New voluntary redundancy scheme for PS??

woodoo · 02-10-2012 07:06PM #1

I see there is to be a voluntary redundancy scheme for the whole public sector similar to the one the Health Service had. This only difference is there will be no automatic right to redundancy and each application will be assessed to ensure they aren't losing essential staff.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1002/public-sector-redundancies.html

I think this is a good idea and should result in a reduction in numbers and savings to the pay bill. I personally think there will be a lot applying for it. If i was in my 50's i would jump at the chance.

How do you see it panning out, will it really help?

Hootanany · 02-10-2012 07:10PM

Far too generous 3 weeks + 2 weeks for every year plus there pension.
Just reduce their wages and increments and make them work for there money.

murphaph · 02-10-2012 07:12PM

woodoo wrote: »

I see there is to be a voluntary redundancy scheme for the whole public sector similar to the one the Health Service had. This only difference is there will be no automatic right to redundancy and each application will be assessed to ensure they aren't losing essential staff.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1002/public-sector-redundancies.html

I think this is a good idea and should result in a reduction in numbers and savings to the pay bill. I personally think there will be a lot applying for it. If i was in my 50's i would jump at the chance.

How do you see it panning out, will it really help?

Yes, if it is genuinely targetted and only people who are "not performing" or simply have nothing to do and can't or don't want to be redeployed.

It will not help if it is a free for all. It must remove surplus staff and not remove staff from where there are shortages.

The Bishop Basher · 02-10-2012 07:18PM

murphaph wrote: »

Yes, if it is genuinely targetted and only people who are "not performing" or simply have nothing to do and can't or don't want to be redeployed.

It will not help if it is a free for all. It must remove surplus staff and not remove staff from where there are shortages.

But these people should be performance managed out of the job. Why would we give them a lump sum plus pension for their laziness and incompetence ?

I agree with Hootanany. Make them work or manage them out. Moving them from the paybill to te pension bill doesn't help the economy.

[Jackass] · 02-10-2012 07:20PM

woodoo wrote: »

I see there is to be a voluntary redundancy scheme for the whole public sector similar to the one the Health Service had. This only difference is there will be no automatic right to redundancy and each application will be assessed to ensure they aren't losing essential staff.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1002/public-sector-redundancies.html

I think this is a good idea and should result in a reduction in numbers and savings to the pay bill. I personally think there will be a lot applying for it. If i was in my 50's i would jump at the chance.

How do you see it panning out, will it really help?

So keep up the glorified welfare system that is the public sector, but just less of them will have to come in to work? Excellent.

Brussels Sprout · 02-10-2012 07:26PM

So they're going to further reduce the numbers in the PS and yet still tell us that the system will be more productive. It's just another desperate attempt to reduce the pay bill whilst managing not to cut wages and allowances.

mikemac1 · 02-10-2012 07:30PM

They have their well known PDMS system

Why voluntary, can't they just select the 1/5 and 2/5 staff?

Though if you're getting 1/5 in an appraisal should you be even in that job!

edit: Swanner said the same above ^^^^

woodoo · 02-10-2012 07:38PM

Hootanany wrote: »

Far too generous 3 weeks + 2 weeks for every year plus there pension.

The precedent has been set by the scheme offered to the HSE. I'm sure the new one will include the HSE again too though. They know if they are going down this route they need to make it attractive.

ParkRunner · 02-10-2012 07:56PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

They have their well known PDMS system

Why voluntary, can't they just select the 1/5 and 2/5 staff?

Though if you're getting 1/5 in an appraisal should you be even in that job!

edit: Swanner said the same above ^^^^

Maybe a combination of something like this plus another incentivised career break scheme (3 years or so with no SW entitlement) will be needed to ensure savings are made, poor performers are removed and personnel will be in place to return when the economy begins to return to growth.

prettyboy81 · 02-10-2012 09:09PM

This looks like an attractive redundancy package for the PS. It should easily get the target numbers the government want in the coming years.

tails_naf · 02-10-2012 11:06PM

I imagine this will actually cost more money that it will save.

People will only apply for this if it will make them more money than the alternative - and if they make more, the govt spends more.

For example, take someone who is 2-3 years away from retirement - 30 years service -> 5 * 30 = 150 weeks, or 3 years salary to retire early, and collect pension as normal.

So in the end, the govt actually end up paying the equivalent of the 3 years salary until retirement, and then the pension. So paying for the employment, but loosing the 'work'.
So how does this save any money?

