Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

antoobrien

kceire wrote: »

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

All true but aren't the CAG supposed to have the definitive figures? A 70m & 800 staff difference is a bit much to explain away in such a fashion even if it is a negative change.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

All true but aren't the CAG supposed to have the definitive figures? A 70m & 800 staff difference is a bit much to explain away in such a fashion even if it is a negative change.

There was a big transfer of community welfare officers from the HSE to Social Protection with a chunk of budget travelling with the staff, it was the biggest redeployment under Croke Park - I recall reading about it in one of the reports. It is possible that for accounting reasons they were not included in 2011 figures but for budgetary planning purposes they are included in 2012 estimates to ensure like with like comparison.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

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

someone still working in the public service who has been kept informed by their union would be a possible source of information.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

someone still working in the public service who has been kept informed by their union would be a possible source of information.

True your usually on the pulse with info Godge, just wondering how far things have progressed?

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

True your usually on the pulse with info Godge, just wondering how far things have progressed?

I am too long gone from the public service to have up-to-date info.

My guess (and this is a guess this time) is that increased hours, reduction in pay for higher earners only and some reduction in shift pay and overtime rates are the areas where this will be played out in the long run. But that is all in the papers.

I don't believe compulsory redundancy is a serious proposal (except maybe in limited circumstances where an individual refuses redeployment), neither do I believe widespread pay cuts are on the table especially as private sector pay is on the up again. Standing against those proposals will be the things that the unions can claim as victory - remember in every bargaining talks each side has to get something.

The real interesting one is increments. Do the government need something to make up the figures? Do they need it for PR reasons? Is it a step too far for the unions? It could well be the issue that causes a breakdown on either side.

daveyeh

fliball123 wrote: »

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

Wrong. Read your policy.

RobbieTheRobber

Godge wrote: »

I am too long gone from the public service to have up-to-date info.

My guess (and this is a guess this time) is that increased hours, reduction in pay for higher earners only and some reduction in shift pay and overtime rates are the areas where this will be played out in the long run. But that is all in the papers.

I don't believe compulsory redundancy is a serious proposal (except maybe in limited circumstances where an individual refuses redeployment), neither do I believe widespread pay cuts are on the table especially as private sector pay is on the up again. Standing against those proposals will be the things that the unions can claim as victory - remember in every bargaining talks each side has to get something.

The real interesting one is increments. Do the government need something to make up the figures? Do they need it for PR reasons? Is it a step too far for the unions? It could well be the issue that causes a breakdown on either side.

The other issue is that those negotiating on behalf of the unions have to also get any deal ratified by the majority of members.
Would a deal involving increment freezes get the members backing and if not how much does the government value industrial peace.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

how much does the government value industrial peace.

Well apparently the value is €1 billion.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

Well apparently the value is €1 billion.

Increments cost 1 billion or industrial peace is worth 1 billion?

repsol

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

One thing I'd like them to address is the current arrangement whereby new entrants are going in on much lower pay scales.

Either bring everyone down to the new level or move both scales to meet in the middle. They're creating a two tier public sector, which is only going to build resentment between newer and older workers in the long run.

I really think the unions shot themselves in the foot over this one and have sacrificed long term unity for the short term gain of protecting existing members. I won't be at all surprised though if nothing happens.

On the issue of cutting high earners pay only, isn't it a case that relative to the private sector it's actually the lower paid public sector workers who have the bigger premium?

The notion of people resenting colleagues pay is irrelevant.If someone applies for a job paying X then X is what they get.If somebody else is getting paid Y,thats life.If I have to choose between a pay cut and working with someone with a chip on their shoulder over their pay,I 'll just ignore the guy and keep my current pay.

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Posting from a phone so can't properly read that pdf.
Apologies to whoever it was that feels offended.

My original point stands. It would take some idiot not to understand the principal. A 10% cut in payments would not yield a 10% saving. Fact.

Again;



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.



You're attitude and the attitude of some of the posters here is agressive. I won't post again in this thread for that reason.

ballyharpat

squod wrote: »

Posting from a phone so can't properly read that pdf.
Apologies to whoever it was that feels offended.

