Public service pay cut?

trashcan

Deleted User wrote: »

you preparing a similar thesis on demand for "the private sector" are you?

the idea, right from the off, that public services should be mainly measured on efficiency is so deeply flawed with even a moment's thought that one ought be embarrassed to take such a poseur position

if a service was so easily rated by mere efficiency or profit was either the driver or possible then it wouldnt be a public service is the fairly obvious conclusion.

you could make a child understand that, if the child hadn't already made its mind up on the subject and wasn't only trying to score lazy points.

secondly, public sector cannot declare bankruptcy and walk away from its services. that means a totally different structure and ideology to any private enterprise.

thirdly, public services are provided to users, not customers, and paid for out of govt funds, levied from the usual range of sources, not shareholders or customers.

you, as a taxpayer (congrats on that by the way, literally everyone here you're arguing against is also a taxpayer) arent a customer, and aren't a shareholder. civil servants have a manager and a structure under which they answer, to a tightness to legislation, audit, public interest and scrutiny that is unheard of in any private organisation of comparable size or scale or otherwise.

the public service is run along slow but exceeding fine lines of command and practice for several good reasons, not least of which is that our govt changes every five odd years and the new bosses take two years to learn what the civil service (or their new dept if god help us they are a minister) actually does and why, and another two years to come up with a plan about how they might achieve whatever bastardized objectives their garbled manifesto cobbled together- leaving one year of execution, usually hampered by it being another election year.

the average boards-level complainant has frankly no idea how much protection the civil service profession/expertise actually provides to the wellbeing and stability of this country in fending off the TDs we as an electorate are stupid enough to vote in.

before ye start, the idea that a new disestablishment party like SF could come in and sweep all this elaborate custom-and-practice away like either their voters thought or their politicians pretended to think is such a laughable non-runner legally, politically or economically that it bears no further mention.

the worst two things about the civil service is when it tries to ape private sector ideology (neoliberalism out of silicon valley is the latest but cannot even be convincingly applied to silicon valley, let alone a public sector anywhere) and when it tries to justify its existence as a public sector cravenly to those with little wit enough to understand why

every. functioning. country. in. the. world. has. a. public. sector. that. costs. money. and. is. meant. to. cost. money.

the rest is noise.

now its a saturday lads so ive given ye that for free.

if ye want to discuss pay cuts, im always interested in what a non-manager, non-customer, non-shareholder has to say as long as its not uninformed ranting, or unmannerly.

have at.

A+

thomasdylan

Deleted User wrote: »

probably not worth pointing out the intricacies of the pension reform of 95 and 2014 for this particular audience, im afraid middling detail is quite beyond them (this may be where they fall down at entrance exams, not for me to speculate)

Are the public sector entrance exams very difficult?

Sultan of Bling

noodler wrote:

That's bull**** tbh.

noodler wrote:

I'm a PS worker.

noodler wrote:

It doesn't mean such a massive part of State expenditure can be wholly protected if the current fiscal woes continue.

As I said cuts for both private and public sector workers are inevitable.

But are we going to have a situation where someone on 35k a year has pay cut and someone who gets over 50k a year and never work a day in their life pay nothing because they are "the most vulnerable in our society".

addaword

[Deleted User] wrote: »

if you are more concerned that somebody has a secure pension, carry on with the begrudgery

I do not begrudge individuals golden pensions, although I know a few of them. It is the cost to the rest of the country that annoys most people. In 2017 the cost of the public service pension liability to the state was 114.5 billion. Yes, billion.

The country cannot afford it.

JJJackal

thomasdylan wrote: »

Are the public sector entrance exams very difficult?

Well if you want to be a doctor you first need to do 5-6 years of college (if your a GEM 8-11 years). Then you do more exams for 2-3 years. Then you work as a NCHD for up to 11 years. Then you go abroad. Then your a consultant.

If you wanna be a secondary school teacher, you do a college degree 3-4 years, then a couple years H dip.