The only way it works is if they deny it to the 'about to retire' people - but as was the case in the previous schemes, it was exactly those who were about to retire that availed of it.

So is this only about a superficial 'hitting a target', or about really saving money?

thebman · 02-10-2012 11:07PM

I imagine the plan is to fail to meet these targets then when croke park runs out introduce mandatory redundancies.

tails_naf · 02-10-2012 11:13PM

thebman wrote: »

I imagine the plan is to fail to meet these targets then when croke park runs out introduce mandatory redundancies.

It sounds rational - which probably means it will never happen.

There have been plenty of opportunities up until now to make moves which show some backbone, but none have been taken. It has just been a game of moving the spending around the balance sheet, without really tackling it. Hard to imagine the next opportunity to tackle it would be any different.

hardybuck · 02-10-2012 11:30PM

tails_naf wrote: »

I imagine this will actually cost more money that it will save.

People will only apply for this if it will make them more money than the alternative - and if they make more, the govt spends more.

For example, take someone who is 2-3 years away from retirement - 30 years service -> 5 * 30 = 150 weeks, or 3 years salary to retire early, and collect pension as normal.

So in the end, the govt actually end up paying the equivalent of the 3 years salary until retirement, and then the pension. So paying for the employment, but loosing the 'work'.
So how does this save any money?

The only way it works is if they deny it to the 'about to retire' people - but as was the case in the previous schemes, it was exactly those who were about to retire that availed of it.

So is this only about a superficial 'hitting a target', or about really saving money?

Those who apply will receive the terms of the 2010 HSE redundancy scheme - which provided for 3 weeks per year of service plus two weeks statutory redundancy capped at a maximum of 2 years pay.

golden lane · 02-10-2012 11:38PM

the golden goose is on its way.....

well cooked, garnished and stuffed to bursting point with euro's......

i don't think the household charge will be enogh to pay for all that...

the seven dwarf's.....

i know, i know, there's no more work, i know
sit home all day, get loads of pay, i know, i know i know i know....

RobbieTheRobber · 03-10-2012 07:52AM

tails_naf wrote: »

I imagine this will actually cost more money that it will save.

People will only apply for this if it will make them more money than the alternative - and if they make more, the govt spends more.

For example, take someone who is 2-3 years away from retirement - 30 years service -> 5 * 30 = 150 weeks, or 3 years salary to retire early, and collect pension as normal.

So in the end, the govt actually end up paying the equivalent of the 3 years salary until retirement,

Its capped at 2 years salary max.

Those who apply will receive the terms of the 2010 HSE redundancy scheme, which provided for three weeks' pay per year of service plus two weeks' statutory redundancy, capped at a maximum of two years’ pay.

C.O.Y.B.I.B · 03-10-2012 09:53AM

[Jackass] wrote: »

So keep up the glorified welfare system that is the public sector, but just less of them will have to come in to work? Excellent.

"Far too generous 3 weeks + 2 weeks for every year plus there pension.
Just reduce their wages and increments and make them work for there money."

What ? sweeping generalisations about the Public Service on Boards , never ........

Brussels Sprout · 03-10-2012 10:13AM

The head of the civil service union was on the radio this morning trying as hard as he could to say that this wasn’t a great deal. His heart wasn’t in it though.

[Jackass] · 03-10-2012 01:30PM

C.O.Y.B.I.B wrote: »

"Far too generous 3 weeks + 2 weeks for every year plus there pension.
Just reduce their wages and increments and make them work for there money."

What ? sweeping generalisations about the Public Service on Boards , never ........

I fail to see the generalisation, just people looking for realistic wage adjustments in line with the private sector and less handouts for achieving virtually nothing, and not on a personal basis, but on a cost basis of running a public sector at massively inflated cost and below par performance. Statistical facts, not generalisations...

The Bishop Basher · 03-10-2012 01:46PM

What the public sector don't understand is that this issue is not going to magically disappear as it has always done in the past. We put up with an overpaid and incompetent PS up to the bust. The protest against this however has been getting steadily louder since that time and the PS unions have buried their heads in the sand.

The reason it won't go away this time is simple economics. We cannot afford to continue to pay for an overinflated, incompetent and ineffective public sector. The Government, being part of the problem themselves, have made pathetic attempts to fool the people that something is being done, buy time and whitewash the issue.

In the end though, the numbers don't lie and the farce that is the Irish PS will be fully exposed. Numbers and pay will need to be slashed and i'm not talking about a few voluntary redundancies. the percs and entitlements, not to mention the increments will need to be abolished along with the sense of entitlement and jobs for life mentality. Proper performance management will need to be introduced with fair bonusus for those who perform and a P45 for those who don't.

