Public sector pay increase

The Rape of Lucretia

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

I'd say your head is exploding now that this is all being signed up and happening.

Mine is.

Brendan Howlin has decided that the private sector is so well paid compared to the public sector that they can afford to contribute 600 million to those in the the public sector.

Still, a government standing up to unions incapable of reasonable though, and who see it as fair game to play hardball for what ever you can get, on the rationale that if you get it, then you are right to ask for it and those who are paying for it be damned, is a utopian dream.

Its unpalatable, unfair, and a sad indictment of they way we choose to run our country, but all in all, probably a price worth bearing to keep them quiet for a few years.

evolving_doors

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Mine is.

Brendan Howlin has decided that the private sector is so well paid compared to the public sector that they can afford to contribute 600 million to those in the the public sector.

Still, a government standing up to unions incapable of reasonable though, and who see it as fair game to play hardball for what ever you can get, on the rationale that if you get it, then you are right to ask for it and those who are paying for it be damned, is a utopian dream.

Its unpalatable, unfair, and a sad indictment of they way we choose to run our country, but all in all, probably a price worth bearing to keep them quiet for a few years.

So, lets get this straight...

You say the burden of paying 600million is being solely placed on the private sector!!!
I think you might recall a burden of a mere 100 odd billion being placed on the shoulders of all of us because of private sector 'sense of entitlement'.

A government standing up to unions. It was the unions who agreed to help foot the bill for the squandering of the private sector when the banks and construction industry went t1ts up. Don't mind spouting this revisionist agenda (thanks Lucinda and Eddie) that it was the overpaid public sector who caused the recession.

It was the unions who agreed to take pay cuts and work extra hours under FEMPI/Croke Park/Haddington road etc., with the clear agreement that this would be rescinded by 2017.
But do public sector workers think they'll ever get a modicum of gratitude for this.
WE know now that the extra hours worked will never go away (not that we ever expected thanks for it anyway!)

There's mention of Utopian dreaming, but I think it's more of a case of some folk in the private sector trying to rewrite history and present an alternate reality.

BTW, public sector employees spend money in the private sector too believe it or not!

Mongfinder General

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So, lets get this straight...


BTW, public sector employees spend money in the private sector too believe it or not!

No, no, no. Public servants do all their shopping on flexi days and privilege days in Newry.

evolving_doors

Mongfinder General wrote: »

No, no, no. Public servants do all their shopping on flexi days and privilege days in Newry.

Yes that's the nub of it really, the public sector worker is indeed prudent with their spending, and that's even in spite of being paid the alleged fortune that some will have you believe.

Paulzx

daithi7 wrote: »

This proposed body should help transparency and take some of the pressure off Irish politicians to accede to every public sector union demand as they appear to do currently.not!?

I suppose when the governement enforced numerous cuts in public sector salaries it was done because the unions demanded it.:D

I love this crap that the unions "run the country" and are all powerfull.

They were so powerfull that they stood by and allowed salaries and conditions be slashed without an iota of industrial action.

If the public sector unions were as powerfull as you seem to suggest we would have had 6 years of strikes.

Uncle Ben

daithi7 wrote: »

No,it is not a tax it is a pension contribution.

The only category of worker who pay extra tax rates in this skewed sector state are the self employed, who pay a higher rate of prsi with lower allowances. They also pay prsi on things like deposit interest. And to really make things totally ridiculous, their own private pension funds are currently being raided by the Irish taxman of. 6% per annum to mostly fund overpaid public servants.

So with ~10% unemployment, the only people being really screwed are the people who actually create wealth and indigenous jobsin the Irish economy ...... meanwhile the same paper pushers in the dept of finance, none of whom were fired, and who helped misdirect Ireland into a monumental economic crisis are back getting pay rises.....You couldn't make it up!!

People who will never get a PS pension are paying the pension levy.

Kristopherus

Uncle Ben wrote: »

People who will never get a PS pension are paying the pension levy.

Different levy and only a small percentage of what the PS pension levy is.

ardmacha

daithi7 wrote: »

No,it is not a tax it is a pension contribution.

As I am sure you well know, the legislation for the pension levy specifically states that it is not a pension contribution. Please stop this puerile assertion that it is.

Kristopherus wrote:

People who will never get a PS pension are paying the pension levy.
Different levy and only a small percentage of what the PS pension levy is.

Stop playing with words. It is perfectly obvious that the poster was talking about the PS pension levy and pointing out that it is paid by people who will never get a pension and paid by people on non pensionable payments. This is not surprising as it is not a pension contribution and is not connected to getting a pension.

daithi7

Gebgbegb wrote: »

And what happens if they say our doctors, teachers, lecturers, garda, etc,etc are undervalued and recommend pay rises within the public sector, Would you be happy then?