If you wanna be a nurse, you do a 4 year course. If you want to progress you do masters and diplomas etc

So entrance exam is typically 4 - 20 years?

thomasdylan

thomasdylan wrote: »

Are the public sector entrance exams very difficult?

a competency, a math and English test when i did it - on the computer - ten minutes and if you make the top 200 (depending on how many theyre looking for) they bring you up to the Public Jobs office to do another test to prove you did it/not cheating....(i actually bumped up positions from the repeat.)

Then theirs an interview and vetting (depending on area you work in - i had an extensive one and took at least 3 months)

Jim Root

If paycuts can’t or won’t be tolerated, is there scope to remove superfluous positions/offer redundancies?

I’m a private sector worker and I know a good few companies looking to trim via organisational reviews.

Can the overall headcount in the civil service be reduced? What options are there to manage payroll costs?

thomasdylan

JJJackal wrote: »

Well if you want to be a doctor you first need to do 5-6 years of college (if your a GEM 8-11 years). Then you do more exams for 2-3 years. Then you work as a NCHD for up to 11 years. Then you go abroad. Then your a consultant.

If you wanna be a secondary school teacher, you do a college degree 3-4 years, then a couple years H dip.

If you wanna be a nurse, you do a 4 year course. If you want to progress you do masters and diplomas etc

So entrance exam is typically 4 - 20 years?

I was asking about these exams:
https://www.publicjobs.ie/en/information-hub/our-recruitment-process/test-advice

I think you understood that though (hopefully).

A medical degree and membership exams aren't entrance exams. They're more like qualifications.

addaword

addaword wrote: »

I do not begrudge individuals golden pensions, although I know a few of them. It is the cost to the rest of the country that annoys most people. In 2017 the cost of the public service pension liability to the state was 114.5 billion. Yes, billion.

The country cannot afford it.

mention of cost: tick

mention of income from pension scheme members towards this: absent

note that cost is liability over 40 years + into future: absent

note that these liabilities include scheme members pre 95 (major reforms then) and pre 2014 (major reforms then) so are inarguably already being addressed on an ongoing basis: absent

youre some bucko, bucko

Jim Root

Jim Root wrote: »

If paycuts can’t or won’t be tolerated, is there scope to remove superfluous positions/offer redundancies?

I’m a private sector worker and I know a good few companies looking to trim via organisational reviews.

Can the overall headcount in the civil service be reduced? What options are there to manage payroll costs?

fair question

leavers wont be backfilled.

therell be a tightening on promotions and comps

maybe another scheme for incentivised early retirement.

numbers can fall very quickly, tbh

Sultan of Bling

Jim Root wrote:

Can the overall headcount in the civil service be reduced? What options are there to manage payroll costs?

It's the deadwood they need to get rid off. The ones who come in and do sweet fa all day every day and do nothing but complain.

These are the ones that give all public sector workers a bad name.

They do exist in the private sector as well but there is more of a will to get rid of them than there is in the public sector.

AndrewJRenko

Jim Root wrote: »

If paycuts can’t or won’t be tolerated, is there scope to remove superfluous positions/offer redundancies?

Which positions are superfluous Jim?

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

It's the deadwood they need to get rid off. The ones who come in and do sweet fa all day every day and do nothing but complain.

These are the ones that give all public sector workers a bad name.

They do exist in the private sector as well but there is more of a will to get rid of them than there is in the public sector.

Do the deadwood ones that exist in the private sector give all private sector workers a bad name?

thomasdylan wrote: »

Are the public sector entrance exams very difficult?

There are no 'entrance exams'. There are competitions from time to time, so you're up against whoever else is also looking for places at that time.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id love to know how charlie mcreevy and michael mcdowell influenced policy that caused every country in the western world to collapse economically.

This constant blaming of the irish government for a worldwide financial crash is getting tiresome.

Ah, de Bertie defence, dat it was all dose Leemans brudders fault, it's been a while since I heard that one.

Did every country in the rest of the world have over half their banking debt arising from two institutions with deep political connections to the ruling party, like when the Taoiseach plays golf with the board or when the Taoiseach's floosie is getting preferential loans?

We were just a bit special here.

SouthWesterly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which positions are superfluous Jim?