Welcome to the real world of hard economics folks. Croke Park is dying and will soon be added to the smoldering embers that is the dust heap of the celtic tiger.

You can either work with us and retain some sense of dignity or you can work against us and sob into your pints when you realise your employer is broke and there's nothing your overpaid union masters can do to change that.

As Dougal would say....Dreams, Reality.

Kristopherus · 03-10-2012 01:48PM

Anyone got a link to the details of this scheme?

C.O.Y.B.I.B · 03-10-2012 02:02PM

[Jackass] wrote: »

I fail to see the generalisation, just people looking for realistic wage adjustments in line with the private sector and less handouts for achieving virtually nothing, and not on a personal basis, but on a cost basis of running a public sector at massively inflated cost and below par performance. Statistical facts, not generalisations...

But what isnt being acknowledged and never seems to be is the fact there are people in the Public Service who are paid appropriately for what they do , there are people who are underpaid for what they do and there are also people who sit about scratching all day .
There are plenty of areas of the public service where there is waste and overpaid workers . But I personally know a lot of people in the PS who do a great job for an ever decreasing salary and yet get tarred with the overpaid underachieving brush.
The fact is we need a public service . We need skilled staff in the Public Service and cutting wages across the board will make the good staff leave and the bad staff do less out of spite which is why generalisations (sorry statistical facts) are not helpful.

C.O.Y.B.I.B · 03-10-2012 02:13PM

Swanner wrote: »

We cannot afford to continue to pay for an overinflated, incompetent and ineffective public sector.

the percs and entitlements, not to mention the increments will need to be abolished along with the sense of entitlement and jobs for life mentality. Proper performance management will need to be introduced with fair bonusus for those who perform and a P45 for those who don't.

You can either work with us and retain some sense of dignity or you can work against us and sob into your pints when you realise your employer is broke and there's nothing your overpaid union masters can do to change that.

I agree wholeheartedly with your performance management statement but the rest of it again falls into the usual sweeping generalisation.

In the area I work in the PS all are skilled staff with 3rd level qualifications . There is no union representation , no overtime and none of the allowances you hear about. We averaged 0.7 uncertified sickdays last year in my Dept. yet we will be hit with paycuts within the next 1-2 years for being part of the
"overinflated, incompetent and ineffective" Public Service. Good people will leave for the private sector and the ones left behind will be those unemployable in the private sector and the people here will wonder why their kids arent getting as good an education in Public Schools , why waiting lists in hospitals are increasing and its because all the good people who were earning these "overinflated" salaries deserved them and so went elsewhere to get them.

Gumbo · 03-10-2012 02:55PM

Swanner wrote: »

What the public sector don't understand is that this issue is not going to magically disappear as it has always done in the past. We put up with an overpaid and incompetent PS up to the bust. The protest against this however has been getting steadily louder since that time and the PS unions have buried their heads in the sand.

The reason it won't go away this time is simple economics. We cannot afford to continue to pay for an overinflated, incompetent and ineffective public sector. The Government, being part of the problem themselves, have made pathetic attempts to fool the people that something is being done, buy time and whitewash the issue.

In the end though, the numbers don't lie and the farce that is the Irish PS will be fully exposed. Numbers and pay will need to be slashed and i'm not talking about a few voluntary redundancies. the percs and entitlements, not to mention the increments will need to be abolished along with the sense of entitlement and jobs for life mentality. Proper performance management will need to be introduced with fair bonusus for those who perform and a P45 for those who don't.

Welcome to the real world of hard economics folks. Croke Park is dying and will soon be added to the smoldering embers that is the dust heap of the celtic tiger.

You can either work with us and retain some sense of dignity or you can work against us and sob into your pints when you realise your employer is broke and there's nothing your overpaid union masters can do to change that.

As Dougal would say....Dreams, Reality.

More generalisation just with bigger words.
Once the private sector wakes up to reality.......

the groutch · 03-10-2012 02:58PM

cue every PS worker less than 2 years from retirement lining up to get paid for doing nothing.

Gumbo · 03-10-2012 03:09PM

the groutch wrote: »

cue every PS worker less than 2 years from retirement lining up to get paid for doing nothing.

