posting here are always on about the semi state staff dragging up there average pay however when we look at this example the average cost/employee is 84.5K. Now either they are above the PS average or else 35K/staff member is spend on travel, subsistance and other admin costs which seem quite high and if that is the case there seem to be a case to sees if any of that money is wasted and could be saved there by reducing PS costs with out hitting pay.Is this kind of cost an issue right accross the PS maybe we could save 1-2 billion by cutting waste like this if it exists.

However if it is mainly a paybill then we have another issue

Administrative costs are 2.8% of the total in 2011. I have done a quick check internationally and looked at a number of papers that cover insurance companies and their administrative costs as a percentage of claims.

Some of them have admin costs as high as 20-25% of claims. Other systems like Medicare are around 3-5%. The 2.8% seems reasonable by international standards.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/douglas-kellogg/not-so-fast-obamas-every-study-has-shown-medicare-claim-leaves-out-key-details

The above reference is one that would be critical of costs of public services but still has our percentage cost looking good.

I wish people would do some research rather than spouting the last idea that came into their head.

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

Administrative costs are 2.8% of the total in 2011. I have done a quick check internationally and looked at a number of papers that cover insurance companies and their administrative costs as a percentage of claims.

Some of them have admin costs as high as 20-25% of claims. Other systems like Medicare are around 3-5%. The 2.8% seems reasonable by international standards.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/douglas-kellogg/not-so-fast-obamas-every-study-has-shown-medicare-claim-leaves-out-key-details

The above reference is one that would be critical of costs of public services but still has our percentage cost looking good.

I wish people would do some research rather than spouting the last idea that came into their head.

Godge I am just analysing a post from another contributor. And as i refered to in my post it is nearly impossible to get decent data out of the Irish PS. Personnlly I do not have hours to spend reserching every detail. However I am able to look at figure and analysis them. If the figure Squod gives are right it is hard to believe that 35K/head over the average PS pay is spend adminstrating social welfare. I just looked at the figure and analysed them I did not investigate them rather I commented on them

Take the HSE or Education both big spending departments it is impossible to get a decent breakdown of figure that include wages, administration costs, teachers/nurses/doctors costs etc. For instance in the HEs there seems to be a choice by managment to use agencies to fill gaps in service where twenty years ago the used tempory staff which they managed themselves to fill the gaps. However they now seemed to have outsourced this and still have large amounts of management in place.

And yes I am no fan of insurance companies wheather it is health, car or life insurance companies as well as the pension industry which require a big shake up but that is another thread sometime. As far as I know thecost of admin in the health service is on par with insurance companies however it is nearly impossible to get correct figures.

squod

Godge wrote: »

Administrative costs are 2.8% of the total in 2011. I have done a quick check internationally and looked at a number of papers that cover insurance companies and their administrative costs as a percentage of claims.

Some of them have admin costs as high as 20-25% of claims. Other systems like Medicare are around 3-5%. The 2.8% seems reasonable by international standards.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/douglas-kellogg/not-so-fast-obamas-every-study-has-shown-medicare-claim-leaves-out-key-details

The above reference is one that would be critical of costs of public services but still has our percentage cost looking good.

I wish people would do some research rather than spouting the last idea that came into their head.

Average pay from Banking & Insurance sectors is €50k.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Godge I am just analysing a post from another contributor. And as i refered to in my post it is nearly impossible to get decent data out of the Irish PS. Personnlly I do not have hours to spend reserching every detail. However I am able to look at figure and analysis them. If the figure Squod gives are right it is hard to believe that 35K/head over the average PS pay is spend adminstrating social welfare. I just looked at the figure and analysed them I did not investigate them rather I commented on them

Take the HSE or Education both big spending departments it is impossible to get a decent breakdown of figure that include wages, administration costs, teachers/nurses/doctors costs etc. For instance in the HEs there seems to be a choice by managment to use agencies to fill gaps in service where twenty years ago the used tempory staff which they managed themselves to fill the gaps. However they now seemed to have outsourced this and still have large amounts of management in place.

