Public sector pay increase

Roger Hassenforder

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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...

most companies have such a system, even the public service; bottom performance %iles are put on improvement plans, and if they dont improve by some metric are "demised"

Thats very different from what is being claimed. So again, name two MNC that routinely dismiss the bottom 10% of their workforce...

Meanwhile in the real world...

Quin_Dub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

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

Tell me - What exactly are you looking for?

Printed copies of the policy documents??

Sworn affidavits from HR staff??

you've had multiple people come on here and tell you that it happens exactly as I have described in multiple companies..

Please , tell me , exactly what is it you need?

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Tell me - What exactly are you looking for?

Printed copies of the policy documents??

Sworn affidavits from HR staff??

you've had multiple people come on here and tell you that it happens exactly as I have described in multiple companies..

Please , tell me , exactly what is it you need?

The name of one firm who you accuse of currently performing this practise in Ireland.
So that I may attempt to verify the veracity of your statement.

Roger Hassenforder

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Tell me - What exactly are you looking for?

Printed copies of the policy documents??

Sworn affidavits from HR staff??

you've had multiple people come on here and tell you that it happens exactly as I have described in multiple companies..

Please , tell me , exactly what is it you need?

its easy: if most MNC routinely sack the bottom 10%, they should be easy to name. I'm only looking for two...one...
All we have is typical IBEC pedaled bullshyte, that wilts at the first bit of scrutiny.

When challenged, you shifted , and claimed the bottom 10% are put on improvement plans, and if they dont improve, then they are out. that is standard in the public service as well.

So again, name one MNC that sacks the bottom 10% of its workforce every year....

RobbieTheRobber

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Tell me - What exactly are you looking for?

Printed copies of the policy documents??

Sworn affidavits from HR staff??

you've had multiple people come on here and tell you that it happens exactly as I have described in multiple companies..

Please , tell me , exactly what is it you need?

What I really want is to have a fair and honest discussion about Public service pay and conditions.
What I dont want is mistruths and lies supported by nothing more than annonymous internet posters anecdotal evidence.

So if you want to have an adult honest discussion, then fair enough. If you want to make unsupportable claims to back your position that public service workers are the root of all evil, then I am justifiably going to question the veracity of any of those claims.

uki

I m self employed. Had many employess. Unfortunately had to let them all go and fighting for myself now. Thats still reality in the private sector. (small business).

Unfortunately the times are still bad and there is no scope for pay increases in public sector.
The public sector did not fulfil their savings targets either. So why should they get pay rises?

If targets in private sector are not met - companies shed jobs or reduce pay. They do not increase pay. Nobody should expect from the less well off to pay increases for the better off in public sector. If there are any increases I can only sympathise with the lowest paid public service employees.

uki

uki wrote: »

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

The public service had nothing whatsoever to do with wrecking the country so dont know what you are getting at.

darkpagandeath

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

The public service had nothing whatsoever to do with wrecking the country so dont know what you are getting at.

What's was the pay and pensions back in the boom ? The mass wastage in budgets who's responsible then for that ?

uki

Talking about benchmarking. Bertie Ahern gave everything that the PS unions were asking for. It is known that it was big mistake.

crusier

Private sector bankers and developers ruined this country not public sector workers, private sector workers laughed at the wages of public sector were on back then, now that the false economy of carpenters and plumbers becoming developers is gone they want to drag everyone else down with them and keep them down. The banks debt we now pay was mainly money spent in the private sector and squandered by greedy private sector workers who wouldn't run a brothel!

darkpagandeath

crusier wrote: »

Private sector bankers and developers ruined this country not public sector workers, private sector workers laughed at the wages of public sector were on back then, now that the false economy of carpenters and plumbers becoming developers is gone they want to drag everyone else down with them and keep them down. The banks debt we now pay was mainly money spent in the private sector and squandered by greedy private sector workers who wouldn't run a brothel!

No they did not in the boom Public service workers were on very high wages 20% over the average. Look up the facts.

Roger Hassenforder

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No they did not in the boom Public service workers were on very high wages 20% over the average. Look up the facts.

still waiting for that MNC darkpagandeath!
then we'll deal with this round of bollocks

MRnotlob606

No, don't give them any pay increase.

