First public sector compulsory redundancies ever?

superman28

I believe the public sector unions and its members are untouchable in this country,, successive governments have refused to stand up to their unrealistic demands.. the more militant ASTI group have rejected proposals for what I believe to be reasonable demands from the government in terms of reduced pay and conditions.. (their employer the Irish tax payer is broke)

This is not an attack on teachers, I think its an important job, but itis reasonably well paid if you compare on an hourly basis with the private sector,, and its workers enjoy massive amounts of time off. Its not an attack on the public sector,, I don't begrudge anyone for taking a job in the public sector that was by and large totally shielded from the financial collapse of Ireland..

I just think that as one of the more than 400,000 people in the private sector who lost my job because of the financial collapse of this country,, I don't think that any group should be protected,, and they should sack any public sector workers that are not needed or who we can't afford to keep.. It is the government and the people who voted them in that run this country not the public sector unions..

What do you think? Should you be able to loose your job in the public sector? Or should it be a job for life... regardless of the situation..

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-could-be-first-public-servants-to-lose-jobs-29800708.html

srsly78

They can lose their job if they are grossly negligent. PS workers have been fired in the past. They really have to try hard for it tho (e.g. not bother to show up at work for a year).

chopper6

superman28 wrote: »

I believe the public sector unions and its members are untouchable inthis country,, successive governments have refused to stand up to theirunrealistic demands.. the more militant ASTI group haverejected proposals for what I believe to be reasonable demands from thegovernment in terms of reduced pay and conditions.. (their employer the Irishtax payer is broke)

This is not an attack on teachers, I think its an important job, but itis reasonably well paid if you compare on an hourly basis with the privatesector,, and its workers enjoy massive amounts of time off. Its not an attack on the public sector,, I don't begrudge anyone for taking a job in the public sector that was by and large totally shielded from the financial collapse of Ireland..
I just think that as one of the more than 400,000 people in the privatesector who lost my job because of the financial collapse of this country,, Idon't think that any group should be protected,, and they should sack anypublic sector workers that are not needed or who we can't afford to keep.. It is the government and the peoplewho voted them in that run this country not the public sector unions..

What do you think? Should you be able to loose your job in the public sector? Or should it be a job for life... regardless of the situation..

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-could-be-first-public-servants-to-lose-jobs-29800708.html

So 400,000 people lost thier jobs did they?

In the 'privatesector'?

So absolutley nobody was unemployed before "the financial collapse of this country"?

And the rest of your post is rubbish too but i'm sure it'll bring all the usual supects crawling out of the wooodwork with tales of:

'average pay in the public sector'

'ring-fencing lazy people'

the 'employer is broke'

'overpaid and underworked'

'perks and allowances'

' i know somebody who...'




and so on and so on.



Continue.

Jawgap

Nobody lost their job in the PS in the last few years?

Just because people weren't forced out on compulsory redundancies don't think for a minute that people weren't forced out by

.....contracts not being renewed or extended

.....requests for unpaid parental, carer's or other leave being denied

.....career breaks being granted then cancelled several months after the person had taken them

.....part-time or flexible working being withdrawn

.....enforced changes in work locations

I can only speak for my own part of the PS but anyone who was on a contract is gone - any girl who takes maternity leave gets the legal minimum and then is required to return to work or resign, jobs are moved to other locations and if people are not minded to follow them they have to resign etc.

In 2008 when they were desperate to reduce headcount and granted anyone who wanted it a career break and then in 2010 cancelled them all giving people 3 months to return to work or resign.......

......but as the press point out, there's no compulsory redundancies

K-9

Jawgap wrote: »

Nobody lost their job in the PS in the last few years?

Just because people weren't forced out on compulsory redundancies don't think for a minute that people weren't forced out by

.....contracts not being renewed or extended

.....requests for unpaid parental, carer's or other leave being denied

.....career breaks being granted then cancelled several months after the person had taken them

.....part-time or flexible working being withdrawn

.....enforced changes in work locations

There was also 2 rounds of voluntary redundancies IIRC.

Gumbo

superman28 wrote: »

I believe the public sector unions and its members are untouchable inthis country,, successive governments have refused to stand up to theirunrealistic demands.. the more militant ASTI group haverejected proposals for what I believe to be reasonable demands from thegovernment in terms of reduced pay and conditions.. (their employer the Irishtax payer is broke)

This is not an attack on teachers, I think its an important job, but itis reasonably well paid if you compare on an hourly basis with the privatesector,, and its workers enjoy massive amounts of time off. Its not an attack on the public sector,, I don't begrudge anyone for taking a job in the public sector that was by and large totally shielded from the financial collapse of Ireland..

I just think that as one of the more than 400,000 people in the privatesector who lost my job because of the financial collapse of this country,, Idon't think that any group should be protected,, and they should sack anypublic sector workers that are not needed or who we can't afford to keep.. It is the government and the peoplewho voted them in that run this country not the public sector unions..

What do you think? Should you be able to loose your job in the public sector? Or should it be a job for life... regardless of the situation..

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-could-be-first-public-servants-to-lose-jobs-29800708.html

Typical. I lost my job so Johnny across the road must lose his too.

Jawgap

K-9 wrote: »

There was also 2 rounds of voluntary redundancies IIRC.

I think so, but I didn't include those because at least those people got some redundancy payment. We didn't have any voluntary redundancies but we lost a couple through the early retirement scheme.

I think it's just a myth that people have not been forced from their jobs in the PS (as I'm sure they have in other jobs in the private sector) by less than fair means without the cushion of a redundancy payment.

