Public sector pay increase

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

they are.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/truth-about-public-sector-pay-fails-to-stack-up-1.615081

http://www.impact.ie/irish-public-service-pay-is-in-line-with-similar-eu-countries-says-impact/

eh, that's pay - I was talking about income

Jawgap

jank wrote: »

Other OECD countries does not calcuate it thus. so sorry to burst your bubble. It is well known that Irish PS workers are some of the highest in the world. If anything doing it this way will mean a downward trend, or at least stagnation for some years until pay realigns.

Although, when reading this your point it moot, as Ireland ranks 18th out of 36, smack bang in the middle of disposable income.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
So given your terms, we should not increase PS wages, at least not yet.

That's fine - no need for pay cuts. Pay should track the CPI.

To Elland Back

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What about the Private Sector wasters who caused all this then!!!!


As far as I'm concerned it was paddy the plasterer who couldn't budget for the tough times and took out massive mortgages. If anything most public sector workers I know were prudent enough with their spending whereas my friends in the private sector wanted to go large.
.

So in your delusional world NO public sector worker bought a 2nd apartment for rent, bought shares, wasted a fortune on extravagant purchases and EVERY private sector worker behaved like a drunk at a wedding.

The more public sector workers come out with shlte like that, the angrier I get

evolving_doors

To Elland Back wrote: »

So in your delusional world NO public sector worker bought a 2nd apartment for rent, bought shares, wasted a fortune on extravagant purchases and EVERY private sector worker behaved like a drunk at a wedding.

The more public sector workers come out with shlte like that, the angrier I get

Well by that response are you contending that NO private sector worker did that!

Maybe public sector workers did buy 2nd apartments! but ill bet they were prudent enough to hang on to it because they planned for fluctuations... unlike the getrichquick joes who came into new money.

bjork

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Well by that response are you contending that NO private sector worker did that!

Maybe public sector workers did buy 2nd apartments! but ill bet they were prudent enough to hang on to it because they planned for fluctuations... unlike the getrichquick joes who came into new money.

The bitterness is dripping off that post.

It's good to hear that wages didn't drop so much ye were forced to give up the second apartment, not like those "getrichquick" joes who lost their jobs. Those idiots!

Quin_Dub

Gebgbegb wrote: »

If the Private sector are so concerned about the state of the finances and there being 'no money there' maybe those working in the Private SEctor should pony up a bit more! All I'm hearing is that the public sector need to give more when in fact they've taken a cut and agreed to increased 'productivity' but still it doesn't satiate the appetite.



What about the Private Sector wasters who caused all this then!!!!

There's a bit of history re-writing going on here... a few days ago I heard Lucinda Creighton espousing the fact that the reason we're in this mess is because of public sector mismanagement!!! Ah hello ... bank debt!! Proberty bubble...

As far as I'm concerned it was paddy the plasterer who couldn't budget for the tough times and took out massive mortgages. If anything most public sector workers I know were prudent enough with their spending whereas my friends in the private sector wanted to go large.

We're privatising the profit making arm of the public sector (why the rush to privatise dublin bus... because it's making money!!! WTF!!)

And we've nationalised private sector debt...

Ya thanks a bunch free market economics.

If someone in the Private sector isn't pulling their weight they lose their job - The same doesn't happen in the private sector?

So no Public sector worker ever borrowed money for Big or Second homes?

So all the Gardai that are land-lords are a myth then?

Remember that big Irish times article last year about the poor Garda sgt who couldn't afford to keep his kids in private school any more and how terrible it was???

Dublin Bus making money? Dublin bus has never turned a profit , ever , despite an ever increasing Government subvention.

bjork

Quin_Dub wrote: »

........
Remember that big Irish times article last year about the poor Garda sgt who couldn't afford to keep his kids in private school any more and how terrible it was???............

Is that the same sgt who was so poor, the children had to eat the cardboard box off the cornflakes ?

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If someone in the Private sector isn't pulling their weight they lose their job - The same doesn't happen in the private sector?

This is an untruth. Are you trying to claim that across a million or more people employed there are not a portion who are employed but not "pulling their weight"?

So no Public sector worker ever borrowed money for Big or Second homes?

I am sure that like the rest of the population a portion did indeed borrow.

So all the Gardai that are land-lords are a myth then?

Are you saying all Gardai are landlords or a portion of garda are landlords(similar to the rest of professions)?