Quin_Dub

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What I really want is to have a fair and honest discussion about Public service pay and conditions.
What I dont want is mistruths and lies supported by nothing more than annonymous internet posters anecdotal evidence.

So if you want to have an adult honest discussion, then fair enough. If you want to make unsupportable claims to back your position that public service workers are the root of all evil, then I am justifiably going to question the veracity of any of those claims.

At no point have I claimed that Public sector employee are the "root of all evil". Far from it

I am certain that within the Public certain there is an equal cross section from the utter fantastic to the utterly awful. I have met both , just as I have met them in the private sector professionally and personally.

Throughout this thread though we have been constantly told the the Public sector jobs are so unique and special that normal performance management and metrics cannot be applied - "How do you measure the best nurse" etc. to justify why pay rises should just be given to all. I don't buy that for a second.

My issue with the public sector is the policy and procedure that does not properly reward the over-achievers nor does it appropriately penalise the under-achievers..

I'd have little to no issue whatsoever if the government announced that there was to be an X% increase in the Public sector wage bill but that it would not be applied evenly - It would be applied on a performance related basis..

In my company (in common with most MNC's) , each year they announce what the budget is for pay-rises (if any) - It might be 2% for example.

What that means in practice is that some people might get a 7% or 8% pay rise by virtue of being a top performer , whilst others might get only 1% or 1.5% and then there will be some that get nothing at all.... to my mind that is fair and equitable.

If that was announced in the public sector I'd have no issues whatsoever..

But it won't - Any pay rise will be a blanket increase , the same for everyone.. That is fundamentally unfair.

That environment breeds apathy and drives mediocrity - Why would you bother going above and beyond if you got nothing for it?

Personal pride etc. can only carry you so far.

crusier

Quin_Dub wrote: »

At no point have I claimed that Public sector employee are the "root of all evil". Far from it

I am certain that within the Public certain there is an equal cross section from the utter fantastic to the utterly awful. I have met both , just as I have met them in the private sector professionally and personally.

Throughout this thread though we have been constantly told the the Public sector jobs are so unique and special that normal performance management and metrics cannot be applied - "How do you measure the best nurse" etc. to justify why pay rises should just be given to all. I don't buy that for a second.

My issue with the public sector is the policy and procedure that does not properly reward the over-achievers nor does it appropriately penalise the under-achievers..

I'd have little to no issue whatsoever if the government announced that there was to be an X% increase in the Public sector wage bill but that it would not be applied evenly - It would be applied on a performance related basis..

In my company (in common with most MNC's) , each year they announce what the budget is for pay-rises (if any) - It might be 2% for example.

What that means in practice is that some people might get a 7% or 8% pay rise by virtue of being a top performer , whilst others might get only 1% or 1.5% and then there will be some that get nothing at all.... to my mind that is fair and equitable.

If that was announced in the public sector I'd have no issues whatsoever..

But it won't - Any pay rise will be a blanket increase , the same for everyone.. That is fundamentally unfair.

That environment breeds apathy and drives mediocrity - Why would you bother going above and beyond if you got nothing for it?

Personal pride etc. can only carry you so far.

I've worked in the private sector, semi state and the public sector and there are wasters in all sectors , they can survive in all sectors and thete are excellent people also in all sectors , I find the public sector far more educated and qualified in my experience!

Quin_Dub

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

its easy: if most MNC routinely sack the bottom 10%, they should be easy to name. I'm only looking for two...one...
All we have is typical IBEC pedaled bullshyte, that wilts at the first bit of scrutiny.

When challenged, you shifted , and claimed the bottom 10% are put on improvement plans, and if they dont improve, then they are out. that is standard in the public service as well.

So again, name one MNC that sacks the bottom 10% of its workforce every year....

Never shifted - Right from the very 1st post on this topic I made it very clear - Bottom 10% are identified , put on a performance plan, given 3 months - If at the end of that time they have not improved , they are cut.

For reference , here is my original post

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.

I've named at least 4..

Dell , HP, Intel , Microsoft.

