Benchmakring III without the comparison

Vizzy

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?

Agree with you 100% and unlike others I read your post properly and understood what you were asking.
As an aside, numbers in the sector where I am working have been reduced by 23.48% ( I included the 2 decimal places because I would hate to be accused of overstating the reduction)

PeteFalk78

Oops apologies Godge, for some reason I though you were questioning my figure of 10%

Godge

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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??

You have to balance that argument (and where is the evidence to support it?) against the fact that we are not talking about widgets losing jobs, we are talking about people.

You will find across the developed world, that except in cases of immediate bankruptcy (which didn't apply to Ireland) businesses tend to prioritise voluntary redundancy for the simple reason it is better to keep people who want to work for you and lose people that don't. When you marry that with a redeployment programme which, for all my own scepticism, appears to have worked, redploying skills where they are needed, the system has got a better outcome than compulsory redundancy would have given us.

Quin_Dub

Godge wrote: »

You have to balance that argument (and where is the evidence to support it?) against the fact that we are not talking about widgets losing jobs, we are talking about people.

You will find across the developed world, that except in cases of immediate bankruptcy (which didn't apply to Ireland) businesses tend to prioritise voluntary redundancy for the simple reason it is better to keep people who want to work for you and lose people that don't. When you marry that with a redeployment programme which, for all my own scepticism, appears to have worked, redploying skills where they are needed, the system has got a better outcome than compulsory redundancy would have given us.

Largely true - But the Public Service isn't really the same as a Private business.

I fully accept that voluntary packages are the easier option (certainly less fractious and better for employee morale etc.).

Given that the common perception (perhaps totally unfounded , but it's never really been refuted) is that the Public sector has a poor distribution of staff - Too many admin and not enough front-line for example I firmly believe that a targeted redundancy program should have been used , along with the voluntary one to drive the necessary reductions and the associated improvements..

kippy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Largely true - But the Public Service isn't really the same as a Private business.

I fully accept that voluntary packages are the easier option (certainly less fractious and better for employee morale etc.).

Given that the common perception (perhaps totally unfounded , but it's never really been refuted) is that the Public sector has a poor distribution of staff - Too many admin and not enough front-line for example I firmly believe that a targeted redundancy program should have been used , along with the voluntary one to drive the necessary reductions and the associated improvements..

You've got to remember IF there was a targeted redundancy programme, the states obligations to that ex worker don't just finish with the redundancy payment.
How would things look also if within 5 years of redundancies, the state taking on more employees? Not exactly a good use of funds/resources.

Quin_Dub

kippy wrote: »

You've got to remember IF there was a targeted redundancy programme, the states obligations to that ex worker don't just finish with the redundancy payment.
How would things look also if within 5 years of redundancies, the state taking on more employees? Not exactly a good use of funds/resources.

So your argument against targeted redundancy is that we shouldn't do it because we'd have to pay them dole anyway?

Also - who cares if they hire more staff the very next day?

If they lay-off 50 people from unnecessary back-office admin roles and hire more front-line staff how is that a bad thing?

kippy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So your argument against targeted redundancy is that we shouldn't do it because we'd have to pay them dole anyway?

Also - who cares if they hire more staff the very next day?

If they lay-off 50 people from unnecessary back-office admin roles and hire more front-line staff how is that a bad thing?

My argument is that it's not as cost effective to make a member of the public sector redundant from the employers point of view and it's something that needs to be thought about long and hard, especially when the public sector is such a diverse area, where re-deployments may work out far cheaper and effective in the longer run.

Who cares if we hire more staff the next day? Again - I'd care if we'd just spent thousands making someone redundant as well as the money to support them, then spend time and indeed more money hiring someone else when a redeployment MAY have resolved the issue.

Gumbo

kippy wrote: »

My argument is that it's not as cost effective to make a member of the public sector redundant from the employers point of view and it's something that needs to be thought about long and hard, especially when the public sector is such a diverse area, where re-deployments may work out far cheaper and effective in the longer run.

Who cares if we hire more staff the next day? Again - I'd care if we'd just spent thousands making someone redundant as well as the money to support them, then spend time and indeed more money hiring someone else when a redeployment MAY have resolved the issue.

Or, if we have spent thousands making that person redundant and then he/she gets the job that's advertised a few months later!