Remember that big Irish times article last year about the poor Garda sgt who couldn't afford to keep his kids in private school any more and how terrible it was???

No I dont recall this article, but I am unsure how one unverified article in a newspaper is justification for anything.

Dublin Bus making money? Dublin bus has never turned a profit , ever , despite an ever increasing Government subvention.

Does state public transport usually make money in other countries? And if so do you have some sources for this, I cant find any.

bjork

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

...........
No I dont recall this article, but I am unsure how one unverified article in a newspaper is justification for anything.
..........

Charlie Weston: A garda earning €75,000 and living on cornflakes? It doesn't add up
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/charlie-weston/charlie-weston-a-garda-earning-75000-and-living-on-cornflakes-it-doesnt-add-up-28820716.html

This sums it up quite well



This is the article

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/we-are-the-silent-poverty-class-there-is-absolutely-no-help-and-no-one-is-listening-1.553294

Jawgap

To Elland Back wrote: »

So in your delusional world NO public sector worker bought a 2nd apartment for rent, bought shares, wasted a fortune on extravagant purchases and EVERY private sector worker behaved like a drunk at a wedding.

The more public sector workers come out with shlte like that, the angrier I get

Maybe the people buying apartments etc were married / in relationships with people who worked in the private sector?

Public servants are not required to marry other public servants

RobbieTheRobber

bjork wrote: »

Charlie Weston: A garda earning €75,000 and living on cornflakes? It doesn't add up
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/charlie-weston/charlie-weston-a-garda-earning-75000-and-living-on-cornflakes-it-doesnt-add-up-28820716.html

This sums it up quite well



This is the article

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/we-are-the-silent-poverty-class-there-is-absolutely-no-help-and-no-one-is-listening-1.553294

Nothing in either of those articles verifies that they are indeed actually written by a garda or his wife. Even if they were true the self entitlement of one person does not make an argument for or against anything.

Quin_Dub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This is an untruth. Are you trying to claim that across a million or more people employed there are not a portion who are employed but not "pulling their weight"?

Of course not , but it's far easier to get rid of "dead-wood" in the private sector , no such structures exist in the Public sector.

My own company gets rid of the bottom 10% every year. Basically if you're in the bottom 10% of performers , you are given 3 months to get better - If you don't , you're gone. It means that everybody has to strive to improve every year , as the work/quality that kept you out of the bottom 10% this year won't be enough to do the same next year.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I am sure that like the rest of the population a portion did indeed borrow.


Are you saying all Gardai are landlords or a portion of garda are landlords(similar to the rest of professions)?


No I dont recall this article, but I am unsure how one unverified article in a newspaper is justification for anything.

This was all in response to another poster who claimed that Public Sector workers never borrowed excessively, were always prudent with their money and that everything was "paddy the plasterers" fault. Just providing (albeit anecdotal) evidence that their viewpoint was utterly silly. The Public sector has just as many people that borrowed unnecessarily as the private sector..

Not all Gardai are land-lords , or course , but certainly in my personal experiences the Public sector always seemed to be over-represented in the ranks of land-lords.. but this again is anecdotal..

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Does state public transport usually make money in other countries? And if so do you have some sources for this, I cant find any.

State public transport doesn't necessarily need to make huge profits , but breaking even, just once, would be nice...

Again this was in reply to a poster who claimed that the reason that privatisation of Dublin Bus was happening was because is was profitable and therefore a "juicy" target for the private sector. All available evidence shows that this is clearly not the case at all.

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Of course not , but it's far easier to get rid of "dead-wood" in the private sector , no such structures exist in the Public sector.

My own company gets rid of the bottom 10% every year. Basically if you're in the bottom 10% of performers , you are given 3 months to get better - If you don't , you're gone. It means that everybody has to strive to improve every year , as the work/quality that kept you out of the bottom 10% this year won't be enough to do the same next year.

There are mechanisms for terminating public sector employees. It is actually quite easy for the a PS body to terminate an under performing worker if they wish.

All Workers in the state have the same protection under employment law

This was all in response to another poster who claimed that Public Sector workers never borrowed excessively, were always prudent with their money and that everything was "paddy the plasterers" fault. Just providing (albeit anecdotal) evidence that their viewpoint was utterly silly. The Public sector has just as many people that borrowed unnecessarily as the private sector..

Not all Gardai are land-lords , or course , but certainly in my personal experiences the Public sector always seemed to be over-represented in the ranks of land-lords.. but this again is anecdotal..