We've also had about four people leave in the wake of the Haddington Road Agreement because between pay cuts and extended working hours it wasn't worth their while to continue working and pay for child care, but I guess people will argue they too left of their own volition.

aliveandkicking

I have no problem with people having an anti public sector viewpoint if they so wish having analysed the information available and forming an opinion based on a complete picture. I do have aproblem with people forming an anti public sector viewpoint on the basis of false, misleading or incomplete information. The idea that we are having "the first public sector redundancies ever" is completely false and a quick google will confirm.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0127/113205-kildarecountycouncil/

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6670&Itemid=38

noodler

Why are posters playing a game of semantics?

No public sector worker on a permanent contract has suffered redundancy unless they volunteered.

This much is true.

aliveandkicking

noodler wrote: »

Why are posters playing a game of semantics?

No public sector worker on a permanent contract has suffered redundancy unless they volunteered.

This much is true.

This much is not true.

Did you have a read of the links I posted in the post above yours?

BaronVon

srsly78 wrote: »

They can lose their job if they are grossly negligent. PS workers have been fired in the past. They really have to try hard for it tho (e.g. not bother to show up at work for a year).

They can get it back after though!!!

K-9

noodler wrote: »

Why are posters playing a game of semantics?

No public sector worker on a permanent contract has suffered redundancy unless they volunteered.

This much is true.

How is it semantics? The thread title could be misleading. (I'll edit it)

bumper234

infacteh wrote: »

They can get it back after though!!!

Anyone can get their job back when they have been unfairly dismissed not jut PS workers.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

Why are posters playing a game of semantics?

No public sector worker on a permanent contract has suffered redundancy unless they volunteered.

This much is true.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0127/113205-kildarecountycouncil/

79 jobs are to go at Kildare County Council as a result of expenditure cuts ordered by the Government.

The local authority has been ordered by Government to cut its expenditure by 3% this year.

As a result, 48 staff are being made redundant and the contracts of 31 others, which expire shortly, will not be renewed.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Why are posters playing a game of semantics?

No public sector worker on a permanent contract has suffered redundancy unless they volunteered.

This much is true.

It is a common tactic in the private sector to use changes in responsibilities to force people out, e.g. heaping a travel/out-of-hours requirement onto a mother with young children that cannot be met without huge disruption to childcare arrangements. Result is she leaves. Saves the employer on redundancy money but it is the same thing as a compulsory redundancy.

Same thing has happened in the public sector. It is semantics to define compulsory redundancy in a limited way.

gozunda

srsly78 wrote: »

They can lose their job if they are grossly negligent. PS workers have been fired in the past. They really have to try hard for it tho (e.g. not bother to show up at work for a year).

I know of at least once incident where a senior PS worker was found to have acted illegally within their role. Nothing done, the individuals job still safe in the arms of the state. Nice

chopper6

gozunda wrote: »

I know of at least once incident where a senior PS worker was found to have acted illegally within their role. Nothing done, the individuals job still safe in the arms of the state. Nice

Yeah?

Tell us in detail what happened.

Jawgap

gozunda wrote: »

I know of at least once incident where a senior PS worker was found to have acted illegally within their role. Nothing done, the individuals job still safe in the arms of the state. Nice

that suggests the courts were involved - can you point us to the court report / case?

Godge

superman28 wrote: »

I believe the public sector unions and its members are untouchable inthis country,, successive governments have refused to stand up to theirunrealistic demands.. the more militant ASTI group haverejected proposals for what I believe to be reasonable demands from thegovernment in terms of reduced pay and conditions.. (their employer the Irishtax payer is broke)

This is not an attack on teachers, I think its an important job, but itis reasonably well paid if you compare on an hourly basis with the privatesector,, and its workers enjoy massive amounts of time off. Its not an attack on the public sector,, I don't begrudge anyone for taking a job in the public sector that was by and large totally shielded from the financial collapse of Ireland..

I just think that as one of the more than 400,000 people in the privatesector who lost my job because of the financial collapse of this country,, Idon't think that any group should be protected,, and they should sack anypublic sector workers that are not needed or who we can't afford to keep.. It is the government and the peoplewho voted them in that run this country not the public sector unions..

What do you think? Should you be able to loose your job in the public sector? Or should it be a job for life... regardless of the situation..

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teachers-could-be-first-public-servants-to-lose-jobs-29800708.html

Time to get some facts right.

Employment in Ireland peaked in 2008 at 2.147m. It is now 1.869m, a decrease of 12.94%.

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

Employment in the public sector has decreased by 10%

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2014/EstimateStatement.aspx

There are more cuts in public sector employment planned for this year which will bring the overall reduction close to 12% at a time when the increases in private sector employment will further reduce the cut seen there.

As well as the loss in employment, many public servants have had to retrain, upskill and redeploy to locations up to 40km away from their current location in order to retain their job.

All public servants have taken at least two pay cuts, many private sector employees have seen pay rises over the period.

I am not saying that public servants deserve any kudos for this but this type of ignorant posting without any hard evidence to back it up and full of the traditional Irish begrudgery is getting more than tiresome at this stage.

Godge

gozunda wrote: »

I know of at least once incident where a senior PS worker was found to have acted illegally within their role. Nothing done, the individuals job still safe in the arms of the state. Nice

I know of a number of gardai who resigned before the investigation of them was finished as their pensions were at risk if the process was completed.

I also know of a number of civil servants who resigned when investigations were pending. I know of others who were fired.