My original point stands. It would take some idiot not to understand the principal. A 10% cut in payments would not yield a 10% saving. Fact.


agreed, although the wording could be chosen with more care.





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.

Agreed, but what is the alternative, where the money needs to come from somewhere. So the Private sector gets taxed more, more money out of their pocket, they already spend all their money-and some with it. SO they have less money to spend on the essentials. Or we could cut it from the public sector, where they are already paid above what a similar private sector employee is paid. The Public Sector are earning more, spending some, but because most have more money than the private sector, they are saving some, so actually not 'spending' it all to stimulate the economy. Either way there will be less money going into the economy, just depends on who it's coming from, I won't use the phrase "it would take and idiot not to understand it", but you get the gist......

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Increments cost 1 billion or industrial peace is worth 1 billion?

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to industrial peace.

RobbieTheRobber

sarumite wrote: »

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to industrial peace.

You may have thought it was obvious, but I wouldn't have needed to ask you what you were talking about if it was.

How do you reckon industrial peace costs 1 billion?

Leroy42

I love the arguement from some that to reduce pay in the public sector will reduce spending power in the economy.

Ignoring the fact that we have to borrow this money in the first place, the arguement doesn't stand up at all. In effect it is arguing that we should tax everybody so that other people can take some of that money (after some of it has been wasted through admin etc) and they can make a decision on where to spend it. Why not just leave the money with the original person and save all the hassle?

Of course we need the PS to keep essential on non profit operations going, but to somehow argue that we need to continue to overpay arge parts of that service in order to keep the economy going is daft

RobbieTheRobber

Leroy42 wrote: »

I love the arguement from some that to reduce pay in the public sector will reduce spending power in the economy.

Ignoring the fact that we have to borrow this money in the first place, the arguement doesn't stand up at all. In effect it is arguing that we should tax everybody so that other people can take some of that money (after some of it has been wasted through admin etc) and they can make a decision on where to spend it. Why not just leave the money with the original person and save all the hassle?

If we are borrowing the money, then it is not coming from tax (its borrowed).

Black Swan

squod wrote: »

Posting from a phone so can't properly read that pdf.
Apologies to whoever it was that feels offended.

My original point stands. It would take some idiot not to understand the principal. A 10% cut in payments would not yield a 10% saving. Fact.

Again;



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.



You're attitude and the attitude of some of the posters here is agressive. I won't post again in this thread for that reason.

MODERATION COMMENT:
squod banned 1-week for failure to follow mod instructions, discussing moderation in-thread, and getting "too personal" and abusive with the "idiot" and "You're attitude" comments in violation of Charter.

kippy

Leroy42 wrote: »

I love the arguement from some that to reduce pay in the public sector will reduce spending power in the economy.

Ignoring the fact that we have to borrow this money in the first place, the arguement doesn't stand up at all. In effect it is arguing that we should tax everybody so that other people can take some of that money (after some of it has been wasted through admin etc) and they can make a decision on where to spend it. Why not just leave the money with the original person and save all the hassle?

Because the country has to be run, and to do that people have to be paid.

It's a moot argument, I get that, but the point is when you reduce anyones income their spending power is effected and this may or may not have a knock on effect into the wider economy. (It's not as big a deal as is being made on this thread but it is a point)
This is the same for people when they get made redundant or indeed any person in any sector.

The bigger point is the question whether this is to be 1 billion in gross or net savings and whether the government will provide good example by:
1. Reducing the number and wages of their advisers in line with their own promises.
2. Reducing expenses, pensions and indeed headcount in the dail and follow through with the Seanad changes.
Cuts would be far more palatible if the two points above were met AND:
The amount of money misspent on public projects and in civil and public service was cut drasticilly and the people who made these decisions were actually taken to account.
The amount of middle and upper level management as well as boards and quangos was cut drastically.
Increments were based on proper performance goal setting and appraisal and NOT time served.

mrskinner

principle?

Leroy42

@ RobbietheRobber - It has to be paid back at some stage, so it will be taken out of the economy. Point still stands.