Anecdotal evidence? :D:D:D:D:D FFS

State public transport doesn't necessarily need to make huge profits , but breaking even, just once, would be nice...

Again this was in reply to a poster who claimed that the reason that privatisation of Dublin Bus was happening was because is was profitable and therefore a "juicy" target for the private sector. All available evidence shows that this is clearly not the case at all.

So again I presume you can point me to other countries where public transport breaks even, otherwise it seems you are holding Ireland up to unachievable standards.

Gone Drinking

I know of people who sweep floors and get 60k a year because they've gotten all the increases and increments over the years. I know of guys doing basic IT support on 65k for the same reason, a job that should only pay between 30 and 35k at most.

Take these facts, coupled with the great pension they pay **** all towards and the job for life no matter how siht you are and yea.. you'll understand why people dislike when public sector workers start moaning about money.

I have to work hard and get certified on my own time in order to warrant an increase. Even then my private sector increases are capped by the pay range I'm in. If I want to move up a pay range I need to apply for a higher paid position/role within the company.

There's plenty of hard working people in the public sector who probably deserve an increase, but its the ones that don't that pull you down.

Quin_Dub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

There are mechanisms for terminating public sector employees. It is actually quite easy for the a PS body to terminate an under performing worker if they wish.

Really? - I'm not talking about someone being dismissed for breaching T&C's or for negligence etc... I'm talking about them being laid-off simply for not being good enough.. They could be working all the hours of the day , arriving early , staying late but if they aren't good enough they get laid off.

And you say this is "easy to do" in the Public sector.. To paraphrase all of your responses to date.. Evidence????????

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

All Workers in the state have the same protection under employment law

Not quite sure what this has got to do with anything really..

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence? :D:D:D:D:D FFS

Have you provided anything different thus far, other than to say "That doesn't prove anything" in response to everything?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So again I presume you can point me to other countries where public transport breaks even, otherwise it seems you are holding Ireland up to unachievable standards.

I'm not expecting anything from Dublin Bus.. My reply was merely to disabuse the notion of the other poster that the reason for the current discussion around privatisation was because Dublin Bus was profitable and was therefore being carved up by the nefarious Private sector...

As a tax payer , I fully support the provision of Public transport , I also fully support any and all actions taken to deliver that service at the best possible cost, quality and efficiency levels.. If that means outsourcing some or all of the the service to the private sector, then so be it .

Jawgap

Gone Drinking wrote: »

I know of people who sweep floors and get 60k a year because they've gotten all the increases and increments over the years. I know of guys doing basic IT support on 65k for the same reason, a job that should only pay between 30 and 35k at most.
.

Where?

Someone is getting AP level money for sweeping a floor?

No need to name the location, the department / agency will suffice.

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Really? - I'm not talking about someone being dismissed for breaching T&C's or for negligence etc... I'm talking about them being laid-off simply for not being good enough.. They could be working all the hours of the day , arriving early , staying late but if they aren't good enough they get laid off.

And you say this is "easy to do" in the Public sector.. To paraphrase all of your responses to date.. Evidence????????

Not quite sure what this has got to do with anything really..

Have you provided anything different thus far, other than to say "That doesn't prove anything" in response to everything?

I'm not expecting anything from Dublin Bus.. My reply was merely to disabuse the notion of the other poster that the reason for the current discussion around privatisation was because Dublin Bus was profitable and was therefore being carved up by the nefarious Private sector...

As a tax payer , I fully support the provision of Public transport , I also fully support any and all actions taken to deliver that service at the best possible cost, quality and efficiency levels.. If that means outsourcing some or all of the the service to the private sector, then so be it .

You have provided no evidence to backup any of your claims yet you want me to provide you with proof of my rebuttals of your claims?

You are arguing like a religious person
You say there is a god, I say there is no God and you want me to prove the nonexistence of something. Nonsense


In regards to employment protections here is a link knock yourself out http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/employment_rights_and_duties/employment_law_update.html

I am not a solicitor and I will not by trying to summarise all the relevant legislation for you. Needless to say the number of unfair dismissal cases which have been victorious in courts should prove some "anecdotal evidence" of protections.


I have come to a thread, I have seen you make spurious claims and i have disputed them surely the burden of proof is upon you to prove your claims not for me to prove anecdotal evidence is false.