Do you remember the threads about the SIPTU money? If you read the reports linked to on those very carefully, you will have seen where the investigator said he couldn't get any more information because the person had resigned.

But I also know of many in the private sector who behaved the same way. Have you never come across the situation where someone was called into an office and given the option of resigning with a reference or being fired without one? Private sector employers are often advised to do this in cases where the evidence isn't 100% against someone. It helps avoid legal action being taken.

chopper6

Godge wrote: »

I am not saying that public servants deserve any kudos for this but this type of ignorant posting without any hard evidence to back it up and full of the traditional Irish begrudgery is getting more than tiresome at this stage.

The reason for that sort of stuff over and over in this forum is this sticky:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055750520

It is dated 2008 so it's 5 years out of date yet it's still referred to when people talk about "average" pay and so on.

You log onto this forum,see that on the second line and say "Right...this is anti-PS bias,i'm gonna join in"....fair and balanced it is not.

noodler

aliveandkicking wrote: »

This much is not true.

Did you have a read of the links I posted in the post above yours?

chopper6 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0127/113205-kildarecountycouncil/

Okay, a handful of county council workers from outside the General Government sector - I concede.

The main thrust of the point stands though.

Godge wrote: »

It is a common tactic in the private sector to use changes in responsibilities to force people out, e.g. heaping a travel/out-of-hours requirement onto a mother with young children that cannot be met without huge disruption to childcare arrangements. Result is she leaves. Saves the employer on redundancy money but it is the same thing as a compulsory redundancy.

Same thing has happened in the public sector. It is semantics to define compulsory redundancy in a limited way.

Bull****.

Even changing the definition of compulsory redundancy to fit your argument, the situation you describe is far more likely to happen in the private sector where union influence is much weaker.

We have been through the redundancy figures in another thread Godge, even you had to admit they were larger than expected when I posted them. If you want to widen the criteria then fine, but it would only weaken your aim of trying to square the lack of compulsory redundancies in the private sector.

Godge wrote: »

Time to get some facts right.

Employment in Ireland peaked in 2008 at 2.147m. It is now 1.869m, a decrease of 12.94%.

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

Employment in the public sector has decreased by 10%

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2014/EstimateStatement.aspx

There are more cuts in public sector employment planned for this year which will bring the overall reduction close to 12% at a time when the increases in private sector employment will further reduce the cut seen there.

Whilst you are talking about facts there Godge, do not forget that everyone who left the public sector voluntarily or via retirement (bar some aforementioned county council workers) recieved generous pension benefits and lump sums.

Being forced to leave with nothing is a damn sight different to choosing to leave with various perks.

Godge wrote: »

As well as the loss in employment, many public servants have had to retrain, upskill and redeploy to locations up to 40km away from their current location in order to retain their job.

I'd need to see figures for this but I dare say you are grossly exaggerating the number of people anywhere close to 40km that actually had to relocate under the terms of CP or HRA. I also think you very much underestimate how much of a regularity that would be in the private sector.

Godge wrote: »

All public servants have taken at least two pay cuts, many private sector employees have seen pay rises over the period.

No question on the pay cuts although they would have been cancelled out in many, many cases by incremental salary increases. Such incremental salary increases would generally be more generous than many of the average private sector pay increases you allude to.

Godge wrote: »

I am not saying that public servants deserve any kudos for this but this type of ignorant posting without any hard evidence to back it up and full of the traditional Irish begrudgery is getting more than tiresome at this stage.

The term 'Irish begrudgery' is starting to become a cloak to shield criticism on boards these days.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

The reason for that sort of stuff over and over in this forum is this sticky:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055750520

It is dated 2008 so it's 5 years out of date yet it's still referred to when people talk about "average" pay and so on.

You log onto this forum,see that on the second line and say "Right...this is anti-PS bias,i'm gonna join in"....fair and balanced it is not.

Check out the 2013 figures if you want by the way.

Without getting into an argument about averages and qualifications etc you'll find the gap has not changed much in gross terms at the very least.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

No question on the pay cuts although they would have been cancelled out in many, many cases by incremental salary increases. Such incremental salary increases would generally be more generous than many of the average private sector pay increases you allude to.


.

Is that so?

So 500-1000 a year extra is a "generous" increase?

And when you hit the top of your scale you won't see another increment for (in my case) another three years.

There's private sector companies paying that in bonuses per month.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Time to get some facts right.

Employment in Ireland peaked in 2008 at 2.147m. It is now 1.869m, a decrease of 12.94%.

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

Employment in the public sector has decreased by 10%

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2014/EstimateStatement.aspx

People need to thread carefully when using a few simple statistics to draw conclusions without any real analysis. Taking the headline figure doesn't give any indication of what actually happens. For example you could have a situation where 100 people lose their jobs in a pharma company in Cork and in an unrelated event 150 new graduates start working in a IT company in Dublin. The figures show a net increase in jobs of 50%, where the reality is that 100 people still lost their jobs. Or someone loses their job and then a 6 months later finds another. The overall job numbers year on year remain the same, but the reality is that the person did actually lose their job.

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

Is that so?

So 500-1000 a year extra is a "generous" increase?

And when you hit the top of your scale you won't see another increment for (in my case) another three years.

There's private sector companies paying that in bonuses per month.

During the worst recession the country has ever experienced, annual pay increases are generous yes. 500-1000 is the very bottom of the scale though and representative of many incremental increases.