@Kippy- Yes I edited my post to better reflect that. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a PS, or that they shouldn't be paid, but anytime a cut in either pay or headcount is mentioned the line about taking money out of the economy is trotted out. Imagine we did save €1b. Could we reduce everyones USC to reflect this and so people would have more take home pay?

noodler

The primary aim of reducing the Public Sector Salary Bill to is control the deficit - NOT stimulate spending in the economy.

If anybody wants to argue that deficit control thus far has been self-defeating then just consult the Fiscal Council's latest report.

Or even even just note that the underlying deficit has decreased every year since 2009.

sarumite

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You may have thought it was obvious, but I wouldn't have needed to ask you what you were talking about if it was.

How do you reckon industrial peace costs 1 billion?

You asked "how much does the government value industrial peace". I replied to that question. I really don't understand where your confusion come from.

I never said industrial peace costs 1 billion. I said the government value industrial peace at 1 billion. According to the government, they want 1 billion in savings. That is the target they have set.

Godge

Leroy42 wrote: »

@ RobbietheRobber - It has to be paid back at some stage, so it will be taken out of the economy. Point still stands.

@Kippy- Yes I edited my post to better reflect that. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a PS, or that they shouldn't be paid, but anytime a cut in either pay or headcount is mentioned the line about taking money out of the economy is trotted out. Imagine we did save €1b. Could we reduce everyones USC to reflect this and so people would have more take home pay?

You are right, the point about money being taken out of the economy is over-stated. A similar point is made about cuts to social welfare payments by those defending social welfare.

However, there is an element of truth in it when you compare it to other measures. Take for example, the levy on private pension funds. That didn't take money out of the economy, it took money from private pension funds that were at least partially invested abroad. A secondary effect would discourage saving for pension and therefore increase spending in the economy. Another one is the property tax which is levied on non-residents who will have to pay tax on money they were taking out of the country. Both of those measures are better for the economy than public service pay cuts or social welfare cuts.

Result, to be consistent those who buy into the argument that cuts to public service pay and social welfare take money out of the economy should support the property tax and the levy on private sector pensions.

Idbatterim

I love the arguement from some that to reduce pay in the public sector will reduce spending power in the economy.

exactly, if increasing PS spending is the answer to our woes, why not increase their pay! Also the fact that by cutting it anymore they wont be able to repay loans etc, as if ALL of them are up to their tits in debt.

unit 1

not yet wrote: »

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...........

It also doesnt include the black economy, which almost totally in the private sector must be quite substantial at this stage
Black economy wages = dole + benefits + other fringe benefits + nixer money.

sarumite

unit 1 wrote: »

It also doesnt include the black economy, which almost totally in the private sector must be quite substantial at this stage
Black economy wages = dole + benefits + other fringe benefits + nixer money.

If they are claiming the dole, they can't be in the private sector.

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

You are right, the point about money being taken out of the economy is over-stated. A similar point is made about cuts to social welfare payments by those defending social welfare.

However, there is an element of truth in it when you compare it to other measures. Take for example, the levy on private pension funds. That didn't take money out of the economy, it took money from private pension funds that were at least partially invested abroad. A secondary effect would discourage saving for pension and therefore increase spending in the economy. Another one is the property tax which is levied on non-residents who will have to pay tax on money they were taking out of the country. Both of those measures are better for the economy than public service pay cuts or social welfare cuts.

Result, to be consistent those who buy into the argument that cuts to public service pay and social welfare take money out of the economy should support the property tax and the levy on private sector pensions.

GODge that a f##king good one it ok to screw private sector pension where people save money so that they will be less of a burden on the state longterm but it is wrong to cut PS pay which will reduce the burden on the state longterm. It is laso wrong to cut hard at the top level of the PS where people are more likly to spend a higher% of there money abroad on holidays and holidays homes abroad where they can spend more of there high level of pension abroad.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

GODge that a f##king good one it ok to screw private sector pension where people save money so that they will be less of a burden on the state longterm but it is wrong to cut PS pay which will reduce the burden on the state longterm. It is laso wrong to cut hard at the top level of the PS where people are more likly to spend a higher% of there money abroad on holidays and holidays homes abroad where they can spend more of there high level of pension abroad.