Larbre34

Have we not changed the thread to say 'restoration' yet? Otherwise the whole treatment of the issue is disingenuous.

bjork

Larbre34 wrote: »

Have we not changed the thread to say 'restoration' yet? Otherwise the whole treatment of the issue is disingenuous.

No. We only deal in facts here. Not wishy washy PR spin.

RobbieTheRobber

bjork wrote: »

No. We only deal in facts here. Not wishy washy PR spin.

Facts or anecdotal evidence!

Quin_Dub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You have provided no evidence to backup any of your claims yet you want me to provide you with proof of my rebuttals of your claims?

You are arguing like a religious person
You say there is a god, I say there is no God and you want me to prove the nonexistence of something. Nonsense


In regards to employment protections here is a link knock yourself out http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/employment_rights_and_duties/employment_law_update.html

I am not a solicitor and I will not by trying to summarise all the relevant legislation for you. Needless to say the number of unfair dismissal cases which have been victorious in courts should prove some "anecdotal evidence" of protections.


I have come to a thread, I have seen you make spurious claims and i have disputed them surely the burden of proof is upon you to prove your claims not for me to prove anecdotal evidence is false.

What spurious claims are those then?

• That some public sector workers borrowed excessively, at least at the same rate as the private sector?
• That some public sector workers are land-lords in their spare time?
• That Dublin Bus is not profitable?

Which of the above are "Spurious" claims??

My original post was in response to a poster who claimed that everything was the private sectors fault , that all Public sector workers were paragons of financial virtue and that Dublin bus was a Profitable company , ripe for privatisation.

All of which are clearly not the case.

In terms of my "anecdotal evidence" around Public Sector land-lords , yes it's anecdotal - I'm not aware of any publicly available register of land-lords that list any other employment they might have. However , in my personal experience 6 out of 10 Land-lords that friends and family have had over the years have been Public Sector employees , which is an over-representation based on the % of Public sector in total number of employed people in the State.

For the employment protections piece - I still don't understand the relevance of it to the conversation.

Yes , employees have rights such that they cannot be unfairly dismissed , penalised etc. which is all right and proper.

What that has to do with people being made redundant for not being good at their job I do not understand.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

So yeah, when I see someone with job security like a civil servant

Job security should be looked on as a positive thing yet just because they don't have job security private sector workers would appear to like to see it taken away from public sector workers. It's like a child in the playground if I can't have it then no one else should either.

Every body and their dog knows permenant* jobs are more secure in the public sector, every one knew it when they were deciding their career path lots of people made a decision to work in the private sector as the pay and benefits are much better and there is much higher potential for making more money.

Then they complain that people who made the decision to work in the public sector have job security. It's nonsensical and childish rubbish.

*a lot of people appear to forget that there are a lot of people on contracts in the public sector also who have no job security.

Brancott

So the PS Unions want pay "restored" to a time when the governments coffers were swelled by a massive credit fueled property bubble . . . . sweet mother of jebus.

I've a neighbour who once had his house valued at €365k at the peak, he wants to sell but can't live with the fact that it's now worth €150k less, he's keeping it off the market until it reaches it's "proper" value.
He must have studied in the same economics class as some of these union heads.

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What spurious claims are those then?

• That some public sector workers borrowed excessively, at least at the same rate as the private sector?
• That some public sector workers are land-lords in their spare time?
• That Dublin Bus is not profitable?

Which of the above are "Spurious" claims??

My original post was in response to a poster who claimed that everything was the private sectors fault , that all Public sector workers were paragons of financial virtue and that Dublin bus was a Profitable company , ripe for privatisation.

All of which are clearly not the case.

In terms of my "anecdotal evidence" around Public Sector land-lords , yes it's anecdotal - I'm not aware of any publicly available register of land-lords that list any other employment they might have. However , in my personal experience 6 out of 10 Land-lords that friends and family have had over the years have been Public Sector employees , which is an over-representation based on the % of Public sector in total number of employed people in the State.

For the employment protections piece - I still don't understand the relevance of it to the conversation.

Yes , employees have rights such that they cannot be unfairly dismissed , penalised etc. which is all right and proper.

What that has to do with people being made redundant for not being good at their job I do not understand.

Redundancy is not a mechanism for removing people who are in the bottom 10% of workplace performers
Citizens information has the following information on redundancy and the reasons it can be used. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/overview_redundancy.html

Here is the relevant page on fair grounds fro dismissal. Being in the bottom 10% of performers is not a valid reason that I can see.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html

evolving_doors

bjork wrote: »

The bitterness is dripping off that post.