There are private sector companies paying that in bonuses per month?? Which companies? I want you to answer this because I'd be interested to know if you are comparing a high end investment banker, actuary or CEO with an average public sector position. Its a very weak statment though - almost as bad as public sector critics who use the "I know a guy who..." lines.

Jawgap

noodler wrote: »

......

Whilst you are talking about facts there Godge, do not forget that everyone who left the public sector voluntarily or via retirement (bar some aforementioned county council workers) recieved generous pension benefits and lump sums.

Being forced to leave with nothing is a damn sight different to choosing to leave with various perks.



.....

I was going to stay out of this because generally most of the people who persist in posting anti-PS diatribes tend to be immune to facts.

However, I just wanted to come in on this point. In my own bit of the PS we have had 37 departures since 2008, from an original staff of 112; of these 7 have been replaced - so we are at about 75% of our 2008 establishment figure.

Of the 'departed' - 2 went on early retirement, meaning 35 did not leave with "generous pension benefits and lump sums" - in fact, none of those 35 got anything except what was collected for them from the rest of the staff.

In the case of the retirees, one was a direct colleague and didn't want to retire but felt he had to because of the threats being made to his pension. I don't know about the other one.

Of the 35 departed, I'd say there was an element of compulsion in about 75% of the cases - usually delivered in the form of an ultimatum with respect to working arrangements, or unpaid leave, the object of which has been to force people to return to work or leave.

Interestingly, some of the enforced working arrangements being used to demand the return of employees are of zero business benefit - by removing flexibilities it might compel people to return, but it makes it more difficult to run responsive, efficient operations.

Also interestingly, the last four departures have all been for jobs in the private sector in Ireland. Prior to that, for about the previous three years, anyone who left for another job was typically taking one up in the UK, Canada or Brussels.

Two of the last four departures were graduates we had taken on - they stayed for 9 months and a year respectively before moving into private practice in Ireland. I'd go so far as to say that we're starting to see signs of the type of practices we were seeing in the mid-2000s where we were effectively training people up to go into the private sector.

As I said, this relates to my own bit of the PS - others may have a different experience.

Wilberto

noodler wrote: »

There are private sector companies paying that in bonuses per month?? Which companies? I want you to answer this because I'd be interested to know if you are comparing a high end investment banker, actuary or CEO with an average public sector position. Its a very weak statment though - almost as bad as public sector critics who use the "I know a guy who..." lines.

My brother and his wife, although they may not get 'a bonus every month', have still received a salary increase (or three in the case of one of them) recently.

One of them is in the financial sector (not a high end investment banker etc.) and the other is in the construction industry.

chopper6

Wilberto wrote: »

My brother and his wife, although they may not get 'a bonus every month', have still received a salary increase (or three in the case of one of them) recently.

One of them is in the financial sector (not a high end investment banker etc.) and the other is in the construction industry.

My bro in law gets 100 euro per hour overtime for working Saturdays...he's in banking.

Jawgap

In my case my sister works in the commercial legal section of a 'pillar' bank - the one that only needed billions instead of tens of billions in the bailout.

She has got and continues to get an annual performance related bonus. Admittedly in the last few years it's been a fraction of her monthly salary instead of a multiple of it. Plus in the last two years her annual pay rise (again performance related) has been above inflation.

Finally, their Christmas 'do' - having been pizza and pasta for the last few years - has gone distinctly upmarket this year. While not quite back to the good ol' days, they're off to a place few would turn their noses up at.

sarumite

Jawgap wrote: »

In my case my sister works in the commercial legal section of a 'pillar' bank - the one that only needed billions instead of tens of billions in the bailout.

She has got and continues to get an annual performance related bonus. Admittedly in the last few years it's been a fraction of her monthly salary instead of a multiple of it. Plus in the last two years her annual pay rise (again performance related) has been above inflation.

Finally, their Christmas 'do' - having been pizza and pasta for the last few years - has gone distinctly upmarket this year. While not quite back to the good ol' days, they're off to a place few would turn their noses up at.

I am sure that there is ancedotal evidence to show extravagance is present in some parts of the Irish workforce, there is some suggestions that it may not be representative of the whole private sector. I know that the irish examinerr reported that for Q2 2013, PS earnings increased 1.6% v's 1% increase for private sector (http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0829/world/apossurpriseapos-as-public-sector-salary-rise-outstrips-private-241350.html). Obviously the Q2 results don't take into account changes that occurred under the HRA agreement, however it does at least open the prospect that some of the ancedotal evidence here may not be representative. Obviously a single statistic itself doesn't give enough information to draw any conclusion.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

I am sure that there is ancedotal evidence to show extravagance is present in some parts of the Irish workforce, there is some suggestions that it may not be representative of the whole private sector. I know that the irish examinerr reported that for Q2 2013, PS earnings increased 1.6% v's 1% increase for private sector (http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0829/world/apossurpriseapos-as-public-sector-salary-rise-outstrips-private-241350.html). Obviously the Q2 results don't take into account changes that occurred under the HRA agreement, however it does at least open the prospect that some of the ancedotal evidence here may not be representative. Obviously a single statistic itself doesn't give enough information to draw any conclusion.

Yes, there are statistics and lies. Let us once again go back to the CSO for some numbers.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq22013finalq32013preliminaryestimates/#.Up39J8RdW1c

"In the four years to Q3 2013 public sector earnings have fallen by €47.88 (-5.0%), and this compares with a decrease of €2.41 (-0.4%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the same period".

