Benchmakring III without the comparison

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

I find the tone of the government and unsions offensive, so you tell me one ps employee who does not want a payrise otherwise I repeat all the ps piggies want a sip from the trough. The fact that they want this instead of a tax break for all would further this image in my head and in many others.

This is simply laughable .. show me one worker that doesn't want a pay rise and a tax break. The idea that it seems OK for the private sector to berate the PS for wanting to see the start of a slow gradual return of the very significant pay cuts they sufferred beginning back in 2008 .. 7 years ago .. while at the same time arguing that seeking tax breaks which would benefit themselves is not in anyway looking after No. 1 is beyond comment. Keep it up .. one wonders how some people find the time to holds down a responsible results orientated job

Icepick

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.
First create a system where it's normal and desirable to fire underperformers and then we can talk about pay rises coming from the private sector's money.

Gumbo

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.
First create a system where it's normal and desirable to fire underperformers and then we can talk about pay rises coming from the private sector's money.

The "I pay your wages" moto has reappeared I see.

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.
First create a system where it's normal and desirable to fire underperformers and then we can talk about pay rises coming from the private sector's money.

And again...its not just 'the private sectors money'.
We are all taxpayers and all want to see the money spent wisely.

glacial_pace71

kippy wrote: »

And again...its not just 'the private sectors money'.
We are all taxpayers and all want to see the money spent wisely.

Just on that related point by Fliball too, he/she did refer to having bred/produced offspring, which can give rise to holier-than-thou within the 'I pay your wages ... I pay your benefits' sub-set of these scenarios.

Of the 50 billion in 'voted' current expenditure, i.e. it needs to be passed by the Oireachtas via the Estimates process (Vote 26 = education, Vote 37 = social protection and so forth), about 20 billion of the 50 billion goes on 'social protection' measures. That doesn't just include dole or the state pension but also includes rent supplements and related matters. The Child Benefit figure is over 2 billion.

So, for the 2 billion spent on 150,000 or so public sector pensioners that many right-wingers want to see dead, there is a corresponding danger that some of the stone-throwers could find their glasshouses under attack from single childless disgruntled right-wingers, who regard 2 billion in offspring supports as an unbearable taxpayer expense (quite apart from their usual grumbles on education expenditure or health services for the young and the elderly). It eventually moves from their simple 'eliminate the untermenschen' to a free for all, in which a whole generation of workforce age become like Cronus and devour their children.

Celticfire

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.

Actually in the second round of benchmarking a value of 12% which the benchmarking body said I'd be due to receive to place me equal to my private sector equivalent was held back due to job security and pension.

ardmacha

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.

Some sectors are intrinsically stable, education, health etc and so job security is high in the sector. Other sectors vary greatly by the state of the economy. There is no point in confusing these two.

Icepick

ardmacha wrote: »

Some sectors are intrinsically stable, education, health etc and so job security is high in the sector. Other sectors vary greatly by the state of the economy. There is no point in confusing these two.

How many people lost their PS job involuntarily since '08 for example?

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

How many people lost their PS job involuntarily since '08 for example?

No permanent staff were made redundant if that is what you are getting at.
One of the main reasons for this is the cost to the state.
Making an employee redundant costs the state far more as an employer than it does to a private sector employer.
Not much point in spending money on redundancies and ongoing supports for those made redundant if the same overall result will be achieved, albeit over time, by removal of numbers via other mechanisms, pay cuts, and all of the other terms and conditions changes brought in with CP and HR

Idbatterim

well Fliball. I agree witha lot of what you are saying, and it seems the

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/lucinda-creighton-launches-renua-ireland-party-1.2138379

Renua Ireland will be positioned to the right of centre, with policies that it describes as pro-enterprise, pro-business and geared towards entrepreneurship. However, it has also asserted that its social policies will compassionate, with an emphasis on supporting the most vulnerable in society.
The party has said it has an ambitious reform agenda and is in favour of free and whipless votes on matters of conscience. It is also setting out comprehensive policies to effect radical reform of the public service.
The childcare expert Shane Dunphy is also a declared candidate and the financial commentator Karl Deeter is the party’s ethics officer.