Absolutely, and in all probability they would recommend some rises in particular areas of the public service, whilst normalising downwards in others and I suspect staying the same in many,many more. Although I think in aggregate such a body would recommend changes that would bring about net reductions, but it's not really for me to pre judge its view. The only body we got who were close to this were the troika implementation committee(s), and though they operated in strained times, granted, they made it quite clear what they thought of Irish public sector salary levels when they were here.

The important thing for me is that there is a crying need for such an expert review group to report to government and parliament on public sector pay, conditions, productivity and progress.

daithi7

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

Pension contribution my arse, its no more a pension contribution than USC or PAYE. Its a tax and public sector workers will never see a cent of it again. Its also a tax only on public sector workers which means if a private and public sector worker or on the same salary the private sector worker see a lot more in the net pay than the public sector worker......

Gwan ya tool, that fictitious net pay you try to compare would be before private sector pension contributions, because in the private sector workers have had to pay for their pension for their whole career....not just after a crisis, Imagine hey!? Anyway you've just illustrated my point succinctly, that all workers now contribute to the cost of their pensions these days, private sector through direct contributions and public sector through the pension levy which acts as a contribution, well done comrade.

P.s. This is further explained by http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/pensions/civil_and_public_service_pensions.html

For those who still think it is a tax, they term it a pension contribution about 4 times in as many sentences. I hope this is enough for those who still insist on trying to call it a tax.

daithi7

ardmacha wrote: »

As I am sure you well know, the legislation for the pension levy specifically states that it is not a pension contribution. Please stop this puerile assertion that it is.

Take up your 'puerile' protestations with
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/pensions/civil_and_public_service_pensions.html

Civil and public service pension contributions
Information
Information

The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 introduced a new level of pension contribution to be made by all public and civil servants.

Pension contributions are deducted from your gross income. Income tax, PRSI and other deductions, were assessed on the balance of your income after pension contributions had been deducted. However, in Budget 2011 it was announced that PRSI and the new Universal Social Charge are payable on gross income from 1 January 2011.

Pension contributions are graduated so that the effect is less at lower income levels and greater at higher levels.

From 1 March 2009, pension contributions were deducted at:

3% on the first €15,000
6% on next €5,000
10% on the balance
The Department of Finance estimated that the average deduction would be 7.5%.....'

daithi7

daithi7 wrote: »

Gwan ya tool, that fictitious net pay you try to compare would be before private sector pension contributions, because in the private sector workers have had to pay for their pension for their whole career....not just after a crisis, Imagine hey!? Anyway you've just illustrated my point succinctly, that all workers now contribute to the cost of their pensions these days, private sector through direct contributions and public sector through the pension levy which acts as a contribution, well done comrade.

PS you have now proved you haven't a clue what you are talking about, thanks for that.

Public sector workers pay a pension contribution and a pension levy. The pension contribution is their pension same as a private sector worker and the pension levy is a tax that has nothing whatsoever to do with their pension and they will never see a cent of it again. The deductions even appear separately on my payslip as they are nothing to do with each other.

darkpagandeath

Why Is work done by People in the Public sector magically unquantifiable.

Mongfinder General

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why Is work done by People in the Public sector magically unquantifiable.

What metrics are used to quantify output in your line of work?

Jawgap

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why Is work done by People in the Public sector magically unquantifiable.

It's not that work done in the PS can't be quantified - the challenge is quantifying and managing performance in a way that policy objectives are met. Get it wrong and you undermine the policy objective because you skew activity in a perverse way.

darkpagandeath

Mongfinder General wrote: »

What metrics are used to quantify output in your line of work?

High end IT. Performance, Problem solving, Number of first time fixes, Time to resolution the normal stuff.

PeteFalk78

darkpagandeath wrote: »

High end IT. Performance, Problem solving, Number of first time fixes, Time to resolution the normal stuff.

Ok. Quantify the performance of a teacher, paramedic, prison officer or a guard?

Quin_Dub

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Ok. Quantify the performance of a teacher, paramedic, prison officer or a guard?

Are they the only professions in the Public Service??

Or just the ones trotted out when anybody challenges anything?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is no empirical way of measuring the success of any of the above examples?

Really? , Not one?....

darkpagandeath

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Ok. Quantify the performance of a teacher, paramedic, prison officer or a guard?

I would benchmark their pay to similar areas in the private sector but that got shot down. Seems a lot of shooting down with no real reason why they are paid so much.