All put the lowest performers on PiPs (Performance Improvement Plans) following the annual reviews and those plans run for a fixed period and if at the end of that period the performance has not increased to a satisfactory level , they are let go..

Quin_Dub

crusier wrote: »

I've worked in the private sector, semi state and the public sector and there are wasters in all sectors , they can survive in all sectors and thete are excellent people also in all sectors , I find the public sector far more educated and qualified in my experience!

No doubt - As I said there are Great people and awful people and everyone in between everywhere..

And yes , some people can get very good at avoiding work and avoiding the chop.. but they usually get found out eventually.. But they rarely get ahead , they rarely get promoted..

They find a quiet corner of the company to hide in and just bob along..

However , if they are really good , they'll bubble to the top , get rewarded , get promoted etc.

It's not clear to me how that happens in the Public Sector..Does the absolute best guy on the team get a bigger bonus than everyone else? Do they get a bigger pay-rise?

Because in a meritocracy they should and they do...

It's the lack of meritocracy in the Public Sector I take issue with, not the people...

The arguments about the Public sector should never be about the people. It should always be about the environment they work in and the policies they work under..

I maintain that the set-up in the Public sector does not create an environment where people can do their best..

Of course some people will overcome those issues and be outstanding.. We've all met those people..

But they are not being treated fairly , when everybody gets the same reward at the end of the year no matter how good or bad they have been.

crusier

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No doubt - As I said there are Great people and awful people and everyone in between everywhere..

And yes , some people can get very good at avoiding work and avoiding the chop.. but they usually get found out eventually.. But they rarely get ahead , they rarely get promoted..

They find a quiet corner of the company to hide in and just bob along..

However , if they are really good , they'll bubble to the top , get rewarded , get promoted etc.

It's not clear to me how that happens in the Public Sector..Does the absolute best guy on the team get a bigger bonus than everyone else? Do they get a bigger pay-rise?

Because in a meritocracy they should and they do...

It's the lack of meritocracy in the Public Sector I take issue with, not the people...

The arguments about the Public sector should never be about the people. It should always be about the environment they work in and the policies they work under..

I maintain that the set-up in the Public sector does not create an environment where people can do their best..

Of course some people will overcome those issues and be outstanding.. We've all met those people..

But they are not being treated fairly , when everybody gets the same reward at the end of the year no matter how good or bad they have been.

There are no bonuses in the public sector for a start, this is Ireland the same politics exists in all sectors with promotions , the majority are on merit but there are blatently obvious exceptions in all sectors and managers who cant see past bluff, I have mates in the private sector who continuously complain about the wrong people being promoted and bluffers getting on because of who they know or who's arse they lick!

JillyQ

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

The public service had nothing whatsoever to do with wrecking the country so dont know what you are getting at.

Who is the financial regulator employed by & what are they supposed to do?

relax carry on

uki wrote: »

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.

Is it not the case that while the self employed do not have the cushion of the 9 months Jobseekers Benefit that PAYE workeys have based on higher PRSI contributions from them and their employer, both party's end up being means tested for benefits In the end anyway?

Quin_Dub

crusier wrote: »

There are no bonuses in the public sector for a start, this is Ireland the same politics exists in all sectors with promotions , the majority are on merit but there are blatently obvious exceptions in all sectors and managers who cant see past bluff, I have mates in the private sector who continuously complain about the wrong people being promoted and bluffers getting on because of who they know or who's arse they lick!

Not suggesting that it's perfect.. not at all...We're all still subject to the vagaries of human nature. But it works well most of the time..

And if you find yourself stuck with a manager that you feel doesn't appreciate you fairly, you move around internally and find one that does..

I'd hope and assume that promotions in the Public sector are based on merit and that they look to fill the role with the best person..

But I'm not really talking about promotions. I'm talking about regular in-role pay increases.

The idea that everybody gets an equal pay-rise when there is money in the pot just makes no sense to most private sector workers , certainly non-union ones.

As I said in my earlier post, if there's a budget for pay rises.. Give them to those that deserve them - The best performers, that way the pay rise is meaningful to those that get it and those that don't get to see what's required to get that pay-rise next time..