It's good to hear that wages didn't drop so much ye were forced to give up the second apartment, not like those "getrichquick" joes who lost their jobs. Those idiots!

Its just simple financial prudence. You look to the future.
A few of my friends in construction borrowed mortgage to the wire, brand new cars , holidays, out every weekend... no savings ...and now cribbing/bitching about public sector workers who didn't reap any huge profits/bonuses but stayed on the same increment with (at best modest pay rises)...

But now the chickens have come home and the modest pay rises are being painted as 'lavish' by those who took the punt on private sector and won during the boom!


So where did the money go?

Its ironic that the private sector is accusing the public sector of bitching... but who's doing the bitching at peoples wages in this thread?

I didn't see many private sector workers jumping ship into the public sector before the boom.. the wells run dry now, so lets take some one elses water... literally.

Tiger Mcilroy

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Its just simple financial prudence. You look to the future.
A few of my friends in construction borrowed mortgage to the wire, brand new cars , holidays, out every weekend... no savings ...and now cribbing/bitching about public sector workers who didn't reap any huge profits/bonuses but stayed on the same increment with (at best modest pay rises)...

But now the chickens have come home and the modest pay rises are being painted as 'lavish' by those who took the punt on private sector and won during the boom!


So where did the money go?

Its ironic that the private sector is accusing the public sector of bitching... but who's doing the bitching at peoples wages in this thread?

I didn't see many private sector workers jumping ship into the public sector before the boom.. the wells run dry now, so lets take some one elses water... literally.

This particular lie has been exposed many times, intake for public sector positions was oversubscribed both during the boom and after.

To Elland Back

Jawgap wrote: »

Public servants are not required to marry other public servants

Guards HAVE to marry Nurses.........Fact!

Quin_Dub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Redundancy is not a mechanism for removing people who are in the bottom 10% of workplace performers
Citizens information has the following information on redundancy and the reasons it can be used. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/overview_redundancy.html

Here is the relevant page on fair grounds fro dismissal. Being in the bottom 10% of performers is not a valid reason that I can see.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html

This bit seems pretty clear to me - From the link above on Grounds for fair dismissal

Competence
Competence refers to your ability to do your job. In the first place, you need to be made aware of the standards that are expected of you, and these must refer to the job you were hired to do.

Secondly, if you fall short of the required standard, this must be clearly explained to you. This should be done through a formal set procedure. Your employer should also specify what improvements are necessary. These should be achievable and a reasonable timeframe must be allowed for the improvement.

Ultimately, your employer should give you a final warning setting out the likelihood of dismissal.

So..Someone is not good at their job , they are told they are not good at their job , they are given an opportunity to be better , they don't get better... They get fired..

Based on the data you provided (thanks) seems that being in the bottom 10% (and staying there) is a perfectly valid reason for dismissal.

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This bit seems pretty clear to me - From the link above on Grounds for fair dismissal



So..Someone is not good at their job , they are told they are not good at their job , they are given an opportunity to be better , they don't get better... They get fired..

Based on the data you provided (thanks) seems that being in the bottom 10% (and staying there) is a perfectly valid reason for dismissal.

:D:D:D haha your gas.

What about this bit you quoted

Secondly, if you fall short of the required standard, this must be clearly explained to you. This should be done through a formal set procedure. Your employer should also specify what improvements are necessary. These should be achievable and a reasonable timeframe must be allowed for the improvement.

So if we sack the bottom 10% for under performance regardless of what that level is then you have not set an achievable target.
An achievable target is something which all 100% should be able to achieve not an unspecified target based on performance levels of others.

Quin_Dub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

:D:D:D haha your gas.

What about this bit you quoted


So if we sack the bottom 10% for under performance regardless of what that level is then you have not set an achievable target.
An achievable target is something which all 100% should be able to achieve not an unspecified target based on performance levels of others.

So.. something that is achieved by 90% of staff is an "unachievable target"?

I've highlighted the key part in your point above..

It should be achieveable , 90% of staff do achieve it , so the 10% that don't are not up to the job..

This is fairly standard practice across multiple companies across multiple industries for many years (it's certainly been the case in my 25 year career thus far)

There are no mass victories in Employment tribunals for dismissed employees , so clearly it's not against the law as you seem to believe.