And this doesn't even include the pension levy!!! And before the cynic at the back pipes up about all the people who lost their job in the private sector, have a look at this:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2013/qnhs_q32013.pdf


"The number of employees in the public sector declined by 3,900 (-1.0%) in the year to Q3 2013, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 375,000. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q3 2010 to Q3 2013 was 28,800 (-7.1%). See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector showed an increase of 25,800 (+2.2%) over the year to Q3 2013, compared with an increase of 16,700 in the year to Q3 2012. The total number of employees in the private sector increased by 31,700 (+2.8%) over the three years from Q3 2010 to Q3 2013."


Well, well, well, some hard information to lay those anecdotes to rest.

And before someone else pipes up about where did all the unemployed come from, the answer lies here:

"There were 282,900 persons unemployed in the third quarter of 2013. This represents a decrease of 41,700 or 12.8% in the year. This is the fifth quarter in succession in which unemployment has decreased on an annual basis having been on a continuous upward trend since 2005"

ardmacha

And this doesn't even include the pension levy!!!

Nor indeed does it include the increased hours.

However, if in the private sector someone worked less hours and received less money this was counted as a reduction.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Well, well, well, some hard information to lay those anecdotes to rest.

Taking the headline figure doesn't by itself necessarily lay anything to rest.

as I said myself

"Obviously a single statistic itself doesn't give enough information to draw any conclusion."

While this isn't actually necessarily true (we can conclude that average PS wages have fallen 5% for example) there are other aspects other than pay cuts that will impact this. New recruits are on a lower pay bracket, retirees tend to be high earners etc. Equally when we look at some of the areas worst affected by the recession (retail and tourism), they are usually closer to minimum wage jobs that have been lost...this may impact average weekly earnings. Understanding the effect is important, but so is understanding the cause.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Taking the headline figure doesn't by itself necessarily lay anything to rest.

as I said myself

"Obviously a single statistic itself doesn't give enough information to draw any conclusion."

While this isn't actually necessarily true (we can conclude that average PS wages have fallen 5% for example) there are other aspects other than pay cuts that will impact this. New recruits are on a lower pay bracket, retirees tend to be high earners etc. Equally when we look at some of the areas worst affected by the recession (retail and tourism), they are usually closer to minimum wage jobs that have been lost...this may impact average weekly earnings. Understanding the effect is important, but so is understanding the cause.

Actually, going back to the statistics, pay in Category I: Accommodation and food services has fallen (see Table 1 and graph), as well as this employment in this sector has grown from 57,500 to 64,200 (an increase well above the average) since Q3 2011 (unfortunately the sectoral statistics don't go further back).

So how has tourism seen the worst effects of the recession when employment is rising and if pay was at the minimum wage how is it going down in that sector and how is that private sector pay is increasing overall when the lowest paid are seeing reductions?

You are right that other parts aren't affected. Information and Communication has both huge pay increases and significant jobs growth.

Sheldons Brain

Another subtlety that is never mentioned is that most of those retiring in the PS are pre '95. So their leaving the system increases the proportion of people who are post '95 and who have higher nominal salaries (but not higher take home salaries owing to PRSI payments). Over time, therefore, the average PS salary would increase somewhat even though nobody was better off.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Actually, going back to the statistics, pay in Category I: Accommodation and food services has fallen (see Table 1 and graph), as well as this employment in this sector has grown from 57,500 to 64,200 (an increase well above the average) since Q3 2011 (unfortunately the sectoral statistics don't go further back).

So how has tourism seen the worst effects of the recession when employment is rising

I remember reading a article in some newspaper talking about how it contracted significantly in the early part of the recession. I think we can both agree that the recession didn't start in Q3 2011. I can't find the article in question now unfortunately.

and if pay was at the minimum wage how is it going down in that sector and how is that private sector pay is increasing overall when the lowest paid are seeing reductions?

Who said it was at minimum wage?

You are right that other parts aren't affected. Information and Communication has both huge pay increases and significant jobs growth.

Indeed, and the job growth includes many jobs that are paid at higher than average rates, so even without any potential payrises in the IT sector, you could still contribute to an increase in average pay.

Brussels Sprout

Man these public vs private threads never get old...

Geuze

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Another subtlety that is never mentioned is that most of those retiring in the PS are pre '95. So their leaving the system increases the proportion of people who are post '95 and who have higher nominal salaries (but not higher take home salaries owing to PRSI payments). Over time, therefore, the average PS salary would increase somewhat even though nobody was better off.

Good point, tricky, tricky, yes, I hadn't thought of that.

Many PS have two parallel payscales, one pre 95 and pne post 95.

noodler

Jawgap wrote: »

However, I just wanted to come in on this point. In my own bit of the PS we have had 37 departures since 2008, from an original staff of 112; of these 7 have been replaced - so we are at about 75% of our 2008 establishment figure.

Of the 'departed' - 2 went on early retirement, meaning 35 did not leave with "generous pension benefits and lump sums" - in fact, none of those 35 got anything except what was collected for them from the rest of the staff.

In the case of the retirees, one was a direct colleague and didn't want to retire but felt he had to because of the threats being made to his pension. I don't know about the other one.

Of the 35 departed, I'd say there was an element of compulsion in about 75% of the cases - usually delivered in the form of an ultimatum with respect to working arrangements, or unpaid leave, the object of which has been to force people to return to work or leave.

Interestingly, some of the enforced working arrangements being used to demand the return of employees are of zero business benefit - by removing flexibilities it might compel people to return, but it makes it more difficult to run responsive, efficient operations.