Assuming they have enough service to make it worthwhile. Bear in mind that pensions will not be payable until the person reaches 65 or whatever the standard COAP age restriction is.

ardmacha · 03-10-2012 05:42PM

cue every PS worker less than 2 years from retirement lining up to get paid for doing nothing.

I wouldn't have thought so. The retirement deal last February would have taken out most of these people who wanted to go.

barneystinson · 03-10-2012 07:42PM

the groutch wrote: »

cue every PS worker less than 2 years from retirement lining up to get paid for doing nothing.

Is the redundancy deal not limited to the lesser of 2 years pay OR half of time remaining to pensionable age?

woodoo · 03-10-2012 07:52PM

Swanner wrote: »

What the public sector don't understand is that this issue is not going to magically disappear as it has always done in the past. We put up with an overpaid and incompetent PS up to the bust. The protest against this however has been getting steadily louder since that time and the PS unions have buried their heads in the sand.

The reason it won't go away this time is simple economics. We cannot afford to continue to pay for an overinflated, incompetent and ineffective public sector. The Government, being part of the problem themselves, have made pathetic attempts to fool the people that something is being done, buy time and whitewash the issue.

In the end though, the numbers don't lie and the farce that is the Irish PS will be fully exposed. Numbers and pay will need to be slashed and i'm not talking about a few voluntary redundancies. the percs and entitlements, not to mention the increments will need to be abolished along with the sense of entitlement and jobs for life mentality. Proper performance management will need to be introduced with fair bonusus for those who perform and a P45 for those who don't.

Welcome to the real world of hard economics folks. Croke Park is dying and will soon be added to the smoldering embers that is the dust heap of the celtic tiger.

You can either work with us and retain some sense of dignity or you can work against us and sob into your pints when you realise your employer is broke and there's nothing your overpaid union masters can do to change that.

You have just summarised what you have read in the Indo for the last 18 months.. along with a few popular cliches for good measure.

Godge · 03-10-2012 08:21PM

Swanner wrote: »

What the public sector don't understand is that this issue is not going to magically disappear as it has always done in the past. We put up with an overpaid and incompetent PS up to the bust. The protest against this however has been getting steadily louder since that time and the PS unions have buried their heads in the sand.

The reason it won't go away this time is simple economics. We cannot afford to continue to pay for an overinflated, incompetent and ineffective public sector. The Government, being part of the problem themselves, have made pathetic attempts to fool the people that something is being done, buy time and whitewash the issue.

In the end though, the numbers don't lie and the farce that is the Irish PS will be fully exposed. Numbers and pay will need to be slashed and i'm not talking about a few voluntary redundancies. the percs and entitlements, not to mention the increments will need to be abolished along with the sense of entitlement and jobs for life mentality. Proper performance management will need to be introduced with fair bonusus for those who perform and a P45 for those who don't.

Welcome to the real world of hard economics folks. Croke Park is dying and will soon be added to the smoldering embers that is the dust heap of the celtic tiger.

You can either work with us and retain some sense of dignity or you can work against us and sob into your pints when you realise your employer is broke and there's nothing your overpaid union masters can do to change that.

As Dougal would say....Dreams, Reality.

Yes, those are good dreams you have.

The reality is there will be no more pay cuts for public servants except possibly those earning over 100,000.

Neither will there be compulsory redundancies.

The only way either could happen would be in the event of the collapse of the euro. If that happened though, the private sector would be too busy ****ting its pants to worry about the public sector.

n97 mini · 03-10-2012 08:35PM

Godge wrote: »

The reality is there will be no more pay cuts for public servants

The maths don't stack up to support this argument. We are still running an enormous deficit that cannot be closed with a few early retirements or redundancies, and a small cut in social welfare.

In addition the so called middle classes seem to be reaching the limit of what they're willing to pay for. I don't know how that is going to end.

tails_naf · 03-10-2012 08:47PM

C.O.Y.B.I.B wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly with your performance management statement but the rest of it again falls into the usual sweeping generalisation.

In the area I work in the PS all are skilled staff with 3rd level qualifications . There is no union representation , no overtime and none of the allowances you hear about. We averaged 0.7 uncertified sickdays last year in my Dept. yet we will be hit with paycuts within the next 1-2 years for being part of the
"overinflated, incompetent and ineffective" Public Service. Good people will leave for the private sector and the ones left behind will be those unemployable in the private sector and the people here will wonder why their kids arent getting as good an education in Public Schools , why waiting lists in hospitals are increasing and its because all the good people who were earning these "overinflated" salaries deserved them and so went elsewhere to get them.