They have also stated they dont believe in benchmarking agreements behind closed doors...

ardmacha

Icepick wrote: »

How many people lost their PS job involuntarily since '08 for example?

I posted that the PS dealt with sectors that were stable and so did not require layoff and you posted this pointless response.

Vincents Hospital, Trintity College, The Naval Service etc continued to operate during this period, why would they layoff people, they needed more not less.

Idbatterim wrote:

They have also stated they dont believe in benchmarking agreements behind closed doors...

And rightly so. But publicising things in this country is problematic which the general quality of public debate is so ridiculous. How many comments on PS pay have there been in the last month or so which completely ignore that PS remuneration was cut in an unprincipled way by far more than comparable sectors? There are sensible observations to be made, but people just rant, and even those that know better just rant to fit in with the crowd.

Idbatterim

And rightly so. But publicising things in this country is problematic which the general quality of public debate is so ridiculous. How many comments on PS pay have there been in the last month or so which completely ignore that PS remuneration was cut in an unprincipled way by far more than comparable sectors? There are sensible observations to be made, but people just rant, and even those that know better just rant to fit in with the crowd

My honest opinion is, that it is such a complex and grey area. Ultimately though, they want pay restored to boom times, as if that is "the norm", in my opinion there are areas that should be targeted before buying the next election and these areas are not first and foremost, in my back pocket. But I don't have an upcoming election and power to preserve...

The question is, why should pay simply be restored, to what is deemed "the norm" when you factor in all of the benefits of the job and the fact that many positions are still remunerated better than private sector, with all of the pro's that come with the jobs. Why is Ireland the exception on this v our European peers?

These shower and I mean all of them SF, FF, FG, Labour are going to come knocking on the door in a few months, offering up a measly few euro in income tax reductions, few more euro on welfare, in the pockets of public servants, whatever! How about they solve some real critical issues, the housing crisis in Dublin that is costing people a fortune per month in rent or on mortgages, the appalling public transport "system" that we have here, they can start on that before offering their pathetic few extra euro a week in my back pocket, that they obviously deem will be enough for the electorate...

We hear about the problems with the HSE, people on trolleys, people dying due to poor care, cuts to the GENUINELY vulnerable which are seriously impacting them and what they are now proposing is taking more out of the tax net (who already contribute as good as nothing in direct taxes ( a large part of them problem in this country), PS pay restoration) The quality of government here and our options are appalling and reckless IMO...

And I agree with your totally the quality of debate here is absolutely appalling...

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

How about they solve some real critical issues, the housing crisis in Dublin

The problem is that not enough houses are being built at the moment.
The developors are making more money by selling to the public rather than the Local Authorities in most cases.

Dublin City Council for example are actively trying to buy newly constructed houses from developers at the moment.

Idbatterim wrote: »

that is costing people a fortune per month in rent or on mortgages

How do you fix this though?
Do we all get discounts on our mortgages?
How can we invite landlords to reduce rent? There is already so many taxes on Landlords that its become a no win business!

Reforms to the Rent allowance Scheme etc have to be brought in to protect the landlord, its no wonder LL's will not accept these people as they are waiting 3 months for the first payment in cases, then the final 3 months are withheld by the tennant in other cases!

Idbatterim

How do you fix this though?
Do we all get discounts on our mortgages?
How can we invite landlords to reduce rent? There is already so many taxes on Landlords that its become a no win business!

Reforms to the Rent allowance Scheme etc have to be brought in to protect the landlord, its no wonder LL's will not accept these people as they are waiting 3 months for the first payment in cases, then the final 3 months are withheld by the tennant in other cases!

Ok the banks have effectively been forced to reduce variable rate interest rates on mortgages for the "greater good". So I would suggest Nama starts doing something similar, if builders do not have the funds to do so or dont have the margins they need. Start with lowering the cost of building, which I believe is being looked into now. Potentially start taxing sites in dublin city that are not being developed ( I believe or read a while ago, they were looking into this) In some areas, out around Sandyford, Leopardstown etc, there are single houses on large amounts of land, maybe it is time to start taxing single dwellings on large amounts of land, at a high rate if the site is suitable for more housing or demolition of the existing one and a new development built on site (not sure of the legalities of this) Allow far higher densities in the docklands, what is being built down there is a disgraceful use of dwindling amounts of prime location, commercial rent's rocketing again, (threatening our competitiveness) In certain hubs with good transport connections, build huge amounts of apartments, but ones that are also capable of comfortably raising a family... So families could actually deem them a viable alternative to houses, which are in such high demand...