Quin_Dub

kippy wrote: »

My argument is that it's not as cost effective to make a member of the public sector redundant from the employers point of view and it's something that needs to be thought about long and hard, especially when the public sector is such a diverse area, where re-deployments may work out far cheaper and effective in the longer run.

Who cares if we hire more staff the next day? Again - I'd care if we'd just spent thousands making someone redundant as well as the money to support them, then spend time and indeed more money hiring someone else when a redeployment MAY have resolved the issue.

Of course redeployment is a viable and workable option.

But you can't redeploy an accountant as a fireman , can you...

Not saying that Redeployment , Voluntary redundancy etc. should not have been used.. I'm saying that targeted Involuntary redundancies should have been used as well....

It's not either or - It's use them all....

kippy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Of course redeployment is a viable and workable option.

But you can't redeploy an accountant as a fireman , can you...

Not saying that Redeployment , Voluntary redundancy etc. should not have been used.. I'm saying that targeted Involuntary redundancies should have been used as well....

It's not either or - It's use them all....

But if you are eventually, within a short time frame say, of a few years, going to be rehiring for "generic" posts isn't the cost of that involuntary redundancy completely avoidable?
As I said, the public service is diverse.

Quin_Dub

kippy wrote: »

But if you are eventually, within a short time frame say, of a few years, going to be rehiring for "generic" posts isn't the cost of that involuntary redundancy completely avoidable?
As I said, the public service is diverse.

Possibly and of course all decisions need to be fully thought out taking into account all the potential issues.

But I'd suggest that not having someone on the pay-roll for a number of years, even allowing for potential costs of dole payments is still cheaper overall than keeping them on doing nothing until "things pick up again".

Fundamentally though ,not being able to use Involuntary redundancy because of union intransigence makes the Public sector less efficient than it should be..

Not advocating mass forced lay-offs or having the "Bobs" wandering the halls firing people..but it's a tool that has it's value when used correctly.

And the unions won't let it be used...

Godge

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Largely true - But the Public Service isn't really the same as a Private business.

I fully accept that voluntary packages are the easier option (certainly less fractious and better for employee morale etc.).

Given that the common perception (perhaps totally unfounded , but it's never really been refuted) is that the Public sector has a poor distribution of staff - Too many admin and not enough front-line for example I firmly believe that a targeted redundancy program should have been used , along with the voluntary one to drive the necessary reductions and the associated improvements..

The common perception is totally unfounded, I can't locate it now but there was a study done by the ESRI (I think) which looked at OECD figures and concluded that our civil service (where most of the central admin is) was under-staffed by comparison.

Has the voluntary redundancy scheme worked?

http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/Employment_Reports/dec13.pdf

This is an interesting report.

Within the health services, support staff have been cut by 23.1% from 2009 to 2013 as they have been replaced with outsourcing. Apart from that, the greatest cuts have been in admin (-13.7%) while the only increase has been in Medical and Dental Consultants (+2.5%) as we gradually move towards a consultant-delivered service.

Nurses have taken a big hit (- 12.9%) but I have previously presented data which showed clearly that we are at the top of the rankings when it comes to nurses per patient or nurses per head of population.

It is hard to know from the outside whether that is enough (ten years ago I could have given a more definitive judgment) but there certainly has been a lot of progress and change.

Larbre34

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-objections-blamed-for-delay-in-public-pay-talks-1.2230562

"The relationship between pay and reform has been established and will not be broken", said a senior government source reputedly.

That's assuming the membership votes in favour of a continuing deal. I know from my own wife that they felt bounced into these things before, I suspect they won't be giving up the cards they hold for €7 a week after tax, not if it keeps the door open for further erosion of conditions down the line.

Godge

Larbre34 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-objections-blamed-for-delay-in-public-pay-talks-1.2230562

"The relationship between pay and reform has been established and will not be broken", said a senior government source reputedly.

That's assuming the membership votes in favour of a continuing deal. I know from my own wife that they felt bounced into these things before, I suspect they won't be giving up the cards they hold for €7 a week after tax, not if it keeps the door open for further erosion of conditions down the line.

There will be significant problems getting a deal through the unions.

€1,000 a year for two years sounds like a lot but when you think that a teacher at the top of the scale has probably lost at least around €7-8,000, they will probably want a bit more than that.

ardmacha

Godge wrote: »

There will be significant problems getting a deal through the unions.

€1,000 a year for two years sounds like a lot but when you think that a teacher at the top of the scale has probably lost at least around €7-8,000, they will probably want a bit more than that.