It is exactly your situation that I find the most maddening - your department is clearly well run and probably as efficient as any, yet you will still be hit with a blunt instrument (if one is wielded) - and it is mostly due to the unions.
I know many people in your situation, except they are hard workers in departments full of chancers. They are frustrated by the fact everyone's pay is cut en masse, despite the fact they could be doing double or tripple the work of an identically paid colleague. The unions oppose any measures that would allow proper performance management, and this means any cuts have to be across the board.

So, from your point of view - why isn't more done from within to try bring in performance management? - is the because the majority may be worried of falling into the category that would be classed as under-performing?

The Bishop Basher · 03-10-2012 08:47PM

I don't read the indo woodoo. Bit of a pointless response though. I take it debating isn't a strong point of yours.

Godge wrote: »

The reality is there will be no more pay cuts for public servants except possibly those earning over 100,000.

Neither will there be compulsory redundancies.

When your employer is broke, your options become very limited. We cannot fix the deficit without major PS reform and cost cutting. It's an economic fact, no matter how unpalatable that may seem to you. Your blind refusal to recognise reality is indicative of the PS mentality and is a major part of the problem.

Godge · 03-10-2012 09:18PM

n97 mini wrote: »

The maths don't stack up to support this argument. We are still running an enormous deficit that cannot be closed with a few early retirements or redundancies, and a small cut in social welfare.

In addition the so called middle classes seem to be reaching the limit of what they're willing to pay for. I don't know how that is going to end.

Swanner wrote: »

When your employer is broke, your options become very limited. We cannot fix the deficit without major PS reform and cost cutting. It's an economic fact, no matter how unpalatable that may seem to you. Your blind refusal to recognise reality is indicative of the PS mentality and is a major part of the problem.

There will be reform, I agree with that. More will be done with the same or less people.

Yawn, my figures don't add up? I have done this to death here. The public service pay bill is €14.4 bn this year.

A ten per cent gross cut is €1.4 bn, net of taxes, USC, pension levy, pension contribution, PRSI that saving is about €550m. Next, exempt those earning below €35,000 and you reduce the savings further to about €300-€400m.

Now in return for saving €300-€400m, you put an end to any chance of public sector reform for a decade, you run the risk of serious industrial disruption. Say, the public service unions targetted junior primary schools, customs officers, revenue officials and social welfare offices for industrial action. So you have thousands of parents off sick in the private sector because noone to mind their kids, no oil being imported, no tax being collected and no social welfare being paid. How long would the government last in such a scenario? Look at Greece and you see why the government will not go there.

Now, we have to raise the money, I agree with that. But there are better ways of doing that. Cut the maximum pension tax relief to 30% and you will save around the same as cutting 10% off the pay bill but it won't create the same hassle and it would also bring in tax revenue from the private sector.

So off you go back to the dream world of more public sector pay cuts and remember I said before last year's budget that they wouldn't be cut and I got the same reaction as now. Well I was right then and I am sure I am right now. That being said, there is always the prospect of cutting the pay of those over €100,000. Given the relatively small numbers earning at this level and that you can't cut their pay below those who work for them, it will be a gesture for the general public and save only something like €10m

The Bishop Basher · 03-10-2012 10:08PM

Godge wrote: »

A ten per cent gross cut is €1.4 bn, net of taxes, USC, pension levy, pension contribution, PRSI that saving is about €550m. Next, exempt those earning below €35,000 and you reduce the savings further to about €300-€400m.

Ten percent won't even come close to the cuts required. We would need closer to 30% to make the excercise worthwhile.

Godge wrote: »

Now in return for saving €300-€400m, you put an end to any chance of public sector reform for a decade, you run the risk of serious industrial disruption. Say, the public service unions targetted junior primary schools, customs officers, revenue officials and social welfare offices for industrial action.

And right there lies one of the major issues. See, in the private sector, when your employer runs out of cash, you either get very lean or you get out. We don't have the luxury of industrial action. Our jobs depend on it.

Godge wrote: »

So off you go back to the dream world of more public sector pay cuts and remember I said before last year's budget that they wouldn't be cut and I got the same reaction as now. Well I was right then and I am sure I am right now.

I don't doubt that but it's not something to be applauded. Nothing will be cut in December as this governement has repeatedly demonstrated that it lacks the balls to take the tough decisions. That's why we're still in the hole we're in. They can avoid it for so long but sooner or later the reality of the situation will force their hand. It's an economic certainty.

ardmacha · 03-10-2012 10:18PM

So, from your point of view - why isn't more done from within to try bring in performance management? - is the because the majority may be worried of falling into the category that would be classed as under-performing?