Ah for petes sake .. same auld story all the time. Private side say you cant touch us in any way but you should crucify the other side - basically anybody but me. Not saying the public side are any different but the difference is when the public side defend their position they are ridiculed by the private side.

We hear that only the public sector can afford to save .. oh wait then we hear that [only] the private side are saving hard by contributing to private pensions for which the [only the private sector] taxpayer funds 40% of the contribution. Im surprised the private sector taxpayers who cant afford a private pension contribution havent revolted against this support for their wealthier colleagues by now. But its OK because their pension will reduce their burden on the taxpayer in the future.

Then we hear that only the public sector holiday abroad and waste taxpayers funds in the process and only the public servant pensioner owns foreign property and resides abroad. Of course the private sector pensioner will never do such a unpatriotric act and will always live and holiday in good auld Ireland - 0f course we also all know that its an irrefutable fact that all private sector pensioner are basically surviving on paltry pensions and simply couldnt afford to holiday/reside abroad.

There are a lot of incisive comments, analysis and views expressed on these threads which are interestising and informative to read but there are also a lot of other stuff which is simply one side slagging off the other side with arguments that have no balance or objectivity or reasoned analysis. Doesn't seem to matter though and I suppose at least in small doses it can be entertaining at times

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

GODge that a f##king good one it ok to screw private sector pension where people save money so that they will be less of a burden on the state longterm but it is wrong to cut PS pay which will reduce the burden on the state longterm. It is laso wrong to cut hard at the top level of the PS where people are more likly to spend a higher% of there money abroad on holidays and holidays homes abroad where they can spend more of there high level of pension abroad.

I didn't say which was better from a policy perspective.

I only said that from a "removing money from the economy perspective", the levy on private pensions and the property tax were better options than cutting social welfare or public service pay.

I stand over that statement as a statement of fact but it is only one consideration to take into account. Policy decisions are usaully based on a multiplicity of different factors.

As for the myth of the higher earning public servants, read the last CSO report where they look at senior managers in various sectors of the economy and public service senior managers are earning less than the private sector. That is before you take into account all those self-employed or business owners who are outside the CSO statistics.

deise blue

Given the hugely demanding wish list apparently being sought by the Government might it not be a better tactic for the Unions to withdraw from the current negotiations advising the Government that if terms & conditions are unilaterally changed then they will ballot their members on Industrial action ?

Perhaps , however , the Unions may have been heartened by Minister Howlin's comments that he does not expect to achieve everything listed ?

Blair Horan on the frontline programme indeed suggested the same when he indicated that he had heard from Union representatives at the initial meeting that there was no question of compulsory redundancies being sought.

Perhaps we are being treated to the usual posturing before the real negotiations begin on really achievable matters ? - after all the Unions must be making the Government aware that they will have a hugely difficult job selling any compromise agreement to their members if even a minority of the Government's wishes are included in such an agreement

Leroy42

Creedp, the difference is that in the main the private sector generate their own income through sales of goods etc. If people stop buying they they are in trouble. The public sector has no income of it's own, it comes entirely form taxes.

RobbieTheRobber

Leroy42 wrote: »

Creedp, the difference is that in the main the private sector generate their own income through sales of goods etc. If people stop buying they they are in trouble. The public sector has no income of it's own, it comes entirely form taxes.

Isn't tax just another way of charging for services?

ardmacha

The public sector has no income of it's own, it comes entirely form taxes.

This is not true. Many parts of the public sector have income, be it driving test charges, payments for beds from health insurers, universities only get about 60% of their income from the State, etc.

Leroy42

Yes, you are right ardmacha. The difference being that in many cases this income is based on a monopoly. I can't get my driving test done anywhere else, I can't get my passport anywhere else. Like the case of the bus price increase, the PS are i a position that hefirst thing they seem to do is increase their charges, rather than tackle costs. While every business would love to be able to do this, most in the private sector can't.