Anyone over 65K who was screwed by Haddington Road would be down 12k+, 1K is not going to impress, especially if you were a just a small bit above 65K and had much greater cut than someone earning 90% as much as you.

However this is par for the course. The "restoration" is entirely unrelated to the cuts, which in turn were largely unrelated to any increases paid in previous years and all of this entirely unrelated to what the going rate for the job is. :eek:

ardmacha

Once again I cannot see why any union representing better paid people should agree to this. The government threatened all sorts of legislation last time, this type threat approach might not fly this time.

The only rational public pay policy is to pay the rate for the job and expect the job to be done.
This is not it.

---

The pay restoration will be achieved through a combination of adjustments to the public service pension levy and a partial reversal of the 2010 public service pay cuts.

The agreement - which will be known as the Landsdowne Road Agreement - will also see the protections of the Haddington Road Agreement extended to September 2018.

It also focuses on oversight arrangements, dispute resolution and outsourcing protections.

IMPACT says the agreement achieves the essential objective of fairness, while at the same time offering greater benefit to lower-paid public servants by using a flat-rate pay adjustment.

The Minister for Public Expenditure Brendan Howlin is to give a press conference this evening.

"I welcome the agreement that has been arrived at today, May 29, 2015, and would like to thank everybody who has been involved in the process," he said.

"I believe that it strikes the right balance between the legitimate aspirations of public servants for pay recovery and sustaining our improving public finances.

"It will secure a peaceful industrial relations environment until September 2018.

"It reinforces the ongoing commitment of public servants to the wider reform agenda in the public service.

"It begins the process of unwinding the financial emergency measures in a prudent and sustainable fashion thereby reducing the risk to the sustainability of the public finances.

"It targets the bulk of available discretionary resources at lower and middle income public servants.

"It meets the existing commitments made under the Haddington Road Agreement (HRA).

"It is only made possible by the improvement in our economy delivered by this Government and the public service reform which has been delivered by public servants in recent years.

"Separate from this agreement with the public-sector unions, it is my intention to fulfil my commitment to begin the orderly restoration of public-sector pension reductions made in recent years."

Godge

http://www.impact.ie/outcome-of-public-sector-pay-talks/


"Subject to the ratification of the agreement by members of the affiliated unions, the phases of pay restoration will occur as follows:

2016

PHASE ONE: 1st January – The pension levy threshold (the salary amount above which the levy is payable) increases to €24,750 (from the current threshold of €15,000).
Annualised salaries up to €24,000 will increase by 2.5% through a partial reversal of the 2010 public service pay cut.
Annualised salaries between €24,001 and €31,000 will increase by 1% via the same mechanism.
PHASE TWO: 1st September – Pension levy threshold increases to €28,750.
The combination of these measures in 2016 will improve all public service full time incomes by around €1,000 per annum
2017

PHASE THREE: 1st September – Annualised salaries up to €65,000 increase by €1,000 per annum.
Pay restoration for staff earning more than €65,000 negotiated as part of the Haddington Road Agreement (HRA) will apply on 1st April 2017 and 1st January 2018."


Those on the higher rates of taxation and higher rates of PRD will not gain as much as those on lower pay.

glacial_pace71

I think some of the references to "dispute resolution mechanisms" arose from a slight misconception on the part of some FG Ministers, e.g. the commercial semi-states have had a few rows that don't sit easily with the plain vanilla industrial relations dispute. Consider, for example, the Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann strike on tendering for certain routes: many would see that as being a matter of Government policy and that staff weren't being forced to move with the successful tender for the various routes, i.e. strike action was barely legal. However, many FG ministers have a bit of the colonial master "they all look the same to me" when having to discuss anything vaguely in the realm of public sector. Hence the bells and whistles of reaffirming commitments to this and that when the issues arose in an unrelated sector.
I'm not too enthused about what I've heard thus far, but will refrain from judgment until I've seen the actual text. On the point re max of scales, if you look at the LSI 1, LSI 2 issue there are staff still only reaching their 2009 gross rates of pay in 2016, i.e. it affects more than just those on the max of any scale. I think the combination of a reversal of some of the 7% pay cut and a reversal of some of the 7.5% PRD levy is to spread the deal very thinly in trying to please everyone, e.g. it may backfire with the lower paid and the higher ranking combining to reject it.
The continuation of the loss of many shift allowances and the additional unpaid hours will probably disappoint those who hoped to have some respite re the additional childcare costs incurred. (Even a full reversal of the cuts and levies would only compensate for the longer working week childcare expenses for many in those circumstances). However, once again I believe that the Govt needs to hold up a severed head or two as a trophy and the "ha, we make these btches sweat" does go down well at the party conventions. I think the adding of a 'Lansdowne Road' label to other ongoing cost savings measures, e.g. the various redeployment schemes, will be inevitable but there's an aching political need to claim ownership of any activity of that nature.
Given the dire financial circumstances of many families (who don't qualify for Family Income Supplement because the PRD levy affects their net pay rather than their gross income, thus putting them outside the threshold) I wouldn't be surprised if say 20% or more of the union membership will vote for anything at all that reduces some of the financial hardship.
I'd find it difficult to vote in favour of a deal of this nature, as its in effect affirming the right of the Govt to intervene in a Haddington Rd style irrational manner on any issue it likes, e.g. from progression on an incremental scale to when overtime can be rostered, and it'd be tantamount to affirming the Govt of the day can play with contractual terms and conditions in a capricious manner in accordance with the electoral cycle. However, I'd be very, very reluctant to vote down anything that would help those in dire need.