They are some suggestions. Maybe housing is something that the government should be involved in, it is critical to all of us and maybe the developers, speculators and land owners shouldn't be allowed cream it off, at great expense to the rest of us...

Build MN, the luas connecting cherrywood with bray, places there are still a lot of land available and build the housing in close and closeish proximity at a very high density...

Also and I have read this being discussed on the property and accommodation forum, do something to get the elderly out of "family homes" and into retirement communities etc...

ardmacha

Idbatterim wrote: »

My honest opinion is, that it is such a complex and grey area. Ultimately though, they want pay restored to boom times, as if that is "the norm", in my opinion there are areas that should be targeted before buying the next election and these areas are not first and foremost, in my back pocket. But I don't have an upcoming election and power to preserve...

The last thing politicians want is some kind of independent analysis of PS pay. Such an analysis would give the wrong answers. It might well recommend increases for relatively well paid people, audit specialists in the Revenue, biotechnology professors in universities, brain surgeons, etc without recommending more money for the clerks in general, preventing "deals" and "fair" arrangements.

Idbatterim

The last thing politicians want is some kind of independent analysis of PS pay. Such an analysis would give the wrong answers. It might well recommend increases for relatively well paid people, audit specialists in the Revenue, biotechnology professors in universities, brain surgeons, etc without recommending more money for the clerks in general, preventing "deals" and "fair" arrangements.

I agree and these "well paid" people are being crucified on the marginal rate of tax... The headline gross salary and the net pay are two very different things here for even middle earners, never mind high income earners...

Icepick

kippy wrote: »

And again...its not just 'the private sectors money'.
We are all taxpayers and all want to see the money spent wisely.

Where do you think the net part of PS salaries comes from?

Anyway, you avoided my main point - we need to reform PS so that there is a system where under-performing employees go through a proper process that allows redundancies if they don't change.

There should also be no automatic pay rises (increments). It's all needs to be tied to performance etc.

ardmacha

Icepick wrote: »

Where do you think the net part of PS salaries comes from?

Anyway, you avoided my main point - we need to reform PS so that there is a system where under-performing employees go through a proper process that allows redundancies if they don't change.

There should also be no automatic pay rises (increments). It's all needs to be tied to performance etc.

Redundancy means there is no need for you, under-performing employees are sacked.

glacial_pace71

Bear in mind that teachers are not employed by the State, but by the local Board of Management of a school (which is usually under the patronage of a particular religious denomination). The Department of Education & Skills manages the payroll on behalf of schools but is not the employer.

If teachers were the subject of the Redundancy Payments Acts we would be in a situation in which they'd be paid a wad of cash every time they were released by one school and employed by another. (Pupil-teacher ratios determine the number of teachers a school can retain in the event of enrolment numbers dropping in a particular area, so it's a regular enough occurrence).

Why on earth would be hand over money as redundancy payments, just so that some right wing commentators can cheer on the fact that there would have been large scale redundancies in the public sector?

As it stands the redeployment scheme is working, and in quite a transparent manner, e.g. go to a Govt website and look at the actually existing reality outside the commentariat's opinion pieces:

http://education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Services/Teacher-Allocations-Staffing/Teacher-Allocations-and-Redeployment-Panels/

There's a pattern in much of the media commentary, e.g. it usually starts with a 'I pay your wages' and if the person is identified as a net beneficiary rather than a net contributor (e.g. pick so many sectors of the economy that are dependent on public procurement, such as construction) then there's the usual "you're all overpaid and lazy" line, which usually mutates into something on the lines of defending various cutbacks without much knowledge of what this had involved, then topped off with something about tackling underperformance or tackling staff redeployment/redundancy issues (once again, without much interest in looking at what's actually happening).