Farmer Pudsey

creedp wrote: »

Ah for petes sake .. same auld story all the time. Private side say you cant touch us in any way but you should crucify the other side - basically anybody but me. Not saying the public side are any different but the difference is when the public side defend their position they are ridiculed by the private side.

We hear that only the public sector can afford to save .. oh wait then we hear that [only] the private side are saving hard by contributing to private pensions for which the [only the private sector] taxpayer funds 40% of the contribution. Im surprised the private sector taxpayers who cant afford a private pension contribution havent revolted against this support for their wealthier colleagues by now. But its OK because their pension will reduce their burden on the taxpayer in the future.

Then we hear that only the public sector holiday abroad and waste taxpayers funds in the process and only the public servant pensioner owns foreign property and resides abroad. Of course the private sector pensioner will never do such a unpatriotric act and will always live and holiday in good auld Ireland - 0f course we also all know that its an irrefutable fact that all private sector pensioner are basically surviving on paltry pensions and simply couldnt afford to holiday/reside abroad.

There are a lot of incisive comments, analysis and views expressed on these threads which are interestising and informative to read but there are also a lot of other stuff which is simply one side slagging off the other side with arguments that have no balance or objectivity or reasoned analysis. Doesn't seem to matter though and I suppose at least in small doses it can be entertaining at times

First of all if you look up previous post by me in othere threads I have always stated that the burden should be shared accross sectors. Yes there should be extra taxes, yes there should be cuts in Social welfare but we also need to cut the costs of publiuc services and government costs. The tax that the government put on private pension was grossly unfair. I know that it was a small amount but a pension fund of 150K will give the owner a pension og about 6.5K per year with a 1.8% inflation adjustment.

And yes the government fund 42% of it by the way I am no fan of the way private sector pension are funded and run it is a racket and lots of Private sector workers suffer losses in there funds every year. It is not like the PS sector where the are gauranteed and linked to pay rates which means that the benificiaries win win win. By the way they also benifit by the 42% relief on the pension contribution that they now make.

Godge wrote: »

I didn't say which was better from a policy perspective.

I only said that from a "removing money from the economy perspective", the levy on private pensions and the property tax were better options than cutting social welfare or public service pay.

I stand over that statement as a statement of fact but it is only one consideration to take into account. Policy decisions are usaully based on a multiplicity of different factors.

As for the myth of the higher earning public servants, read the last CSO report where they look at senior managers in various sectors of the economy and public service senior managers are earning less than the private sector. That is before you take into account all those self-employed or business owners who are outside the CSO statistics.

The CSO report was produced by a public service body and when they started to fiddle teachers hours etc it lost credibility. also they failed to compare with equivlents abroad which might have show a different story. Also a private sector manager that is on a high wage will in general be working a lot longer hours than an public service manager. He will also be oin a short term contract 2-5 years in general yes it may be renewed however he may also get the boot. By the way I believe that the level of pay of some of these is out of kilter with reality. When you look at PLC's and the pay they give to senior managers it is no wonder that pension funds cannot make money

deise blue wrote: »

Given the hugely demanding wish list apparently being sought by the Government might it not be a better tactic for the Unions to withdraw from the current negotiations advising the Government that if terms & conditions are unilaterally changed then they will ballot their members on Industrial action ?

Perhaps , however , the Unions may have been heartened by Minister Howlin's comments that he does not expect to achieve everything listed ?

Blair Horan on the frontline programme indeed suggested the same when he indicated that he had heard from Union representatives at the initial meeting that there was no question of compulsory redundancies being sought.

Perhaps we are being treated to the usual posturing before the real negotiations begin on really achievable matters ? - after all the Unions must be making the Government aware that they will have a hugely difficult job selling any compromise agreement to their members if even a minority of the Government's wishes are included in such an agreement

By all means walk out it might well be just what the government need to wake up and ballot and go on strike and see the support you get. Try to justify 49K average wages accross the PS when the aver private sector one is around 650/week

Godge

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, you are right ardmacha. The difference being that in many cases this income is based on a monopoly. I can't get my driving test done anywhere else, I can't get my passport anywhere else. Like the case of the bus price increase, the PS are i a position that hefirst thing they seem to do is increase their charges, rather than tackle costs. While every business would love to be able to do this, most in the private sector can't.