To Elland Back

crusier wrote: »

I've worked in the private sector, semi state and the public sector and there are wasters in all sectors , they can survive in all sectors and thete are excellent people also in all sectors , I find the public sector far more educated and qualified in my experience!

The difference is the the person who continues to pay a waster in the private sector is squandering HIS OWN MONEY, the fool

crusier

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not suggesting that it's perfect.. not at all...We're all still subject to the vagaries of human nature. But it works well most of the time..

And if you find yourself stuck with a manager that you feel doesn't appreciate you fairly, you move around internally and find one that does..

I'd hope and assume that promotions in the Public sector are based on merit and that they look to fill the role with the best person..

But I'm not really talking about promotions. I'm talking about regular in-role pay increases.

The idea that everybody gets an equal pay-rise when there is money in the pot just makes no sense to most private sector workers , certainly non-union ones.

As I said in my earlier post, if there's a budget for pay rises.. Give them to those that deserve them - The best performers, that way the pay rise is meaningful to those that get it and those that don't get to see what's required to get that pay-rise next time..

I would certainly love to see pay rises for those who work hard and lazy people left behind, l have to get promoted to have a chance of more earnings!

Quin_Dub

crusier wrote: »

I would certainly love to see pay rises for those who work hard and lazy people left behind, l have to get promoted to have a chance of more earnings!

They should take the budget for the infamous "increments" and use it for just that...

Roger Hassenforder

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Never shifted - Right from the very 1st post on this topic I made it very clear - Bottom 10% are identified , put on a performance plan, given 3 months - If at the end of that time they have not improved , they are cut.

For reference , here is my original post



I've named at least 4..

Dell , HP, Intel , Microsoft.

All put the lowest performers on PiPs (Performance Improvement Plans) following the annual reviews and those plans run for a fixed period and if at the end of that period the performance has not increased to a satisfactory level , they are let go..

we're talking about forced distribution termination, not performance management. Two very different concepts! Park it though for the moment, pagandeath seems to be its main supporter, and he's pished off over to the ISIS brides thread, giving it socks.

some of your later/earlier posts are pragmatic and reasonable, and i think most public servants would agree. The wasters have to be managed out of the service. At the same time performance has to be recognised. However we saw one public service attempt to introduce bonuses, and the public outcry was enormous.

The internal promotion process doesn't lend itself to well to rewarding achievers either though. Ask any PS for an example about the office waster taking two weeks sick leave prior to interviews to study, and getting the gig...

we're agreed the whole service needs reform though, from top to bottom. However, thats a different topic, and I'd welcome debate, but this thread is a catalogue of cheap shots not grounded in reality, by non public service workers at Public service workers about a pay restoration.

blackcard

JillyQ wrote: »

Who is the financial regulator employed by & what are they supposed to do?

Blaming the Regulator instead of the Bankers and the Developers is like blaming the Gardai instead of the criminals

JillyQ

blackcard wrote: »

Blaming the Regulator instead of the Bankers and the Developers is like blaming the Gardai instead of the criminals

The regulator was supposed to regulate them he didn't.

Roger Hassenforder

JillyQ wrote: »

The regulator was supposed to regulate them he didn't.

the old Epicurus quote could be applied:

Was he willing,but not able?
Was he able, but not willing?
Was he both able and willing?
Was he neither able nor willing?

Quin_Dub

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

we're talking about forced distribution termination, not performance management. Two very different concepts! Park it though for the moment, pagandeath seems to be its main supporter, and he's pished off over to the ISIS brides thread, giving it socks.

some of your later/earlier posts are pragmatic and reasonable, and i think most public servants would agree. The wasters have to be managed out of the service. At the same time performance has to be recognised. However we saw one public service attempt to introduce bonuses, and the public outcry was enormous.

The internal promotion process doesn't lend itself to well to rewarding achievers either though. Ask any PS for an example about the office waster taking two weeks sick leave prior to interviews to study, and getting the gig...

we're agreed the whole service needs reform though, from top to bottom. However, thats a different topic, and I'd welcome debate, but this thread is a catalogue of cheap shots not grounded in reality, by non public service workers at Public service workers about a pay restoration.