TOEJOE

How will this effect retired public servant pensions ,say one (at a given grade) who retired in 2010 as opposed to one who retired in 2014?
Will there be just a general increase for both?.

ardmacha

glacial_pace71 wrote: »

I'd find it difficult to vote in favour of a deal of this nature, as its in effect affirming the right of the Govt to intervene in a Haddington Rd style irrational manner on any issue it likes, e.g. from progression on an incremental scale to when overtime can be rostered, and it'd be tantamount to affirming the Govt of the day can play with contractual terms and conditions in a capricious manner in accordance with the electoral cycle. However, I'd be very, very reluctant to vote down anything that would help those in dire need.

Precisly. Even if you were a union with people in the part of the pay scale where this is any use, it makes little sense to agree to arrangements that validate mucking about with contractual terms and conditions in a capricious manner in accordance with the electoral cycle, this is not in the interests of the employees or the nation.

Rightwing

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

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.

You'd have to ask why they were employed in the the first instance.

It's an absolute disgrace when unions can hold the country to ransom. Just as well the welfare punters don't have unions. :rolleyes:

Sheldons Brain

Rightwing wrote: »

You'd have to ask why they were employed in the the first instance.

Perhaps to provide service to the public?

It's an absolute disgrace when unions can hold the country to ransom.

It would be, if it were happening.

Rightwing

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Perhaps to provide service to the public?



It would be, if it were happening.

When numbers can be cut, and no one even notices, then no.

Now, front line staff are different, those numbers shouldn't have been reduced. Allowing nurses leave on payoffs was a retarded move. The deadwood in the civil service were the ones that should have been axed and middle management twiddling their thumbs.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

When numbers can be cut, and no one even notices, then no.

Now, front line staff are different, those numbers shouldn't have been reduced. Allowing nurses leave on payoffs was a retarded move. The deadwood in the civil service were the ones that should have been axed and middle management twiddling their thumbs.

We are one of the highest in the Oecd for nurses per patient and nurses per head of population. It is amazing to see how many of these myths get repeated by people who don't have a clue.

PeteFalk78

Rightwing wrote: »

Just as well the welfare punters don't have unions. :rolleyes:

How could welfare punters hold the country to ransom? Your knowledge of trade unionism and public sector doesn't extend far beyond using tired cliches and ignorant stereotyping.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

We are one of the highest in the Oecd for nurses per patient and nurses per head of population. It is amazing to see how many of these myths get repeated by people who don't have a clue.

But our prouctivity across the PS is far below other countries. Hence, we need for the extra numbers. :mad:

Idbatterim

How could welfare punters hold the country to ransom? Your knowledge of trade unionism and public sector doesn't extend far beyond using tired cliches and ignorant stereotyping.

any sector here can in theory hold the country to ransom. The issue is that Labour those jokes, claim to represent what many would deem to be the most vulnerable and the least vulnerable in society.

That is the cost of getting a left leading junior coalition party in, they punch way harder than you would expect. All the private sector should and have to do now, all 1.7 million of us, is vote for Renua and it wont matter that they likely would still be far smaller than FG, the country would be dragged from centre left to centre right, which would be a massive swing...