PeteFalk78

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Are they the only professions in the Public Service??

Where did I mention it was. Did you want me to specify all the professions in the public Service?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Or just the ones trotted out when anybody challenges anything?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is no empirical way of measuring the success of any of the above examples?

Really? , Not one?....

I'm looking for his answer. Or I'll allow you to answer if you want.

PeteFalk78

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I would benchmark their pay to similar areas in the private sector but that got shot down. Seems a lot of shooting down with no real reason why they are paid so much.

That's great. Not the same as quantifying their performance is it?

KomradeBishop

The entire argument for monetarily quantifying the public sectors performance - and focusing only on that as a measure of success - is an argument for privatization, as the entire point of much of the public services, is to provide services that the private sector can't afford using profit motive alone.

Public services prioritize social benefit over profit, i.e. often deliberately run at a loss (which they can afford to do) in order to provide social benefit - and because social benefit is not an easily/objectively measurable thing, that means you can't objectively or precisely quantify the benefit of the public services.

This thread seems to be spinning in the usual degenerate circles, without a great quality of argument, so am reluctant to even dip in with that.

Quin_Dub

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The entire argument for monetarily quantifying the public sectors performance - and focusing only on that as a measure of success - is an argument for privatization, as the entire point of much of the public services, is to provide services that the private sector can't afford using profit motive alone.

Public services prioritize social benefit over profit, i.e. often deliberately run at a loss (which they can afford to do) in order to provide social benefit - and because social benefit is not an easily/objectively measurable thing, that means you can't objectively or precisely quantify the benefit of the public services.

This thread seems to be spinning in the usual degenerate circles, without a great quality of argument, so am reluctant to even dip in with that.

I would disagree, it's not about profit it's about value for money - It's also about rewarding those that do the best work.

Without question, there are a great many intangibles about the value of certain tasks within the public sector - The empathy of a nurse or carer for example , and some specific roles may be very hard to fully quantify empirically, but broadly speaking across the entirety of the Public sector there are massive opportunities to implement a fully functioning merit based remuneration system that allows the best people to be rewarded and efficiencies to be achieved..

Calina

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I would disagree, it's not about profit it's about value for money - It's also about rewarding those that do the best work.

Without question, there are a great many intangibles about the value of certain tasks within the public sector - The empathy of a nurse or carer for example , and some specific roles may be very hard to fully quantify empirically, but broadly speaking across the entirety of the Public sector there are massive opportunities to implement a fully functioning merit based remuneration system that allows the best people to be rewarded and efficiencies to be achieved..

I keep hearing this. The problem is I've never really seen a fully functioning merit based system in the private sector either. Anything but, in fact.

KomradeBishop

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I would disagree, it's not about profit it's about value for money - It's also about rewarding those that do the best work.

Without question, there are a great many intangibles about the value of certain tasks within the public sector - The empathy of a nurse or carer for example , and some specific roles may be very hard to fully quantify empirically, but broadly speaking across the entirety of the Public sector there are massive opportunities to implement a fully functioning merit based remuneration system that allows the best people to be rewarded and efficiencies to be achieved..

Is there past precedent of this ever having been done, in any country, in a way which wasn't just used as an excuse to seek cuts in public services and push for privatization?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for money being spent wisely and not wasted, and pushing back against unions that are taking the piss (though hard to argue that's the case now, given the concessions public sector workers have had to make since the recession) - but there needs to be past precedent of a workable system, for there to be a basis for this argument.

Putting in place a system like that is something that 'seems' prudent, but you've got to remember, more often than not the methodology/rules that underly performance measurement systems like that, are usually explicitly written/formulated to try and 'big-up' or make a 'sell' for NeoLiberal policies - for making public services look exclusively bad, and to make privatization more palatable.

I sure as hell wouldn't trust this government, to put in place a performance measurement system, that wasn't exclusively geared as a form of marketing for privatization - given their track record.

darkpagandeath

Where is all the money in the HSE going ?

kidneyfan

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Ok. Quantify the performance of a teacher, paramedic, prison officer or a guard?

Well teaching is an interesting example:
Clear barrier to entry, but the intellectual bar not that high (but quite real), requires significant emotional investment in the job to be done even adequately (and generally Irish teachers are much better than adequate), excellent conditions and pay that I would suggest is not bad (but not great).

So how to quantify?

1 Look at the metrics that make a good school and model the characteristics of a good school
2 Set targets
3 Have anonymous in the round mutual assessment and look for deviations from norm in school generally

So step 1

What are the metrics of a good school? What are the metrics of a good teacher?