Do the deadwood ones that exist in the private sector give all private sector workers a bad name?


There are no 'entrance exams'. There are competitions from time to time, so you're up against whoever else is also looking for places at that time.

Ah, de Bertie defence, dat it was all dose Leemans brudders fault, it's been a while since I heard that one.

Did every country in the rest of the world have over half their banking debt arising from two institutions with deep political connections to the ruling party, like when the Taoiseach plays golf with the board or when the Taoiseach's floosie is getting preferential loans?

We were just a bit special here.

There are exams for open competition. Pass or fail. Pass you get placed for interview.

SouthWesterly

SouthWesterly wrote: »

There are exams for open competition. Pass or fail. Pass you get placed for interview.

well, the form is the basis for a lot of the shortlisting too

and thats essentially a targeted cv, give or take a few hoops to jump through.

addaword

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ah, de Bertie defence, dat it was all dose Leemans brudders fault, it's been a while since I heard that one.

Did every country in the rest of the world have over half their banking debt arising from two institutions with deep political connections to the ruling party, like when the Taoiseach plays golf with the board or when the Taoiseach's floosie is getting preferential loans?

We were just a bit special here.

A bit special all right, Bertie and his colleagues increased Irish public sector pay by 59% between 2001 and 2006.

thomasdylan

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which positions are superfluous Jim?
There are no 'entrance exams'. There are competitions from time to time, so you're up against whoever else is also looking for places at that time.

Sounds like semantics to me. The PS worker I was replying to talked about entrance examinations. And I understand exams are used as part of recruitment? So can I say 'examinations' just not 'entrance examinations'?

thomasdylan

thomasdylan wrote: »

Sounds like semantics to me. The PS worker I was replying to talked about entrance examinations. And I understand exams are used as part of recruitment? So can I say 'examinations' just not 'entrance examinations'?

the ref to entrance exams was a not entirely serious invite to the biyiz to have a go

i think there may have been proper formal entrance exams for open comps once, tk whitaker finished top as a rule, but the online assessments now are not that

form, maybe shortlist, online assessments, maybe shortlist, on location assessment, maybe shortlist, interview, panel

it mixes up a bit depending

addaword

addaword wrote: »

A bit special all right, Bertie and his colleagues increased Irish public sector pay by 59% between 2001 and 2006.

what was the equivalent jump in that time for

say, now

qualified/professional/technical/managerial workers

for a somewhat relevant comparison

you havent landed one all day but i admire your swinging for it every time god bless

noodler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

what was the equivalent jump in that time for

say, now

qualified/professional/technical/managerial workers

for a somewhat relevant comparison

you havent landed one all day but i admire your swinging for it every time god bless

Funny you think the burden of proof should be on others to answer your broad l, ambiguous questions.

it was - and quite clearly like- a direct and relevant question to ask to a very irrelevant random stat

and if you claim otherwise feel free. the thread is there for anyone to read.

purifol0

You all miss the point. Since ,as everyone here has stated, they arent ever going to leave the pubsec - then we never had to increase their pay at all. Its as simple as that - the state should only pay the minimum amount required to deliver public services. Instead we have public servants who believe the state should do everything in its power to enrich them at all costs, and politicians who will promise them just that as long as they vote for them.

addaword

There is competition in the private sector, and people are free to shop around. On the other hand, taxpayers have no choice but to support the public sector, and to give them on average better pay, security and pensions than they themselves have.

my god my washing machine repeats less often than ye two lads

Jim Root

[Deleted User] wrote: »

fair question

leavers wont be backfilled.

therell be a tightening on promotions and comps

maybe another scheme for incentivised early retirement.

numbers can fall very quickly, tbh

Thanks for the non defensive/evasive response like some other posters on this thread.

That’s good to know. Are 3/4 day weeks possible as well? I’m seeing that proposed a lot too. Ultimately most sectors need to examine ways to reduce cash outgoings. It’s going to be blood bath & I can’t see many people escaping unaffected unfortunately. Personally, my own grievance is the USC charge, I’ll never believe a “temporary” tax again! It’ll probably increase too now I’d imagine.