And yes I am no fan of insurance companies wheather it is health, car or life insurance companies as well as the pension industry which require a big shake up but that is another thread sometime. As far as I know thecost of admin in the health service is on par with insurance companies however it is nearly impossible to get correct figures.

The figure is for total administrative costs out of total budget.

That must include rent, heat, light, paper, computers etc.

Dividing it by the number of employees is meaningless.

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

Better link here. A 10% cut in the administration budget would of course cause ''uproar'' and ''mass strike action''. An 11% cut in administration might cause some kind of stroke among union leaders.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

squod, about this point you jumped the shark very spectacularly, and you've been on a hiding to nothing since.

I don't know whether you're defending your original mistake of believing that the Social Welfare Budget primarily consisted of administration charges out of an inability to understand the relevant figures, out of an inability to admit you were entirely wrong, or in order to wind people up. Luckily for you, it looks like a combination of the first two to me.

Please don't continue your dogged defence of your mistake. It's probably better if you don't continue to post in this thread at all, since any reprise of the last few pages will result in a ban.

For those who reported this thread in various ways, thank you, as ever, for attempting to communicate that there was a problem with the thread, but had the post reports more accurately reflected the fact that squod had been shown correct figures and was refusing to take them on board, action would have been taken sooner.

moderately,
Scofflaw

OMD

Godge wrote: »

Administrative costs are 2.8% of the total in 2011. I have done a quick check internationally and looked at a number of papers that cover insurance companies and their administrative costs as a percentage of claims.

Some of them have admin costs as high as 20-25% of claims. Other systems like Medicare are around 3-5%. The 2.8% seems reasonable by international standards.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/douglas-kellogg/not-so-fast-obamas-every-study-has-shown-medicare-claim-leaves-out-key-details

The above reference is one that would be critical of costs of public services but still has our percentage cost looking good.

I wish people would do some research rather than spouting the last idea that came into their head.

Social welfare administration costs are not comparable to insurance or Medicare costs though are they? I am not saying the social welfare admin costs are too high, I don't know but you cannot simply compare to insurance companies costs.

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

The figure is for total administrative costs out of total budget.

That must include rent, heat, light, paper, computers etc.

Dividing it by the number of employees is meaningless.

It looks very high also most department buildings(not all) are owned by the state so rent would not be a largre factor. However the point I was making is that as tax payers we do not get a breakdown of costs that are easily available.It is the same with all government , local authorities and quango's. So we are often looking at raw data that may be misleading. Also it would not be the first time either in the public or private sector that managers moved costs from one budget to another to hide costs.

From the figures we cannot assertain wheather there are high staff costs or high admin costs or even if either are high. The reason I divided it by the number of employees to put a perpective on it.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It looks very high also most department buildings(not all) are owned by the state so rent would not be a largre factor. However the point I was making is that as tax payers we do not get a breakdown of costs that are easily available.It is the same with all government , local authorities and quango's. So we are often looking at raw data that may be misleading. Also it would not be the first time either in the public or private sector that managers moved costs from one budget to another to hide costs.

From the figures we cannot assertain wheather there are high staff costs or high admin costs or even if either are high. The reason I divided it by the number of employees to put a perpective on it.

I disagree, there is plenty of infromation available but I seem to be the only one around here able to do a bit of internet digging.

I go to the Comptroller and Auditor General website and find this.

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2011/appaccs/eng/Vote38.pdf


This gives a clear breakdown of the administrative costs.

Salaries, wages and allowances in 2011 were €247,664,000. If you are right about the 7,000 employees, that results in an average salary of €35,380.

If people are serious about posting here, they really should do a little research and back up their posts with hard figures and then deal rationally with discussions about these. For example, I am happy to discuss whether the €247m is accurate and to consider other sources than Farmer Pudsey for the 7,000 employees figure.