Firstly, it is hard to introduce performance management from the bottom up. But a secondary problem is that people who are not chancers are very concerned about being assessed by chancers. Which is why it has to start at the top.

tails_naf · 03-10-2012 10:27PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Firstly, it is hard to introduce performance management from the bottom up. But a secondary problem is that people who are not chancers are very concerned about being assessed by chancers. Which is why it has to start at the top.

Fair points - I'm all for bringing in things starting at the top. Though it would seem resistance to bringing it in at all is present at all levels.

Godge · 03-10-2012 10:54PM

Swanner wrote: »

Ten percent won't even come close to the cuts required. We would need closer to 30% to make the excercise worthwhile.

And right there lies one of the major issues. See, in the private sector, when your employer runs out of cash, you either get very lean or you get out. We don't have the luxury of industrial action. Our jobs depend on it.

I don't doubt that but it's not something to be applauded. Nothing will be cut in December as this governement has repeatedly demonstrated that it lacks the balls to take the tough decisions. That's why we're still in the hole we're in. They can avoid it for so long but sooner or later the reality of the situation will force their hand. It's an economic certainty.

Doom-mongering, we are meeting all of the Troika targets without increasing income tax rates, without cutting basic public service pay and without cutting basic social welfare rates. We are getting praise from all quarters and still we have some keyboard warriors thinking we need to cut public sector pay by another 30%.

road_high · 03-10-2012 11:07PM

Godge wrote: »

Doom-mongering, we are meeting all of the Troika targets without increasing income tax rates, without cutting basic public service pay and without cutting basic social welfare rates. We are getting praise from all quarters and still we have some keyboard warriors thinking we need to cut public sector pay by another 30%.

So fecking what? Reality time again...this is ALL borrowed money we have to pay back. The fiscal deficit is still massive. €12 Billion or so. And guess where the large % of govt costs are going...you guessed it PS pay and Welfare.
These are the kind of % cuts that are needed to bring it down. The IMF should have insisted on these from day one instead of tinkering around the edges and ignoring the elephant in the room.

Cookie_Monster · 03-10-2012 11:50PM

Swanner wrote: »

What the public sector don't understand is that this issue is not going to magically disappear as it has always done in the past.

of course it will, we're nearly 5 years into the crises and **** all has been done so far. What makes you think the next five will be any different at all?

JimmyCrackCorn · 04-10-2012 12:38AM

Swanner wrote: »

But these people should be performance managed out of the job. Why would we give them a lump sum plus pension for their laziness and incompetence ?

Civil Service contracts
Failure of benchmarking to provide metrics
Failure of benchmarking to have teeth
Poor IT systems with no/limited Integration
Unions that can run protracted war to prevent change
Unwillingness of successive governments to break union stronghold

I have no issue with paying civil servants well provided they perform well but that hasn't happened.

I am also concerned about the voluntary redundancy system allowing for a brain drain where the good leave and get re-hired as consultants.

Ogh and I interned in software dev in multiple local government departments during benchmarking. There are very hard workers in there not being rewarded and chancers that should have been for the door, that do no one any favours.

hardybuck · 04-10-2012 09:18AM

Without wanting to get drawn into the fairly monotonous debate which is going off point slightly, just a couple of points...

1. This will save money. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has hired a huge amount of economists in the last couple of years, and pricing a project such as this is exactly what they'd be working on. The HSE Scheme in 2010 had savings targets of €200m per year.

There are a number of people across the system who are in technical grades and are now surplus to requirements - people like forestry staff, agriculture inspectors etc. Redundancy will be a very useful method of moving these people on. There are many others around the system who have mentally checked out and need moving on also.

2. Redundancy is not automatic, it is management's discretion to approve it. As a result, there is less risk of losing the high quality, experienced staff. The Feb deal was self elected, and far less targeted.

3. Change in the sector will be slow, and painful, but it is happening. If you go in too heavy handed you risk shutting the country down with strike action - which would erode much of whatever cost savings you'd hope to gain.

Aside from the allowances debacle, there have been positive moves slowly emerging. Sick leave, performance, numbers etc. are all being forensically examined probably for the first time.

Jaysoose · 04-10-2012 11:38AM

An interesting thought on these "targeted" redundancies, if managers have been awarding workers the same performance score how can they provide an accurate list of who should and should not be allowed access.