Apple operate like that. You cannot buy a phone or music player that uses iTunes unless you buy it from Apple so they keep their prices as high as possible.

There are many other examples of private sector companies operating like that. In fact the abuse of monopolies by private sector companies is one of the justifications for public goods and public services in that having democratically elected politicians overseeing the monopoly services is better than having private sector oligarchs looking after their own interests (well, in theory anyway)

deise blue

In response to Farmer Pudsey I would say that the most important support in terms of a strike ballot is from the members of the various Unions , public opinion is a factor obviously but given the siege mentality that a lot of PS workers currently operate under not a major factor.

If the Unions are sufficiently organised & have built up strike contingency funds to enable frontline workers to strike without a major impact on their pay & if they can convince the Government that such is the case then that may force the Government to compromise.

I should point out that although I am a Union member I am not a PS employee.

Gumbo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Try to justify 49K average wages accross the PS when the aver private sector one is around 650/week

No point comparing a figure that includes the salaries of TD's and Government figures with those in the private sector, is there now

itzme

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The CSO report was produced by a public service body and when they started to fiddle teachers hours etc it lost credibility. also they failed to compare with equivlents abroad which might have show a different story. Also a private sector manager that is on a high wage will in general be working a lot longer hours than an public service manager. He will also be oin a short term contract 2-5 years in general yes it may be renewed however he may also get the boot. By the way I believe that the level of pay of some of these is out of kilter with reality. When you look at PLC's and the pay they give to senior managers it is no wonder that pension funds cannot make money

I'm not aware of the fiddling with teachers hours, can you give me a link to it please.

On the equivalents abroad, the purpose of the report was to compare the public and private sector in Ireland. What "different story" would be told if they compared other EU countries?

When it comes to certain sectors of the PS, I would say in my experience that your comment on hours is correct. In general, private sector managers work longer hours. However, that is only one factor in pay. Two others would be years experience and relevant education qualifications. The report showed in both of these the public sector employee had more than the private sector employee. On this point, it would seem you've selected a point that supports what you already have believe and are ignoring all others.

Personally, I think one of the biggest problems in the PS is management. I think they don't have enough teeth, aren't trained properly and they don't exercise enough control over those they are responsible for. That filters down. This definitely needs to be addressed, one way is through controlling their pay more tightly through performance management and increments, another is making them more responsible for their teams achievements, giving them control over the pay rises of their staff and making them responsible for their budget.

eigrod

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, you are right ardmacha. The difference being that in many cases this income is based on a monopoly. I can't get my driving test done anywhere else, I can't get my passport anywhere else. Like the case of the bus price increase, the PS are i a position that hefirst thing they seem to do is increase their charges, rather than tackle costs. While every business would love to be able to do this, most in the private sector can't.

Very naive. Refuse collection charges have gone up every year since that was privatised in my area. Private bus fares have gone up this year.

Have a look at Britain and the cost of rail tickets there since it was privatised.

To be of the opinion that driving tests or passports will be cheaper if/when that service is privatised is absolutely ridiculous.

Lemming

eigrod wrote: »

Have a look at Britain and the cost of rail tickets there since it was privatised.

That's not as black & white as you try to paint it. The UK government puts in a considerable amount of co-funding to the rail industry, so privatisation isn't quite a self-sufficient affair yet. The UK government want to spend less & less on co-funding hence why the ticket prices - in part - keep rising; to offset the deficit of funding that comes with each reduction in spending by government.

not yet

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

First of all if you look up previous post by me in othere threads I have always stated that the burden should be shared accross sectors. Yes there should be extra taxes, yes there should be cuts in Social welfare but we also need to cut the costs of publiuc services and government costs. The tax that the government put on private pension was grossly unfair. I know that it was a small amount but a pension fund of 150K will give the owner a pension og about 6.5K per year with a 1.8% inflation adjustment.