Rather than just quoting the latest sound-bite from an economist, politician or trade union, we should be aiming to analyse what they say and whether it is correct. An example of this is the discussion on the €116bn pension "hole". Rather than sheepishly saying if all the experts quote it, it must be right, we should be aiming to examine and critically analyse whether it is factually correct and what the implications are for government finances. Otherwise this forum is just like a late-night pub.


Actually reading the report further down I see that there is a further breakdown of the pay figures. Pay is 229,238 and employee numbers are 6,174 in 2011, giving an accurate average salary of €37,129.

not yet

Just a quick appendage to the debate.

PS average pay includes each and every member of government, Including Kenny etc,College professors-Consultants and so on, This is the reason the average PS pay is 45-50 k

The private sector does not include Bank managers, heads of multi-nationals etc. So it is easy to see why the average pay of both is distorted.

JusT saying like...........

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Administrative costs are 2.8% of the total in 2011. I have done a quick check internationally and looked at a number of papers that cover insurance companies and their administrative costs as a percentage of claims.

Some of them have admin costs as high as 20-25% of claims. Other systems like Medicare are around 3-5%. The 2.8% seems reasonable by international standards.

You can't really compare DSP to medicare (the US equivalent of the VHI, except it is part funded from payroll taxes) or any other insurance organisation because there is a fundamental difference in purpose.

The purpose of insurers is to provide cover for a risk of something happening, and pay (at least part of) the cost incurred if that risk occurs.

The function of DSP is to make payments given certain social criteria e.g. child benefit, widows pension, unemployment etc. The sheer scale of payments of a social payments system will dwarf relative administrative costs (this is why the ratio for medicare is low, it covers 48m people).

fliball123

daveyeh wrote: »

Ok, so you're saying these guards and hospital employees who do a good job and work very hard should be left alone in the cpa2, but also should have their wages cut to hire more of them??? :rolleyes: Some reward for their efforts.

What I am saying is this is the bind the government find itself in. It has hammered the hell out of the tax payer over the last half a decade and in the last 3 years it has not been able to cut wages to the public sector forcing it to make ridiculous decisions such as cuts to the home care grants and many other crazy cuts. The people on the front line continuously say they are over worked and I dont doubt it and as I say if they took a cut in wage more gaurds, nurses etc could be hired by using this money. The fact is I do a good job and I had a pay cut and have not had a pay rise in years and the 2 different companies I worked for the first went bust and to the wall. Fortunately I got out at the right time. The 2nd is going well but at the same time the mear mention of pay rise is laughed at. The unfortunate truth is we can no longer afford the ps pay pensions and social welfare rates in this country. By all means when we are on the uppers bring the front line back up but while we are in a hole we need more from the public servants and the social welfare, this hole will not be bridged on taxation alone.

fliball123

daveyeh wrote: »

Its automatic. You don't claim it.

once again what has this got to do with the thread?

fliball123

daveyeh wrote: »

Not true. There is no entitlement.

Eh sorry there is an entitlement in the VHI package I am on he is entitled to a private bed, its a payment to jump the queue

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

You are talking about a few talking heads on tv and radio (the constantins and mcwilliams type economists, and others who know even less) as so-called experts. If you want to be a sheep following them, go ahead. Otherwise, read my post again below.

It takes the important parts of the out-of-date 2009 report and shows and explains in simple language how the assumptions and calculations are wrong. You do not need to be an expert to follow my reasoning, you just need to have a bit of common sense.

I mean really. The report is based on an assumption that public service numbers will increase by 23% over 2008 figures by 2018. That means it assumes an increase to 392,370. The current target for the Government is 282,000 by 2015 plus another chunk taken out by Croke Park 2 by 2018, let us say, 270,000. At the very least that means the numbers will be 31% less and the cost as well so any figure in that report for the cost of pensions in 30, 40 years time is grossly overexaggerated. If you want to argue the point, please show how my analysis is wrong.