Surely they would have to justify the people on the list so the scenario will be created were:

Employee A was awarded a 3 even though they are scratching but through poor implementation of the Performance management system they got the same score as Employee B who has been working hard.

There is no way the management are going to admit that there should be a differentiation between the two employees and rather than allowing the waste to be cut you will have valued employees bringing the case that they should be allowed access to this scheme.

There will be cries of discrimination from all areas and this has the potential to be a major clusterf**k as its been admitted that the managers in the public service have been awarding scores incorrectly for some time now.

Dr Galen · 04-10-2012 12:10PM

Stay On Topic please.

This is not another points scoring Public Vs Private "debate" thread.

Very simply, discuss the merits or otherwise of the proposed scheme. Sure there will be some crossover, but not as much as some people seem to think.

No more warnings I'm afraid, I see the same heads in so many of these types of threads, you really should know better.

Cheers

DrG

femur61 · 04-10-2012 02:57PM

Godge wrote: »

Doom-mongering, we are meeting all of the Troika targets without increasing income tax rates, without cutting basic public service pay and without cutting basic social welfare rates. We are getting praise from all quarters and still we have some keyboard warriors thinking we need to cut public sector pay by another 30%.

Why do you think we have all these new extra taxes? Because of PS refuse to take a pay cut- 70% of health budget is goes on wages and pensions, 80% of educational budget goes on the same. Excuse my ignorance even when people take voluntary redunacy don't we still have to pay them a pension so money is not still being spent on services but into someones pockets.

Godge · 04-10-2012 03:55PM

mfitzy wrote: »

So fecking what? Reality time again...this is ALL borrowed money we have to pay back. The fiscal deficit is still massive. €12 Billion or so. And guess where the large % of govt costs are going...you guessed it PS pay and Welfare.
These are the kind of % cuts that are needed to bring it down. The IMF should have insisted on these from day one instead of tinkering around the edges and ignoring the elephant in the room.

Look, the reality is the IMF, the ECB and the EU are running the country. They are not insisting on public service pay cuts when we can meet targets in other ways including by reducing pay by cutting numbers through redundancy arrangements. They have seen Greece and don't want us to repeat that. So while you and some others may want different cuts it is the FG/Lab government under the instructions of the Troika who are running the country and sticking to Croke Park. If they are all happy, and that is the reality, why should we accept your alternate take on reality that something different is needed?

hardybuck wrote: »

Without wanting to get drawn into the fairly monotonous debate which is going off point slightly, just a couple of points...

1. This will save money. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has hired a huge amount of economists in the last couple of years, and pricing a project such as this is exactly what they'd be working on. The HSE Scheme in 2010 had savings targets of €200m per year.

There are a number of people across the system who are in technical grades and are now surplus to requirements - people like forestry staff, agriculture inspectors etc. Redundancy will be a very useful method of moving these people on. There are many others around the system who have mentally checked out and need moving on also.

2. Redundancy is not automatic, it is management's discretion to approve it. As a result, there is less risk of losing the high quality, experienced staff. The Feb deal was self elected, and far less targeted.

3. Change in the sector will be slow, and painful, but it is happening. If you go in too heavy handed you risk shutting the country down with strike action - which would erode much of whatever cost savings you'd hope to gain.

Aside from the allowances debacle, there have been positive moves slowly emerging. Sick leave, performance, numbers etc. are all being forensically examined probably for the first time.

You are right, a lot of things are happening around the system to bring slow change - Garda rosters, extra lecturing hours, sick leave, annual leave, these all bring savings as you need less people to deliver the same service. Even in the health sector, the change in the mix of staff with a huge reduction in back-office staff means that some change is happening. We have probably seen more change in the Irish public service without strife in the last few years than any country has seen.

Something that is also missed by the keyboard warriors is that in the private sector when you are contemplating redundancies, you always look for voluntary redudnancies first. Despite the ranting of a few, there is no evidence that the voluntary schemes to date have not been enough to keep up with the target reductions set for the public service. 10,000 more is the new target for 2014. They say retirements will not be enough to meet this but in a workforce of 292,000 with an average career of 40 years, you would expect 7,300 to retire each year. With 2 years to end-2014, that would mean you would normally have 14,600 go by then but say 60% went early in February then you are 4,160 short of the 10,000. Voluntary redundancies may be enough to make up the difference - it is only 1.4% of the workforce. Allowing for some of the retirements having to be replaced because they are in jobs that must be filled and a target of a 2% reduction in the workforce by reason of voluntary redundancy is what is being sought. Readily achievable once the terms are attractive enough.