Also interestingly, the last four departures have all been for jobs in the private sector in Ireland. Prior to that, for about the previous three years, anyone who left for another job was typically taking one up in the UK, Canada or Brussels.

Two of the last four departures were graduates we had taken on - they stayed for 9 months and a year respectively before moving into private practice in Ireland. I'd go so far as to say that we're starting to see signs of the type of practices we were seeing in the mid-2000s where we were effectively training people up to go into the private sector.

As I said, this relates to my own bit of the PS - others may have a different experience.

The initial argument was to do with comparing the difference between a compulsory redundancy in the private sector with a voluntary one in the public sector.

I am not going to dispute your personal experience, but you are basically saying that 35 staff member were intimidated into leaving for fear of their

- Pensions being changed? But you said they wouldn't be leaving with "generous pension benefits". Could you clarify this bit for me?

- Changes to their work practices? So they left because their terms and conditions were chnaging or they were being asked to do more work?

I don't want to sign off with a snotty remark here but you say you feel they were somehow forced to leave i.e. they weren't actually forced to leave then? It is all very wishy-washy.

Wilberto wrote: »

My brother and his wife, although they may not get 'a bonus every month', have still received a salary increase (or three in the case of one of them) recently.

One of them is in the financial sector (not a high end investment banker etc.) and the other is in the construction industry.

A well known defender of anything even relating to public sector criticism has pointed out a marginal pay increase some retail workers got with a number of retailers in recent years. I mean technically that is a salary increase. It wouldn't be as frequent or as large as the majority of incremental pay increases in PS salary scales though.

Godge wrote: »

Yes, there are statistics and lies. Let us once again go back to the CSO for some numbers.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq22013finalq32013preliminaryestimates/#.Up39J8RdW1c

"In the four years to Q3 2013 public sector earnings have fallen by €47.88 (-5.0%), and this compares with a decrease of €2.41 (-0.4%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the same period"..

There is a private sector pension levy as well even for those with far worse pension entitlements.


You are so alarmingly deceptive with your figures:

Above you use a three year period to show the % fall in private sector wages

Godge wrote: »

And this doesn't even include the pension levy!!! And before the cynic at the back pipes up about all the people who lost their job in the private sector, have a look at this:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2013/qnhs_q32013.pdf


"The number of employees in the public sector declined by 3,900 (-1.0%) in the year to Q3 2013, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 375,000. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q3 2010 to Q3 2013 was 28,800 (-7.1%). See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector showed an increase of 25,800 (+2.2%) over the year to Q3 2013, compared with an increase of 16,700 in the year to Q3 2012. The total number of employees in the private sector increased by 31,700 (+2.8%) over the three years from Q3 2010 to Q3 2013."

Here you decide to use the 'recovery' phase of the employment cycle from 2012 onwards to show that there is a mild increase in employment in the last 18 months.

How come you don't show 2008, 2009, 2010?

Godge wrote: »

Well, well, well, some hard information to lay those anecdotes to rest.

What anecdotes? What are you ACTUALLY talking about?

You are showing the emploment number appearing to be finally going the right way in the last year and a half (albeit at an incredibly slow pace) and you try to use this as evidence of what?

I swear you are using any tiny bit of good news in private sector employment figures, after one of (if not the largest) largest proportional collapses in employment in any OECD country during the crisis as some sort of defence....but against what?

And before someone else pipes up about where did all the unemployed come from, the answer lies here:

Godge wrote: »

"There were 282,900 persons unemployed in the third quarter of 2013. This represents a decrease of 41,700 or 12.8% in the year. This is the fifth quarter in succession in which unemployment has decreased on an annual basis having been on a continuous upward trend since 2005"

Exactly, 5 quarters in a row of minor employment growth.....after around 4 YEARS of major employment collapse.

Its nothing to be snide about Godge, it doesn't prove any point you are trying to make.

Jawgap

noodler wrote: »

The initial argument was to do with compaing the difference between a compulsory redundancy in the private sector with a voluntary one in the public sector.

I am not going to dispute your personal experience, but you are basically saying that 35 staff member were intimidated into leaving for fear of their

- Pensions being changed? But you said they wouldn't be leaving with "generous pension benefits". Could you clarify this bit for me?

- Changes to their work practices? So they left because their terms and conditions were chnaging or they were being asked to do more work?

I don't want to sign off with a snotty remark here but you say you feel they were somehow forced to leave i.e. they weren't actually forced to leave then? It is all very wishy-washy.





.......

If you read what I wrote you'll see that what I said was

Of the 'departed' - 2 went on early retirement, meaning 35 did not leave with "generous pension benefits and lump sums" - in fact, none of those 35 got anything except what was collected for them from the rest of the staff.

In the case of the retirees, one was a direct colleague and didn't want to retire but felt he had to because of the threats being made to his pension. I don't know about the other one.

The others left because they were subject to various pressures including forced changes in their location of work and forced changes to their hours. People who were working in our regional offices and a few people who were working from home were told they now had to work from Dublin city centre - and to be clear this was not requested by any operational manager - this was a wheeze cooked up by our HR manager (with or without the connivance of our parent department or DPER, I don't know).

So now, instead of having a few staff located geographically close to where they're needed, we have a token presence there and everyone based in Dublin. While still paying for empty office space.

Also, people who were working short weeks (3/4 days) had those arrangements cancelled unilaterally - at the same time other people were being allowed go on short weeks (including yours truly!). Again not something we needed to do operationally as many of the staff affected were administrative. A more logical decision would have been to knock back my application to go on a four day week and leave most of those on their short weeks alone. As it is they've been brought back, increasing the salary bill!