This is not the Public sector where almost everybody gets a "Well done" grade in their annual review - What was the figure? Only 5% were "below expectations" (when a review actually took place , which wasn't very often to start with) - That's not performance management , I don't even know what that is..

This is the real world where there are ALWAYS over-achievers and where there are ALWAYS under-achievers.

The Bell-curve isn't always perfect , but taken across a large enough sample there will always be 10% - 20% of the work-=force that just aren't cutting it..

Some are recoverable , some aren't.. Those that can't show the ability to buck up and be more productive are moved on and out...

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So.. something that is achieved by 90% of staff is an "unachievable target"?

I've highlighted the key part in your point above..

It should be achieveable , 90% of staff do achieve it , so the 10% that don't are not up to the job..

This is fairly standard practice across multiple companies across multiple industries for many years (it's certainly been the case in my 25 year career thus far)

There are no mass victories in Employment tribunals for dismissed employees , so clearly it's not against the law as you seem to believe.

This is not the Public sector where almost everybody gets a "Well done" grade in their annual review - What was the figure? Only 5% were "below expectations" (when a review actually took place , which wasn't very often to start with) - That's not performance management , I don't even know what that is..

This is the real world where there are ALWAYS over-achievers and where there are ALWAYS under-achievers.

The Bell-curve isn't always perfect , but taken across a large enough sample there will always be 10% - 20% of the work-=force that just aren't cutting it..

Some are recoverable , some aren't.. Those that can't show the ability to buck up and be more productive are moved on and out...

This simply doesn't happen in Ireland. There are no firms that routinely dismiss 10% of their workforce and rehire numbers to fill those losses every year. The onus is on you to show some proof of this being an actual occurrence rather than for me to argue with you about your imagination.

Roger Hassenforder

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So.. something that is achieved by 90% of staff is an "unachievable target"?

I've highlighted the key part in your point above..

It should be achieveable , 90% of staff do achieve it , so the 10% that don't are not up to the job..

This is fairly standard practice across multiple companies across multiple industries for many years (it's certainly been the case in my 25 year career thus far)

There are no mass victories in Employment tribunals for dismissed employees , so clearly it's not against the law as you seem to believe.

This is not the Public sector where almost everybody gets a "Well done" grade in their annual review - What was the figure? Only 5% were "below expectations" (when a review actually took place , which wasn't very often to start with) - That's not performance management , I don't even know what that is..

This is the real world where there are ALWAYS over-achievers and where there are ALWAYS under-achievers.

The Bell-curve isn't always perfect , but taken across a large enough sample there will always be 10% - 20% of the work-=force that just aren't cutting it..

Some are recoverable , some aren't.. Those that can't show the ability to buck up and be more productive are moved on and out...

I'm calling bullshyte on this.
Forced distribution termination has been shown to be counter productive, stifles collaboration, fosters a survival cultur,and had been abandoned by all but a very small minority of companies.

By the way, public service PMDS 3 means performing satisfactory. Ie you're doing your job as expected.

Baggy Trousers

Pay increases for public sector workers now is just a ploy to buy the next general election. Howlin wouldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
We cannot afford it with so much debt, debt servicing and ongoing budget deficits (€8 billion still?).

Ireland is one of three EU countries who were identified with macro-economic balances “which require decisive policy action and specific monitoring,” and remains in the EU’s excessive deficit procedure.

And this nonsense of getting more reform for payrises is nonsense. There has been very little reform since 2011.

Tiger Mcilroy

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This simply doesn't happen in Ireland. There are no firms that routinely dismiss 10% of their workforce and rehire numbers to fill those losses every year. The onus is on you to show some proof of this being an actual occurrence rather than for me to argue with you about your imagination.

Your wrong i have seen it first hand, i would imagine most people in the "real world" have aswell.

Tiger Mcilroy

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Pay increases for public sector workers now is just a ploy to buy the next general election. Howlin wouldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
We cannot afford it with so much debt, debt servicing and ongoing budget deficits (€8 billion still?).



And this nonsense of getting more reform for payrises is nonsense. There has been very little reform since 2011.

Yep and yet we have posters bleating about doing the same work with less staff...if its possible to do the same with less then could somebody explain why there was so many staff peforming this unquantifiable trojan work in the first place.

the whole system is a joke and geared toward maintaining the status quo.

darkpagandeath

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Its just simple financial prudence. You look to the future.
A few of my friends in construction borrowed mortgage to the wire, brand new cars , holidays, out every weekend... no savings ...and now cribbing/bitching about public sector workers who didn't reap any huge profits/bonuses but stayed on the same increment with (at best modest pay rises)...