Some of the previous posts have said the public servants should be paid the going rate for their position and I totally agree with that. But the higher up the pay scales you go, the way less votes there are to buy. Say you will take 100,000 workers out of the tax net, theres a nice few votes, say that you will cut income taxes above E100,000 per annum, one will win you a large amount of votes, the other, very few... Its not even about whats right anymore, it never was, its about them making themselves look like they care, spreading the benefits of recovery to everyone, regardless of merit...

Still like I said before, at least these increases are going to the working, welfare should be frozen for years AFAIC... If Labour and FG tie up the private sector and PS, its enough to not have to buy off pensioners and the unemployed too...

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

But our prouctivity across the PS is far below other countries. Hence, we need for the extra numbers. :mad:

Any figures to compare against there?

Rightwing

Idbatterim wrote: »

any sector here can in theory hold the country to ransom. The issue is that Labour those jokes, claim to represent what many would deem to be the most vulnerable and the least vulnerable in society.

That is the cost of getting a left leading junior coalition party in, they punch way harder than you would expect. All the private sector should and have to do now, all 1.7 million of us, is vote for Renua and it wont matter that they likely would still be far smaller than FG, the country would be dragged from centre left to centre right, which would be a massive swing...

Some of the previous posts have said the public servants should be paid the going rate for their position and I totally agree with that. But the higher up the pay scales you go, the way less votes there are to buy. Say you will take 100,000 workers out of the tax net, theres a nice few votes, say that you will cut income taxes above E100,000 per annum, one will win you a large amount of votes, the other, very few... Its not even about whats right anymore, it never was, its about them making themselves look like they care, spreading the benefits of recovery to everyone, regardless of merit...

Still like I said before, at least these increases are going to the working, welfare should be frozen for years AFAIC... If Labour and FG tie up the private sector and PS, its enough to not have to buy off pensioners and the unemployed too...

Good post up until the last sentence. The price of deals with the PS is too high, that's essentially what led us and the likes of Greece to bankruptcy, and why most countries are swamped with debt.

It's nice for the likes of the councils to be loaded up with scientists and archaeologists etc, but the bottom line is, the price for such extravagance is simply way too high.

Idbatterim

Good post up until the last sentence. The price of deals with the PS is too high, that's essentially what led us and the likes of Greece to bankruptcy, and why most countries are swamped with debt.

It's nice for the likes of the councils to be loaded up with scientists and archaeologists etc, but the bottom line is, the price for such extravagance is simply way too high.

Rightwing, I agree the cost is too high, but look at the options we had in election 2011. FF no way, SF no way, it was Labour and FG the electorate saw as viable options... We may have an option with Renua to replace Labour... Renua have stated they dont agree with the pay negotiations behind closed doors for a start... Its a pity FG didnt get a majority last time round IMO...

Sheldons Brain

Idbatterim wrote: »

Some of the previous posts have said the public servants should be paid the going rate for their position and I totally agree with that. But the higher up the pay scales you go, the way less votes there are to buy. Say you will take 100,000 workers out of the tax net, theres a nice few votes, say that you will cut income taxes above E100,000 per annum, one will win you a large amount of votes, the other, very few... Its not even about whats right anymore, it never was, its about them making themselves look like they care, spreading the benefits of recovery to everyone, regardless of merit...

This is only true if the electorate accept playing politics with the organisation of public services, rather than requiring them to be run right. Sadly, this is the case. It is astonishing how people that profess to loath politicians are then entirely supportive of political stunts that treat the electorate like imbeciles.

Idbatterim

I agree Sheldonsbrain. This is the problem though, you have vested interests, making decisions, that also benefit them, not simply in trying to maintain power, but also jacking up their own pay and pensions. This should be removed from them and given to some sort of independent committee or similar IMO. But there is the same likelihood of that, as there is of the tories wanting to change the first past the post system in the Uk...

I believe €12,000,000 is spent on public sector procurement per annum. Why not have an agreement, whereby the PS can start reaping the benefits of savings on public procurement. The problem when it is not your money, is that ultimately nobody gives a toss!

Larbre34

I wonder why the newly formed centralised Office of Government Procurement is trying to hobble small suppliers of goods and professional services? They do a good impression of it being their money..

Oh and can we avoid the Greek comparisions please? The Greek public services did actually bankrupt their economy, ours was bankrupted by shouldering private debt. Public servants were generally offending no one until the private sector financial collapse.

glacial_pace71

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree Sheldonsbrain. This is the problem though, you have vested interests, making decisions, that also benefit them, not simply in trying to maintain power, but also jacking up their own pay and pensions. This should be removed from them and given to some sort of independent committee or similar IMO. But there is the same likelihood of that, as there is of the tories wanting to change the first past the post system in the Uk...