Agreed - Most of the posts here are petty blame game crap with a lack of recognition of the fundamental issues..

People complain about pay rises or restoration because they see everybody getting pay-rises instead of the right people..

I have a child sitting the junior cert this year.. there are 2 or 3 of the teachers that are worth their weight in gold - Motivate the kids, go the extra mile to make the subjects interesting and so on - in short, they are true educators and I'd support them getting more money in a heart-beat..

But - there are equally 2 or 3 that just can't be bothered , rarely turn up for classes, don't make any effort and couldn't care less if the kids pass or fail.. Then there are a half dozen average ones , they get the job done , but not exactly setting the world on fire..

It utterly galls me beyond belief at the thought that those guys would receive exactly the same pay rise as the genuinely excellent teachers..

This lack of fairness and transparency is the big issue people have with Public sector pay... Some people can't get past the bad staff and fixate on them (hence a lot of the posts on this thread) and that is unfortunate as the ones I feel the most for though are the really good staff .

How utterly demoralising must it be to watch people that you know are not as good as you getting exactly the same rewards and to know that there is no real way for you to change that,,

The unions do the good staff a massive disservice by perpetuating this model in the name of solidarity and "fairness" when in fact it's the total opposite.

JillyQ

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

the old Epicurus quote could be applied:

Was he willing,but not able?
Was he able, but not willing?
Was he both able and willing?
Was he neither able nor willing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Regulator

the paragraph on the controversy fairly answers the questions it seems it was a mixture of all 4

MonkeyTennis

You know there are households in this country that have private sector mums and public sectors dads who do not bitch as much about this as y'all

Jus sayin

Roger Hassenforder

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

You know there are households in this country that have private sector mums and public sectors dads who do not bitch as much about this as y'all

Jus sayin

sure havent they the best of both words so!

darkpagandeath

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

we're talking about forced distribution termination, not performance management. Two very different concepts! Park it though for the moment, pagandeath seems to be its main supporter, and he's pished off over to the ISIS brides thread, giving it socks.

some of your later/earlier posts are pragmatic and reasonable, and i think most public servants would agree. The wasters have to be managed out of the service. At the same time performance has to be recognised. However we saw one public service attempt to introduce bonuses, and the public outcry was enormous.

The internal promotion process doesn't lend itself to well to rewarding achievers either though. Ask any PS for an example about the office waster taking two weeks sick leave prior to interviews to study, and getting the gig...

we're agreed the whole service needs reform though, from top to bottom. However, thats a different topic, and I'd welcome debate, but this thread is a catalogue of cheap shots not grounded in reality, by non public service workers at Public service workers about a pay restoration.

Hey I got a mention. Restored to what ? The Celtic tiger overpaid amount ? Please justify the level of increases they received during the boom ?

Sheldons Brain

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hey I got a mention. Restored to what ? The Celtic tiger overpaid amount ? Please justify the level of increases they received during the boom ?

It was the same level of increase as everyone else.

darkpagandeath

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It was the same level of increase as everyone else.

Citation, Public service was 20% higher than average. Why do I need to keep saying that ? If it is not true I am dam sure someone would have given figures by now that the public service was not 20% higher than the private sector. Private sector has received what about 3% over the entire after boom that still leaves the public service old level 17% over current pay if it's restored. Figures people ?

Sheldons Brain

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Citation, Public service was 20% higher than average. Why do I need to keep saying that ? If it is not true I am dam sure someone would have given figures by now that the public service was not 20% higher than the private sector. Private sector has received what about 3% over the entire after boom that still leaves the public service old level 17% over current pay if it's restored. Figures people ?

I'm paid more than average. I am not average, so this is appropriate.

darkpagandeath

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I'm paid more than average. I am not average, so this is appropriate.

Yes it is good you get the right pay for you're performance. Would you be happy for the person next to you get the same rise due to just being there ?

daithi7

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Citation, Public service was 20% higher than average. Why do I need to keep saying that ? If it is not true I am dam sure someone would have given figures by now that the public service was not 20% higher than the private sector. Private sector has received what about 3% over the entire after boom that still leaves the public service old level 17% over current pay if it's restored. Figures people ?