But now the chickens have come home and the modest pay rises are being painted as 'lavish' by those who took the punt on private sector and won during the boom!


So where did the money go?

Its ironic that the private sector is accusing the public sector of bitching... but who's doing the bitching at peoples wages in this thread?

I didn't see many private sector workers jumping ship into the public sector before the boom.. the wells run dry now, so lets take some one elses water... literally.

So much fail in one line, How was that soft landing ? Sure there were no problems according to the government at the time. Odd we had to hear that the IMF/Troika were in Ireland to facilitate a bail out had to come from foreign media. Public service had no idea things were going south so how could they look to the future and plan...

darkpagandeath

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This simply doesn't happen in Ireland. There are no firms that routinely dismiss 10% of their workforce and rehire numbers to fill those losses every year. The onus is on you to show some proof of this being an actual occurrence rather than for me to argue with you about your imagination.

MNC rotate about that much a year, Keeps the wage costs down. You can't meet the targets there is the door. That's what happens in the Real world.

Roger Hassenforder

Jawgap wrote: »

eh, that's pay - I was talking about income

I think we're actually agreeing with each other! Someone wanted an independent body to assess public service pay. Someone has, OECD/IMF report irish public servants aren't overpaid on average except in a small number of cases, and underpaid in others.
Factor in pension levy, take home pay is probably less.

You don't hear Mark Fielding et al about that fact though.

Roger Hassenforder

darkpagandeath wrote: »

MNC rotate about that much a year, Keeps the wage costs down. You can't meet the targets there is the door. That's what happens in the Real world.

MNC?

darkpagandeath

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

MNC?

multinational companies

Roger Hassenforder

darkpagandeath wrote: »

multinational companies

So which MNCs still use the system?

Quin_Dub

darkpagandeath wrote: »

MNC rotate about that much a year, Keeps the wage costs down. You can't meet the targets there is the door. That's what happens in the Real world.

Exactly.....

The real world , where some of us live and clearly some of us don't....

darkpagandeath

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So which MNCs still use the system?

Most if not all I would say, I have worked in a well known one, They are also moving into the free internships as well. Pretty much if you are not meeting your metrics set by you manages for a while you get the boot.

Quin_Dub

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So which MNCs still use the system?

Pretty much all of them in some form or other...

Whilst some are not necessarily explicit in setting a specific target , all will have an expectation that the lowest performing percentiles will be placed on strenuous performance management programs and if they don't respond to that they will be moved on.

You certainly do not keep your job with consecutive bottom ranked performance reviews in Major Multi-nationals..

uki

I m self employed. Only recently starting to take a tiny wage after living from old savings and my wife s income. Nobody talks about the self employed that got really screwed during the recession. Would not get a cent of state if my business goes.

People in the public sector don't know their luck. Save jobs and 50 % higher pay than private sector people. Also why should irish public sector be paid more public servants in other countries. It is know that the gap between public/ private sector is much smaller in other countries. Further more - the country is still borrowing and not able to support itself as economy still weak.

Roger Hassenforder

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Most if not all I would say, I have worked in a well known one, They are also moving into the free internships as well. Pretty much if you are not meeting your metrics set by you manages for a while you get the boot.

name two that have it...
go on, you know you want to say Microsoft but...

Quin_Dub

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

name two that have it...
go on, you know you want to say Microsoft but...

Whilst Microsoft scrapped their forced distribution stack ranking about 2 years ago.. I can absolutely categorically guarantee you that they still place low performers on Performance management plans and if they don't improve, they are gone..

Same as Dell, Intel , HP and any others you care to mention...

uki

uki wrote: »

People in the public sector don't know their luck.

Luck? Is making a choice to work in the public sector luck?

uki wrote: »

Save jobs and 50 % higher pay than private sector people. .

50% higher pay? There is far more potential for higher pay in the private sector than the public sector.

Comparing similarly qualified people in like for like positions the private sector worker will be paid better and have better benefits.

uki

Nothing learned from the past. Lets wreck the country again.

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Whilst Microsoft scrapped their forced distribution stack ranking about 2 years ago.. <anecdotal evidence>.

So you have not one example in Ireland of a firm doing this 10% sacking every year that you claimed?