Those that couldn't make the shift geographically or temporally left.

Oh, and on the point of being asked to more work, there's less being done now than before HRA. I find a lot of people now are adhering quite close to the 37 hours required by HRA. Last year, according to our time / case management recording software, my average working week was 43 hours (net) - since HRA I've had 3 weeks where I've exceeded 37 hours and none where I've gone over 40.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

There is a private sector pension levy as well even for those with far worse pension entitlements.


You are so alarmingly deceptive with your figures:

Above you use a three year period to show the % fall in private sector wages


Here you decide to use the 'recovery' phase of the employment cycle from 2012 onwards to show that there is a mild increase in employment in the last 18 months.

How come you don't show 2008, 2009, 2010?


.

If you want to make snide comments and rant without any evidence or statistics to back up what you are saying, then go ahead. But if you look at the sections of my post you were responding to, you will see that I was quoting directly from the CSO. If you had bothered to check the links, you would have seen it too.

The thing is, I make a reasoned argument backed up by relevant quotes from the CSO. You just want to rant about public servants, so you do so, without any reasoned arguments and without any links to factual information.

noodler

Jawgap wrote: »

If you read what I wrote you'll see that what I said was



The others left because they were subject to various pressures including forced changes in their location of work and forced changes to their hours. People who were working in our regional offices and a few people who were working from home were told they now had to work from Dublin city centre - and to be clear this was not requested by any operational manager - this was a wheeze cooked up by our HR manager (with or without the connivance of our parent department or DPER, I don't know).

Okay so a serious change in workign practices but you would concede it is still only your opinion that they were forced out?

Jawgap wrote: »

So now, instead of having a few staff located geographically close to where they're needed, we have a token presence there and everyone based in Dublin. While still paying for empty office space.

Also, people who were working short weeks (3/4 days) had those arrangements cancelled unilaterally - at the same time other people were being allowed go on short weeks (including yours truly!). Again not something we needed to do operationally as many of the staff affected were administrative. A more logical decision would have been to knock back my application to go on a four day week and leave most of those on their short weeks alone. As it is they've been brought back, increasing the salary bill!

Did this force many people to leave? Generally leaving a job because of a change in working hours isn't considered redundancy.

Those that couldn't make the shift geographically or temporally left.

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh, and on the point of being asked to more work, there's less being done now than before HRA. I find a lot of people now are adhering quite close to the 37 hours required by HRA. Last year, according to our time / case management recording software, my average working week was 43 hours (net) - since HRA I've had 3 weeks where I've exceeded 37 hours and none where I've gone over 40.

Thats a pretty damning indictment. Who do you blame for this?

Godge wrote: »

If you want to make snide comments and rant without any evidence or statistics to back up what you are saying, then go ahead. But if you look at the sections of my post you were responding to, you will see that I was quoting directly from the CSO. If you had bothered to check the links, you would have seen it too.

Jesus Christ, I use the CSO for a living Godge. I am quite familiar with it, I always recognise the URLS and the massive chunks you copy and paste selectively to make some sort of point.

If you missed the criticism I made in the previous point, I will repeat it. You used the recovery phase of the employment cycle, i.e. the last 18 months but neglected to point out where it leaves us in relation to the employment peak of 2007.

Don't write off points against your posts like that, I am fully away you copy and paste from the CSO - the criticism was quite clear.

Godge wrote: »

The thing is, I make a reasoned argument backed up by relevant quotes from the CSO. You just want to rant about public servants, so you do so, without any reasoned arguments and without any links to factual information.

You are incredibly misleading.

Anyone who posts on this forum will know that you jump in when there is even the slightest criticism of the sector so it is simply not on to try and make me sound like the extremist.

As I said, you copied and pasted chunks of information - none of them incorrect - you just didn't go back far enough.

The attached graph puts the most recent CSO QNHS figures in some sort of perspective for you in terms of how far employment has to go before we can start using the "everything is great in private sector so stop criticising the public sector" line you are so fond of.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

You are incredibly misleading.

Anyone who posts on this forum will know that you jump in when there is even the slightest criticism of the sector so it is simply not on to try and make me sound like the extremist.

Actually I am critical of the public sector when necessary. I still believe there are elements of the public sector which are overpaid but that the crude cuts that have been applied have resulted in underpayment in other cases.

If you are in certain parts of the public sector with weak management, you have escaped the worst of the cuts. Take the recent HRA, two points are of interest.

- the 65k cut-off was set to ensure that the majority of IMPACT grades (clerical and admin, grades III to VII) didn't get a pay cut.
- teachers are the only group in the public sector not to have to work extra hours every week, well done INTO.

However, the type of external blanket criticism of the public sector seen on these boards is useless. It is mostly coming from people who have no knowledge of working conditions in the public sector.

Having worked in both, I can at least see the real differences. my views are also probably influenced by the fact that since I left the public sector, my pay has not been cut but had I stayed it would have been.

noodler wrote: »

As I said, you copied and pasted chunks of information - none of them incorrect - you just didn't go back far enough.

The attached graph puts the most recent CSO QNHS figures in some sort of perspective for you in terms of how far employment has to go before we can start using the "everything is great in private sector so stop criticising the public sector" line you are so fond of.

That graph is a brilliant example of how statistics are misleading. To the non-mathematical, it appears to show that employment has dropped by 80%. However, the fact that the y axis starts as 1800 gives a very misleading picture. A y axis that started at 0 would give a completely different look to the graph.