I believe €12,000,000 is spent on public sector procurement per annum. Why not have an agreement, whereby the PS can start reaping the benefits of savings on public procurement. The problem when it is not your money, is that ultimately nobody gives a toss!

Unfortunately the procurement issue caused major problems. You'll recall that rightwing also mentioned the issue indirectly - via cuts to local authority staff and payments in social welfare - but you're both fishing in the same pond that has alas been somewhat contaminated by political ineptitude on the right and left.

The local authorities largely lost their housing function. In the region of €500 million is spent on private landlords of various descriptions, e.g. from D/Social Protection rent supplements/supports through to HSE emergency housing/accommodation interventions. This current expenditure is in turn a form of capital expenditure by the private individuals who buy housing stock to let. Of course the counter-argument is that the local authority house building programmes of the 1970s (for which Labour's Jim Tully took a bit too much credit) ended up being some of the heroin blackspots of the 1980s, as the housing points system was skewed to greatest socio-economic disadvantage and left communities unbalanced, particularly when combined with sell-offs of quality housing stock and grants to lose community leaders to private purchase schemes in the 1990s. The current system is very, very expensive and the supports are almost certainly factored into rent prices as they tend to be inflationary in nature rather than increasing housing supply. I can understand though that the local authorities don't have to worry about problem estates, and they can mix their housing rental stock between houses and apartments as the demographics change. Similarly, the value of building and owning was often overstated for local authorities, e.g. see the demolition of Ballymun and many other estates in which massive capital outlay was incurred.
Ok, long-winded but 2000s and the local authorities now lose household waste refuse collection due to political activity making the service unviable. Similarly so with the Household charges, which were then given to the Revenue and ABTRAN as the Local Property Tax (LPT). The local authorities are in the course of losing their water services function. They've also lost several sub-county authorities, e.g. although Bray, Drogheda and Dundalk were similar in size to Leitrim and Longford they were scrapped with as yet uncertain savings.
Overall there's quite good reason for the local government sector to lose staff on a considerable scale, but the taxpayers are now paying for their refuse collection and water as quasi-commercial services.
However, look at where the local authorities lost a service, student grants, and the initial chaos that followed. Ok, so SUSI (a combination of CD VEC/ETB and ABTRAN) managed to put together a very good service after a few years, but it took many sensitive changes to data protection protocols to allow a private company access D/Social Protection and Revenue data on families. Given that an ABTRAN employee was prosecuted for credit card fraud during the LPT saga did show that there are legitimate concerns with outsourcing certain functions to private companies that would have staff that could never have passed a Revenue or civil service exam or reached the expected standards of probity in handling sensitive data.

Now on that point re procurement. The politicians were only too glad to nod and wink to IBEC when certain companies won contracts for call centre work, e.g. as mentioned above for the LPT and for SUSI. The problem is that it became seen as part of the problem of political cronyism, e.g. politicians were demanding €300 million of cutbacks under Haddington Rd but were ramping up expenditure elsewhere on their own pet projects or constituency needs. It therefore left many legitimate attempts at outsourcing as being perceived that it was politically driven to award certain in the Construction Industry Federation, IBEC (and its mini-me Small Firms Association), ISME and so forth.

We're now left with a few strange inclusions in the text of the draft agreement, in which outsourcing and related public procurement activities are to be the subject of anxious scrutiny rather than continuing with the working assumption that it should automatically be part of any consideration when looking at how to restructure a workload.

See agreement:
http://www.pseu.ie/_fileupload/Agreements/Public%20Service%20Stability%20Agreement%202013-2018.pdf

See also D/PER's previous guidance and the strong emphasis on outsourcing as part of External Service Delivery:
http://www.per.gov.ie/alternative-models-of-service-delivery/ and http://www.per.gov.ie/esd-plans/

Some FF and FG politicians, and their IBEC counterparts, will need to take a long look at themselves for undermining that whole element of the reform agenda. I doubt it'll halt but some union members are convinced that politicians are trousering money on the procurement issue.

Idbatterim

Oh and can we avoid the Greek comparisions please? The Greek public services did actually bankrupt their economy, ours was bankrupted by shouldering private debt. Public servants were generally offending no one until the private sector financial collapse.

the greek comparisons are an exaggeration, but we are somewhere between them and the far more mature and better run German, Scandinavian countries etc...