Godge · 04-10-2012 03:57PM

femur61 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance even when people take voluntary redunacy don't we still have to pay them a pension so money is not still being spent on services but into someones pockets.

Why do we have to pay someone a pension just because they take voluntary redundancy? Where is that written down?

Are you confusing it with early retirement, a different animal, that is not on offer?

unit 1 · 04-10-2012 09:56PM

The whole idea of the voluntary redundancy scheme is to provide an exit for those who can afford to do so.

This is greatly beneficial to the gov for several reasons.

Those with near full service, and hence more expensive (on higher salaries) are more likely to go.
Those who choose to go will almost certainly only go if the deem it affordable to theselves, so are more likely to be financilly secure and potentially will be a lesser burden on the state.
A compulsary scheme would almost certainly end up with a last in first out criteria, meaning that potentially, those who are, younger (on lower salaries), have young families, be in negative equity, will end up being a bigger burden on the state.
Losing younger "dynamic staff" is not preferential to ending up with an older age profile workforce, eg Tim aged 25 is let go and Fred aged 63 goes in 3 years, resulting in future staff shortage (with attendant recruitment problems), is not preferrable to letting Fred go if he wants and maint a younger vibrant workforce.

I could be wrong but my suppositions above seem logical and practical, or am I missing something. Btw I would never expect the gov to admit the above would actually their intended policy, in fact quite the opposite.

itzme · 05-10-2012 08:56AM

unit 1 wrote: »

The whole idea of the voluntary redundancy scheme is to provide an exit for those who can afford to do so.

This is greatly beneficial to the gov for several reasons.

Those with near full service, and hence more expensive (on higher salaries) are more likely to go.
Those who choose to go will almost certainly only go if the deem it affordable to theselves, so are more likely to be financilly secure and potentially will be a lesser burden on the state.
A compulsary scheme would almost certainly end up with a last in first out criteria, meaning that potentially, those who are, younger (on lower salaries), have young families, be in negative equity, will end up being a bigger burden on the state.
Losing younger "dynamic staff" is not preferential to ending up with an older age profile workforce, eg Tim aged 25 is let go and Fred aged 63 goes in 3 years, resulting in future staff shortage (with attendant recruitment problems), is not preferrable to letting Fred go if he wants and maint a younger vibrant workforce.

I could be wrong but my suppositions above seem logical and practical, or am I missing something. Btw I would never expect the gov to admit the above would actually their intended policy, in fact quite the opposite.

Some really good points there but it is worth pointing out the potential negatives of what you are inferring. This would mean that the more experienced staff are the only ones likely to take the redundancy. Supposing that a portion of there are actually good at their jobs (I've watered down this statement to appease the "everyone in the PS is useless" crowd), there is quite an experience grain about to happen in the PS. It would be these people you would be turning to to come up with and implement reform and new efficiencies. Again I can see the validity in what you are saying but just trying to weigh it up before there is a barrage against your points.

not yet · 05-10-2012 10:16AM

Let me explain something to all the people here who believe the wages of a nurse,fireman,teacher or other ordinary PS worker should be slashed.

Example 1: Person sit on their ass for 30+ years contributes nothing to the system and gets up to 20k per year in benifits for that period of time, then when they reach 65 they get 236e per week. assuming that person lives to 75 they will squeeze approx 700,000 euro from the state.

Example 2 : PS worker puts in 40 years service, pays approx 400,000 euro in taxs etc to the state, Having done this they get approx 400e in a weekly pension. This figure is 164e above the figure in example 1.

Anyone got a view on that.

Jaysoose · 05-10-2012 10:54AM

not yet wrote: »

Let me explain something to all the people here who believe the wages of a nurse,fireman,teacher or other ordinary PS worker should be slashed.

Example 1: Person sit on their ass for 30+ years contributes nothing to the system and gets up to 20k per year in benifits for that period of time, then when they reach 65 they get 236e per week. assuming that person lives to 75 they will squeeze approx 700,000 euro from the state.

Example 2 : PS worker puts in 40 years service, pays approx 400,000 euro in taxs etc to the state, Having done this they get approx 400e in a weekly pension. This figure is 164e above the figure in example 1.

Anyone got a view on that.

Ive got a view that your figures are absurd and have no basis in reality. Why do you start with the emotive statement about cutting nurses and firemens wages then use a made up generic public servant for your example and give no real numbers?

New voluntary redundancy scheme for PS??

Comments