Paulzx

kidneyfan wrote: »

What are the metrics of a good school? What are the metrics of a good teacher?

In School A it is an achievement to get pupils to attend.

In School B it is expected to have high levels of A standard results.

Then there's everything in between. Unfortunately there's no across the board way of measuring whether one is "better" than the other.

Whole School Evaluations try to do this but there are so many variables between different schools that comparison is difficult

Uncle Ben

Listened to Danny McCoy this morning from IBEC. He's not so concerned about the €2k pay rise-He deems them modest. He's more upset that there is no outsourcing of services to private sector.

Dan_Solo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I would disagree, it's not about profit it's about value for money

Ok so, how do you get "value for money" from a patient with cancer or a special needs kid? The business way is to tell them to lump it, you'll cost us money.

daithi7

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ok so, how do you get "value for money" from a patient with cancer or a special needs kid? The business way is to tell them to lump it, you'll cost us money.

Sorry Dan,

It's actually the patient &/or special needs pupil you're trying to get value for money FOR, not FROM.

The providers of the service are the ones who should be tasked with providing value for money, although I appreciate you have obviously missed that in your training and indoctrination.

Dan_Solo

daithi7 wrote: »

Sorry Dan,

It's actually the patient &/or special needs pupil you're trying to get value for money FOR, not FROM.

So you changed a word and refused to answer the question.
If you want healthcare run like a business they just ultimately don't get treated. There's a reason why private hospitals stick to cosmetics and electives.

Quin_Dub

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you changed a word and refused to answer the question.
If you want healthcare run like a business they just ultimately don't get treated. There's a reason why private hospitals stick to cosmetics and electives.

It's not about running it like a business per se, it's about running it efficiently..

If is costs €5k on average for a certain procedue in hospital X but only costs €3.5k on average in another location, then I absolutey want to know why..

It might turn out that the cheaper hospital is cutting corners and the €5k is the right price.. but either way , processes should exist to ensure consistency and efficiency at all times..

And, if the €3.5k in the above example is a case of that hospital team working more efficiently and effectively , then they should be rewarded for that - certainly more so than the place costing €5k a go...

I really don't understand the utter terror that some in the Public sector seem to have for measuring and rewarding excellence...

Dan_Solo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I really don't understand the utter terror that some in the Public sector seem to have for measuring and rewarding excellence...

Who's afraid of it? The fact is you get your license to do the procedure by the same mechanism but for some reason private hospitals don't want to do half of what the public hospitals do. Why would that be?

Quin_Dub

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Who's afraid of it? The fact is you get your license to do the procedure by the same mechanism but for some reason private hospitals don't want to do half of what the public hospitals do. Why would that be?

Missing the point again Dan..

Absolutely understand that some activities cannot be "profitable" but are required for social purposes..

But again , it's not about profit... It's about efficiency....

So to take your example - Let's imagine that we have one of these procedures that Private hospitals don't do for whatever reason..

It costs twice as much for that procedure in the Mater hospital than it does in Tallaght hospital..

Nothing to do with profit, nothing to do with privatisation - We need to know why the cost differential exists....

Is the Mater just no bothering and wasting time , materials etc. running up the costs?

Is Tallaght really efficient because they've got excellent staff allowing them to do the same quality of work with less staff?

Or maybe they are cutting corners unnecessarily?

Either way it's in the best interests of the patients to know why..

If it's the 1st two, then we can sort out the Mater and be able to do twice as many procedures for the same money , If it's the last one, we can sort out Tallaght and ensure patient safety..

Either way , the patient wins...

What's the problem here?

stimpson

Funnily enough I'm sitting in the Mater just now. 2 receptionists at radiology just having a chat. Brought down to X-ray and there's another 2 receptionists having the craic.

It's a hard life they have...

Larbre34

stimpson wrote: »

Funnily enough I'm sitting in the Mater just now. 2 receptionists at radiology just having a chat. Brought down to X-ray and there's another 2 receptionists having the craic.

It's a hard life they have...

And isn't great that you're not too sick to be posting online as you wait. Get well soon and all that.

NotInventedHere

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not that work done in the PS can't be quantified - the challenge is quantifying and managing performance in a way that policy objectives are met. Get it wrong and you undermine the policy objective because you skew activity in a perverse way.

Classic example was in the NHS the had a metric for measuring people on trolleys in A&E . The Managers removed the wheels off said trolleys and reclassified them as beds.Voila, they exceeded expectations.

Idbatterim

The entire argument for monetarily quantifying the public sectors performance - and focusing only on that as a measure of success - is an argument for privatization, as the entire point of much of the public services, is to provide services that the private sector can't afford using profit motive alone.