Jawgap

noodler wrote: »

Okay so a serious change in workign practices but you would concede it is still only your opinion that they were forced out?

you're obviously male and probably don't have any young pre-school kids, otherwise you'd have a better understanding of how changes to working hours - even an hour here or an hour there - can have significant repercussions for working parents.

I've noticed there are two types of leaving 'do' over the last few years- the boozy pi$$ up for the person leaving to go to a better job or who has decided to go off travelling. They're excited, their friends are excited and we're all excited and happy for them.

Then there's the miserable lunch - usually for the unfortunate who has done the maths and realised that staying at work just doesn't pay. They have a job they like (and are good at) and colleagues they're fond of, but a salary that now longer stretches to meet their domestic obligations.

I know how many of the former and how many of the latter I've been to.

noodler wrote: »

Did this force many people to leave? Generally leaving a job because of a change in working hours isn't considered redundancy.

No, it's not redundancy, but the idea that significant numbers of people in the public sector have not been forced out of their jobs is a facile myth.

And, if our experience is anything to go by most of them are female - working mothers who when it comes to paying for childcare can't because of salary cuts combined with increased hours (which means increased child care costs) and increases in the charges for childcare, especially after 6pm.

noodler wrote: »

Those that couldn't make the shift geographically or temporally left.


Thats a pretty damning indictment. Who do you blame for this?

Not the poor sods being forced out, that's for sure.

I don't think it's an indictment at all - there was a lot of focus on contracted hours during the CP2 / HRA negotiations and very little mention of actual hours worked - people bayed for the contracted hours to be increased and they were, now they seem surprised that people are only working their contracted hours - go figure.

In my case, up until HRA I considered myself employed to do a job, not work a roster or a given number of hours, but not now, that's for sure.

Godge

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think it's an indictment at all - there was a lot of focus on contracted hours during the CP2 / HRA negotiations and very little mention of actual hours worked - people bayed for the contracted hours to be increased and they were, now they seem surprised that people are only working their contracted hours - go figure.

In my case, up until HRA I considered myself employed to do a job, not work a roster or a given number of hours, but not now, that's for sure.

to be fair, at one level, that all depends on the number of hours everyone did before HRA as to whether it is a good or a bad thing.

If 10 out of 100 worked 40 hours before HRA while everyone else worked 35 and following HRA all worked 37 there would have been an increase in productivity of 150 hours.

At another level, that depends on your view of public sector workers, are they drones, capable of being organised in the context of Taylorism or are they something more like one of Mintzberg's types, a professional bureaucracy or divisionalised form?

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Actually I am critical of the public sector when necessary. I still believe there are elements of the public sector which are overpaid but that the crude cuts that have been applied have resulted in underpayment in other cases.

If you are in certain parts of the public sector with weak management, you have escaped the worst of the cuts. Take the recent HRA, two points are of interest.

- the 65k cut-off was set to ensure that the majority of IMPACT grades (clerical and admin, grades III to VII) didn't get a pay cut.
- teachers are the only group in the public sector not to have to work extra hours every week, well done INTO.

However, the type of external blanket criticism of the public sector seen on these boards is useless. It is mostly coming from people who have no knowledge of working conditions in the public sector.

Having worked in both, I can at least see the real differences. my views are also probably influenced by the fact that since I left the public sector, my pay has not been cut but had I stayed it would have been..

I have yet to see you concede negative point made to be frank.

Godge wrote: »

That graph is a brilliant example of how statistics are misleading. To the non-mathematical, it appears to show that employment has dropped by 80%. However, the fact that the y axis starts as 1800 gives a very misleading picture. A y axis that started at 0 would give a completely different look to the graph.

Are you ****ing kidding me? You don't think people will see the numbers on the side? Christ what a reach that paragraph is by yourself - give people a little credit.

You are taking the piss now to be perfectly honest - the graph shows exactly what it is intended to, that the massive employment falls have barely been eaten into by this growth you refer to non-stop.

K-9

Mod: The thread is getting a bit personal, keep it civil please.

woodoo

Godge wrote: »

Yes, there are statistics and lies. Let us once again go back to the CSO for some numbers.
"

And its worth repeating as i always do in these threads that the CSO data for the Public Sector includes the Semi State companies. They are outside the Croke Park Agreement and Haddington Road Agreement. No paycuts, pension levies or increased hours for the Semi States.

If people want the averages to fall then we would need to take even more form the regular Public Service which of course would be grossly unfair. It would be so much clearer if the Public Service data was reported separately form the Semi State companies like the ESB etc.

Sheldons Brain

the graph shows exactly what it is intended to, that the massive employment falls have barely been eaten into by this growth you refer to non-stop.

The "growth" is recent, I don't think anyone claimed that we were back in 2008.

In general a lot of this thread is pointless, public sector employment is fairly stable by nature, people still go to school, get sick, go to jail, etc in recessions. Ranting that some private sector employments have decreased by more is either just ranting or reflects a poor grasp of economics

K-9

woodoo wrote: »

And its worth repeating as i always do in these threads that the CSO data for the Public Sector includes the Semi State companies. They are outside the Croke Park Agreement and Haddington Road Agreement. No paycuts, pension levies or increased hours for the Semi States.

If people want the averages to fall then we would need to take even more form the regular Public Service which of course would be grossly unfair. It would be so much clearer if the Public Service data was reported separately form the Semi State companies like the ESB etc.

About how many are employed in the semi-state sector?