Godge these so called talking heads were being cross examined by union leaders such as Doran, I would hazard a guess if the figure was wildly out of kilter they would of seized on it?

fliball123

waster81 wrote: »

Or the €1billion we spent to ensure AIB bank employees have their pension hole filled

And who is in charge of AIB the politicians last I heard they are considered public servants. I am no more happy about the banks then you are. But to continously point at them and say it was all their fault is a falacy we would of been in this situation sooner or later even if banks didnt falter

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

He would only get a private bed if one is available, otherwise he would lie in a trolley just like a public patient. The funny thing is the private patient is for the most part treated in the same hospital by the same nurses, radiologists, doctors as the public patient. In fact nearly 50% of all private patient admitted from A&E end up n a public bed as not enough private beds available. Only difference is the consultant gets paid twice to treat the private patient and so in the case of planned admissions fast tracks the private patient into the hospital over the heads of public patients who often have a higher clinical need for the same care. This is what you are paying private health insurance for in Ireland.

That is true but he would be at the top of the queue along with other private health insurance holders

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Godge these so called talking heads were being cross examined by union leaders such as Doran, I would hazard a guess if the figure was wildly out of kilter they would of seized on it?

No because they have been consistently wrong.

The TV economists have talked for two to three years non-stop about how the country was about to default that week or that month. It is now clear that a default is extremely unlikely (which is what I and some others were saying all along) and that those fools were talking out of their arse.

The union leaders are not interested in deep analysis either because they are focussed on the here and now. Neither would it make good TV and would look like they were nitpicking. The place for examining the figures is away from the limelight.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

No because they have been consistently wrong.

The TV economists have talked for two to three years non-stop about how the country was about to default that week or that month. It is now clear that a default is extremely unlikely (which is what I and some others were saying all along) and that those fools were talking out of their arse.

The union leaders are not interested in deep analysis either because they are focussed on the here and now. Neither would it make good TV and would look like they were nitpicking. The place for examining the figures is away from the limelight.

Well proof is in the pudding sure we will see how it plays out over the next 30 years I guess.

fliball123

by the way has anyone any updates on how the talks have gone thus far?

Paulzx

fliball123 wrote: »

and as I say if they took a cut in wage more gaurds, nurses etc could be hired by using this money. .

If you actually believe this you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Any money taken off staff will be banked (literally) and the staff will just be working more for less again.

Government policy is to lower head count. More salary cuts will not change this.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Salaries, wages and allowances in 2011 were €247,664,000. If you are right about the 7,000 employees, that results in an average salary of €35,380.

It's interesting that DPER have a very different set of (much higher) figures quoted for (total) DSP pay & staffing levels in the the 2012 estimates. I'm at a loss to see the cause of the discrepancy.

2011 |CaAG|DPER
Gross Pay |€247.664m |€314.545m*
Staff levels** | 6,011 | 6,855
Average |41,201 |45,885


* Net pay €307.824m
** Full time equivalents.

fliball123

Paulzx wrote: »

If you actually believe this you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Any money taken off staff will be banked (literally) and the staff will just be working more for less again.

Government policy is to lower head count. More salary cuts will not change this.

True for the the here and now but when we are on the uppers if we have a leaner and less expensive public service it would be easier to recruit more staff when the the country is back on the uppers. I dont know when that will be do

Gumbo

antoobrien wrote: »

It's interesting that DPER have a very different set of (much higher) figures quoted for (total) DSP pay & staffing levels in the the 2012 estimates. I'm at a loss to see the cause of the discrepancy.

2011 |CaAG|DPER
Gross Pay |€247.664m |€314.545m*
Staff levels** | 6,011 | 6,855
Average |41,201 |45,885


* Net pay €307.824m
** Full time equivalents.

This might be accounted by re-deployment. The DSP got more staff from other departments to allow for more inspections and investigations in fraud DSP payments. Also to allow for more back ground staff to deal with applications for social payments etc