The original post mentioned 'Benchmarking III', yet we are in a situation in which the Government could well lose a legal challenge if it attempts to extend emergency legislation that it has in effect undermined itself. Reversals of pay cuts will of course be referred to as 'increases' but the status quo ante is still the situation which applied prior to the invocation of emergency powers legislation. The Govt needs to put together a realistic set of proposals but the time-frame is narrowing.

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

Where do you think the net part of PS salaries comes from?

Anyway, you avoided my main point - we need to reform PS so that there is a system where under-performing employees go through a proper process that allows redundancies if they don't change.

There should also be no automatic pay rises (increments). It's all needs to be tied to performance etc.

Tax payers.
We all pay tax.
From the private sector worker, to the self employed, to the guy on social welfare, to the guy in the public service, to the multinational company, to the small business etc etc etc
I am not avoiding your main point. I agree wholeheartedly with it.
Technically increments are tied to performance although how real in practice that is a major bone of contention.
Under performing employees should indeed be subjected to those policies and again, technically there are fairly rigid polices in place that allow for dealing with under performance but again how real they are in practice is questionable.

Rightwing

Icepick wrote: »

Where do you think the net part of PS salaries comes from?

Anyway, you avoided my main point - we need to reform PS so that there is a system where under-performing employees go through a proper process that allows redundancies if they don't change.

There should also be no automatic pay rises (increments). It's all needs to be tied to performance etc.

The public sector is out of control. Just like the welfare payments & OAP entitlements. Too many easy votes at stake.

Idbatterim

The public sector is out of control. Just like the welfare payments & OAP entitlements. Too many easy votes at stake.

yeah and all 1.7 million of us private sector workers just get shafted and fobbed off ( I would say like the shower of idiots we are, but who were we to vote for? I have seen what FG have done, not much, they simply care far too much about concensus, like FF) more the middle and high income earners though, I am bloody sick of it! Pity FG dont do anywhere near as well for the ones they purport to represent i.e. private sector workers, as Labour do for the PS and welfare...

Rightwing

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah and all 1.7 million of us private sector workers just get shafted and fobbed off ( I would say like the shower of idiots we are, but who were we to vote for? I have seen what FG have done, not much, they simply care far too much about concensus, like FF) more the middle and high income earners though, I am bloody sick of it! Pity FG dont do anywhere near as well for the ones they purport to represent i.e. private sector workers, as Labour do for the PS and welfare...

That's a good question. Go with independents, the more of them that are in, the less functional Government will be.

Idbatterim

That's a good question. Go with independents, the more of them that are in, the less functional Government will be.

I am going to vote Renua based on the current options and what I have read on their proposals...

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah and all 1.7 million of us private sector workers just get shafted and fobbed off ( I would say like the shower of idiots we are, but who were we to vote for? I have seen what FG have done, not much, they simply care far too much about concensus, like FF) more the middle and high income earners though, I am bloody sick of it! Pity FG dont do anywhere near as well for the ones they purport to represent i.e. private sector workers, as Labour do for the PS and welfare...

Labour shafted the PS so I doubt they have PS backing this time round.

Black Menorca

Its thanks to Labour and Brendan Howlin that Public Sector workers have a chance to restore some if not all of the money they lost during the crash.

Gumbo

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its thanks to Labour and Brendan Howlin that Public Sector workers have a chance to restore some if not all of the money they lost during the crash.

They won't restore all the money. No way and no PS worker in their right mind would expect that straight away either.

Black Menorca

kceire wrote: »

They won't restore all the money. No way and no PS worker in their right mind would expect that straight away either.

No, not straight away. But its great to finally see serious engagement. an engagement we'd never get from FG and a McGuiness lead FF.

PS workers need to see Labour as their friends as the economy improves.

glacial_pace71

Black Menorca wrote: »

No, not straight away. But its great to finally see serious engagement. an engagement we'd never get from FG and a McGuiness lead FF.

PS workers need to see Labour as their friends as the economy improves.