Public services prioritize social benefit over profit, i.e. often deliberately run at a loss (which they can afford to do) in order to provide social benefit - and because social benefit is not an easily/objectively measurable thing, that means you can't objectively or precisely quantify the benefit of the public services.

This thread seems to be spinning in the usual degenerate circles, without a great quality of argument, so am reluctant to even dip in with that.

It is going in circles, but this is my opinion, you CAN get done by privatising or you GET done by the public servants, via the unions who the government bend over backwards for. Making out one is far better than the other, is laughable... The taxpayers gets done either way!

Tiger Mcilroy

Larbre34 wrote: »

And isn't great that you're not too sick to be posting online as you wait. Get well soon and all that.

So you have to be incapable of using your thumbs before you can be classified as sick?.

Tiger Mcilroy

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Who's afraid of it? The fact is you get your license to do the procedure by the same mechanism but for some reason private hospitals don't want to do half of what the public hospitals do. Why would that be?

The managers in the public service that have been handing out bogus performance appraisals for years to i would imagine.

mariaalice

stimpson wrote: »

Funnily enough I'm sitting in the Mater just now. 2 receptionists at radiology just having a chat. Brought down to X-ray and there's another 2 receptionists having the craic.

It's a hard life they have...

How strange people chatting in work, I saw two staff chatting in a financial institution yesterday we will have to report them.

MonkeyTennis

mariaalice wrote: »

How strange people chatting in work, I saw two staff chatting in a financial institution yesterday we will have to report them.

What madness is this?

stimpson

mariaalice wrote: »

How strange people chatting in work, I saw two staff chatting in a financial institution yesterday we will have to report them.

Four people required to process a handful of patients. Harldy a shining example of efficiency is it?

The fact that I've been waiting over an hour for my 3PM appointment means I have plenty of time to observe the overworked public servants. I was in a private clinic for a cat scan last year and was in and out within 40 minutes and they only had one receptionist. It's not exactly rocket science.

And thanks for all the concern, but my thumbs are intact.

uch

stimpson wrote: »

Four people required to process a handful of patients. Harldy a shining example of efficiency is it?

The fact that I've been waiting over an hour for my 3PM appointment means I have plenty of time to observe the overworked public servants. I was in a private clinic for a cat scan last year and was in and out within 40 minutes and they only had one receptionist. It's not exactly rocket science.

And thanks for all the concern, but my thumbs are intact.

Would you want a secretary taking your x-Ray's ?

stimpson

uch wrote: »

Would you want a secretary taking your x-Ray's ?

Indeed not. Perhaps if the HSE wasn't overstaffed with chair moisteners then there might be a few bob left over to hire more radiologists and nurses without coming cap in hand to the tax payer.

Riskymove

stimpson wrote: »

Indeed not. Perhaps if the HSE wasn't overstaffed with chair moisteners then there might be a few bob left over to hire more radiologists and nurses without coming cap in hand to the tax payer.

Management/Admin is around 15% of the HSE

mariaalice

The HSE is not perfect, I was in and our of hospital a lot last year and got a good view of what goes on there in three different areas, and all I can say the vast majority of time I saw staff run off their feet, only once did I see a receptionist who has a very easy going gig and that was in an off site specialist part of the hospital.

The point my experience's tell me noting about the public service nor how the HSE is run, nor would I post vulgar and irrelevant information to support the notion that because a hospital department has two receptionists the whole of the HSE must be over staffed.

stimpson

stimpson wrote: »

Funnily enough I'm sitting in the Mater just now. 2 receptionists at radiology just having a chat. Brought down to X-ray and there's another 2 receptionists having the craic.

It's a hard life they have...

I'd say you would be lovely to work for, not even allowing people to have a chat.

Only pure slave driving work places have a problem with employees having chats at times throughout the day. Being able to have the craic with people is often the difference between a good work place with good moral and a boring one.

stimpson

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

I'd say you would be lovely to work for, not even allowing people to have a chat.

Only pure slave driving work places have a problem with employees having chats at times throughout the day. Being able to have the craic with people is often the difference between a good work place with good moral and a boring one.

It's not primary school - it's the real world, and this one actually happens to be life and death. If they want to chat they can do it on their break. I don't sit around in work all day having the craic.

I've just spent 2 hours in a waiting room for a 10 minute appointment, as they seem to think it's OK to book all 25 clinic appointments for exactly the same time. I'm not particularly concerned with their "moral" - I'm more concerned with their ability to do the job efficiently.