The public sector are simply not good at figures, if they were:

-Ireland wouldn't be the most indebted people ever in the history of modern democracy!?
-the pubic and civil servants would never have been paid bonkers benchmarking billions
-Bertie would never have proclaimed himself a socialist and indebted the country forever while doing so, like most socialists do btw
-Increments would have been abolished when the bust happened
-Irish pubic and civil servants would be paid something similar to Portugal's, Spains or Cypr u s, not Switzerland, Kuwait & Monaco!!
-Irish pubic sector unions would not be demanding pay increases on already overly high salaries, from a hugely indebted country that is still borrowing heavily to fund pubic current expenditure. Something you should never do btw.

But, Irish public servants are worth it, aren't they just ?!

Truth is, pay increases in the pubic service should be effectively given through gradual tax reductions as the pubic purse can afford it, like lowering of the usc, so that all sectors of the working population would enjoy the benefits and not only the overpaid, fully secure, precious, public sector. But that's obviously far too much financial prudence & common sense for our politicians, who wish to pawn the silver from our sinking titanic for auction politics, and of course, for our pubic service as ably represented by our beloved public sector unions!!

darkpagandeath

Genuin question why can't they be fired ?

JillyQ

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Genuin question why can't they be fired ?

quiet possibly because of the unions

martingriff

daithi7 wrote: »

The public sector are simply not good at figures, if they were:

-Ireland wouldn't be the most indebted people ever in the history of modern democracy!?
-the pubic and civil servants would never have been paid bonkers benchmarking billions
-Bertie would never have proclaimed himself a socialist and indebted the country forever while doing so, like most socialists do btw
-Increments would have been abolished when the bust happened
-Irish pubic and civil servants would be paid something similar to Portugal's, Spains or Cypr u s, not Switzerland, Kuwait & Monaco!!
-Irish pubic sector unions would but be asking for pay increases on already overly high salaries from a country that is still borrowing to fund pubic expenditure

But, Irish public servants are worth it, aren't they just ?!

Truth is, pay increases in the pubic service should be effectively given through gradual tax reductions as the pubic purse can afford it, like lowering of the usc, that all sectors the working population would enjoy and not only the overpaid, fully secure, precious, public sector. But that's obviously far too much financial prudence & common sense for our politicians, who wish to pawn the silver from our sinking titanic, and of course, for our pubic service as represented by our beloved public sector unions!!

No we are not.

Just wondering do you actually know what public servants make or are you making crap up. Do you actually know what various public/civil servants get paid (I do not mean the average).

People here seem to think that all public servants get paid the great average and get minted pensions. In relation to what they may give back it will be in elation to the pension levy which was never for the mention and has been clarified many times by politicians.

martingriff

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Genuin question why can't they be fired ?

They can and some have been but is difficult due to unions and I can say a a civil servant I am sick of it.

crusier

daithi7 wrote: »

The public sector are simply not good at figures, if they were:

-Ireland wouldn't be the most indebted people ever in the history of modern democracy!?
-the pubic and civil servants would never have been paid bonkers benchmarking billions
-Bertie would never have proclaimed himself a socialist and indebted the country forever while doing so, like most socialists do btw
-Increments would have been abolished when the bust happened
-Irish pubic and civil servants would be paid something similar to Portugal's, Spains or Cypr u s, not Switzerland, Kuwait & Monaco!!
-Irish pubic sector unions would not be demanding pay increases on already overly high salaries, from a hugely indebted country that is still borrowing heavily to fund pubic current expenditure. Something you should never do btw.

But, Irish public servants are worth it, aren't they just ?!

Truth is, pay increases in the pubic service should be effectively given through gradual tax reductions as the pubic purse can afford it, like lowering of the usc, so that all sectors of the working population would enjoy the benefits and not only the overpaid, fully secure, precious, public sector. But that's obviously far too much financial prudence & common sense for our politicians, who wish to pawn the silver from our sinking titanic for auction politics, and of course, for our pubic service as ably represented by our beloved public sector unions!!