Unfortunately Labour will forever be tainted by Haddington Road. It had an opportunity to meaningfully engage in long-term reform post-Croke Park cutbacks. Instead it took the path of least resistance: some FG engaged in political bedwetting and Labour, with a hyena-like appetite, tore in to the public service. "Tough decisions" always entail cutbacks for the poor and the vulnerable: almost every other category of public spending on the middle class remained untouched.
Oddly enough I'd almost vote for a Genghis Khan slash-and-burn rightwinger if the right one came along, as so much of public spending at the moment rewards insider-groups like the farming lobby, the construction industry and so forth. Labour offers nothing other than a mudguard to various Blueshirt antics, e.g. see the current disgrace re one-teacher schools, with poor educational outcomes: most parents have voted with their feet, moving children to schools 2 or (at most) 3 miles up the road, but the FG perception that "rural Ireland" entails slack-jawed gob-daws with poor dental work and comb-over wigs forever in thrall to the wisdom of their own parish pump's taychar sadly ends up with FG arm-twisting Labour to maintain unviable schools whilst still cutting back on language support and other socially necessary programmes. There isn't a shred of principle in Labour's "oh but I'm doing it for you" mudguard strategy.
At the end of the day FF, FG and Lab all represent a network of cronyism and patronage that - at present - finds it politically expedient to increase pay in bailed-out banks whilst telling public servants that it can't reverse cuts. But what happens in an economic upturn? How do you expect your country to defend you when the political circus clowns think they can stick their heads in the lions' jaws, engage in knife-throwing wheel antics and steer the show ponies around the ring? Haddington Road represented the deepest betrayal of any attempt at political reform, cutting the legs from under anyone engaged in long-term change management. Labour can't escape that, even if - after helping rob your purse - they now stuff a few bob down your blouse and claim that it's somehow an occasion to be grateful.

Black Menorca

Give it six months with more money in our pay packets thanks to a Labour Minister for PER and you could see Labour shoring up some of the support they lost and we need Labour in the next Government rather than an FG/FF coalition.

Sheldons Brain

glacial_pace71 wrote: »

Unfortunately Labour will forever be tainted by Haddington Road. It had an opportunity to meaningfully engage in long-term reform post-Croke Park cutbacks. Instead it took the path of least resistance: some FG engaged in political bedwetting and Labour, with a hyena-like appetite, tore in to the public service.

This. Haddington Road was a profoundly bad project, in no sense in the national interest. A truly "Labour" based party would have worked the Croke Park agreement and ensured that those who made good efforts to achieve savings under it were at least to some extent protected from further cuts. They were far more cynical than FG who at least have an explicit anti PS policy.

Icepick

kceire wrote: »

Labour shafted the PS so I doubt they have PS backing this time round.

No, they didn't. Just look at lay offs in other countries where reforms were implemented.
However their sense of entitlement is too high to recognise that.

Icepick

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This. Haddington Road was a profoundly bad project, in no sense in the national interest. A truly "Labour" based party would have worked the Croke Park agreement and ensured that those who made good efforts to achieve savings under it were at least to some extent protected from further cuts. They were far more cynical than FG who at least have an explicit anti PS policy.

Anti PS policy with 0 people fired...

Gumbo

Icepick wrote: »

No, they didn't.

Thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Yes they did.
Thats my opinion.

glacial_pace71

Icepick wrote: »

No, they didn't. Just look at lay offs in other countries where reforms were implemented.
However their sense of entitlement is too high to recognise that.

Actually a reduction of 40,000 whole time equivalents is quite significant. The sense of entitlement lies with those who expect greater levels of service provision from less staff working longer hours. See the institute for fiscal studies papers on actual levels of service reduction in UK for valid comparison. PS if you have never changed a political diaper you will find it hard to understand what a sense of entitlement can be.

PeteFalk78

Icepick wrote: »

Anti PS policy with 0 people fired...

But yet the PS workforce has been shrunk by 10%.

You would have rathered that those 10% had been fired? With their redundancy costing the country millions? Not making a whole lot of sense there Icepick are you?

Godge

Icepick wrote: »

No, they didn't. Just look at lay offs in other countries where reforms were implemented.
However their sense of entitlement is too high to recognise that.

go on, if you are so sure, produce the links.

Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure.

PeteFalk78

Godge wrote: »

go on, if you are so sure, produce the links.

Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure.

http://databank.per.gov.ie/Public_Service_Numbers.aspx?rep=SectorTrend

Happy?