AndrewJRenko

SouthWesterly wrote: »

There are exams for open competition. Pass or fail. Pass you get placed for interview.

There are some positions with competency tests as one stage of the recruitment process. There is no 'entrance exam'.

addaword wrote: »

A bit special all right, Bertie and his colleagues increased Irish public sector pay by 59% between 2001 and 2006.

Oh, you mean the independent benchmarking process involving the cream of the private sector at the time? How about you show a less selective stat, involving the growth (or lack of same) over a 20 or 40 period, or the growth of private sector salaries over the same period?

thomasdylan wrote: »

Sounds like semantics to me. The PS worker I was replying to talked about entrance examinations. And I understand exams are used as part of recruitment? So can I say 'examinations' just not 'entrance examinations'?

There are competency tests at some stages of the recruitment process for some positions and some grades. You'll get all the details on publicjobs.ie

Jim Root

Jim Root wrote: »

Thanks for the non defensive/evasive response like some other posters on this thread.

That’s good to know. Are 3/4 day weeks possible as well? I’m seeing that proposed a lot too. Ultimately most sectors need to examine ways to reduce cash outgoings. It’s going to be blood bath & I can’t see many people escaping unaffected unfortunately. Personally, my own grievance is the USC charge, I’ll never believe a “temporary” tax again! It’ll probably increase too now I’d imagine.

there will be plenty on the table- moratoriums on recruitment and promotion as well as no backfilling, i dont know if that will leave much space for those left in the service!

if you ask me, generally, the entire country going to four day weeks and higher taxes on higher earners be no great harm, if the govt can use available credit to build housing and infrastructure

we can all earn a little less and still be a lot better off, but this seems to escape ppl

AndrewJRenko

addaword wrote: »

There is competition in the private sector, and people are free to shop around. On the other hand, taxpayers have no choice but to support the public sector, and to give them on average better pay, security and pensions than they themselves have.

Taxpayers have the choice every five years or so to vote to set out what kind of public sector they want. The niche parties who set out the kind of views that you're setting out here have crashed and burned - PDs and Renua. Taxpayers have lots of choices, and they don't choose your approach.

purifol0 wrote: »

You all miss the point. Since ,as everyone here has stated, they arent ever going to leave the pubsec - then we never had to increase their pay at all. Its as simple as that - the state should only pay the minimum amount required to deliver public services. Instead we have public servants who believe the state should do everything in its power to enrich them at all costs, and politicians who will promise them just that as long as they vote for them.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that people don't leave. That's certainly not my experience - people leave for other jobs (particularly IT staff, professionally qualified architects, engineers, tax experts, accountants). People move to European roles or to private businesses in their chosen sector. It happens all the time.

The days of large numbers of entry level staff are well behind us. DEASP and to a lesser extent Revenue still have significant numbers, but most others have changed structures. Customer services are frequently outsourced, it support is usually outsourced, canteen services are outsourced.

The remaining jobs are largely knowledge-based. When you lose staff, you lose a lot of organisational knowledge and learning. We are facing a cliff in terms of senior staff approaching retirement age over the next five years, and there will be a huge loss of experience and organisational knowledge.

Your approach would be reckless at best, and would destroy public services for a generation.

mikeym

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

It's the deadwood they need to get rid off. The ones who come in and do sweet fa all day every day and do nothing but complain.

These are the ones that give all public sector workers a bad name.

They do exist in the private sector as well but there is more of a will to get rid of them than there is in the public sector.

I know plenty of them.

And they are on golden contracts which mean they cant be fcuked out until retirement age.

Jim Root

[Deleted User] wrote: »

there will be plenty on the table- moratoriums on recruitment and promotion as well as no backfilling, i dont know if that will leave much space for those left in the service!

if you ask me, generally, the entire country going to four day weeks and higher taxes on higher earners be no great harm, if the govt can use available credit to build housing and infrastructure

we can all earn a little less and still be a lot better off, but this seems to escape ppl

That’s a healthier way of looking at things for sure.

dresden8

Larry Goodman.