Cock!

Jawgap

daithi7 wrote: »

.....

-the pubic and civil servants would never have been paid bonkers benchmarking billions
....

You see, here's the thing I don't understand - I joined the PS post-benchmarking and left last year.

If the post-benchmarking wages were so brilliant, how come recruitment was so difficult? I remember interviewing peope for jobs and being laughed at when they were told the starting salary.

I remember running a team that had an annual churn rate of about 40%.

I also remember plenty of examples of people starting work with us at 9-00am and leaving at lunchtime and never coming back - the record was the guy who started at 9 and was gone by 10-30!

......and I also remember people pestering me about earning more in the private sector, which was true but my reasons for working in the PS were personal and professional rather than economic.

It's funny, how the begrudging rhetoric directed at the PS has amped up over the years by, I suspect, people who thought they were too good to work in PS 10 years ago because they didn't just think they were 'worth it' - they thought they were worth more

crusier

Jawgap wrote: »

You see, here's the thing I don't understand - I joined the PS post-benchmarking and left last year.

If the post-benchmarking wages were so brilliant, how come recruitment was so difficult? I remember interviewing peope for jobs and being laughed at when they were told the starting salary.

I remember running a team that had an annual churn rate of about 40%.

I also remember plenty of examples of people starting work with us at 9-00am and leaving at lunchtime and never coming back - the record was the guy who started at 9 and was gone by 10-30!

......and I also remember people pestering me about earning more in the private sector, which was true but my reasons for working in the PS were personal and professional rather than economic.

It's funny, how the begrudging rhetoric directed at the PS has amped up over the years by, I suspect, people who thought they were too good to work in PS 10 years ago because they didn't just think they were 'worth it' - they thought they were worth more

Well said!

To Elland Back

martingriff wrote: »

They can and some have been but is difficult due to unions and I can say a a civil servant I am sick of it.

But you will probably stand by your fellow union member if there is any attempt to fire him for incompetence.

Tiger Mcilroy

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Genuin question why can't they be fired ?

Apparently because its impossible to measure the performance of a public servant..why you ask?..just because.

Tiger Mcilroy

Jawgap wrote: »

You see, here's the thing I don't understand - I joined the PS post-benchmarking and left last year.

If the post-benchmarking wages were so brilliant, how come recruitment was so difficult? I remember interviewing peope for jobs and being laughed at when they were told the starting salary.

I remember running a team that had an annual churn rate of about 40%.

I also remember plenty of examples of people starting work with us at 9-00am and leaving at lunchtime and never coming back - the record was the guy who started at 9 and was gone by 10-30!

......and I also remember people pestering me about earning more in the private sector, which was true but my reasons for working in the PS were personal and professional rather than economic.

It's funny, how the begrudging rhetoric directed at the PS has amped up over the years by, I suspect, people who thought they were too good to work in PS 10 years ago because they didn't just think they were 'worth it' - they thought they were worth more

I quite simply dont believe that people laughed at the wages in an interview. this didnt happen.

Roger Hassenforder

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hey I got a mention. Restored to what ? The Celtic tiger overpaid amount ? Please justify the level of increases they received during the boom ?

youre barred from this thread until you come back with that company!!

Roger Hassenforder

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I quite simply dont believe that people laughed at the wages in an interview. this didnt happen.

people see the scale advertised for the post and assume they're so fabulous what being private sector and that, they'll march straight to the top. We've had people refuse offers when they realise were they're starting.

most people in the public service worked in the private at some point (there are a few lifers all right, i find them (very) generally the most resistant to changes). I have worked in private mostly, public and now a type of semistate. there's a different culture and ethos in each, one not necessarily better than the other. Who generally treated their staff better? Private.
Where was i paid more: semi state.
Where had i the most job satisfaction? Public service.

The most vitriolic in criticisms are the ones that haven't worked in different sectors, either through failure to "get in", or failure to apply for one reason or another. Its an open competition, if you don't apply, its your own fault. If you didnt get in, its your own fault. Most public servant acknowledge the system has flaws and is in need of serious reform.