Eric Cartman

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

http://databank.per.gov.ie/Public_Service_Numbers.aspx?rep=SectorTrend

Happy?

289642 as a percentage of 320387 is 90.4% , so we've had a 9.6% reduction in the PS since 2008 , less than 10%

PeteFalk78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

289642 as a percentage of 320387 is 90.4% , so we've had a 9.6% reduction in the PS since 2008 , less than 10%

Busted. You totally annihilated my statement. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing you never heard Carl Friedrich Gauss or Leonhard Euler. I thought mathematical rounding was mandatory in the primary school curriculum.

I'll give you a brief explanation. If the value you intend to round of is 6,7,8, or 9 then to round up and if it is 1, 2, 3, or 4 then you round down.
When the value you intend to round off is a 5, you must look at the previous value also If it is even, you round down. If it is odd, you round up.

Eric Cartman

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Busted. You totally annihilated my statement. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing you never heard Carl Friedrich Gauss or Leonhard Euler. I thought mathematical rounding was mandatory in the primary school curriculum.

I'll give you a brief explanation. If the value you intend to round of is 6,7,8, or 9 then to round up and if it is 1, 2, 3, or 4 then you round down.
When the value you intend to round off is a 5, you must look at the previous value also If it is even, you round down. If it is odd, you round up.

still doesn't make it over 10% mate.

PeteFalk78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

still doesn't make it over 10% mate.

Who said it was over 10%?

Eric Cartman

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Who said it was over 10%?

judging by godges comment, you, although the context may be wrong.

PeteFalk78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

judging by godges comment, you, although the context may be wrong.

Thanks for your input Eric

Vizzy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

judging by godges comment, you, although the context may be wrong.

I think you need to read Godge's comment again and who he asks to produce links etc.

"Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure. "

Is 9.6% around 10% or not ?

Eric Cartman

Vizzy wrote: »

I think you need to read Godge's comment again and who he asks to produce links etc.

"Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure. "

Is 9.6% around 10% or not ?

im not arguing with the 'around 10%' part , the way it read was like Pete was saying it was more than 10% then produced figures that show its less , I thought he made a serious error there but it read wrong

Vizzy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

im not arguing with the 'around 10%' part , the way it read was like Pete was saying it was more than 10% then produced figures that show its less , I thought he made a serious error there but it read wrong

Or put simply YOU read it wrong !!

Sheldons Brain

Icepick wrote: »

Anti PS policy with 0 people fired...

As pointed out elsewhere, why pay out redundancy to people when you actually need them.

Also the likes of education has not laid off people because there is now significantly more students than in 2008. Would you send these home and which ones would you send?

As the table above shows, sectors like local authorities that could be cut have been very significantly cut.

Godge

Vizzy wrote: »

I think you need to read Godge's comment again and who he asks to produce links etc.

"Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure. "

Is 9.6% around 10% or not ?

Icepick was claiming that other countries had done more to reduce their public service.

I knew ours had been reduced by around 10% - 9.6% is around 10% and I was wondering if Icepick could back up his claim on other countries.

If we have managed to reduce the public service by nearly 10% without forcing people out of a job (other than non-renewal of temporary staff), isn't that a good thing? If, as I suspect, that is among the biggest reductions achieved by any country, isn't it amazing?

Quin_Dub

Godge wrote: »

Icepick was claiming that other countries had done more to reduce their public service.

I knew ours had been reduced by around 10% - 9.6% is around 10% and I was wondering if Icepick could back up his claim on other countries.

If we have managed to reduce the public service by nearly 10% without forcing people out of a job (other than non-renewal of temporary staff), isn't that a good thing? If, as I suspect, that is among the biggest reductions achieved by any country, isn't it amazing?

Perhaps....

Who did we lose and who did we keep?

The advantage of "targeted" redundancy is that you can cut where the cuts are needed - Either in areas where we have too many staff or areas where the current staff just aren't up to it...

With Voluntary redundancy or "natural attrition" what tends to happen is that you lose the better staff , the ones that have more desirable skills etc. as they are the ones more likely to find other jobs..

So - when we lost 10% , did we lose fat or muscle??