Icepick

Blanket pay rise is an expected but nonetheless an incredibly foolish decision.
If anything, money should go into hiring new staff and to reward high performers who are paid on par and where the PS is competing with the private sector on pay.

Black Menorca

This is at best a moderate first step to pay restoration with limited restoration over a future 3 year period. It is progress from the FEMPI cutting fetish and it is pleasing to see the pension pay cut being drastically diminished for lower paid workers.

I will await information meetings with the union before deciding on whether to accept this or not.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Larbre34 wrote: »

I wonder why the newly formed centralised Office of Government Procurement is trying to hobble small suppliers of goods and professional services? They do a good impression of it being their money..

Whats the problem with the OGP? If they were to spend government money without a care in the world they'd equally be at fault :rolleyes:

Icepick wrote: »

Blanket pay rise is an expected but nonetheless an incredibly foolish decision.

If anything, money should go into hiring new staff and to reward high performers who are paid on par and where the PS is competing with the private sector on pay.

In my case for me to return to my PS post which I can hold for another 3 years while on career break I would need at least a 20k per annum rise to put my Public Service job on a par with my Private Sector job.

Icepick

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In my case for me to return to my PS post which I can hold for another 3 years while on career break I would need at least a 20k per annum rise to put my Public Service job on a par with my Private Sector job.

If true it shows that it's probably a business the government shouldn't be in in the first place.

Rightwing

Crazy policy. Just coming out of a severe crisis and they are making the exact same mistakes again. You just can't beat downright stupidity.

Black Menorca

Rightwing wrote: »

Crazy policy. Just coming out of a severe crisis and they are making the exact same mistakes again. You just can't beat downright stupidity.

Thats right, its the lower paid Public Servants who brought down Anglo. Heck, not only Anglo, but Lehamns too while you're at it.

Really people, if you're going to begrudge PS workers a partial restoration of pay over the coming 3 years, at least do it from an accurate perspective.

Rightwing

Black Menorca wrote: »

Thats right, its the lower paid Public Servants who brought down Anglo. Heck, not only Anglo, but Lehamns too while you're at it.

Really people, if you're going to begrudge PS workers a partial restoration of pay over the coming 3 years, at least do it from an accurate perspective.

Only the extremely naive and gullible buy the 'Anglo' card. Admittedly, that's probably the majority of the population.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Icepick wrote: »

If true it shows that it's probably a business the government shouldn't be in in the first place.

It's very true and my specialty is procurement which is obviously quite central to how a government dept works.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

Crazy policy. Just coming out of a severe crisis and they are making the exact same mistakes again. You just can't beat downright stupidity.

What mistakes are you talking about? Can you clarify?

Rightwing

kceire wrote: »

What mistakes are you talking about? Can you clarify?

Increasing PS wages and restoring welfare bonuses. Only a lunatic would do this imo.

Letree

These small payrises rises won't be complete until the end of 2017. So after nearly a decade public servants pay will still not have come near what it was in 2010. And people are hopping mad. Thankfully the people making these decisions don't give take much heed of a few moaners online and in newspaper comment sections.

Icepick

Letree wrote: »

These small payrises rises won't be complete until the end of 2017. So after nearly a decade public servants pay will still not have come near what it was in 2010. And people are hopping mad. Thankfully the people making these decisions don't give take much heed of a few moaners online and in newspaper comment sections.

That's because the 2010 levels were madness in practice.

Black Menorca

Letree wrote: »

These small payrises rises won't be complete until the end of 2017. So after nearly a decade public servants pay will still not have come near what it was in 2010. And people are hopping mad. Thankfully the people making these decisions don't give take much heed of a few moaners online and in newspaper comment sections.

Very sobering when you put it this way.

Very modest on pay, but t might just be enough to get union members onboard and Labour into Government next year again.

PeteFalk78

Rightwing wrote: »

Increasing PS wages and restoring welfare bonuses. Only a lunatic would do this imo.

Wrong again Rightwing, its called "Pay restoration" which is part of the FEMPI legislation.

Rightwing

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Wrong again Rightwing, its called "Pay restoration" which is part of the FEMPI legislation.

They must admit that benchmarking was wrong in the first instance and has had catastrophic consequences. Restoring these, will have more catastrophic consequences.