And yes the government fund 42% of it by the way I am no fan of the way private sector pension are funded and run it is a racket and lots of Private sector workers suffer losses in there funds every year. It is not like the PS sector where the are gauranteed and linked to pay rates which means that the benificiaries win win win. By the way they also benifit by the 42% relief on the pension contribution that they now make.





The CSO report was produced by a public service body and when they started to fiddle teachers hours etc it lost credibility. also they failed to compare with equivlents abroad which might have show a different story. Also a private sector manager that is on a high wage will in general be working a lot longer hours than an public service manager. He will also be oin a short term contract 2-5 years in general yes it may be renewed however he may also get the boot. By the way I believe that the level of pay of some of these is out of kilter with reality. When you look at PLC's and the pay they give to senior managers it is no wonder that pension funds cannot make money





By all means walk out it might well be just what the government need to wake up and ballot and go on strike and see the support you get. Try to justify 49K average wages accross the PS when the aver private sector one is around 650/week

In reference to your last qoute.........

Now feel free to ignore this information if it doesn't fit in with the agenda you follow.

PS average wage is inclusive of all salaries, including 250k for consultants, 250k for professors, 250 for special advisers etc etc etc.

The private sector does not include bank managers, heads of multi nationals, self employed hotel owners or most big business people.

Now as you can see this would distort the figure ever so slightly. Just saying like.

not yet

eigrod wrote: »

Very naive. Refuse collection charges have gone up every year since that was privatised in my area. Private bus fares have gone up this year.

Have a look at Britain and the cost of rail tickets there since it was privatised.

To be of the opinion that driving tests or passports will be cheaper if/when that service is privatised is absolutely ridiculous.

privitisation= greed=profits= minimum wage and so on.....

The people who invest in these private industries want profits at all costs, When the job is done by the PS, profit is not the main driving force behind the service, hence it's nearly always cheaper

Examples, Driving licences 20e PS-55e privatised

Bin Collection 120e PS over 200e privatised, and the list will grow over the next ten years as our government privatise as much as they can.

ballyharpat

Godge wrote: »

Apple operate like that. You cannot buy a phone or music player that uses iTunes unless you buy it from Apple so they keep their prices as high as possible.

There are many other examples of private sector companies operating like that. In fact the abuse of monopolies by private sector companies is one of the justifications for public goods and public services in that having democratically elected politicians overseeing the monopoly services is better than having private sector oligarchs looking after their own interests (well, in theory anyway)

Absolutely nothing in common, if I want to listen to music, I don't have to buy an apple ipod, but I have all apple electronics, because they are the best, and being the best I am happy to pay above the average price for an mp3 player-IMO.
When it comes to the Public sector, I don't have that option, if I want a drivers licence, I can only get it through a government agency-Sorry Godge, but your argument holds no water.

eigrod

Lemming wrote: »

That's not as black & white as you try to paint it. The UK government puts in a considerable amount of co-funding to the rail industry, so privatisation isn't quite a self-sufficient affair yet. The UK government want to spend less & less on co-funding hence why the ticket prices - in part - keep rising; to offset the deficit of funding that comes with each reduction in spending by government.

Oh I agree with you totally. Running a rail service is expensive business, irrespective of whether it's in private or public hands. But to suggest that private sector operators can't increase fares simply because of competition (as the post I was responding to intimiated) is wrong.

Gumbo

ballyharpat wrote: »

if I want a drivers licence, I can only get it through a government agency-Sorry Godge, but your argument holds no water.

its not in a national interest to sub-contract out drivers licence applications. IMHO, its better to be a government organisation that issues these.

antoobrien

not yet wrote: »

The people who invest in these private industries want profits at all costs, When the job is done by the PS, profit is not the main driving force behind the service, hence it's nearly always cheaper

Examples, Driving licences 20e PS-55e privatised

Bin Collection 120e PS over 200e privatised, and the list will grow over the next ten years as our government privatise as much as they can.

Those are not examples of "bad value" but more accurately examples of true cost, showing just how much the services are being subsidized by business (in the case of bins) and the taxpayer (in the case of the licenses).

n97 mini

eigrod wrote: »

Very naive. Refuse collection charges have gone up every year since that was privatised in my area. Private bus fares have gone up this year.

Have a look at Britain and the cost of rail tickets there since it was privatised.

Anything that was cheaper when being run by the state was most likely cheaper because of subsidies. It's also entirely likely that if the local authority was still running the refuse collection that it would be even more expensive than the private operator, especially if the subsidy was withdrawn.

eigrod wrote: »

To be of the opinion that driving tests or passports will be cheaper if/when that service is privatised is absolutely ridiculous.

They more than likely would be more expensive due to less or no subsidy. It is likely they would be delivered more efficiently and cheaper to the state, but not cheaper to those buying them.

Lumbo

n97 mini wrote: »

Anything that was cheaper when being run by the state was most likely cheaper because of subsidies. It's also entirely likely that if the local authority was still running the refuse collection that it would be even more expensive than the private operator, especially if the subsidy was withdrawn.

Waivers for Pensioners and the Unemployed don't come cheap. Are Private Sector refuse collectors offering these waivers?

Godge

itzme wrote: »

Personally, I think one of the biggest problems in the PS is management. I think they don't have enough teeth, aren't trained properly and they don't exercise enough control over those they are responsible for. That filters down. This definitely needs to be addressed, one way is through controlling their pay more tightly through performance management and increments, another is making them more responsible for their teams achievements, giving them control over the pay rises of their staff and making them responsible for their budget.

I keep hearing this mantra about performance management and performance pay for public servants as the solution to all our woes as it copies and mimics the private sector.

I have a couple of questions. Firstly how widespread is performance-related pay in the private sector?

http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/wp5.pdf

According to this 2007 study in the UK only 26% of private sector workers are covered by performance-related pay. Interestingly, 50% of firms are covered and that there are differences within firms with some employees covered and others not. This begs the question is why do some commentators on here and elsewhere (and as included in the Croke Park Agreement) believe that all public servants should have their increments related to performance? If private sector companies differ between themselves in approach and in dealing with different employees of their own, why does a one-size-fits-all approach apply to the public service?


Another big question is how has the experience been in the public service elsewhere?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3647/1/Motivation_and_performance_related_pay_in_the_public_sector(CEP).pdf

This 1992 study looks at performance related pay in the UK Inland Revenue. A noticeable conclusion is that

"Our second finding is that any positive motivational effects of Performance Pay have
been, at most, very modest among Revenue staff. Even worse, there is clear
evidence of some demotivation among staff. It is by no means implausible that

the net motivational effect has been negative."

This is especially interesting when you consider that the system they were using was more generous than the one suggested here in Ireland. Extra increments were available, it wasn't about getting your normal annual increment which you got anyway.

Finally, I ask is performance-related pay appropriate for the public sector. Here is an OECD paper on the introduction of pay systems in Kosovo.

http://www.oecd.org/site/sigma/publicationsdocuments/40974834.pdf

It examines performance-related pay for public service and in quoting from another paper (which I can't find) it lists some of the issues:

"

"Performance-related pay systems are costly and time-consuming to implement.

• In many cases such systems are only applicable at senior levels.

• Discretion of managers is confined to issues such as measurement of performance and distribution of the small pool of money available for performance-related pay.

• Some systems have been introduced as pilot projects with a view to wider application at a later date, but in absence of rigorous analyses of the effects of the pilot projects it is not clear how wider application could be introduced.

• Almost none of the current schemes address the issue of underperformance (no punishment for failure to deliver).

• Measurement of performance, particularly in areas where there are no obvious quantifiable outputs, is a very difficult issue.

• No evidence has been found that performance-related pay schemes have contributed to an improvement in performance, in human resource management or in the quality of the service delivered.

• Additional remuneration was not a significant motivator for the employees concerned.

• The regular, annual or more frequent, formalized discussions between managers and employees on performance, targets and progress achieved have positive effects on motivation (recognition of the contribution of an individual to the organisational performance)."

You would have to ask as a result, what is the basis that some people are shouting for the introduction of performance-related pay in the public service and where is the evidence that it would improve matters?